Each The Other

The man has defied medical opinion and has vastly outlived the diagnosis of an early expiration to become one of the world's most respected authorities as a theoretical astrophysicist. His very name evokes respect for his mind, encased as it is in a frail shell of a body that has succumbed to the dire effects of a degenerative motor neuron disease - utterly brilliant in his ability to conceive theories.

He is of the ilk of Leonardo da Vinci, albeit far less a master of so many disparate qualities and enterprises in the understanding of science, engineering, human physiology and the plastic arts. Perhaps Albert Einstein's brilliant theoretical mind more reflects the kind of inheritance that Stephen Hawking's represents. In any event, he is capable of conceiving scientific, natural notions beyond the capacity of most professionals in his field.

He is a theoretical genius.

One supposes that he has something in common with another theoretical genius. Moses, for example, who 'understood' that there is but one God, not a panoply of gods to represent all that nature presents to awe humankind. Stephen Hawking may implicitly and with confidence understand time and space and the natural elements that inhabit the heavens.

But this genius who was Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, a position held long before him by another genius, Sir Isaac Newton, also knows of a certainty that it is Nature alone that is responsible for the existence of all that is known and everything unknown. There is no God, he tells those who have no wish to hear his pronouncement.

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. there is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

"We should seek the greatest value of our action." Raising the affronted ire of the faithful who bridle at his arrogance at speaking of what he knows not. If it takes a great leap of faith to believe in what we cannot see in nature, but which is theorized to exist and which propels existence, why not that faith that exalts in the belief of the Almighty?

Ah, because science and theology are not twinned, though others declare that they are but a reflection of each the other.

Captivity and Forgiveness

When the news media were full of the kidnapping details in 2005 in Iraq of four men representing a Christian peace group, it seemed a lunatic enterprise on the part of those held hostage to enter the country for the purpose of attempting to turn Iraqis toward peace and away from violence. The Iraqis themselves were fully invested in their tribal and sectarian hatred toward one another. Their focus was on the capture, torture and murder of Shia or Sunni by Sunni or Shia.

But the Christian Peacemaker Team sent a delegation of four committed members to preach sweetness and light, courtesy fundamentalist Christians who believe in forgiveness and redemption to fundamentalist Muslims who practise violent jihad and martyrdom. One of the abductees who had been held for 118 days as hostages before a joint commando raid freed them, has written a memoir of the experience.

Long before James Loney wrote his memoir he had issued a public expression of forgiveness toward his captors. Recalling his statements at that time he seemed like a delusional and fearfully stupid man, determined to support his faith by declarations of unflagging hope in the decency and goodness of humankind. Failing to make a distinction between social environments and hereditary antipathies.

"I know I'm speaking out of school here, but I'm going to say it anyway. You have no idea how many people were involved, how many people risked their lives to get you out. I want you to tell your people that. Just tell them to think about that before they decide to send someone else here. I'm not saying anything else. Just tell them. Tell them to think about all the people that risked their lives to get you out."

This was spoken to James Loney in an icily chiding lecture by one of the soldiers who had been tasked to rescue him and the three other abductees. It was a joint British-U.S. task force, whose formation had the purpose of hunting for al-Qaeda operatives and rescuing foreign hostages. Everything comes at a price. The men who rescued Loney and the two others risked their lives.

The fourth man was beyond rescue. An American, Tom Fox, had earlier been removed from the squalid site where he had been kept along with James Loney, Norman Kember and Harmeet Singh. He was murdered, his body found on a street in Baghdad. And the following is what illuminates the peculiar mind-set of a man like James Loney.

Determined to forgive, he will not permit himself to feel any kind of rancour or blame against his abductors. He lived for all the time he was in captivity in the fear of their discovering that he is gay knowing that they would make an attempt to cure his homosexuality; the cure for which in many Muslim societies is death.

Like the jihadis that captured him and his three colleagues determined to turn the face of peace toward their captors, he believes in self-discipline and self-sacrifice; where they believe in the sacrifice of martyrdom with its great reward of attentive virgins in Paradise, he believes in the martyrdom of self to a greater ideal of Godly virtue.

Neither he nor the two others who were rescued from their miserable captivity and possible even future torture and death, would agree to testify against their captors in the prosecution of the death of the American Tom Fox, by trial in Iraq by its Central Criminal Court. "They took Tom away from us, but they did not take away our ability to forgive.

"We did not lose ourselves. We were not infected with the poison of hate. They may have changed our lives, but they did not change us." This is how James Loney celebrates his victory over the events that occurred to him as a tormented prisoner of the Swords of Righteousness Brigade who held them for ransom.

In pledging forgiveness and refusing to testify against their captors they effectively denied justice to the man whom their captors murdered. This kind of moralistic hubris does not reflect a humble mind but a sadly delusional one. Obtusely, deliberately delusional.

UWO Academic Funding

"[We want] to express our alarm over the disclosure that two Islamist organizations - the Muslim Association of Canada and the [Virginia-based] International Institute of Islamic thought - will provide most of the $2-million in funding for a new Chair in Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Theology at Huron University College. While we commend the College for undertaking to 'make a substantive contribution to understanding of Islamic thought and Muslim identity in pluralistic societies' through the establishment of this Chair, we think it is extremely ill-advised of the College to accept funding from any organization implicated in violent jihad.

"We think that it is reckless for Huron University College to accept up to $1-million in funding from a tainted organization like the IIIT. Would the College have accepted funding from the IRA for a chair in Irish studies? We think not." Letter sent by 26 faculty alumni and friends of the University of Western Ontario to Trish Fulton, interim principal at Huron University College, affiliate of University of Western Ontario.

With good reason. There are precedents, of course. Saudi Arabia used a good whack of its oil revenues to establish Wahhabist madrassas in countries around the world, from Afghanistan to Canada and points in between. In those madrassas, mullahs taught their students the fundamentals of Islam, encouraging the obligation of jihad and martyrdom for the cause. It was institutions like those that inspired today's terror groups, including al-Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood has its tentacles all around the world, including cells in Canada. It portrays itself as a respectable, law-abiding group whose only purpose and function is furthering the honourable cause of restoring Islam to its former glory. Its Egyptian founder, Hassan al-Banna, wanted to promote Islamic piety; he rejected the influence of the secular West in the Middle East, advocating a return to Islam.

That was in 1928. His ideas motivated many devoted Islamists to broaden his vision, and pick up on his urging of Muslims to undertake holy war as a defensive strategy to an offensive one. The Brotherhood excelled at assassinations of political figures. It had a huge influence on Yasser Arafat, spawned Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and had great influence with al-Qaeda leaders.

The Muslim Association of Canada links itself to the Muslim Brotherhood. On its website: "MAC adopts and strives to implement Islam ... as understood in its contemporary context by the late Imam, Hassan Albanna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood." The Brotherhood, which aims to restore Islamic laws and values in the face of growing Western influence.
Although the Muslim Brotherhood has influenced a generation of violent, radical groups, MAC spokesman Yaser Haddara told the news conference (on instituting Sharia law in Ontario) without blinking an eye, that the group's core values are consistent with Canadian values. MAC states on its website that "We do have a firm belief that our philosophy and vision are superior to others and we strive to ensure that they are actualized." How MAC will "actualize" the Muslim Brotherhood "philosophy" in Canada is not elaborated." Tarek Fatah - Chasing a Mirage; the Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State

The answer to that question posed by Tarek Fatah seems to be held within this initiative to fund a Chair in Islamic Studies at the University of Western Ontario, in London, Ontario.

Hassan Al-Banna envisioned Middle East Muslim states re-affirming their Islamist fundamentals. Eschewing the growing trend toward Westernizing their outlooks and priorities, abandoning their Islamic bona fides. His current-day followers advocate for a slow and steady infiltration into Western society with a view to substituting Western values and thought with those of Islam.

A 1991 memorandum by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council proposed that Muslim settlement in Canada and the United States be considered a "Civilization-Jihadist Process". "The MB must understand that their work in America is kind of a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house."

We are sleep-walking helpfully to the fulfillment of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

The Civility of Islam, Religion of Peace

It is a religion based on a collection of writing. Held to be sacred. As the direct word of God, given to a human interlocutor.

Perhaps some of the utterances and proclamations of that virtuous and perfect spirit were misinterpreted when they were transcribed. Perhaps it was the inclination of a man steeped in the Bedouin way of life where tribal animosities and constant warfare and assassinations being the order of the culture and the heritage of the desert, to tinge the words of ineffable wisdom with the stirring battle cries of a warring people.

The out
cry to defend Islam from humiliation and insult and the spurning of its primacy as the pinnacle of religious righteousness and paramount positioning in a world where other communities of peoples have their own spiritual head-of-mission reigning in the wide blue heavens, remains of primary and paramount importance. Jihad is urged on the faithful, and martyrdom to the cause represents the highest order of human endeavour in the honouring of Islam.

It is a militant creed within a religion based on utter and total surrender of the inner and outer self. The sacred writings betray an unequivocal belligerence toward those who would oppose the first-place status of Islam. As for those who would be foolish enough to question the rights, priorities and values held within Islam, and the pedigree and purpose of its founder, the Prophet, woe betide them for they are destined to perish.

The final words they will hear in their fearful ears informing them they are doomed to death is Allahu Akbar! This frequent and deadly attention is purveyed not only toward infidels but also toward Muslims considered to be insufficiently dedicated to their religion's fundamentalist principles. It can be said of a certainty that the countries of the Middle East where Islam surfaced in the wake of Judaism and Christianity, remain broadly dysfunctional.

As the religion is one of a tyrannical spiritual ruler, so too are the theocratic and titular and totalitarian heads of state and governance of Muslim countries. As long as these remained somewhat closed societies with scant interaction with other, non-Muslim countries of the world on a population-to-population basis, the Muslim ummah seemed content to eke out their lives as their rulers saw fit for them.

With the advent of instant technological communication things appear to have gone awry; the people have become alert to the fact that other countries, particularly those of the West, given to democratic governance, do not subjugate their people. There is law and order and there is respect for peoples' rights and there are values that are fundamental to decent human behaviour and there are opportunities to be had elsewhere.

Why not where they live? So young, unemployed and educated Egyptians protested. As did Tunisians. Bahrainians. Yemenites. Syrians, Libyans, Iranians. In Egypt there is a transition government toward civil rule, and Egyptian Muslims mount attacks against Egyptian Copts. In Iran, the people no longer dare protest and remain simmeringly quiescent. In Yemen military forces fire at protesters.

In Libya, the dictator sends out his military forces to bomb and strafe residents of cities that have been taken by rebels, some of whom are Islamists, looking to profit through their fanatical al-Qaeda connections. In Pakistan, as in Afghanistan, Islamist fundamentalists calling themselves the scholars, are Talib who make a common pact with other Islamists and slaughter those Muslims who are insufficiently pious.

Afghan police and the Afghan national military practise sexual abuse and exploitation of young boys, because this is an age-old accepted practise, little spoken of but endemic in society, somewhat like the overwhelming incidence of base corruption and rapacious tribal war-lordism.
While in Syria its president is intent on putting down a popular insurrection much as his father before him did.

The uprising having begun with fifteen young Syrian boys writing graffiti on their school walls demanding the end of police rule - causing their arrest and incarceration, the first in a long line of some eight thousand arrested protesters some of whom have undergone torture and rape. And in Syria as well the military has been charged to fire with live ammunition upon the people.

Who is prepared to stand forward and make sense of this conundrum of a professed religion of peace inspiring so much 'misunderstanding' of what peace represents?

The Message is the Medium

Spiritual leader of well over a billion faithful of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI sought to appeal to humanitarian compassion in his Easter "Urbi et Orbi" blessing and speech. The time for lamentation and rejoicing as good a time as any to remind the faithful and the world at large that human beings have a practical and moral obligation to one another.

Pope Benedict must think in terms of human goodness as he gives his benediction to the waiting crowds. He must not submit to the reality that human goodness and compassion eludes too many in this world of warped entitlements and values. He remains for the faithful the embodiment of God's promise to humankind; that the faithful will be redeemed.

In his elevated station as the interceder between the Almighty and the people, it remains his obligation to instill hope and the need for kindness and consideration; to elevate the souls of his followers. He speaks of diplomacy and dialogue triumphing over conflict, that kind words are a worthy replacement for violence and arms.

This is the world that he lives within, but not the one that humanity struggles to endure. "In the countries of northern Africa and the Middle East, may all citizens, especially young people, work to promote the common good." A noble sentiment, without one shred of doubt. But the countries of northern Africa and the Middle East, particularly the young people, are extremely busy slaughtering one another.

Tribal antipathies, regional disputes; territorial boundaries; acquisition of natural resources; religious and sectarian, ethnic and clan hatreds thrive, helped by the greed of their totalitarian rulers, and the endemic poverty left as the lot of the people whose human rights have been violated. But the crucible of hatred and violence does not need the impetus of poverty to set it alight; hatred of the other will do very well.

Pope Benedict has little option, as the spokesperson for good in the world, relaying God's wishes for humankind, but to call for peace: "That the light of peace and of human dignity may overcome the darkness of division, hate and violence" in the Middle East. The 'inviolable right' to dignity and basic human rights is violated because it cannot be guaranteed.

Visceral distrust, hatred and violence sadly express humankind's ultimate degradation, one all too quickly resorted to with particular fervour in the Middle East, a brimming cauldron of resentment and paranoia.

Solve that and God will indeed have descended to Earth.

Influence, Respect, Humility

There is something endearing about even a programmed, obviously staged event where the most prestigious, respected religious authority figure in the world appears to be humbly presenting himself in a modest setting, to respond to the confusion in the hearts of his adoring public.

As the single most impressive and important representative of God on Earth Pope Benedict XVI made his august presence available for enquiry. At the televised question-and-answer session that took place on Good Friday, Pope Benedict responded to a question by a Japanese child by his admission that he does not have "the answers" to human suffering.

No one is too grand or too important to hold themselves above and apart from ordinary people. Particularly those people whose lives have been touched by God and who acknowledge their need to worship their Saviour during this time of his resurrection celebrated in a yearly ritual of mourning and joyfulness.

And Pope Benedict holds himself responsible for his vast flock, as must a pope do.

It is to his great credit that he has not shied away from the need to speak forcibly and without diplomatic guile to the modern-day forces of brutal violence expressed through the resentment of another, competing religion, against the followers of the Roman Catholic Church. He has pleaded repeatedly for Muslim countries to respect the human rights of Christians.

He has responded to the outrage of his own parishioners - for all those who worship at the altar of the Roman Catholic Church are his parishioners - against the depredations of parish priests and their superiors in violating the trust and the faith of children by sexually abusing them for decades. His response has been one of anguish - and of guilt.

"I am saddened", he said "that I can do so little". Referring without doubt, to the proclivities of human beings whose spirit and courage has not been equal to the demands placed upon them in the service of God. He is saddened, that though he reproves and protests against humankind's continual surrender to tribal, clan and religious destruction, passions are unabated.

He often enough - because, as the major representative as he would have it, of God upon this planet, he is infallible, and his decision is to be respected - infuriates both the faithful and those for whom his faith is not theirs. He seeks to be a unifying force for goodness yet he is often seen as a divisive force through his decisions.

Given his due, his is an impossible task. And even when tasks are possible there is the reality that no one can possibly ever satisfy all people all the time. He likely comes as close to that impossible goal as anyone may.

But then ... on the other hand ...

Terror Honeypot

To the world of the West it is a romantic love story, a marriage of royalty, starring a successor to the British throne. Everyone is enthralled by the forthcoming marriage of Britain's Prince William as a charming knight, and Kate Middleton, as his future consort. Two handsome young people representing tradition and royal heritage.

The event of this century and the century is yet so young...

Westminster Abbey is prepared to host the grand event, celebratory bunting has been hung along the processional route, and excitement is in the air. Foreign heads of state, kings and queens, aristocrats and celebrities have been invited and all are a-twitter with the good feelings and excitement of the event.

Well, there are of course, some anti-monarchist republican-types who are less than thrilled and stating their objections to the celebration of nonentities tying the knot and making legal what they've long dipped into, no longer scandalous but representing the order of the day. Let's bypass them, for their time may yet come.

It is this other Britain, this Britain of immigrants from another world entirely, who live in ardent resentment of everything that Britain represents, yet take graspingly of social benefits they become entitled to like free council flats and generous financial state hand-outs rather than tediously scout out work opportunities.

But because they become citizens and are thus entitled to voice themselves and express their disgust with the country they have planned their own celebrations. To that end, Muslims Against Crusades plan a demonstration on that very day:

"We find that one of the biggest advocates of British imperialism, Flight Lieutenant Prince William, wishes to enjoy an extravagant wedding ceremony, ironically at the expense of the taxpayer", their website advises.

"In light of this, sincere Muslims have decided to organize a forceful demonstration, to once again highlight that as long as Britain continues in its quest to occupy Muslim land and wage war against the religion of God (Allah) that we too shall continue in our efforts to undermine their regime and condemn all of their representatives, military or otherwise.

"We strongly advise Prince William and his Nazi sympathizer, to withdraw from the crusader British military and give up all affiliation to the tyrannical British Empire. We promise that should they refuse, then the day which the nation has been dreaming of for so long will become a nightmare."

A corresponding demonstration has been planned by the English Defence League, an anti-Islamist group. Who dedicate themselves to upholding and supporting British tradition, and strenuously oppose the Islamists who during Armistice Day burned poppies and shouted "British soldiers burn in hell".

This is all rather complicated, made even more so by the fact that British security informs police that there is a high threat level of "severe", represented by the potential of terrorist attacks during this most auspicious celebratory time for Britain's royal watchers. And demonstrations by anarchists are also in the picture.

This event portends an exciting time indeed, to be had by all.

Finally, Exculpation

It was worth waiting two thousand years-plus to finally hear those words of forgiveness. This is an inheritance that Jews did not really want. But history is history and divine forgiveness is not to be slighted. We had the example of Eve and of Pandora and all the world's ills flow from those indiscretions. Surely our ancestors should have known better than to leave us such a dreadful inheritance?

All those years of carrying that dreadful burden of guilt. That we, the Jews of the world, past, present and future, are responsible for the untimely and ghastly death of one of our own. Who just happened to become, post-mortem, a world figure of great renown. Who might imagine it? We have had other great Jews: Maimonides, Spinoza, Einstein, Kant, to name a scant handful, who have burnished the Jewish tradition.

But the living son of the Almighty God? Now that's special. The anointed of the All-Powerful. And we the sorry living legacy of the death of God's only begotten and surely beloved son. Sacrificed to demonstrate to the world that God Himself is not above taking the life of one so loved. To redeem unworthy humankind.

And so it was that the Jew became the symbol of the eternal wanderer. No one would have him, no country, no land, no government, no monarch, no people wanted to have Jews about, defiling the atmosphere with the stench of deicide. The inheritor of Christ's crown, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, has taken a long time to forgive the unforgiveable.

They see no virtue in any longer casting blame upon the tribe of Judea. The Hebrews are to be given full exculpation - for they knew not what they did. And Christ himself appealed for their mercy, saying "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". And if God can find it in his immense heart to forgive his Chosen, why not his emissary here on Earth?

And so, finally, we have Pope Benedict XVI graciously exonerating the Jewish people for their dreadful act of murder. The crucifixion of Christ was a plot of Jewish priests and the elite leaders of the now-extant Jewish community, urging a reluctant Pontius Pilate, who did not mind one whit crucifying petty robbers, to do the same with an itinerant rabbi.

The rational in the scalpel-edged mind of this great intellectual pope was reason itself. "How could the entire Jewish people have been present at this moment to call for the death of Jesus?" wrote the pope in his wonderful expose of Churchly misunderstanding, Jesus of Nazareth. "The true accusers were those circulating in the temple at the time."

Ahah! Their plot truly sickened. And made of Jews global pariahs unto eternity. Shame on those unprincipled jackals.

The New Generation of Revolutionaries

Saudi Arabia has known for a very long time that it has a problem on its hands. One it shares with all its neighbours, for the most part. Too many shiftless young people. It is not the women, who are strictured not to be seen in public unless clad in all-encasing garments and even then escorted by male family members who are of concern. It is the young men with too much idle time on their hands because there are not enough jobs to employ them gainfully.

What Saudi Arabia has been aware of is that without gainful employment for all these young men, marriage is not quite possible. Marriage softens the rough edges of virile young men, it keeps them out of trouble. The responsibilities that come with marriage, and raising a family ensures that young men will not become restless, will not agitate for change, will not become likely recruits for Islamism and jihad.

Which is paradoxical given that Saudi Arabia's very fundamentalist style of Islam, Wahhabi-style, has been responsible throughout other parts of the world in training young men who become susceptible to the allure of wild adventure in religiously-motivated, violent jihad, through their investment in madrassas. But then, it is one thing to export fundamentalist Islam, and another to welcome a threatening variant of it into one's homeland.

The aging royalty of the House of Saud recognizes its problem. But it has hundreds of billions of dollars in profit from its kingdom's fossil fuel extraction, and in that country money really is no problem. King Abdullah can return home from recovery from surgery and in celebration magnanimously hand out tens of billions of dollars to continue to buy the loyalty of his subjects. Which subjects, with rare exceptions, it seems, are more than happy to continue living under his rule.

Not for King Abdullah the migraine-inducing pain suffered by Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, and the unspeakable Libya. All government employees will be enjoying a 15% pay raise. Social welfare programs, housing and education will receive stiff infusions of cash. There will be financial aid for an entire year for the unemployed, including presumably, those steaming youth who cannot find employment thus cannot purchase a home and a car, and go looking for a wife.

Of the 19 million citizens populating Saudi Arabia, 47% are age 18 or younger. And roughly 40% of all Saudis who are between 20 and 24 years of age are unemployed. So oops! There are activists in the country calling for economic reform and the creation of more jobs. They're also assuming that their combined voices may be instrumental in leading to freedom for women, free elections and political reforms.

But Saudi Arabia is a quietly efficient place where dissent is not brooked nor anticipated. And people really are fond of their benevolent monarchy. So it would be a real eye-opener if the social activists hoping for a better future for themselves and their youthful countrymen could amass enough support even from within their own demographic to mount a meaningful campaign.

Still, as one Middle East expert mused: "The new generation of revolution is surrounding them from everywhere."

Societal (or Multicultural) Death Knell

"We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him." French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy

That great civil exercise in expressing understanding, compassion, solidarity and equality among cultures, ethnicities, religions and heritage has come to a thudding halt. Not that all those generous extensions of civility are to be halted, no longer to be honoured. But not at the expense of the expectation that when people of diverse backgrounds migrate to a country other than that of their origins, they must value the prevailing culture, social mores and values, and their laws, and take steps to integrate into the welcoming social system.

That is not too onerous an expectation. When people seek shelter, refuge, a place for themselves in countries not their original ones because of social or political unrest, or unjust conditions, or endemic poverty, they must be prepared to pay some dutiful homage to the welcoming country. The most effective way to do that is to recognize the national values and the social contract that others within the country honour and practise.

The bright idea of multiculturalism, having due regard for other cultures' diverse practises as a way to help people adjust to a new social environment might have sounded like a good idea, and made the welcoming parties feel generous to a fault, but there was an unforeseen fault that resulted in the incoming immigrants and refugees deducing from that generosity that it was no longer incumbent upon them to make any kind of obligatory overtures, to 'fit in'.

Multiculturalism resulted in people feeling confident about retaining all their old cultural practises, of living in the social comfort of a familiar language, social customs and religious practises that were often divisive, and which certainly led them to keep themselves physically apart from those whose society they joined. Ignorance of the welcoming society's values and priorities resulted, as well as an ongoing and growing sense of undeserved entitlement to ever-increasing demands for special treatment.

Which led inevitably to feelings on both sides of the cultural/values divide that were antagonistic in nature; that far too great an accommodation was being made for immigrant communities, effectively diluting the importance of the prevailing society - and the reverse, that the prevailing society's expectations of the immigrant community were unfair, insensitive and intrusive.

The rise of disaffected first- and second-generation youth from immigrant families who felt outside both experiences, belonging securely to none, led invariably to those youth feeling aggressively aggrieved against the prevalent, majority society, particularly in the case of the Muslim demographic. For whom the vision of their adopted homeland's response to an emerging, violence-based Islamic jihad was interpreted as "Islamophobia", and toward which the disaffected homeland youth responded as new recruits for violent jihad.

"The French national community cannot accept a change in its lifestyle, equality between men and women ... freedom for little girls to go to school", said Nicolas Sarkozy, choosing to focus on that aspect of Islamic cultural differences at odds with France's, rather than addressing the more incendiary problems of youth violence in France's infamous Muslim ghettos rife with restless, unemployed and resentful youth ripe for jihad.

"If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome to France". As to the question of whether multiculturalism has succeeded or failed: "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure", he said during a television interview. Fairly well echoing the statements of British Prime Minister David Cameron, German chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar.

Multiculturalism has encouraged immigrants to retain far too much of their singular and often-oppositional cultural mores that set them apart from those of the prevailing culture. Integration became an unachievable dream, far from reality. Prime Minister Cameron's vision of a "more active, muscular liberalism", where equal rights, rule of law, freedom of speech and democracy are actively promoted has overtaken the misguided multiculturalism ideology.

Although other countries in Europe have not yet pronounced themselves completely fed up with the strains that 'accommodation' has placed on their patience, on the remarkable changes that have taken place in their nations' consciousness, and their countries' physical and social landscapes, many have taken steps to indicate their displeasure with prevailing Islamic stealthy infiltration, undermining their valued historical European roots.

The United States, in attempting to come to terms with, and to acquire a deeper understanding of the emerging violence among home-grown Islamists exercising their options to join al-Qaeda derivatives and enacting atrocities there, has turned to Canada and to Australia. To try to emulate those two countries in their attempts through their national security agencies to defuse palpable dissatisfaction and arrest the potential for fanatic-jihad violence. By liaising at the community level with organized Islamic elites.

Which would be akin to the halt aiding the blind. America's melting pot society, that absorbs immigrants with the expectation that they will readily adopt and adapt to prevailing social values has hardly been less disappointing than that of multiculturalism. Call it a melting pot, call it a cultural mosaic; when an adverse ideology or religion has the strength and determination to be interpreted as adversarial to prevailing values, its result is akin to multiculturalism, by default.

If the organized face of Western-based immigrant communities dedicated to their Eastern-based religions, ideologies, politics and cultural mores continue to preach and teach and support differences rather than exhort the acceptance of the adopting countries' nurturing social values, what point is there of liaising with them? It is from the crucible of the fundamentalist, organized mosques and clerics that impressionable young Muslims are encouraged to surrender to militant, political Islam.

This is one of the many results of multiculturalism, along with emigrant-acceptance policies incapable of distinguishing which immigration-seeking applicants based on background and assessable criteria present as reasonable candidates for immersion in and acceptance of Western society.

Moderate Indonesia

There are Muslim-majority countries in the world that are moderate in their practise of Islam and their ability to more or less separate Church and State. In nudging distance of secular and democratic. Well-balanced population and social situation. Able to compromise and accept that there may exist differences between people which does not render them any less equal and due respec despite alternate culture, religion, ethnic backgrounds.

Take, for example, the most populous Muslim country in the world, Indonesia. A veritable model of moderation. Indonesia's constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Three months ago American President Barack Obama gave high praise to Indonesia's "spirit of religious tolerance", as an outstanding "example to the world", as he visited Jakarta.

Oops, perhaps not quite tolerant enough, given the 2008 law banning the Ahmadiyah Muslim sect from proselytizing. Even if they make no effort whatever to spread the good word of their different kind of Islamic worship, they are suspected of doing just that. And the cure for that is to viciously attack members of the sect.

Indonesia has suffered of late an epidemic of religious intolerance, resulting in widespread violence. Quite inexplicable, is it not, in a moderate Islamic society? Yet a Muslim lynch mob killed a handful of Amadiyah, and crowds of Indonesians fired two churches and ransacked another.

They were infuriated because of a trial for a Christian Indonesian who had just been sentenced to five years in prison for having distributed leaflets seen as insulting Islam. The mob was outraged that Antonius Bawengan did not receive the death penalty for insulting Islam. "Kill, kill", was the refrain the mob chanted outside the court.

And as they set fire to the churches, they revelled in another chant: "burn, burn". And then went on to vandalize a Catholic school. Police, responding with tear gas, had their vehicles set on fire, and were assaulted by a 1,500-strong, stone-throwing mob.

This moderate Islamic country has not yet seen fit to protect its minorities from violence. And even as President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono condemned the bloodshed, he saw fit to defend the blasphemy laws.

Fully 80% of the population is Muslim, of a total population of 240-million; the rest cower in fear when the mobs become enraged. When the fanatics among them arm with machetes, sticks and rocks and declare "Allahu Akbar"!

And the frenzy of attack begins.

The Downtown Mosques

Should we not be extremely concerned about the suitability for citizenship of people whose culture, heritage and religion obviously set them outside the potential for fully integrating with Canadian values and social mores? Sounds sensible; why wouldn't we be concerned? More to the point, why haven't we exercised due diligence in accepting into Canada those very people whose culture, heritage and religion so obviously identifies them as unsuitable for sharing this country?

Well, we haven't practised due diligence. It was identified as patronizing, insulting, anti-democratic, sinfully discriminating, and most definitely not forward looking; excessively illiberal. Politically incorrect in countries of the West with their socially advanced consciences who led themselves to believe that by opening their doors to those who were unfortunate enough to have been born and bred within freedom-stifling theocratic governments, they would be helping to make the world a better place.

And have we? Europe is battening down their hatches. Trouble is, it's a little late in the game. Britain has now decided, after decades of accommodation, ill repaid, to insist on respect for its traditions and social practises, from its would-be immigrants. France continues to bluster about resistance to the French tradition as it snuffs out the incendiary break-outs from its banlieues.

There are backlashes all over Europe against a now-established immigrant-demographic that insists on its rights and prerogatives overriding the prevailing core values of the countries they have migrated to. As though by now, with distinct population centres overtaken by Muslims whose disdain of the corrupt values of the West - with established mosques recalling their members to their sacred duty to Islam - can readily be overturned.

Many Muslims profess themselves to be loyal to their new countries of residence and citizenship, but they are not entirely averse to the advances made on behalf of Islam, either through the threats and commissions of violent acts of terror, or through the more acceptable - for a religion of peace - gradual and purposeful overturning of the host country's resolve to resist.

And here, in Canada, with a Muslim population increasing at a fairly steady rate both through continued migration and an amazing birth rate, identified as increasing three-fold by 2030, there is much to consider. Starting with the infiltration of Muslims unprepared to accept Canadian cultural and political values, striving to alter those values by shared persuasion, and inciting to social divisions within the greater community.

Toronto alone represents as the city in North America with the highest concentration of Muslims. People who are expected - in reflection of a hundred years of immigrant-absorption resulting in a multifarious population representing various ethnicities who have been absorbed willingly into the whole - to accept and to practise the universal verities we value while retaining fond memory of their origins.

Instead, we've been slowly realizing that this is an immigrant group that strenuously seeks to occupy a separate place within society, not at all willing to intermingle, and stressing to those among them who do, they they do not reflect the values of Islam. "I see Wahhabism as a growing factor in Toronto", admitted one Toronto resident, unwilling himself to submit to the fundamentalist practise of Islam imported from Saudi Arabia with its funding of madrases in Canadian cities.

For some within the Muslim community it is alarming that from mosques and Islamic community centres a radical, ideologically political Islam is being expounded.

"I mean sermons about Afghanistan, about Iraq, about Kashmir, about suicide bombing and chaos in the Muslim world. As a project I visited mosques in each corner of the city and in lectures, statements and sermons at Sunni mosques from Stouffville to Toronto, imams are preaching about how Muslims all over the world are being attacked by non-Muslims and they are justifying the violence by Muslims against NATO and everyone else. I'm scared to take my children to the mosque. So I don't."

Some Muslims who wish to remain within the comfortable zone of regularly attending mosque services no longer feel comfortable doing so, because the mosques have been increasingly expressing the tenets of an Islam they are decidedly uncomfortable with and have no wish to support.

"I used to go to the downtown mosque [at Dundas and Bay] but I don't anymore. I didn't like the political discussions, they were divisive. I saw no indication of interest in promoting integration into Canadian society. It was always about how different we are, how Muslims should live in Canada. There were political undertones of why some of the international events were happening and how we should feel about them."

In interviews, we have the assurances of highly educated Muslims from Egypt that there are indeed among them in their mosques, some individuals who appear to be fundamentalist and radical in their outlook, encouraging of violent jihad, but most, they claim are 'moderate', their imam preaches "middle of the road Islam", which is so much more acceptable. That "middle of the road Islam" follows the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Which just happens to be the world's number one Islamist political organization, one that has spawned numerous terrorist groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. With supporting offshoots all over the globe. Their end-game is the establishment of sharia law in all Muslim countries and the enlargement of Islamic rule toward a global caliphate.

These are Muslim-Canadians who have sought within Canada the freedoms that were denied them in their countries of origin. Within Canada they enjoy those freedoms, and yet for many their commitment to the country is questionable. They aspire, like their counterparts in Europe, to gradually transform Canada's political and social and religious landscape to reflect the one they fled.

And we are obligingly sitting back and chanting to ourselves that everyone's rights and values are to be equally respected, neglecting to notice that ours are being subverted and eroded.

Intra-Religious Dialogue

"The freeze was prompted by the repeated attacks on Islam by Pope Benedict XVI of the Vatican. The Pope has reiterated that Muslims oppress non-Muslims who are living with them in the Middle East." Al-Azhar

The most highly respected Muslim Cairo-based academic institution, Al-Azhar, chief centre of Sunni Muslim learning, has taken the step of suspending its relations with the Vatican. Maintaining open doors of communication has always been seen to be a positive undertaking, particularly among academic institutions. But Al-Azhar is offended, claiming that the Holy See has interfered too often in affairs of the Muslim world.

That in this instance the umbrage has been occasioned by the Vatican, the world's foremost Christian-orthodox body, coming to the defence of Egyptian Christian Copts makes little sense. Given that Roman Catholicism recognizes its birthplace and its birth, and that Egyptian Copts are among the original groups of Christianity, and as such when that group is threatened and suffers violent threats and death rampages, the Vatican must voice its concern.

Still, in the interests of maintaining open communion, without backtracking or apologizing for critical support on behalf of its venerable partners in the religion that much pre-dated Islam, the Vatican is urging a resumption of good relations. "The pontifical council for inter-religious dialogue's line of openness and desire to dialogue is unchanged", noted a Vatican spokesman.

Is it not sufficiently self-evident that Christians, or as Al-Azhar puts it, "non-Muslims" are indeed threatened in the Middle East? Where are the Christians who lived harmoniously in Syria, Iraq, the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon? Slowly bleeding out of the geography, as a result of spontaneous and institutionalized threats to their well-being, if not outright violent attacks. Christians have found safe haven in Israel, however, a Jewish-majority state.

Al-Azhar is implacable in its denunciation of interference in internal Muslim states and their affairs on the part of the Vatican. It is that purported interference that is intolerable, not the plight of Egyptian Copts who live in fear and misery, and mourn the passing of the mutual respect and tolerance they were better accustomed to, before the rise of militant Islam.

By repeatedly expressing solidarity with Egyptian Copts, and beseeching their protective custody on the world stage, Pope Benedict has committed the unthinkable; criticized Islam by implication. The most recent attack on an Egyptian church represented "yet another sign of the urgent need for the governments of the region to adopt ... effective measures for the protection of religious minorities."

Which caused Cairo to recall its envoy to the Vatican. "Egypt will not allow any non-Egyptian faction to interfere in its internal affairs under any pretext", was the statement issued by the country's foreign ministry. "The Coptic question is specifically an internal Egyptian affair." Which is exceedingly strange, since the entire Muslim clergy of the Ummah have denounced the prevalence of what they declare to be "Islamophobia".

Described as a pernicious and undeserved loathing of Islam by non-Muslim entities and individuals in the international community concerned and fearful of the planned and executed, past and future violent attacks on the non-Muslim community.

Only Here In Canada

"No, no, no. They don't believe. You see, it's only here in Canada and U.S. and the West that they think that there is a big problem of terrorism or homegrown terrorism or all these things. They know that the government, they had to do something to please George Bush and do their own work in fighting what you call terrorism. So I didn't have to explain anything. I showed them the recommendations from the people here." Imam Aly Hindy, Salaheddin mosque, Toronto

It's a controversial mosque, the Salaheddin mosque in Toronto, but only because it has a controversial figure as its leading cleric, Imam Aly Hindy. Religion is good for peoples' well-being, we read, gladdening the heart and suffusing the soul with faith in an Almighty who looks down with compassion on the host of imperfect and fallible souls who place such faith in their belief of an all-powerful presence guiding them to heaven's gate.

The trouble with a mosque like the Salaheddin, is that although it serves, along with Toronto's other mosques, a large number of doubtless peace-loving Muslims, it has also served to give solace and encouragement to Canadian Muslims whose attraction to fanatical Islam and violent jihad have tainted it as an perfectly peaceful institution, just as Islamists have tainted Islam as being somewhat other than purely a religion of peace.

This is a mosque which has been visited by the outstanding figures of Canadian-Muslim-represented violence against Canada, its institutions, politics, freedoms and society, from the leader of the infamous Toronto 18 to the pious paterfamilias of the Khadr clan, soul brothers to al-Qaeda.

Imam Aly Hindy's impish sense of humour, belittling the concerns of Canadian security authorities and hoisting Canadian terror concerns on a feeble mast of a tattered flag over the absurdity of conceiving of earnest Muslim youth as posing a threat to Canada is not exactly disarming, as he might mean it to seem; it slides readily into an insult to our collective intelligence.

For what we base our perceptions on is no mere speculation but the reality of security services disclosing to the public through warnings and through subsequent arrests of suspects on security certificates that there is a real and present danger lodged within the Muslim community, in particular part of the community that worships in his mosque.

He has minimized any reason for criticism that his mosque, through his petitioning of sources in the Middle East, is being supported financially through the charitable auspices of foreign countries, emphasizing that this makes the mosque less of a possible burden to the public purse. More susceptible, however, to the control-at-a-remove of Arab-Muslim-sponsored religious dictates.

"It is obvious that if we find money here,we will not ask other countries for help. We always hear complaints about immigrants taking money from the system. So when we are able to bring money from outside, you should be thankful instead of implying this nonsense of allegations", he pointed out in an interview.

That is an unassailable argument in one sense; in another injecting a sinister note of implications. Islam certainly is different in its impermissible moralities and the rigidity of its social values. Moreover, as a loyal citizen of Canada, Imam Aly Hindy has shown himself not to be averse to defying Canadian law having, among other things, officiated at 30 polygamous marriages in Toronto.

He has in fact averred that as a good Muslim first and foremost he would follow Islamic law irrespective of whether there is a conflict inherent in it with the established secular laws of Canada. He has also felt free to defend those who stand accused of terrorism in the country. Tarek Fatah who sees no conflict between observing Islamic law and obeying Canadian law, insists:

"The government of Canada should put an immediate end to all money coming into Canada from Arab countries to prop up Islamist organizations and mosques."

The simple fact being that financing of mosques and Islamic religious schools in Canada has been ongoing, coming from Saudi Arabia. Imam Hindy is vague about where the funding for his mosque has come from - Kuwait, Qatar or perhaps the United Arab Emirates. He revealed that he had applied twice for funding to pay for security cameras and lights for the mosque through federal sourcing, but was refused.

Not, however, others who had applied, having seen the list of those who did receive funding under the very federal funding program that had turned down his requests. "All the names are Jewish", he insisted. Which seems rather peculiar for why should the taxpayer be on the hook for any religious institution, as a secular-governed society. It seems reasonable that those who use the institutions pay for them.

On the other hand, the toss-off of that information more than hints at yet another reason for generating friction and resonating resentment against both the Jewish community's synagogues and the federal government which would appear to be, in Imam Hindy's accounting, favouring Judaism over Islam.

This man of substantial religious influence in the Toronto-based Muslim community clearly downgrades the possibility of any violence emanating from those who attend his mosque. The ringleader of the Toronto 18 gets a clean slate of responsibility from Imam Hindy "He was like a big mouth, talking about jihad ... he's not able to do anything and he's not going to do anything."

Well, no, he is not and he will not, for the man pleaded guilty to three terrorism-related charges and his sentence will keep him securely in prison for some time to come. "And then the other guys, actually, Jahmaal James, those are the victim of the system actually. They have nothing against him except, like, piece of paper. As one lawyer told me you can write it on a handkerchief all the evidence against him."

Contempt for the 'they' and the justice system; government institutions and the judiciary. Seven or eight young Muslims flirting with the idea of dedicating themselves to violent jihad, however, were directed otherwise by Imam Hindy, mindful of the need to deliver his message of usefulness throughout the interview, albeit presenting as a contradiction to his other assertions.

He is in complete sympathy with the jihad ongoing in Afghanistan, for, he suggested: "What do you think if you are attacked in your own country? I'm not talking about foreigners. I'm talking about Afghani." Discounting holus-bolus the reason that NATO is in Afghanistan battling the Taliban who oppressed and maltreated Afghans, and supported al-Qaeda which attacked 'foreigners' in their own foreign land.

The man is a confusing admixture of blustery emotional belligerence and quasi-humble advocacy for Islam. He is a threat and a danger to the country which hosts his ideas and his loyalties, his offhand attitude toward the potential threats to stability and unity in the country with his confused and confusing messages buzzing in the ears of those vulnerable to exploitation and enlisting in jihad.

Hariri's Blood

Lebanon sits on the brink of civil war - unless Hezbollah decides as a good will gesture that it will shelve its plans to take the entirely country under its avuncular wing. Out of the goodness of its collective heart, pull up stakes and return to Iran where it can do service there, along with the Basiji and the Republican Guard. Its where their heart is, after all, for no other Islamic country has invested as much hatred and determination to rid the Middle East of the Zionist presence as has Iran.



Hassan Nasrallah would be prepared to leave Syria, his safe haven. And decamp with his loyal crew to Iran where the Grand Ayatollah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would welcome him with hugs and kisses just to make him feel at home, where he belongs. And from there plans to destroy Israel can continue apace. Hezbollah militias could be dispatched internally every time Iran's opposition feels compelled to unfurl their green banners and take to the streets again.



Between Hezbollah, the Basiji and the Republican Guard, quick work would be made of the arrogant protesters. And the Islamic Republic of Iran could get on with its vital work of refining uranium, building new, unannounced nuclear installations deep into the sides of mountains where they would be well protected from the satanic plans of the Big Satan and Little Satan. Plans to destroy Israel, and eventually subjugate the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt could commence.



Or, with the revelation finally of the names of the Hezbollah elites who bombed ex-premier Rafiq Hariri and 22 other unfortunates, as Nasrallah warned, Hezbollah would 'defend' itself. The translation is not all that difficult. "We will not allow our reputation and our dignity to be tarnished nor will we allow anyone to conspire against us or to unjustly drench us in Hariri's blood", he vowed. Lebanon's blood in its entirety would be the alternate solution.



Hariri's blood kin, his son, currently prime minister of collapsed-government Lebanon - most unhelpful in forestalling the sinister UN-sponsored revelations - might anticipate his own blood spilled. The international tribunal investigating the assassination stands ready to deliver. The indictments have been prepared and are ready for delivery for their preliminary review before Judge Daniel Fransen.

	Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah
	Photo by: AFP

Sheikh Nasrallah is nobody's fool. To demonstrate that, he underscores that the indictments brought by the UN tribunal are the result of a scheme concocted by the United States and Israel. He knows very well that Israel is itself guilty of the murder of Rafiq Hariri. He finds it infuriating that Saad Hariri refuses to recognize reality, and has become a pawn of the United States, refusing the mediation efforts of Syria and Saudi Arabia.



Sheikh Nasrallah's assertions that the tribunal's evidence was forged, that it is allied with a conspiracy to protect Israel, wholly and solely responsible for the assassination, have not been heeded. Life can be so unfair. The budget of the tribunal has been heavily subsidized by the Government of Lebanon, and since Hezbollah is heavily invested - or was - politically, in that very same government, this is an unforeseen and unfortunate outcome.



Nasrallah's threats to 'alter the status quo' of Lebanon if the indictments are made public have created quite a bit of tension. Lebanese citizens, Christian, Muslim, Druze, are not particularly thrilled with the idea of returning to civil war status. They have grown inordinately fond of peace and the current economic thrust of the country under peace, even with the tensions that exist with the malevolent presence of Hezbollah.



Druze leader Walid Jumblatt is a nasty dark horse, with his allegiance in support of Hezbollah rather than the traditional political forces of Lebanon. Prime Minister Hariri will have his support if the Syria-Saudi compromise proposal already rejected, is accepted. In which case Saad Hariri will find himself speaking to his father night after night after night, to no avail.

Ultra-Orthodox

Religious orthodoxy can be fulfilling to the faithful. Religious fundamentalism responds to the baser of human instinctual needs to find fault with other groups and religions, and to maintain a rigidly inflexible belief in one's superiority and the exceptionality of one's religion. Religious fundamentalism seem to express the most intolerant of expressions of one group toward another, setting up indivisible barriers between people.

The ancient, rigidly encoded tribal mentality expressed in various exclusionary ways to satisfy the emotional needs of those who seem to naturally gravitate to viewing others as different, as somehow lesser endowed and incompatible with one's own tribe's values exemplifies fundamentalism.

It makes no difference which of the world's religions is involved, fundamentalism is inherently divisive and counter-productive to people living in a pluralistic way.

In Israel the ultra-Orthodox feel entitled to present themselves as closer to God than any others. They feel entitled to view other Jews as not representing the true nature of Judaism, that anything resembling secularism is an affront to them personally and a true blasphemy. It is they and their rigid and countless proscriptions that represent God's will and wishes.

Their total commitment to parsing and interpreting Holy Scripture is all-consuming.

The life of the religious, invested with doctrine, with no time to be set aside for the practical aspects of earning a living is represented by the ultra-Orthodox in Israel, representing a mere 6% of the population, but wielding a powerful influence in government through Israel's fractured political system of electoral representation and its plentiful political parties.

Israel was created as a secular state governed on behalf of the world's Jews for whom an open invitation to become citizens has always been extended, and diaspora Jewry have responded to a degree; some migrating to Israel, others content to remain where they have been citizens for hundreds of years, while supporting the concept of return or aliyah and sending financial support.

The Haredi, the ultra-Orthodox, have become so influential, despite their minority status, they have been successful in imposing restrictions on the majority secular population. Separation between men and women in synagogues, on public transit, in business enterprises have become an increasing irritant to a public that has good reason to resent the imposition on equality.

"How is it that as Jewish women, we are free in Berlin, in Rome, in Chicago and Toronto, while in Jerusalem, it is illegal and profane for us to read from the Torah?
"At the Wall, the question is whose Wall is it anyway? Is it really the holiest place for all the Jewish people? If it is the holiest place for all the Jewish people, you can't silence half the population.
"You can't criminalize what I am doing because what I am doing is what the Jewish world is doing.
"I am not the only woman wearing a tallith [prayer shawl] and holding a Torah scroll and praying out loud. I am one of many, many millions of women who are doing that. but in Israel, I am now facing criminal charges." Anat Hoffman, executive director, Israel Religious Action Centre, legal advocacy arm, Reform Movement, Israel

In Israel, the Haredi are excused from serving in the Israel Defence Forces. A majority of Haredi families exist on state welfare because the men study the fine points of Torah as perpetual students and engage in pilpul, leaving no time nor inclination for worldly pursuits like earning a living for their families. The women are seen and not heard, and are exhorted to enjoy a high birth rate.

Their schools do not teach core subjects; instead focus on religion, ignoring the need to teach science or language or mathematics. Their numbers among the general population are rising and will continue to rise. Their political influence and xenophobia will also continue to rise; they make up 20% of the country's poor.

Poor, devout, ignorant.

How Perfectly Jolly!

The worst of all possible worlds; Britain has long attracted and gone out of its way to support and give haven to individuals and groups whose brand of Islamism is ferociously out of whack with what its followers claim it to represent, as a religion of peace. The Islam that the mullahs and imams and other clerics who comfortably settled in Britain - to speak at its many mosques, in Arabic-speaking fiery speeches denouncing the very country that gave them haven, exhorting young Muslims to violent jihad - is the one front and centre in the world of terror today.

What is astonishing is the very fact that official Britain has been so avuncular about the presence of those ferociously fulminating clerics for so long. Long enough to ensure that more than one generation of Muslim men has been tainted with the compelling need to enlist as martyrs for the universal Islamist cause leading to the Caliphate they are so devoted to. Young Muslim men, born in Britain, educated there, seething with discontent and anger at the West and its values, sufficiently at home in the country to form university student unions recruiting for jihad.

These are young men who know the country fairly intimately. It has, after all, been the country of their birth, if not in the end the country of their birthright. That would only come to pass when Britain does truly succumb to Islamism and adopts universal sharia law. That's some atmosphere to be certain. That the country's counter-terrorism agencies are on constant guard now against the carefully determined plans by home-bred Brits whose religious conversion to deadly violence poses a threat to stability.

Given that Scotland Yard has admitted it is currently giving high-alert attention to one hundred terror cases, thirty of which are considered to be 'pressing', while approximately ten are classified as 'urgent' or 'imminent'. That's shaving it pretty close, isn't it? Islam4UK is kind of snappy too, is it not, as a hopeful sloganeering mantra of Muslim youth devoted to the downfall of the government of the country, determined to mount one of their own in due time, in tune with a new judiciary.

It is certainly instructive how fundamentally attractive men like Anwar al-Awlaki and Osama bin Laden are inspirationally to bored young men avidly seeking the adventures of their lives. Exciting adventures are just what the doctor ordered to banish those insipid boredom-diversions of petty crime from the near horizon in favour of not-so-covert activities conducted right under the eyes of slow-moving intelligence agents.

The latest to be arrested in Britain, young men of Bangladeshi origin - if it's not of Pakistani origin; geographic neighbours withal - are said to have been influenced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. They were affiliated with a banned group, which makes things all the more attractive, doesn't it? A Police Commission spokesman described the arrests as being "intelligence-led" on the suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism.

Terrorism? Actually, not; holy war. As opposed to the kind of unholy war being waged in Afghanistan, for example, by British troops within the NATO command. These were young men accustomed to standing on street corners handing out leaflets promoting holy war. Furthermore, some of them fit right into their neighbourhoods. Neighbours spoke approvingly of them as "...a very nice family, the dad always says hello, he's very polite."

And at another house where arrests were made, observant neighbours had their own impressions to relay to the curious news media: "He has a lot of people coming and going in the early hours of the morning - it's very odd - and you can often hear religious chanting and singing coming from the house." So, they're quite jolly, quite British, quite stiff upper-lip about it all. After all, this is the land of eccentrics.

British terrorists? Just another brand of eccentric Brits.

A Christmas of Fear

"We love Christmas but this year it feels bitter. You sit somewhere and you're afraid; you go shopping and you're afraid; you go for a walk and you're afraid. Iraq has become a hell."

Christians, needless to say in the Middle East, long pre-dated the introduction of Islam. Yet within the Middle East, Christians have become an endangered species. Like Jews before them, Christians have lived in various countries of the Middle East for millennia. And Jews and Christians lived among Muslims, albeit as second-class residents, for an additional thousand years.

There are now scant few Jews living anywhere in Muslim-dominated countries of the Middle East, despite a heritage of Jewish life in Arab countries. With the creation of the State of Israel, Arab states disenfranchised their Jewish populations, and exiled them, first taking possession of their worldly goods.

A roughly equivalent number of oriental Jews were forcibly removed from Arab countries furious with the establishment of a Jewish state in their geographic midst, to those Palestinians who were convinced they should voluntarily and briefly leave 'Palestine', until the combined Arab armies vanquished the new state and returned the land to Arab Palestinians.

The culturally rich presence of Jews in Arab countries with their long histories and heritage was extinguished in a paroxysm of rage at the presence of a majority-Jewish state. Now, Christians within Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East have gradually been pushed to the edge of non-existence. They have been viciously targeted as 'infidels' for whom death is appropriate.

In Iraq death threats and violence and death itself has been visited calamitously on the half-million Orthodox Christian communities. Which represents half the number of Christians that existed there a decade earlier. Church congregations have suffered violent invasions by bomb-wielding Islamists who have splattered the walls of their churches with blood and gore, murdering priests, women, children and helpless men.

The Chaldean Catholic archbishop of Kirkuk, in view of al-Qaeda-inspired threats against the country's Christian minority has stated: "The Christians of Kirkuk will not celebrate the feast of Christmas this year, except for masses, which will not be held at night but at 10 a.m., after myself and 20 other Christian personages received threats from the so-called Islamic State of Iraq."

The Christian Church in Iraq did not come to the defence of Iraqi Jews in their time of need. For those who could speak out and did not also viewed Jews as their enemies despite having lived alongside the Jews for thousands of years. Those who might have used their moral outrage did not because they felt no moral outrage.

Now the fate that transpired to overtake the destiny of Arab Jews in Iraq has turned in the direction of Arab Christians in Iraq. The lesson, however, is lost in the ephemeral shadows of history and humankind's inability to recognize its moral duty to one another.

Whose Fault Jihadist Lunacy?

Seems that everyone points fingers of blame at everyone else. The truth is no Western country knows how to react to the fact that their generous welcome of immigrants from countries, cultures and a religion so different from their own, has turned so sinister and fractious. The U.S., it would appear, argues through its diplomatic cables that the government of Britain is lacking in its approach to the issue of solving the issue of fanatical religious extremism.

A classic instance of one failure pointing to the failure of another, while failing to admit their own. But then, who could visualize, in Europe and North America, that a wholesale welcome of easterners whose devotion to a religion that dictates every facet of their lives would result in a gradual, seeping attempt at usurpation of prevailing social, cultural and political values that the West itself holds dear? The realization has finally struck, but the solution remains elusive.

One attack after another by recruits into radical Islamism, by passionately hateful young men who see the West attacking their sacred religion. In their passion they blindly accept because it suits their angry denial of reality, that the West is the primary aggressor, and that the security of what they think they hold in highest esteem can only be guaranteed with a solution of a global Caliphate and universal Sharia.

They believe themselves to be martyrs to a divine cause. That Allah and the Prophet Mohammed guide them toward their own salvation in the army of the faithful, that by destroying the kaffirs and their monuments they can hasten the triumphant ascendancy of global Islam, and defeat the enemies of Islam. Somehow bypassing the reality that their own Muslim brethren are busy massacring their own in paroxysms of sectarian rage.

Even Muslims in the majority who believe that the essential goodness of their religion will eventually persuade all others to bow to the supremacy of Islam, will not, can not, refuse to believe that there are those among them, Muslims like themselves, who reject passive patience in favour of violently impetuous atrocities. Family members of jihadists either jubilantly support the violence and celebrate their shaheeds, or they blame the West.

The family of the Stockholm suicide bomber seems convinced that Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly was a normal, law-abiding Muslim while living in Sweden, but became a wild-eyed assassin due to influences he was subjected to in Britain. They may be perfectly correct in their assessment. For all who knew him attest to his character and his values having been altered alarmingly, precipitously, during his British sojourn.

Is Britain responsible for what it has permitted to breed in ghettoized towns and cities across the land, placidly encouraging the proliferation of mosques to match the numbers of Muslim immigrants, encouraging Muslim youth to transform their hallowed halls of academe? As much as is Holland and Denmark and Sweden and France, most certainly.

As much as the United States, with its tolerance and encouragement of diversity is. And which now expends energy and treasury in guarding itself and its people and its monuments to capitalism against the fury of Islamists determined to bring the Great Satan to its knees. A need which brought it to the far reaches of the world to attempt to extinguish the fiery blaze of jihad.

As much as Canada, with its official blessing known as multiculturalism, eschewing the need for new immigrants to acknowledge and value Canadian law and culture. Whose own universities and trade unions and churches have been well infiltrated by those whose loyalties are otherwise than to Canada, its freedoms and its laws and its values.

"My Apple iPad"

What's new? Well, will another Islamic suicide bomber do? Tired old stuff? Perhaps in Iraq it is, in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is, but in Sweden, not so much. Surprising the kindly, forgiving Swedes no end. For they have welcomed a very large Islamic immigrant population into their midst, and this obviously is no way to repay that kind of warm and authentic generosity. Most Muslims living in Sweden would undoubtedly feverishly agree with that sentiment.

One man, however, did not. Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly whose parents brought him to Sweden from Iraq in 1992 to live a better life, a life of freedoms not quite available in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, somehow decided that Sweden was deserving of punishment. Mr. Abdulwahab, it is now being speculated, might have been an ordinary person with ordinary aspirations, until he was conscripted in Britain at Bedfordshire University where he was studying for a degree, to become a jihadi. A mujahadeen, he called himself, however.

Battling the infidel, the kuffar whose war against holy Islam was an affront to all that he believed in, as an observant Muslim. Who had, incidentally, married a Swedish woman, and with whom he had three very young children. He was, after all, only 28, and aspiring to be the proud husband of another (Muslim, piously religious) wife for whom he was actively advertising. It was a religious thing. He loved his Swedish wife and their three children, but Islam decreed he be fruitful and multiply.

Before he was able to conclude that additional chapter in his life, however, another kind of duty called. On the other hand, it might have been the Islamic Centre in Luton where Abdulwahab regularly attended Friday prayers where he might have been recruited. He had studied for a degree in physical therapy; unusual for a fervent Muslim; more generally speaking the academic degree is in engineering. Which might have suited his purposes better, since he seems to have miscalculated his explosives rather badly.

The vehicle bomb packed with gas canisters on a Stockholm street simply caught fire, without detonating and causing the kind of damage to passersby on the busy thoroughfare that he had anticipated. Was it a panic allied with determination and a perverted sense of honour and martyrdom-appeal that caused him to ignite himself a mere 300 metres away from the misfired vehicle? In any event, he caused harm to only two bystanders, while blowing his chest into a vacuum.

His message to the world at large: don't mess with Islam. His message to Sweden: the country erred unforgivably by not condemning the blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Oh, and get those Swedish soldiers out of Afghanistan. Spain did, when it was attacked and an almost instantaneous change of government took place, with a change of heart, as a result, so Sweden too may take the message seriously.

Otherwise: "...your children, your daughters and your sisters will die as our brothers, our sisters and our children are dying." Except, boyo, who's killing them?

For this vile performance in honourable defence against "Islamophobia", Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt expressed his his considered opinion, UN-style, that the attack against his country and his countrymen was "unacceptable". Don't want to make too much of a fuss about a failed attempt at mass carnage, after all. He took particular exception to the fact that "this man was walking around with explosives in Stockholm." In Stockholm, by God...! That was some snappy press conference.

And don't, dear Swedes, panic. Don't even think jihad, and mass murder, and honourable jihadis. Or mujahadeen. Or terrorists. Or devoted martyrs. "...even if much evidence points to this...". Of course, the leader of the country's center-right coalition spilled the beans, that police were "treating this as a terrorist action", but people, relax, do not jump to "the wrong conclusions".

And do not, repeat, do not even think of suspecting any one of your neighbours, like the 450,000 Muslims who emigrated to your great, free, socialist country. "Openness is worth giving ourselves the time to get to the bottom of this."

Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly in the final analysis, was just like everyone else. He had the same likes and dislikes, loved his family, had ambition, planned a career, anticipated a biiiiig family with loooots of kids and had a Facebook page. Doesn't everyone? His explained to interested 'friends' that “I love my Apple iPad” and “Islamic caliphate state”. Oops, how did that get in there? A revelation, indeed. Sweden's free society just didn't cut it; the supreme Islamic nation would, though.

"I am looking mostly for religion", the comment made relative to his advertising for another wife. His religious duty to enjoy sex with more than one official partner; his religious duty to produce more offspring, as he also mentions hoping for MANY children. Alas, events entirely in his control swept that aspiration into the dustbin.