Stephen Farrell's Rescue: 'It's Not Fair!' and Assumptions of Omnipotence

The death toll for the rescue of Stephen Farrell, a British journalist working for The New York Times, is now four. Besides a British commando and Sultan Munadi, an associate of Farrell, a woman and a child were killed.

For once, it isn't mostly the fault of the Americans. It's the fault of the British. Or NATO. According to an Afghan journalists' group, anyway.

Darkness, Bullets in a Pre-Dawn Raid

A CNN article filled in more details of what happened during the rescue, and what people felt about it.

"The British journalist recently freed in a NATO military operation described his Taliban hostage-takers as 'hopelessly inept,' and praised his Afghan colleague who died in the rescue.

"New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell described his four days in captivity in a blog on the newspaper's Web site, posted late Wednesday just hours after he was freed.

"Taliban militants kidnapped Farrell and Afghan journalist, Sultan Munadi, on Saturday. During a pre-dawn raid Wednesday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force plucked Farrell to safety, but did not retrieve the body of Munadi, who died during a fierce firefight between troops and Taliban militants. A British commando was also killed, as were a woman and child...."
(CNN)

From the sounds of it, soldiers with NATO weren't all that pleased about rescuing a journalist - Western or no.

"... International troops, including British forces, have expressed their unhappiness about having to extract a Western journalist from the area, a Western military source in Kabul told CNN. Meanwhile, NATO has come under fire from a coalition of Afghan journalists working for foreign news outlets who called the pre-dawn raid 'reckless and double-standard behavior.'

"The Media Club of Afghanistan issued a statement Thursday saying it 'holds the international forces responsible for the death of Mr. Munadi because they resorted in military action before exhausting other nonviolent means.'

" 'There is no justification for the international forces to rescue their own national, and retrieve the dead body of their own soldier killed in action, but leave behind the dead body of Sultan Munadi in the area. The MCA deems this action as inhumane.'..."
(CNN)

I can see the MCA's point. It would have been nice to recover Sultan Munadi's body. I'm sure that the Munadi family would have preferred it.

British, Yes: Omnipotent, No

Let's look at what was happening when Sultan Munadi was shot.

"...Someone loomed out of the dark. I lost my balance and fell back, my leg still somewhat impaired from the motorcycle accident.

It was Sultan, in the last minute of his life. He held out a hand, steadied me and asked if I had my contact lenses in, which I had. With him already in front we crouch-ran along a very narrow ledge of earth — less than a foot wide — along the outer wall of the compound.

It was dark. There were trees to our left and a high mud-brick wall to our right. We could see nothing more than a few feet in front of us.

We had no idea who was where, and there were bullets flying through the air...."

British commandos found Farrell, after he called out and signaled with a camera light.

"...I lay on the ground, gave my name and newspaper and pointed to where Sultan was lying behind me, telling them I thought he had been shot.

"The body was lying motionless in the ditch where I had seen him go down. I hoped he had dropped and was lying still. I knew it wasn't the case. They told me they had his picture and would look for him, then dragged me away past the house across a rutted field and toward the helicopter landing zone.

"It was over. Sultan was dead. He had died trying to help me, right up to the very last seconds of his life...."
(Stephen Farrell, At War Blog)

My guess is that the fallen soldier's comrades knew where he was when he was shot, and that he hadn't moved all that far afterward. That body would have been relatively easy to spot.

Sultan Munadi was 'somewhere out there,' in a ditch. It was dark, and bullets were flying.

I've been outside city limits at night. It's dark: not the hard-to-read-a-newspaper dark you get between streetlights; the can't-see-the-fence dark that makes getting around a chore. Never mind searching for a body while someone's trying to shoot you.

Even assuming that the commandos had night vision equipment, Sultan Munadi's body was a lump in a ditch. And he was in no condition to flash a light to show where he was.

There's a tendency to assume that policemen, mayors, soldiers, and others in positions of authority, have 'powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men' - and it just ain't so.

I'm quite willing to believe that the commandos searched for Sultan Munadi's body. Within the limits imposed on them by the situation. They didn't find it. That's sad.

The deaths of the woman and child, who presumably weren't involved in the firefight is sad, too. I grieve for the families.

But - blame the British? I'm sure we'd all be happier if "nonviolent means" had been successful - but I don't know enough to guess what the chances were of that. I do know that outfits like the Taliban have a less-than-stellar record for being nice to hostages: As Leon Klinghoffer found out, on the Achille Lauro. (August 5, 2007)

Related posts:

• "Afghanistan, a Reporter and a Couple of Dead Guys, and the News"
  (September 9, 2009)
• "NATO, America, Afghanistan, Common Sense and Congress"
  (September 5, 2009)
• "NATO Kills Afghans Pilfering Fuel: War Isn't Nice"
  (September 4, 2009)

News and views:

• "Freed reporter: Taliban hostage-takers 'hopelessly inept' "
  CNN (September 10, 2009)
• "The Reporter's Account: 4 Days With the Taliban"
  Stephen Farrell At War Blog, The New York Times (September 9, 2009)

Iran's Election: The West Has been Meddling - Sort of

Iran's ayatollahs blame their problems on the British and other meddling foreigners. I can see their point: it's easier to blame 'outside agitators,' than acknowledge shortcomings in one's own system.

And, while Iran's rulers are blaming Britain, America, and the west in general for their problems, at least one Iranian man has pleaded with America, Britain, and the west in general to get involved.

Note to Election Organizers: Don't Report More Votes than Voters

Press TV, Iran's government-funded news service, reported that there were "excessive ballots" in 50 Iranian cities. But not to worry: Press TV also reported that Iran's Guardian Council declared that this irregularity didn't affect the election's outcome. (CNN)

Meanwhile, in Britain, researchers from the University of St Andrews and a London think tank, Chatham House found a scenario that would fit, more or less, the official results. Their model, however, requires some whacking great assumptions, and is wildly improbable.

"...'The analysis shows that the scale of the swing to Ahmadinejad would have had to have been extraordinary to achieve the stated result,' said Ali Ansari, Professor of Iranian Studies at St Andrews...." (Times Online)

Europeans, Spies, and Other Outside Agitators

Meanwhile, Iran's own Fars news agency reported that five European spies were arrested. Coming on the heels of Roxana Saberi's experience, I'm a trifle dubious.

I'm fairly sure that five Europeans were arrested: whether or not they were involved in espionage is an entirely different matter.

Iran's rulers, by and large, seem to have decided to stick with their 'outside agitators' story.

"...Iran's foreign minister accused Britain of stirring the protests, saying the UK has 'plotted against the presidential election for two years'.

"Manouchehr Mottaki, who also criticised interventions by France and Germany, claimed: 'We witnessed an influx of people before the election. Elements linked to the British secret service were flying in in droves.'

"His comments come after Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused "the evil British government" last week of interfering in the June 12 election...." (The Press Association)

Despite Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's insistence that "the evil British government" interfered in the June 12 election, I am not at all convinced that this is the case. From the looks of things, the ayatollahs have mismanaged their country to the point where a fair percentage of Iranians are fed up.

On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that "the evil British government" is keeping an eye on events in Iran. They're not alone. As President Obama said, "the whole world is watching."

In a Sense, the West is Meddling: By Paying Attention

Governments in America, the United Kingdom, and other places in the west, have gotten used to the idea that whatever they do or say may get into the news. Calling journalists, photographers, and the rest of the press "the fourth estate" goes back at least to Thomas Carlyle's book on the French Revolution. (More at "History of the free press," Media Law, Journalism Ethics)

There's a sort of dynamic stability between the government's (real or imagined) need to keep the masses and leaders of other countries from knowing what's going on; and journalists' need (real or imagined) to publish everything they know or surmise, regardless of the consequences.

Places like North Korea and Iran don't seem to be run that way. The press in these and similar regimes can be relied upon, for the most part, to promote the policies and personalities of whoever is in charge.

Given the roles of the press in Iran and in the west, I think I can understand why Iran has expelled a BBC correspondent. I think it's possible that the ayatollahs believe that the United Kingdom and other western powers are meddling.

"...Speaking to reporters, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi alleged that foreign media organizations, such as CNN and the BBC, were mouthpieces of their respective governments that were exaggerating reports of police clashes with protesters who have demonstrated daily since the June 12 race...." (CNN)

Given their cultural assumptions, and their management of Iran's press, it may be natural for them to assume that all nations are like their Iran.

Whether or not CNN and the BBC are mouthpieces of their respective governments, I think it's very likely that coverage of Iran's election has influenced the election's outcome. Iranians were able, by reading and viewing reports by a press which isn't controlled by the ayatollahs, to gather information and form opinions in ways not approved by their rulers.

One Iranian Man's Plea

A man identifying himself as an Iranian student called CNN's "American Morning" this morning. CNN posted an edited transcript of the interview. Mohammad clearly does not approve of how the ayatollahs have been running his country:

"...For about three decades our nation has been humiliated and insulted by this regime. Now Iranians are united again one more time after 1979 Revolution. We are a peaceful nation. We don't hate anybody. We want to be an active member of the international community. We don't want to be isolated… We don't deny the Holocaust. We do accept Israel's rights. And actually, we want — we want severe reform on this structure. This structure is not going to be tolerated by the majority of Iranians. We need severe reform, as much as possible."

And, later in the interview:

"Americans, European Union, international community, this government ... is definitely not elected by the majority of Iranians. So it's illegal. Do not recognize it. Stop trading with them. Impose much more sanctions against them. My message-to the international community, especially I'm addressing President Obama directly - how can a government that doesn't recognize its people's rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace. Will a wise man give a sharp dagger to an insane person? We need your help international community. Don't leave us alone." (CNN)

That's just one man's voice. But, from the thousands of enforcers needed to keep protesters quiet, I'd say that he's not alone.

What's going on in Iran is far beyond one side in a political contest not liking the result. Even Iran's official news acknowledges that their election was, at the very least, highly irregular.

What appears to be blatant, massive, election fraud intended to keep an incumbent in office; followed by the nation's highest official giving his blessing to the results; would be intolerable in America. Many Iranians appear to believe that it's intolerable in their country, too.

Related posts:

• " 'RIP NEDA, The World cries seeing your last breath ... We remember you.' "
  (June 21, 2009)
• " 'The Whole World is Watching' - But This Isn't the Sixties"
  (June 20, 2009)
  • Background which places my "The Whole World is Watching" post in perspective:
    "Of President Obama, Politics, and the Another War-on-Terror Blog"
    (June 21, 2009)
• "Iran, YouTube, Twitter, Technology and the Human Spirit"
  (June 19, 2009)
• "Iran: Election Fraud, 'Death to America' and the Information Age"
  (June 19, 2009)
• "North Korea, American Journalists, the Internet, and Power to the People"
  (June 16, 2009)
• "Iran: Win the Election, Lose the Country?"
  (June 15, 2009)
• "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Re-Elected: No Surprise"
  (June 13, 2009)
• "Iran, Islam, "Arrogant Powers" and "Certain Expansionist Superpowers," and Common Sense"
  (May 30, 2009)
• "Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age"
  (January 30, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "Terrorists as an Oppressed Class: That was Then, This is Now"
  (February 23, 2008)
• "The War on Terror: It's Not All Uneducated Muslims and Attacks on America"
  (February 23, 2008)
• "A Better Class of Terrorist"
  (July 8, 2007)
• "Doctors, Terrorists, and the Proletariat: What's a Person to Think?"
  (July 3, 2007)

In the news:

• "Iran arrests 5 European spies: report"
  Xinhua (June 22, 2009)
• "UK monitoring Iran as clashes go on"
  Press Association (June 22, 2009)
• "Iran slams 'meddling West' over election "
  CNN (June 22, 2009)
• "Struggle among Iran's clerics bursts into the open"
  The Associated Press (June 22, 2009)
• "Iran says UK and US involved in protests"
  ABC News (June 22, 2009)
• "Iranian protester pleads for U.S., world to intervene"
  CNN (June 22, 2009)
• "Claims of vote-rigging in Iran backed by British academics' analysis"
  Tines Online (June 22, 2009)
• "Iran expels BBC correspondent: official"
  Reuters (June 22, 2009)
• "Hundreds protest in Iran, despite warning"
  CNN (June 22, 2009)

Union Jack Banned at Heathrow: Sensitivity Above and Beyond the Call of Reason

Looks like insane sensitivity isn't a strictly American phenomenon:

"ARMED cops patrolling Heathrow Airport have been banned from wearing tiny Union Jack badges in support of British troops.

"Top brass claimed the tie-pin badges - which cost £1 with proceeds going to the Help for Heroes charity - were OFFENSIVE.

"But one officer asked: 'How can the Union Jack be offensive?

" 'This ruling is even more absurd coming this weekend on the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings.

" 'We must be the only country ashamed to display our national flag.'..." (The Sun)

Being ashamed of the flag is nothing new in America: in some circles, it's been all the rage for decades: so The United Kingdom isn't alone.

A Digression: Quotes Without Sources

The blog post at Creative Minority Report ran that quote, citing another blog which didn't give a source, as far as I could tell. A little digging turned up what I'm pretty sure is the original article, in The Sun, June 8, 2009.

Batty Brits Think Union Jack Offensive - So What?

The "my country, wrong or worse" attitude is nothing new here in America. One way to seem sophisticated over here is to act as though Frank Burns, of M*A*S*H, is a typical conservative American, and discuss how America is to blame for the global economic downturn, flooding in Bangladesh, and the Maunder Minimum.

And, either not display the American flag at all, or fly it upside-down, or with alternative designs. Burning the flag seems to have gone out of fashion of late: but that could change again.

I'm not that 'sophisticated.' I like living in a country where I can express views that don't necessarily conform to the dominant culture's view.

I think I see where that attitude toward the flag may have come from in America. When I was growing up, the flag was used quite a bit by organizations like the VFW and American Legion. And, by people with (in my view) narrowly nationalistic views.

But, again in America, the flag isn't - or shouldn't be - an emblem for one particular point of view. It's the flag of America, a country where people are allowed to express dissenting opinions, and protest against the armed forces who sacrifice to maintain the right to protest.

The United Kingdom has a history of freedom of speech, too, and it troubles me to see that the weirdly hypertrophied concern for the feelings of a sensitive few which has developed in America seems to be active in the U.K. as well.

Related posts:

• "Department of Homeland Security No Longer Fears American Veterans?"
  (May 14, 2009)
• "Genocide! Racism! Down With Columbus Day!!"
  (April 8, 2009)
• " 'America Sucks' - Binghamton, New York, Bullies, and 'Little Eichmanns' "
  (April 4, 2009)
• "Professor Ward Churchill is Back: A Glorious Victory for Academic Freedom, Tenure, and the American Academic Way"
  (April 3, 2009)
• "Sounds of Silence: 2009"
  (March 31, 2009)
• "Carville, Limbaugh, 9/11, Obama, and Objectivity in the News"
  (March 11, 2009)
• "CCSU Students Talk About Guns: Naturally, Their Professor Called the Police"
  (March 4, 2009)
• "Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, Dead Armenians, and Learning from Mistakes"
  (February 28, 2009)
  
• "Honor Killing, Muzzammil Hassan and Aasiya, Protecting Feelings,and Common Sense"
  (February 20, 2009)
  
• "Goodbye Quagmire, Hello Quicksand: Champions of Relevance Catch Up"
  (January 5, 2009)
• "President-Elect Obama's Problem With Left-Wing Bloggers"
  (December 22, 2008)
• "The New York Times Banned in China"
  (December 20, 2008)
• "Free Speech, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, Campus Activists, and America's Future"
  (December 18, 2008)
• "William Felkner vs. College Conformity: Traditional Information Gatekeepers Face Another Challenge"
  (December 16, 2008)
• "Ayman al-Zawahri's Islam and American Culture: Common Ground, Almost"
  (November 28, 2008)
• "LittleBigPlanet PlayStation Game Recalled to Avoid Sunni Snit"
  (October 21, 2008)
• "The Sign Says 'Obama Half-Breed Muslin' - Freedom of Speech, Politics, Spelling, and Race"
  (October 1, 2008)
  
• "More Academic Freedom, American Style?"
  (September 22, 2008)
• "Another Teacher in Trouble in a Muslim Country"
  (September 14, 2008)
• " 'Self-Satisfied Ignorance?' Eucharist, Quran, and Atheist Book Trashed"
  (August 5, 2008)
• "Islam in the Information Age: Afghan Journalist Charged with Blasphemy"
  (July 30, 2008)
• "Famous People Say America Must Lead"
  (September 23, 2008)
• "Haditha, Iraq; My Lai, Vietnam: This Isn't the Good Old Days"
  (July 13, 2008)
• "United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business"
  (July 3, 2008)
  
• "America, Iran, Freedom of Speech, Censorship: Be Careful What You Wish For"
  (June 22, 2008)

News and views:

• "Union Jack Banned at Heathrow"
  Creative Minority Report (June 12, 2009)
• " 'Soldier' badge is banned"
  The Sun (June 8, 2009)

---

A tip of the hat to fatherschnippel, for the heads-up on the blog post.

Heated Foot Baths for Muslim Prisoners Necessary: Crucifix Verboten

I'm not surprised: a British prison's makeover includes a multi-faith chapel with heated foot baths for the Muslim prisoners.

An imam didn't like the idea of a crucifix being in another part of the room, so it's out.

There are Christian symbols over there, but not to worry: they can be removed "when necessary."

I'm all for sensitivity, but it does seem to go one way.

In the news:

• "Prison bans chapel crucifix to avoid offending Muslims"
  MailOnline (December 15, 2008)
  • "A prison’s new chapel will not contain a crucifix to avoid offending Muslim inmates, it emerged today.
  • "Bosses at HMP Lewes have been told the traditional Christian symbol, featuring Jesus nailed to a cross, must not be used in the Grade-II listed Victorian jail's 'multi-faith space'.
  • "The room - part of a £1million new block - has been split in two, with one half featuring heated foot baths so Muslim worshippers can wash their feet before prayer.'But the other side, dedicated to Christian prayer, contains just a simple wooden cross and portable alter - both of which can be removed if necessary...."

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

"Bandit - Mr. White" - Defending Islam, But Picking the Wrong Target

It's not a LEGO toy: LEGO has made that very clear.

But an American entrepreneur is making a line of toys that includes "Bandit — Mr. White" - a toy that's giving a British Muslim group conniptions.

"The toy mini-figures, made by American Will Chapman, includes a masked terrorist bandit with an assault rifle, grenade launcher and belt of explosives...."
(Sky News (December 4, 2008))

A British Muslim organization, Ramadhan Foundation, is shocked. The toys are "absolutely disgusting". They glorify terrorism.

Chief executive Mohammed Shafiq said the figures were "glorifying terrorism".

He also said: "I don't think there's any difference between someone that shouts hatred through a megaphone and someone that creates a doll that glorifies terrorists.


(From the BrickArms online shop via Sky News, used without permission)

That's the Ramadhan Foundation's take on this toy.

Me? I understand why LEGO hasn't made something like this. Even their pirates are cute. Which brings up a point: why hasn't a Somali group expressed outrage at LEGO's pirate toys? It wouldn't make sense, but I'll bet that someone, somewhere, thinks that LEGO's Pirates of the Caribbean 2 is a deliberate insult to Somalis, as well as Jamaicans and the Dutch.

Back to "Bandit — Mr. White".

I think Mr. Shafiq should decide whether the toys glorify terrorism, or shout hatred: presumably against Muslim terrorists. Although the two concepts aren't completely incompatible, they're not all that similar.

Shouting Hatred With a Toy Bandit? Get a Grip!

Being upset over toys isn't anything new. At least as far back as the sixties, a few very earnest people in America have been horrified at toy guns and tanks. The ones who have children won't let their kids play with such things.

That's okay. Playing with GI Joe isn't all that critical to mental and emotional development. On the other hand, hoplophobia may be a serious issue.

I'd have to see how the manufacturer markets "Bandit — Mr. White" before saying whether the Ramadhan Foundation's strident response is even close to being justified.

I'll agree that the toy is a bit over the top. I think Barbie is, too. But
"glorifying terrorism" and spreading hate? That's debatable.

Pop psychology in Sunday supplements and some of what I picked up in college says that children use toys to deal with what they're learning about the world. Playing with toys lets them put ideas into concrete form and literally move them around.

Like it or not, terrorism and terrorists are part of today's world. And the terrorists don't, generally, look like Scandinavian Lutherans.

I remember toys that represented soldiers. They weren't planting trees or cleaning up oil spills. Many represented soldiers who had fought in WWII.


(from OLIVER PLASTIC 60MM TOY SOLDIERS, used without permission)
Maybe toys made in the forties and fifties were glorifying German and Japanese imperialism: but I doubt it.

(I know: Those toy WWII Japanese soldiers are contemporary re-issues. But I remember things like this, back in the fifties.)

Following the Ramadhan Foundation's logic, those toys were glorifying the imperialistic ambitions of Germany and Japan. Or, in Berkeley's America, American imperialism.

I don't think so.

Crying Wolf, Over-Sensitivity, and Unintended Consequences

I think there's a risk, however slight, that the Ramadhan Foundation and other hypersensitive Muslim groups are teaching people that Muslims really are terrorists.

"Bandit - Mr. White" has a head cloth that's similar to some worn in the Middle East. But there's nothing particularly Islamic about the gun, grenades, or rocket launcher he's carrying. At least, not as far as I know.

If "Bandit - Mr. White" had been dressed as an imam, with a Quran in one hand and a machine gun in the other: that's something any Muslim group could legitimately complain about.

As it is, I think the Ramadhan Foundation is, unintentionally, reinforcing the stereotype that anyone carrying a weapon, and having a cloth on his head, is a Muslim and a terrorist. And, by extension, that Muslims are terrorists.

Reality Check, Please

Listening to defenders like the Ramadhan Foundation, you might not realize that:

• Not everyone living in the Middle East are
  • Muslims
  • Terrorists
• Not all Muslims
  • Are terrorists
  • Live in the Middle East
• Not all terrorists are Muslims

Muslims who want to defend Islam should, I think, be careful to avoid reinforcing the (false) notion that Muslims are terrorists and terrorists are Muslims. Particularly since a few people out there really are anti-Muslim, and are happy to get their prejudices reinforced.

The catch-phrase in my culture is: choose your battles.

Related posts:

• "Lego's 'Bandit - Mr. White' is Osama Bin Laden! (Not)"
  (December 5, 2008)
• " 'Bandit - Mr. White' - Culture, Religion, and Headgear"
  (December 5, 2008)

In the news:

• "Lego-style Islamic terrorist figurine causing an uproar"
  WINK|NEWS.com (December 4, 2008)
• "Disgust At 'Lego' Terrorist Toys "
  Sky News (December 4, 2008)

This Should be Interesting: Sharia Law Officially Adopted in Britain

The British Arbitration Act 1996 has a clause in it that classifies sharia courts as arbitration tribunals. That means that decisions of a sharia court are legally binding, as long as both parties in a dispute agree to give the sharia court the power to rule in their case.

A network of sharia courts has been set up in Britain, headquartered in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. There are now sharia courts in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester. Two more are in the planning stages, in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi thinks these courts are a good idea. He runs them. In a TimesOnline article, he said: "We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are."

I understand how attractive it seems, setting up a separate-but-equal court system for civil cases. Just the same, I'm concerned about what may happen.

For one thing, having two different court systems working the same territory in the same country seems to be asking for confusion.

For another, sharia law has earned a debatable reputation lately. I've written about this before:

• "Don't Like British Law? No Problem!
  Set Up Your Own Courts!"
  (February 11, 2008)
• "Islam, Christianity, Culture, and Kooks"
  (November 26, 2007)
• "Muslims, Terrorism, Islam, PBS, and 'Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics' "
  (October 20, 2007)

There's more: use this blog's search function, and search for sharia law.

I sincerely hope that the British Muslims who run Sheikh Siddiqi's courts don't follow Sudan's and Saudi Arabia's lead when applying sharia law to 21st century British cases.

In the News:

• "Britain officially adopts Sharia law on the sly"
  Daily News & Analysis (September 15, 2008)
• "MUSLIM COURTS HAVE HEARD 100 CASES IN BRITAIN "
  Daily Express (September 15, 2008)
• "Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts"
  TimesOnline (September 14, 2008)

Another news article, not directly related to the adoption of sharia law in Britain, presented as background: "'Have more babies and Muslims can take over the UK' hate fanatic says, as warning comes that 'next 9/11 will be in UK' " (MailOnline (September 13, 2008)). This article contrasts Anjem Choudary's views with mainstream Islamic organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). MCB condemned 9/11 and 7/7: which Anjem Chourdary says was 'selling their souls to the devil.'

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Brit Puppy Offends Muslims - Outrage Over Police Insult

I'd assume that this is a joke, but the issue has come up before.

(from Mail, used w/o permission)

Tayside's Islamic community is outraged by this obvious insult.

That's right: It's the puppy. That awful, horrible, offensive, unclean puppy.

I'm not surprised, not at this point. Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, here in Minnesota, refused to let people with guide dogs or booze into their cabs.

The Muslims had a good reason. The Islamic cab drivers "refused to transport their guide dogs because Muslims consider the saliva of dogs unclean." And, it looks like there's a difference of opinion here. "A well-known St. Paul imam, Hassan Mohamud,¹ called that a misinterpretation of Islam and said it shouldn't be a problem." ("Taxi proposal gets sharp response" Star Tribune (February 27, 2007))

I can see the Islamic response to dog drool. It's far from the most attractive substance around.

On the other hand, Muslims who decide that dog drool, and the dogs that make it, are "unclean" reminds me very strongly of members of those Protestant sects who are convinced that accordions, alcohol and/or tobacco, slacks on women, and wine glasses are the work of the devil.

The difference is that, these days at least, members of outfits with names like 'First Church of the Hallelujah Few' aren't taken very seriously. Muslims who are offended by puppies are.

There's more detail about the Tayside imbroglio at "Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat" (MailOnline (July 1, 2008)).

What concerns me is the way so many Muslims react to images and events:

(from Mail, used w/o permission)
Unclean! Unclean!
How Dare You Offend Us This Way!

(NY WTC, unknown source)
Hail the Martyrs!

I think that imam Hassan Mohamudhas has some truth on his side. Many people in western countries who aren't Muslims have developed a distinctly watchful attitude toward their Islamic neighbors. Sometimes that watchfulness turns to hostility. And, in my opinion, that sort of unthinking hostility isn't a good idea.

On the other hand, the Minneapolis dog drool incidents, and the Tayside puppy protest, do little or nothing to popularize the idea that Muslims are able to deal with Information Age societies. I'm glad that imam Mohamudhas said that rejecting people with guide dogs was a "misinterpretation" of Islamic teaching.

I'd like to believe that Islam can exist in today's world. But Islamic reaction to that cute puppy makes me wonder.

---

¹ Hassan Mohamudhas written a book, "Scapegoats in the War on Terror," which seems to bring up some good points. On the other hand, he seems to be very close to saying that Muslims are victims of oppression. Here's an excerpt from a piece on NPR, pushing his book:

"...The community is feeling a high level of scrutiny. Many of the people who give lectures at the mosque have quit. Even if they aren't saying anything against the government—just speaking about Islam, it looks like a crime. It draws attention to them," Mohamud explained. "How can a lot of people live in this fear from society? If I doubt and I fear my neighbor, it's not a healthy society...."

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Israeli Ambassador to Britain: Extremists Have "Hijacked" Debate Over Israel

Ron Prosor is Israel's ambassador to Britain. For a diplomat, he's surprisingly blunt about how Israel is treated in British public debate.

He's biased, of course. As the Israeli ambassador, he almost certainly is prejudiced in favor of Israel's continued existence. Although the article I read didn't come out and say it, he's probably intolerant of the "death to Israel" views cherished in some quarters.

Britain's Reputation for Free Speech Wounded

When the ambassador from one civilized country accuses the academic and journalistic segments of another civilized country of undermining the principles of free speech and debate - something is seriously wrong.

It's possible that a professional diplomat would, deliberately and in writing, make a crazy accusation.

However, Ambassador Prosor seems to have facts on his side. Last year, Britain's University and College Union (UCU) members "voted to sever links with Israeli universities in a move which provoked outrage from politicians and academics around the world, and prompted Jewish leaders to condemn it as a 'frightening assault' on academic freedom."

The Telegraph (UK) Tuesday edition this week has an article on Ambassador Prosor's views. My hat's off to that paper, for publishing the diplomat's views.

I've posted excerpts from the article, but suggest that you follow the link, and read the entire article.

Keep an Eye on American News Media

this story has been picked up by the Associated Press: and published in a major English-language paper ("Israeli ambassador: Britain has become a hotbed of radical anti-Israeli views" International Herald Tribune (June 9, 2008)). It will be interesting to see how much attention Mr. Prosor's views get in traditional news media in America.

(from Telegraph (UK), used w/o permission)

Excerpts from the Telegraph (UK) Article

"Israel's ambassador says Britain has become a hotbed of radical anti-Israeli feeling"
Telegraph (UK) (June 10, 2008)

• "Ron Prosor claims that while the UK was once admired for its liberal fairness and decency, in recent years extremists have 'hijacked' its debate over Israel.
• "He says his country has been turned into a "pantomime villain" by Britons who deny it has any right to exist, while terror attacks on Israeli citizens are ignored by both the media and public opinion.
• "Mr Prosor, a senior diplomat who became Israel's ambassador to Britain last year, is particularly scornful of the academics who want to boycott Israeli universities over the country's treatment of Palestinians.
• "He was a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in London between 1995 and 1998, and says while living here he came to appreciate the country's reputation for cherishing liberty and human rights, earned following its fight against the "dark forces" of the Nazis in World War Two....
• That was then. When Ambassador Prosser returned last year, he was "dismayed" at what he saw.
  "...He cites examples of Israeli staff and students who have suffered on British campuses in a 'climate of hatred'.
• "Mr Prosor says public feeling towards his homeland is worsened by media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he claims is too often biased and tainted by double-standards.
• " 'Israel's military reaction to the attacks it faces is given in depth, microscopic coverage. Yet the attacks to which Israel is responding are often ignored. Terror attacks, ambushes, suicide bombings or the constant barrage of rockets being fired on Israeli citizens are frequently disregarded.
  " 'The average British citizen is painfully unaware that since Hamas seized control of Gaza last year, 1,400 rockets and 1,500 mortar bombs have landed on Israeli soil.' "

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

British Teacher Home from Sudan: Gillian Gibbons, Muslim Clerics, and a Teddy Bear named Mohammed

Posts touching on the matter of a teddy bear named Mohammed vs. Islam:

• "The War on Terror - What It's For, What It's Against"
  (December 3, 2007)
• "Good News for Infidel Teacher: Still No News on Anti-Islamic Teddy Bear"
  (December 3, 2007)
• "Mohammed the Teddy Bear vs Islam: The Saga Continues"
  (December 1, 2007)
• "Sudan Court Defends Islam: Teacher Found Guilty of "Inciting Religious Hatred" / Inciting Religious Hatred - With a Teddy Bear??!"
  (November 29, 2007)
• "Beyond the Teddy Bear: Sudan, the Darfur Genocide, and Islam"
  (November 29, 2007)
• "Sudan Defends Islam Against Blasphemous Teddy Bear"
  (November 28, 2007)
• "Islam vs. the Blasphemous Teddy Bear"
  (November 27, 2007)
• "Islam, Christianity, Culture, and Kooks"
  (November 26, 2007)