Indonesia, Islam, Adultery, Stoning, Burkinis, Divisiveness and the West

I've run into assertions like these quite often over the last few years. You probably have, too:

• Those Muslims make women wear burqas, and let men do anything they want.
• Islam oppresses women and has no standards for male behavior or dress.
• Muslim women are forced to dress a certain way, Muslim men aren't.

I know: There's a bit of redundancy in that list. But you get the idea.

I can see why quite a few people think that those assumptions are true. Sudan and Saudi Arabia, for example, seem to be in a race for first place at displaying Islam as a hopelessly anachronistic cluster of beliefs, run by men with - to be polite about it - weird sexual hangups.

New Law Proposed in Indonesia: A Woman Accused of Adultery Should be Stoned

I've read enough about Islam, and corresponded with enough Muslims and Muslimas, to suspect - quite strongly - that the House of Saud and the bunch running Sudan don't represent all Islam.

Men who think Islam holds men and women to different standards don't just live in and near the Middle East. Here's some political news from Indonesia:

"The law also dismisses a rape victim's claims unless she can provide four male witnesses to the assault."(CNN)

In a way, no surprises here. That's the Islam most westerners see, the version of Sudan and Saudi Arabia, and - to a greater extent - Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Just on thing. This law went through a provincial parliament in Indonesia. And it's not likely to get implemented.

The law was railroaded through the provincial parliament in Aceh, a semi-autonomous Indonesian province. The lawmakers responsible are the outgoing MPs of the "Prosperous Justice Party" - a bunch of Islamic "hardliners," as CNN put it.

And:

"...'It is very unlikely the law will be implemented,' foreign ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said Tuesday. 'The governor has already made it clear he won't support the legislation.'..."
(CNN)

Aceh has been a problem for Indonesia: and was given a measure of independence in exchange for a measure of peace.

The governor of Aceh, Irwandi Yusuf, is a former rebel who is in an unenviable position. On the one hand, he's got the "deeply devout" (or wildly wacky, depending on your point of view) religious leaders who have influence in the province.

On the other hand, the governor has foreign donors whose investments could help pull Aceh out of the mess left by his insurgency and a 2004 tsunami.

The problem, as nearly as I can see it, is that many of the foreign donors aren't all that keen on supporting an outfit that stones rape victims.

And lets get real: if a man in Aceh forces a woman to have sex with him, and they get caught, he isn't likely to say, 'I'm a rapist.' He'll say it was consensual sex, and that she's an adulteress. Unless four men break the 'good old boy' code and fess up to what happened, the dude's problems will soon be a bloody mess on the pavement.

The law doesn't just affect women, though.

"... Women are required to wear headscarves. Men caught gambling or drinking alcohol are whipped. Muslims are mandated to pray five times a day....

"...'Imposing these draconian punishments on private, consensual conduct means the government can dictate people's intimate lives,' Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said of the new law...."
(CNN)

I'd be surprised if I was on the same page with Ms. Pearson: more about that later. But I do think that the new Aceh law, as reported, is good news for male rapists/seducers, and really bad news for women.

Bikini Babes, Hot Chicks, Muslim Women and Ogling Men

On the other hand, the imposition of Islamic culture on British swimming pools has most likely been a big disappointment to ogling men, but might not be all that bad for women, in the long run.

News from the United Kingdom:

'...British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs.'

'Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – ... must comply with the 'modest' code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees. [emphasis mine]

'The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water. [emphasis mine]

'The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds....'
(telegraph.co.uk)

"I think the Labor Members of Parliament have a point: this is a 'divisive' point. Men in western countries have learned to expect the titillation of watching nubile young women bouncing in their bikinis on the beach. Depriving them of this (right?) certainly could be a 'divisive' issue.

"On the other hand, I'm not at all sure that something being done in France makes it sophisticated and/or a good idea.

"Sure: right now, after decades of bikinis, hot pants and nipple rings, it's hard to imagine that anyone would be mean-spirited enough to deprive hot-blooded men of their jollies. Or women of the opportunity to be regarded as 3D living color moving centerfolds...."
A Catholic Citizen in America (August 16, 2009)

Yes, This Does Connect With the War on Terror

I think the war on terror has at least as much to do with a conflict of cultures as it does with the religious beliefs of some Muslims and the increasingly secularized hodgepodge of fashionable notions in the West.

One of the most obvious and visible aspects of a culture is what people chose to wear - or are forced to wear.

A Disclaimer: I'm One of Those People

I'm a practicing Catholic: which puts me at odds with a great deal of Western culture. I am convinced that:

• Women should be regarded as
  • People
  • Not sex objects
• Everybody should exercise the moderate self-respect we call "modesty"
• Sex
  • Is a wonderful aspect of the human condition
  • Is not the be-all and end-all of existence
• Civilization is More than Bikinis and Nipple Rings

And yeah: that makes me really counter-cultural. Which is a topic for another blog.

But They Don't Do It That Way in France!

I have long been of the opinion that Versailles is a wonderful example of architecture and landscape design; that the Louvre is a great museum, and that Charlemagne was a great leader. But I do not think that an idea is worthwhile simply because it's French.

I've discussed how the French government believes that women should be free to decide how they dress. Provided that they choose according to French standards. (Ooh! La! La!) (July 11, 2008)

Are Bikinis the Only Thing Holding Up Western Civilization?

I'd like to think that flashing flesh on the beach or in the swimming pool isn't the only thing Western civilization has left.

And, I think it's important to note that at least some flavors of Islam have a dress code that applies to men and women:

Swimmers "...must comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees...."
(Telegraph.co.uk)

Men in the West have gotten used to women putting themselves on display. It's a sort of tradition.

But that doesn't make contemporary Western standards of attire a good idea. A tradition of sorts, yes. Good idea: that's debatable.

This may be a good time for people in the West to decide what they really think women are, and whether the culturally-normative floor show is really respectful and appropriate.

And, I think that an idea that "runs counter to developments in France" can still be an idea worth considering.

Related posts:

• "We Can Learn So Much From the French: More About Culture"
  (October 8, 2009)
• "Saudi Arabia Lashes a Man - Credit Where Credit is Due"
  (October 7, 2009)
• "Roman Polanski, Queen Boudicca, France and Special Rules for Special People"
  (September 28, 2009)
• "Are You a Boy, or Are You a Girl?"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (September 26, 2009)
• "Sudan, Women, Trousers, Culture and Common Sense"
  (September 7, 2009)
• "Modesty: Living in Balance"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (August 16, 2009)
• "Bikinis, Burkinis, and Modesty: The Other Guy isn't Always Wrong"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (August 16, 2009)
• "The War on Terror: Yes, Who Wins Does Matter"
  (July 30, 2009)
• "Terrorists, America, and Generalizations"
  (July 28, 2009)
• "Hijabs, Myths, and Flashing Flesh"
  (August 12, 2009)
• "House of Saud Lashes Old Woman: Another Tale from the Weird Side"
  (March 10, 2009)
• "Saudi Arabia Bans Valentine's Day - and the Color Red"
  (February 10, 2009)
• What is Islam? Even Muslims Don't Seem to Agree"
  (February 6, 2009)
• "Saudi Cleric Wants Women to Use One Eye - I'm Not Making This Up"
  (October 4, 2008)
• "Indonesia, 'Allah Akbar,' and Muslim Tolerance"
  (August 22, 2008)
• "France and the Burqa: Idea of Freedom Gets Reality Check"
  (July 11, 2008)
• " 'Will the Real Islam, Please Stand Up?' "
  (February 6, 2008)
• "Indonesian Deradicalization Program Working: In Indonesia, at Least"
  (January 15, 2008)
• "British Teacher Home from Sudan: Gillian Gibbons, Muslim Clerics, and a Teddy Bear named Mohammed"
  (December 3, 2007)

In the news:

• "Indonesia expected to ditch stoning law"
  CNN (October 13, 2009)
• "Swimmers are told to wear burkinis"
  Telegraph.co.uk (August 15, 2009)

Background:

• "It’s a festering skankfest of zombies, Clancy!"
  Oddly Enough, Reuters blog (October 8, 2009)
  • Let's hope this British designer's contribution to Paris Fashion Week isn't the best Western Civilization can do.

France and the Burqa: Idea of Freedom Gets Reality Check

Stress tests people, and ideas. When exposed to stress, some people make themselves up to look like corpses, and lie down in front of news cameras. Others find the courage to drive fanatic invaders from their homeland.

I've written before, about how I think today's world has put a great deal of stress on an ancient and fairly isolated culture.

Face to Burqa: France, Freedom and Foreigners

It looks like coming face to face with a foreign culture has stressed at least one western nation, too.

Technically, I should say "face to burqa."

The French government has decided that a woman who wears a burqa is too submissive, and can't be a French citizen.

The French government also says that individual freedom is important, and that individuals should be free to choose their own religion, and how it should be practiced.

The French ideal of freedom seems to have worked just fine, as long as everybody in France lived about the same way. Now, this outsider has shown up, and wants to be a French citizen.

Problem is, she dresses funny: and doesn't treat her husband the way that the French government thinks she should.

It's Not Just France

I'll grant, freely, that I'm making the French position look about as bad as possible here. I think that a case can be made for immigrants living up to some standards before becoming citizens of another country: being able to use the local language, understanding the laws and customs well enough to keep out of trouble, maybe even being able to hold down a job.

There are two questions here:

1. Is it okay for a country to ban the burqa? Or the babushka, for that matter?
2. Should a country say that it supports freedom of religion, but refuse citizenship to people who practice their religion the 'wrong' way?

The 'natives' of exotic lands in the mysterious orient aren't the only ones going through culture shock these days. France - and every western nation - is being forced to take a hard look at what, exactly, ideas like "freedom" mean.

In the long run, I think the exercise will be good for us. Meanwhile, it's going to be a bumpy road.

The French national dress code, and how the proper French woman is expected to act, in the news:

• "Muslim woman deemed too submissive to be French"
  Reuters (July 11, 2008)
  • "PARIS (Reuters) - France has denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her 'radical' practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes, a legal ruling showed on Friday.
  • "The case will reignite debate about how to reconcile freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the French constitution, and other fundamental rights, which many in France feel are being challenged by the way of life of some Muslims.
  • "Le Monde newspaper said it was the first time a Muslim applicant had been rejected for reasons to do with personal religious practice...."
• "Burka-wearing woman denied citizenship for being 'submissive'"
  The Scotsman (July 12, 2008)
  • "A MOROCCAN woman who wears a black burka has been denied French citizenship on the grounds she is too submissive.
  • "The Council of State ruled that the woman, who is married to a French national, speaks good French and has three children, all born in France, should be denied citizenship because her 'radical' practice of Islam is incompatible with French values such as equality of the sexes.
  • "The 32-year-old woman, named only as Faiza M, has lived in France since 2000. She wears a burka that covers her body from head to foot, leaving a narrow slit for her eyes. According to social services, she lives in "total submission" to her husband and male relatives including her father and brother-in-law...."
• "Opinion: France Gets it Right"
  digitaljournal.com (July 11, 2008)
  • "France's Council of State has made a choice which requires assimilation into French society to become a French citizen. They recently denied citizenship to a Muslim woman based on her radical religious practices.
  • "France got this one right, in my opinion: A woman married to a French national was denied citizenship in France despite having lived there for eight years and giving birth to three children.
  • "The reason? She is totally submissive to her husband and her male relatives in all areas. The woman in question wears a black burqa which covers her from head to toes with the exception of her eyes ( although she must not wear it 24/7 since she has three children.)..."

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

Something Different: Afghan Women Want American Back

"Afghan Women Protest American Kidnapping"

About 500 or 600 women, quite a few wearing burqas, got together in Kandahar. That's a southern Afghani province, and a rather conservative one. The women want American teacher Cyd Mizell back. Mizell and her driver, Abdul Hadi, were kidnapped Saturday.

Those Afghan women want the kidnappers found: and want the Afghan government to be quite clear about that point. They also urged the kidnappers to let Mizell go.

Even though Cyd Mizell was wearing a burqa when she was snatched, I can see why Islamic hardliners might want her out of the way. Not only was she teaching English at Kandahar University and giving embroidery lessons at a girls' school: She was finding ways to export the embroidery.

That embroidery export could have given women an opportunity to start small businesses, built around Afghan embroidery. Women? Making money? Running businesses? That's the sort of thing that many Muslims seem to see as very un-Islamic. That, and women being able to read and write.

The Taliban in Afghanistan isn't saying whether any of their men were in on the snatch. I don't blame them: Grabbing Mizell seems to be having the same sort of success, maintaining the Islamic status quo, as Al Qaeda's serial beheadings in Iraq.

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

Sudan Defends Islam Against Blasphemous Teddy Bear

Sudan got around to charging Gilliam Gibbons. She's the British school teacher who blasphemed the prophet you-know-who, by - get this - letting a boy in her class suggest the name "Mohammed," which is his name.

Oops. By using you-know-who's name, I probably committed blasphemy, too. At least by Sudanese standards. Forget it. I don't live in Sudan, thank God. It's easier to write out "Mohammed,"¹ than dance around it.

A few more details about Gibbons' "offense" came up in "The New York Post" today.

• Sudan authorities say that she's guilty of inciting religious hatred. If she's found guilty (and how unlikely is that?), she'll most likely get 40 lashes. Unless Sudan follows Saudi Arabia's lead, and adds extra lashes.
• The name "Mohammed" was suggested by one of the class - a boy in her class named Mohammed.
  • It seems that giving the name "Mohammed" to a teddy bear is blasphemous, but giving it to a boy isn't: Unless young "Mohammed" is going to have lashed and/or stoned and/or beheaded parents soon.
• Gibbons is being charged under article 125 of the Sudanese legal code
  • This is significant, since it shows that Sudan uses a written legal code - this bizarre accusation isn't being made up out of thin air by some Sudanese official who forgot to take his medication
• Besides lashes, Gibbons may be facing six months jail time and a fine
• This imbroglio started when some of her pupil's parents complained about the teddy Mohammed.
• The British government is involved. Their officials are talking with Sudanese officials. (Let's hope no British officials are accused of blasphemy.)

The Sudanese government claims that being attacked for doing something that Muslims don't like is an isolated incident. Given all the people who have been hurt and killed, from the 1972 Munich Olympics to 9/11 and the present, that's a little hard to believe.

At least the recent attacks have been over genuinely spiritual values, like the naming of teddy bears.

The Teddy Bear Conspiracy

Sudanese clerics have earned more of my respect, by clearly stating what's going on. Here's the situation, from their point of view:

• Naming that teddy bear "Mohammed" is part of a larger Western "plot" against Islam.
• Naming the teddy bear was intentional blasphemy.
  • "What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam."
    "It is part of the campaign of the so-called war against terrorism and the intense media campaign against Islam."
    From a statement by the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas. (Ulemas: "the body of professional theologians who are regarded as the authority on religious law.")
• The Muslim Council of Britain urged the Sudanese government to intervene. (Which side the Muslim Council of Britain is taking isn't clear in "The New York Post" article.)

In a way the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas has a point. Western news media seems to have gotten over its reluctance to report atrocities committed by non-western societies, and that isn't making Islam look good. The fairly steady trickle of reports on lashings, stonings, and beheadings, in Islamic nations doesn't paint a flattering picture.

On the other hand, the recurring theme of women being lashed and stoned for peccadilloes suggests that contemporary Islam might be a tolerant and nurturing home for people who follow the practices and philosophy of the late Marquis de Sade.

Religion - or Culture?

It's easy to say that Islam is the common thread connecting burqas, beheadings, and honor killings. Particularly since the Muslims who commit these atrocities say that they're doing what Mohammed told them to, and are following the will of Allah.

There's something else that most of these expressions of sadistic jurisprudence have in common. They happen in "Islamic" countries in the Middle East and northern Africa.

The largest Islamic country in the world, in terms of numbers of Muslims, is Indonesia. That country's home to a little upwards of 200,000,000 Muslims. Even percentage-wise, Indonesia is more Islamic than America is Christian: 86% Muslim for Indonesia; 78% Christian for America, including Mormons.

Indonesia, a very Islamic country, isn't flogging women for not wearing a burqa, or beheading people for being insufficiently Islamic. In fact, the Bali nightclub bombing, back in 2002, is just one incident in continuing fight Indonesia has with Islamic groups like Jemaah Islamiyah, and Al Qaeda affiliates that want Indonesia to be an Islamic state like northern Sudan or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

There's no question, I think, that something is terribly wrong with places like Saudi Arabia and northern Sudan.

Living in Fast-Forward, Culture Shock, and All That

I don't think that the problem is necessarily Islam. Look at the map, and look at the relatively uniform culture of the countries in northern Africa and the Middle East. The impression I get is that these are places where men were living comfortably in a mosaic of tribes, living their lives in much the same way that their ancestors had since the time of Abraham.

Then, a few centuries ago, European colonial powers dragged them into the

• Age of nation-states
• Age of Reason
• Age of Enlightenment
• Industrial Revolution
• Cold War
• Space Race
• Information Revolution

To people still accustomed to burqas and Sharia, a world of Barbies and sports cars must be terrifying. It's no wonder that they go a little crazy, trying to adjust.

Non-Muslims might consider the possibility that the insanely intolerant, violent, behavior of "Islamic" countries doesn't stem from Islam. The traditional cultures of many of these places were old-fashioned when Rome ruled the Mediterranean, and hadn't been forced to deal with outside ideas until the last few generations.

---

¹ Why not "Muhammed," or one of the other Latinized spellings? I'm using an Associated Press stylebook, and that resource says that "Mohammed" is the way that the Prophet of Islam's name is spelled in English. It's one of a number of commonly-used efforts to bring that name into a language that uses the Latin alphabet.

(Thanks to "The Sudanese Name Game" for steering me to "The New York Post" article, and to "American Islamic Congress Slams Sudanese Government over Teddy Bear Case, Demands British Teacher Be Freed Immediately")

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

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror. Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

"Cowboy Diplomacy" and "Live Long and Prosper"

"Cowboy diplomacy" galloped into the news again. One candidate assured the throng that they would see no more cowboy diplomacy, should that candidate be voted into the oval office.

Now, a disclaimer of sorts.

"Another War-on-Terror Blog" is not a political blog. However, since the War on Terror and politics do sometimes collide, I can't avoid the topic entirely.

I make no claim to be unbiased. I don't believe that America is the cause of the global crisis of the month. I do enjoy living in a society where I'm not expected to put my wife under a burqa, or kill my children if they besmirch the family honor.

That said, here's the meat of this post.

I think that individuals matter. Particularly individuals who are in a position to make decisions.

"Cowboy diplomacy" has been used to describe the dangerous, big, rough way that President Bush has conducted international affairs. The Texas-raised president isn't even a lawyer. Unlike most of the better sort in Washington, this Texan went to Harvard: Harvard Business School.

Since words and phrases have specific meanings, I decided to look up just what "cowboy diplomacy" meant.

The "Cowboy diplomacy" article in Wikipedia is one of those with references: and an "orphaned" one, with "few or no other articles" linking to it.

According to Wikipedia, cowboy diplomacy is "a term used by critics to describe the resolution of international conflicts through brash risk-taking, intimidation, military deployment, or a combination of such tactics."

The term's current incarnation is as a quote from the wit and wisdom of Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise-D. Specifically, in the "Unification, Part II" episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, an American television series.

Back in the real world, American President Bush has caused much alarm and despondency - and anger - at his failure to follow time-honored standards of leadership. Instead of

• Directing diplomats to discuss the arrangement of tables at meetings (anybody remember Vietnam?)
• Forming study committees to investigate how to engage in dialog with all members of the international community regarding the complex issues
• Carefully considering the opinions of leaders in the international community: particularly the French

Instead, the current president has taken what many believe is a reckless approach.

• Making brash remarks like
  • "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
  • "But we're also tough and resolute. And now is an opportunity to do generations a favor, by coming together and whipping terrorism; hunting it down, finding it and holding them accountable."
  • "Terrorism against our nation will not stand."
• Unilaterally going it alone in attacking terror-supporting nations (the "uni" in unilaterally" must not mean "one" - a couple dozen nations have been involved in the 'coalition of the willing' at one point or another)
• Stubbornly refusing to let the seasoned wisdom of the international community - particularly France - determine American policy

I can see how the president seems to be a dangerous man.

On the other hand, I think that the conventional wisdom of avoiding armed conflict at all costs, or at least deferring it until someone else's watch, is dangerous, too.

America is a little over a year away from presidential elections. I expect to hear the phrase "cowboy diplomacy," coupled with an assurance that, should this or that candidate be elected, there will be no more such direct action.

There's a time and a place for seemingly endless rounds of meetings, resolutions, and declarations.

I also think that there is a place for taking action. And, I would prefer that the action take place before another 9/11 slips past law enforcement and the diplomatic corps.

Finally presidents practicing "cowboy diplomacy" predate the starship Enterprise by at least a generation. "The sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken down. . . . We are going to win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows." (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, December 9, 1941)

(see "Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!")

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Pakistan Politics: Bhutto Bombed

Good news:
Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, is alive.

Bad news:
Over a hundred people in Karachi, Pakistan, aren't.

Bhutto was on her way make a speech at the tomb of Pakistan's founding father. About 150,000 of her supporters were on hand, near her convoy. She had returned to Pakistan today.

In 1988, Bhutto became the first woman to lead a post-colonial-era Muslim state. She was booted out of office on corruption charges, re-elected in 1993, and booted out again in 1996 on - what a surprise - corruption charges. She's been living in Dubai since 1999.

I don't know whether there's anything to the corruption charges, or if it's part of the Stans' culture: a sort of post-election mudslinging.

Bhutto isn't exactly the Taliban's ideal of femininity. She studied Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the University of Oxford, has an additional degree from Harvard University, doesn't wear a burqa, and led a Muslim country.

Twice.

Going on three times, if she runs in the next Pakistani election, and wins: both of which seem likely.

Back-to-the-seventh-century Muslims have many reasons to be infuriated with Bhutto. In this woman we have a woman who is:

• Educated
• Doesn't wear a burqa
• Has run a country
• Supports the war on terror

The Taliban, AL Qaeda, and like-minded Islamic fanatics will be solidly against Bhutto. That's as close to certain as things get in this world.

Parts of the press and academia in America have a tough decision now: Is Bhutto

• A brilliant woman, fighting oppression
  or
• corrupt puppet of a militaristic American administration

Maybe I'm being unfair.

In any event, I like to think that Bhutto's popularity - and Musharraf's apparent efforts to team up with Bhutto because of her popular support - show that the people of Islamic countries are ready to accept an alternative to jihadist leaders.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Posts about Benazir Bhutto.

When Osama Talks, People Listen

When I started "Another War-on-Terror Blog, I saw it as a chronicle and commentary on the major conflict of the early 21st century. I still do.

It is not a "political" blog. I'm interested in individual politicians and political parties in America, and elsewhere, only as I believe they are involved in this conflict.

However, I have very definite views about this conflict. For example, I would prefer that my family survive, and that we not live in a land where women must be confined to a house, unless accompanied by a kinsman. Judging from what has happened in countries where the West's enemies rule, this isn't an unreasonable concern.

Osama bin Laden has a new video. It surfaced in America, ahead of its planned release date. The early opening was apparently the reason why Al-Qaeda-affiliated websites around the world shut down, coming back online one by one. A reasonable presumption is that the jihadists were concerned about a security problem with their online presence, and were taking steps to find and fix it, if it existed.

If bin Laden was a media star, his career would be in serious trouble. This video is the first one he's released since 2004.

However, since he's a sort of religious leader/military commander/philosopher, bin Laden's status doesn't seem to have suffered.

I'm afraid that this is going to be a rather long post, since I make extensive quotes from a translated transcript of bin Laden's speech. I believe this is necessary, to do justice to Sheik in Laden's remarkable statements.

The short version of the speech is that:

• "The major corporations" are responsible for the Vietnam War, JFK's assassination, and the Bush presidency
• America should get out of Iraq
• The Democratic party is greatly to blame for not getting America out of Iraq
• The Democratic party is a tool of the major corporations
• People of America should rise up, overthrow their oppressors, embrace Islam, and live happily ever after

I'll freely grant that I'm doing nothing to make his words sound sensible.

Here's a brief (no, really, it's brief, compared to the original) set of excerpts from bin Laden's latest video. I've put a few key words and phrases in bold.

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment.

"And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being in the majority?

"I will come back to reply to this question after raising another question, which is:"

What follows is a series of references to the Bush Administration, the Vietnam War, and the JFK assassination. bin Laden reminds us that "al-Qaida wasn't present at that time, but, rather those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing."(!) Apparently, "the major corporations," angered at JFK's plans to end the Vietnam war, were somehow for JFK's assassination.

A bit later, he gets back to the Democrats.

"So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment - and there isn't any - in the Democrat's failure to stop the war. And you're the ones who have the saying which goes, 'Money talks.' And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war.

"However, there are two solutions for stopping it. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against your. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out, and I ask Allah to grant them resolve and victory. And the second solution is from your side. It has now become clear to you and to the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.

"And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factors of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representatives of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerated fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.

"And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown - still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system.

"If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of 'globalization' in order to protect democracy."

And the speech goes on.

After that section, I half-way expected him to say, 'workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!' Come to think about it, he did say something like that.

Bin Laden offers Islam as a tax-free alternative, a religion that "also puts peoples' lives in order with its laws; protects their needs and interests; refines their morals' protects them from evils; and guarantees for them entrance into Paradise in the hereafter through their obedience to Allah and sincere worship of Him alone."

It sounds great, but after seeing what the Taliban did to Afghanistan while they were running the place, I'm not all that keen on living under an Islamic state. At least not one like that.

I could live with that wonderful Islamic fashion statement, the burqa: particularly since, as a man, I wouldn't have to wear one. I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to wear white socks. Apparently, women were forbidden to wear them.

Burqas and a white-sock ban are relatively trivial, although I think it shows how micro-managed an Islamic state would be under the ministrations of the likes of bin Laden and crew.

What really disturbs me is what happened to the people at Robatak Pass and Yakaolang.

And, what happened to two irreplaceable works of art after a sufficiently Islamic state took over. I'd known about the Buddhas of Bamyan, and would have preferred to live in a world where they still existed. The AIIS slide show of the Bamiyan Buddhas just aren't be the same as having the real thing available.

I know that the Taliban isn't bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, but the two outfits seem to be on about the same page, when it comes to what constitutes true Islam.

A transcript of a translation of bin Laden's new video is available at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/bin_laden_transcript.pdf

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.