#no one should be killed for criticizing islam | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hindulivesmatter · 3 months

Text

Why Gandhi is a piece of shit and you should hate him.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has been established in our history as a "Mahatma" which means "great soul"

This man is anything but that.

He is EVERYWHERE. He's on our currency, he's revered as a hero who saved India, and we have a mandatory holiday on October 2nd in honor of him.

If you didn't know, now you're going to get to know why he was a horrible human being. Let's begin.

This man managed to fool people Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela (among many others) into thinking he was a good person.

Here is some of the shit he's done:

In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty, and live like animals."

Refused to have sex with his wife for the last 38 years of their marriage. He felt that in order to test his commitment to celibacy, he would have beautiful young women (including his own great niece) lie next to him naked through the night. His wife, whom he described as looking like a "meek cow" was no longer desirable enough to be a solid test.

Believed that Indian women who were raped lost their value as a human.

During Gandhi's time as a dissident in South Africa, he discovered a male youth had been harassing two of his female followers. Gandhi responded by personally cutting the girls' hair off, to ensure the "sinner's eye" was "sterilised". Gandhi boasted of the incident in his writings, pushing the message to all Indians that women should carry responsibility for sexual attacks upon them.

He argued that fathers could be justified in killing daughters who had been sexually assaulted for the sake of family and community honour.

Gandhi also waged a war against contraceptives, labelling Indian women who used them as whores.

He believed menstruation was a "manifestation of the distortion of a woman's soul by her sexuality".

On 6th April 1947, he gave a speech where he said, “ If the Muslims are out there slicing through Hindu masses to wipe out the Hindu race, the Hindus should say nothing and peacefully accept death”.

He hated the great Hindu rulers, especially Shivaji Maharaj. To please the Muslims, he banned the book named ShivBhaavani which correctly depicted Islam’s intolerance and fierce fundamentalism spread by it.

Refused his wife life-saving medication (for religious reasons), but those religious reasons all of a sudden no longer applied to him when he was in a similar position.

Started a fast unto death when Ambedkar asked for separate electorates for Dalits.

Gandhi left his ailing father on his deathbed, to sleep with his wife. The child born out of this copulation died in infancy. According to Gandhi, the death of this infant was the result of this evil karma.

Gandhi, even when he claimed to be the angel of non-violence, made no efforts to prevent the British from deploying Indian troops at various locations during World War II.

Kashmir was invaded by Pakistan in 1947, the brutal Pakistani army committed heinous crimes against Kashmiri Pandits including mass rape and mass killings consequently many Pandits were forced to flee to Delhi and other places. In one incident Pandits took refuge in an abandoned mosque in Delhi. Infuriated, Gandhi threatened to fast to death if the Pandits didn't leave. The Pandits were slaughtered in a communal riot as soon as they abandoned the mosques.

Criticized the Jews for defending themselves against the Holocaust because he insisted that they should have committed public mass suicide in order to "shame" the Germans instead of fighting back. His exact words were, "But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from the cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions."

And this is all from a simple Internet search compiled here. I wonder what else is hiding if I do a deep dive.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

#hinduphobia #hindublr #desiblr #antisemitism #history #india #gandhi #can you guys tell i hate him #indian history #british empire #tw rape #tw assault

295 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 months

Text

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, the Biden administration has tried to toe a delicate line: backing Israel’s war against the group in Gaza, while pushing Israel to ease the humanitarian toll of its operations and take the Palestinians’ legitimate political grievances seriously. By all accounts, toeing this line has been a frustrating and thankless endeavor—and, increasingly, a lonely one. Today, even the United States’ closest allies are calling for an “immediate ceasefire” that would put an end to Israel’s operations in Gaza. At home, the White House is facing increasing pressure from Democrats in the U.S. Congress and parts of the Democratic base to change its current tactics in dealing with Israel.

And yet, what the Biden administration understands—and what Israel’s many critics miss—is that the international community cannot dictate a solution to Israel-Hamas war by fiat. If the international community wants Israel to change strategies in Gaza, then it should offer a viable alternative strategy to Israel’s announced goal of destroying Hamas in the strip. And right now, that alternate strategy simply does not exist.

There is a brutal logic to Israel’s actions in Gaza. By its own estimates, Israel has destroyed three-quarters of Hamas’ battalions and killed two of five brigade commanders, 19 of 24 battalion commanders, more than 50 platoon leaders, and 12,000 of Hamas’ 30,000 foot soldiers. American intelligence estimates are lower, but not by much: Between 20 to 30 percent of Hamas’ fighters and 20 to 40 percent of its tunnels are estimated to have been destroyed as of mid-January. It’s also worth remembering that Hamas is structured more like a conventional military than a pure terrorist group. As a rule of thumb, conventional forces are considered combat ineffective once they lose more than 30 percent of their strength and destroyed once they lose 50 percent.

Even if Israel does not stamp out Hamas entirely but merely succeeds in driving it out of power and underground, from Israel’s view, that is still a win—even if stops well short of its goal of destroying the group, for doing so would likely prove sufficient to prevent Hamas from launching another 3,000-man complex assault like the one Israel saw on Oct. 7. Finally, it’s worth remembering that it took the United States several years to defeat the Islamic State. Israel is just over five months into what its leaders promised will be a very long war.

To be sure, there are serious drawbacks to the Israeli approach. This war will encourage long-term radicalization of the Palestinian population, damage Israel’s relationship with its Arab neighbors, and tarnish Israel’s global reputation in a pretty serious way. Yet all of these problems are long term. Too often, states and politics live in the here and now.

At the same time, Israel’s critics have failed—and continue to fail—to offer a coherent alternative way forward. Instead, more often than not, there are vague references for the need for some ill-defined “political solution” to the conflict. To the extent that there is a coherence to this alternate strategy, it revolves around using the threat of diplomatic isolation alongside economic threats that might force Israel to agree to an “immediate ceasefire.” That ceasefire, in turn, would pave the way for a longer-term political settlement, likely around a two-state solution. Problem solved. Or not.

For starters, international pressure and sanctions will not likely compel Israel to compromise. Israelis from the leadership on down are keenly aware that their country was born out of the ashes of Holocaust as a safe-haven for Jews after millennia of persecution. Israel then spent its first quarter-century fighting for its very existence. The idea that the world is aligned against Israel is deeply embedded in the nation’s collective DNA, and chants of “from the river to the sea,” coupled with surging global antisemitism, only ensure that those fears remain very much alive today.

Economic pressure—such as sanctioning settlers or restricting military aid—is unlikely to work, either. In general, sanctions have a poor track record of compelling states to abandon core national security interests. And given the Oct. 7 attacks, this war is nothing if not a core national security interest for Israel. Even if pressure did work initially, for a political solution to be sustainable, Israelis must voluntarily agree, not be pressured into it.

But let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that Israel caved to outside pressure and agreed to an immediate ceasefire. What would the day after look like? Hamas—as Israel and Hamas both acknowledge—would be left with a considerable military force, numbering in the thousands. Israel would then need to engage in another very lopsided deal to free the remaining hostages. In early February, Hamas wanted 1,500 prisoners freed from Israeli jails, including at least 500 serving life sentences for murder and other crimes, in exchange for the hostages.

So, at minimum, the group’s ranks would soon swell. And invariably, some of those released would be quite dangerous. After all, Yahya Sinwar—the head of Hamas in Gaza and alleged mastermind of the Oct. 7 attacks—was freed from an Israeli prison, where he was serving a life sentence for murder, in the 2011 trade of 1,027 prisoners for one captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. None of this recent history bodes particularly well for long-term peace.

In all likelihood, Israel would respond to a ceasefire by tightening its blockade of Gaza, citing Hamas’ continued existence as one reason for doing so. In particular, Israel would likely put severe limits on the quantities and types of building materials allowed into the Strip. After all, Hamas diverted an estimated 1,800 tons of steel and 6,000 tons of concrete to build its tunnel networks, and Israel would not want to see them rebuilt. The net consequence would be that desperately needed reconstruction would be severely delayed or even brought to standstill.

The fighting would not stop, either. Fearing that Hamas will make good on its promise to repeat the Oct. 7 attack “again and again,” Israel would step up its preemptive strikes on Gaza and the West Bank, particularly whenever it got the first whiff that Hamas might be planning an attack. At the same time, Hamas would continue to attack Israel, if only to reinforce its legitimacy and divert attention away from the likely dismal conditions in Gaza (thanks, in no small part, to the stymied reconstruction effort). In all likelihood, the situation would be right back where it started.

Ah, but wait: Won’t a two-state solution solve this? Probably not. Even before Oct. 7, the majority of Israelis didn’t believe in a two-state solution, or that peace was even possible. There are likely even fewer who believe that now, especially if a Palestinian state were to include Hamas in some form. Consider how unfathomable it would have been for most Americans to support the creation of a state with al Qaeda at its helm just five months after 9/11. There is no reason to believe that the Israeli public should be any different. Given considerable support for Hamas among the Palestinian population, it would be politically impossible to exclude Hamas from a new, democratic Palestinian government. And even if the new state’s government is less than democratic, it would have trouble excluding Hamas entirely—even if it wanted to—if the group still has thousands of men under arms.

But even assuming that overwhelming international pressure forced Israel to agree to a two-state solution, it’s not going to guarantee peace in the short or medium term. There are still a host of thorny issues—including borders, water rights, air rights, the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, and the partition of Jerusalem—that would need to be resolved before a second state could come into being. Then there is the problem that only one-third of Palestinians favor a two-state solution themselves, and nine in 10 don’t trust the Palestinian Authority. For its part, Hamas has made it abundantly clear that it wants one state without Jews under an Islamist banner. None of this means that the international community shouldn’t push for a political settlement, but this is at best a long-term solution, not a near-term fix.

If a two-state solution did come about, it may not bring an end to hostilities. Two states did not solve hostilities between India and Pakistan, or North and South Korea, or North and South Vietnam. Israel would be under no obligation to grant Palestinians—now citizens of a separate country—workers’ permits, which would likely tank the nascent state’s economy, just as it wouldn’t have to provide electricity and other services to Gaza, as it did before the war. At the same time, Palestinians would rightly wonder why their state should be demilitarized and not entitled to the sovereign privileges of a “normal state.” There would perhaps still be Jewish settlers living on the territory of the new Palestine, creating all sorts of problems. Absent genuine buy-in from both sides, a two-state solution would simply turn a local conflict into an international one.

There is a lot to hate about Israel’s war in Gaza. It is a bloody, destructive war that has killed far too many innocents and upended far too many civilian lives. It is by any measure a human tragedy that will reverberate across the region for years to come. But if the international community is not simply grandstanding and actually hopes to solve the tragedy playing out in Gaza, then it needs to begin by offering feasible solutions that address both Palestinian grievances and Israeli security concerns.

To its credit, the Biden administration is at least trying to move in this direction. It is pushing Israel to curtail civilian casualties, set up safe zones, increase humanitarian aid, and move to a longer-term political solution—all while still backing (or at least not outwardly opposing) Israel’s ongoing operations to root out Hamas. Some might call such a balanced approach overly tactical and unable to quickly end the war, but a good strategy is built on sound tactics.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s nuance is the exception both internationally and in the domestic debate over U.S. policy. Just as the political right needs to be continuously reminded that the Palestinian population is not going anywhere and Israel cannot kill its way to victory, the political left needs to be reminded that Israelis are also not going anywhere and their equities must also be taken seriously.

Ultimately, if Biden’s critics on the political left want a different war, then they need to offer an alternative strategy and subject that strategy to the same sort of analytical rigor that it trains on Israel’s current military effort. If not, the brutal logic of the current war will remain, and the ongoing tragedy will continue.

187 notes · View notes

eternal-echoes · 5 months

Text

Ordinary Palestinians want to build a prosperous, functioning society. Hamas, in its obsession with annihilating Israel, doesn't care about that. It wishes only to bring about a genocidal Islamist dystopia. It is Hamas, after all, that holds Palestinians hostage in Gaza, setting up military installations in — and launching rockets from — civilian areas in the full knowledge that counterstrikes will kill innocent people. It is Hamas that impoverishes Palestinians by stealing humanitarian aid to fund its terror. This is what 'by any means necessary' truly signifies: supreme callousness towards Palestinian life. If you genuinely want to see peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or more generally between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East, then Hamas should be your enemy. And even if — like many in the West, as we can now see — you don't care at all about Israeli or Jewish lives, even if you care only about the lives of Palestinians, Hamas is still your enemy. After all, Hamas ruthlessly persecutes any Palestinians who disagree with it: a 2022 U.S. State Department report found that, among other abuses, Hamas detained and assaulted critical journalists. It is especially hostile to public figures associated with its rival Fatah, the Palestinian party voted out of office in Gaza in 2006, but which still runs the West Bank. Hamas harasses its own dissidents, and has invaded the home of at least one young critical activist, telling his parents to keep their son under control — or else. As a Dutch MP in 2004 and 2005, I travelled to the West Bank and met Palestinians. In public, they spouted all the usual lines about Israel being their 'oppressor'. But once the cameras were switched off, they spoke more truthfully. They complained bitterly about their treatment by Hamas and other radical groups, and told me how money meant to feed the people was being taken to fund those organisations' activities and their leaders' luxurious lifestyles. Arabs and Palestinians alike told me how fed up they were with conflict, and how ready they were for peace. Hamas, like other Islamist groups, has done its best over the course of decades to stomp all over those wishes. And it has been successful. The shocking rise in anti-Semitism in the West owes much to the entrenched Islamist networks that have spent years stirring up this ancient hatred. Europe must now wake up to these fifth columnists who shamelessly celebrate violence and bigotry, promoting hatred of the Jewish minority in Europe. The West must also wake up to the moral corruption of its own Hamas supporters, from Left-wing university students to flag-waving street thugs. Meanwhile, elite human-rights organisations need to do far more to name terrorism when they see it. It is horrifying to see Amnesty International claiming that one of the 'root causes' of the crisis is 'Israel's system of apartheid imposed on Palestinians'. Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, should do more than merely equivocating in its insistence that no injustice can justify another. This is not to argue that Israel should be immune from criticism. My point is that much of the criticism is at best misguided and at worst thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Hamas, like Lebanon's Hezbollah, Isis in Syria and Iraq, Nigeria's Boko Haram, Somalia's Al-Shabaab and several other groups, are fighting not for the liberty and prosperity of Muslims but, ultimately, for the annihilation of Israel and the imposition of an Islamic state. If Palestinians and other Muslims have to suffer for that aim, then so be it.

Full article

The emphasis are mine.

#israel palestine conflict #pray for peace in middle east

116 notes · View notes

lordadmiralfarsight · 5 months

Text

Why is Leftblr plagued by political Karens ?

And no, I can't think of any other way to refer to so, so, so many of you who gleefully cheer for Hamas, deny or justify their crimes, apply a double standard against Israel (always in favour of the terrorist organisation, always), and so on and so forth.

Make no mistake, what Israel is doing in Gaza is horrible (though I would argue there's little alternative considering Hamas' goals and behaviour so far), and it's getting especially awful and violent in the West Bank, with too little oversight and far too much political complicity from the current Israeli government.

But what I'm talking about, in your behaviour, is in direct relation to the 7/10 attack, not what's happening in the West Bank.

You don't look at their ideology. Do you know what the ideology of Hamas is ? It's the same as Al Qaeda, the same as ISIS, the same as Boko Haram. It's violent, totalitarian islamism. It is intolerant and hateful, it wants to kill all who do not fit its mold. They openly - OPENLY - said they wanted to take over the world, and that once they were done with the Jews (the Jews, not the Israeli, the JEWS) it would be the Christians' turns. Does that sound like someone you want to cheer on ? Does that sound tolerant and acceptant ?

For me, as a French, all Hamas is, is another form of the monsters that killed hundreds in the Bataclan. That sent a truck through the crowd in Nice on the Promenade des Anglais. That murdered and took hostages in the Hyper Kasher.

It's the same cruelty and hate, the same interpretation of Islam that pushed Mohammed Merah to murder children in school in 2012. Because those kids were Jewish.

And all I can think, when I watch how you react ... how you cheer on Hamas ... is that it isn't the acts that bother you. It's whether it has the right stickers, the right buzzwords associated to it.

You're like a Karen, ranting and throwing a tantrum, because the mangos don't have the little organic sticker.

It's not an organix, marx-fed terror attack, so you don't like it. But the one in Israel, oh this one, it has the sticker, you're sure of it. You put it there yourself, because it is much, much more socially acceptable, in your little social circle of murderous, bloodthirsty political Karens to stamp your little Revolution-certified sticker on that particular terror attack.

But it's the same ideology, Karen. The mangos are identical. The murders are the same. The only real difference is the numbers.

And you can go "But IDF in Gaza D:" all you want. All I hear, is that you're willing to support ISIS, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram, so long as they put the right stickers on their murders.

You don't need to cheer for the monsters. You don't need to cheer for ISIS under a different flag.

You can criticize Israel without being antisemitic, as you keep saying. Maybe you should start doing that.

#israel/palestine #israel #palestine #antisemitism #karen #political karen #they want their organic revolution-certified terror attacks #It's about self image #the loss of life is immaterial #you cheer on Hamas you cheer on ISIS #you cheer on Hamas you cheer on Al Qaeda #You cheer on Hamas you cheer on Boko Haram #hamas #hamas attack #leftblr #leftist

55 notes · View notes

mask131 · 2 months

Text

In general, when it comes to the religious approach between the US and a country like France, the huge gap can be easily explained by history.

The USA history was all about learning to embrace and accept and tolerate all and every religion. Yes there was religious fanaticism and religious extremes in this country - in fact a lot of people in there like to forget the founders of the USA were themselves considered religious fanatics by Europe. But the whole history of the USA is about learning to be open-minded and tolerant and respectful of other religions.

But a country like France? Its history is about to try and kill religion. France had its "let's welcome and open all religions" era - but a long time ago, and somehow it shows how "young" of a country the USA is. France meanwhile went way past beyond that, and went to the next phase, the systematic elimination of religion, or at least reducing it to the point of it being harmless.

Because France had to deal with all the most fucked up things religion had to offer. Not only did we kept fighting with every neighboring countries in names of religions (Christianity vs Islam, Catholicism vs Protestantism or Anglicanism), but we even had the historical traumatism of the religious wars within France itself, the country devouring its own due to the Catholic vs Protestant debate. Itself being a mere continuation of the strict hunt by the Inquisition of all the various "heretic" groups in France - France was the country where the Templar Knights and the Cathare met their death by mass executions.

The French Revolution was all about getting rid of an over-powerful and corrupted Church, and of a biased government tied to Christianity so much the Crown and the Church were just one and the same. Overthrowing the King was overthrowing the chosen of God, and the one sent by God - and thus the French Revolution was about men of religion, and the Terreur that followed made sure to get rid of all those French communities that were still too attached to their religion. Heck the French Revolution was all about removing any religious name, and all religious celebrations and destroying all religious statues - not just of Christianity, but also of long-dead religions such as the Greek or Roman ones.

And the Enlightenment. What about the Enlightenment? Everybory part of the "Lights" were about denouncing and criticizing religious fanaticism and the power of "superstition" over the minds. They liked in times of religious wars and persecutions, and they knew first hand that religion was the enemy of a good, human thinking. Just take Voltaire's writing: the guy spent his entire life taking down any form of organized, unthought religion, caricaturing, mocking or denouncing all the forms of Inquisition and hurtful superstitions he could find.

And even then, one of the most important dates French kids are taught in school, which is considered to mark the beginning of modern France, is 1905: the law separating the Church from the State. This was the moment the modern Republic, after many tries and fails, finally established the principle that religion should not be part of a government, and that the State should be above religion, and that religion was a private domain not a public one. This is one of the fundamental principles of the French Republic: secularism, laicity, the modern way to ensure a freedom of religion by making sure none dominate and that all religious matters are to be secondary in the greater scope of things.

So yeah, what I am trying to say is that France's entire history is about fighting off religion and trying to make clear it should not define people's life and should not be imposed on anybody and should not have too much power. Because France lived in the trauma of the Inquisition, and the religious wars, and the superstition-fueled persecutions, and the Church influencing if not corrupting the government. Times and times again in an endless cycle.

Which of course is going to make a HUGE difference when it comes to religious approach compared to a country like the United-States, which was founded by religious communities, partially for religious reasons, and whose entire creation relied on religious principles (like Manifest Destiny), and where the President still has to swear by the Bible before obtaining their post...

#random rant of the day #or random musing of the day #i don't know #i'm tired #religion #france #usa #history

25 notes · View notes

luminalunii97 · 1 year

Text

A while ago, the first season of the Voice Of Persia was aired. Of course the competition took place outside of Iran, and only those who have immigrated could participate.

In the last couple of decades, Persian music have been in a slumber. Music is kind of forbidden in Iran because the regime deems it anti Islamic. Women aren't aloud to sing at all and men can only sing in specific genre and topics that the regime considers appropriate. It's understandable why good music, with a couple of exceptions, wasn't being made and new talents were being buried.

So the voice of Persia was a great opportunity to showcase new talents who have managed to skip Iran.

Anyway, I said all of this to get to this song. The finalist and winner of the competition performed this song on the show and I realized even though I knew the original singer for years (he's a political singer and had to flee Iran years ago), I somehow missed this poetic piece. So I've been obsessed with it ever since. I wanted to share it with y'all.

This is a protest/critical song with some symbolizations. The lyrics are from Iranian poet, Yaghma Golrouee. He's also the lyricist of the song Our Dream. The song came out about 10 years ago. I added explanations for the lyrics in parentheses:

Driving Drunkenly by Shahin Najafi

من یه گلایلم که تو این سرزمین شوم

راهم به قبر و سنگ گرانیت میرسه

I'm a Gladiolus flower who in this ill fated land

Find my way to a grave and granite gravestone

(In Persian culture gladiolus is used in funerals and to visit graveyards. It's the flower of the dead)

هر روز به قتل میرسم و شعر من فقط

به انتشار شعله کبریت میرسه

I get murdered everyday and my poem only

reaches to spread the match's fire

دردم هزار ساله مثه درده حافظه

درمونشم همونیه که کشف رازیه

My pain is a thousand years old pain like Hafez's pain (a Persian poet)

The cure is Razi's discovery (alcohol)

نسلی که سر سپرده عصر حجر شده

به ساقیای ارمنیه پیر راضیه

وقتی که زندگی یه تئاتر مزخرفه

تنها به جرعه های فراموشی دلخوشم

The generation who became a devotee of the stone ages

Is now happy with the old Armenian wine dealers

When life is a trashy theatrical show

I only find comfort in to-forget gulps

راسکول نیکف یه پیرزنو شقه کرده و من

با اون تبر فرشته الهامو میکشم…

Raskolnikov chopped an old lady but I

would kill the angel of revelation with that axe

هی مست میکنم مثه یه بطری شراب

که وقتی پاش بیفته یه کوکتل مولوتوفه

I get drunk like a wine bottle

that would turn into Molotov cocktail when the need arises

یه مجرم فراری شدم که تو زندگیش

درگیر یه گریز بدون توقفه

I became a wanted criminal who in life

he's stuck in a fatal car chase (x2)

فرقی نداره جادۀ چالوس و راه قم

من مستی ام که خوش داره رانندگی کنه

There's no difference between Chalus Road (a touristic road) and highway to Qom (a religious city) for me

I'm a drunk who likes to drive

یه ماهی که تو آکواریوم زار میزنه

تا توی اشکهای خودش زندگی کنه

I'm a fish who is crying in an aquarium

So that he can live in his own tears

باید تلو تلو بخوری این زمونه رو

وقتی که مست نیستی به بن بست میرسی

You should stumble drunkenly in this life

Because when you're not drunk you reach a dead end

تو مستی آدما دوباره مهربون میشن

حتی برادرای توی ایست بازرسی

When you're drunk people are kind again

Even the brothers (police officers) in roadside checkpoints

میخندن و به دست تو دستبند میزنن

راهو برای بردن تو باز میکنن

They laugh while they're handcuffing you

They clear the way to take you

تو دام مورچه ها به سلیمان بدل میشی

قالیچه ها بدون تو پرواز میکنن

In ants presence you become the Solomon

The carpets fly without you

این بار چندمه که به یه جرم مشترک

هشتاد تا ضربه پشت تو هاشور میزنه؟

How many times for the same crime,

Your back has been shaded in with 80 counts of hits?

(The punishment for drinking alcohol is 80 lashes)

برگرد خونه حتی اگه با خبر باشی

تنها دل خودت برای تو شور میزنه…

Come back home even if you know

You are the only one who gets worried about you

تو یه گلایلی و تو این سرزمین شوم

راهت به قبرو سنگ گرانیت میرسه

You are a gladiolus and in this ill fated land

You find your way to a grave and granite gravestone

هر روز به قتل میرسی و شعر تو فقط

به انتشار شعله کبریت میرسه

You get murdered everyday and your poem only

reaches to spread match's fire

هی مست میکنی مثه یه بطری شراب

که وقتی پاش بیافته یه کوکتل مولوتوفه

You get drunk like a bottle of wine

That will turn into a Molotov cocktail when the need arises

یه مجرم فراری شدی که تو زندگیش

درگیر یه گریز بدون توقفه

You are a wanted criminal who in life

Is stuck in a deadly car chase (x2)

Ps; If you're interested in checking the voice of Persia I recommend watching Amin yahyazadeh, the winner who is the main vocalist of an English language metal band. Also Maria who is a new female rock singer.

Ps2; drunk driving stands for living in defiance of the regime./ Killing the angel of revelation is the poets disdain for religious ideologies./ Deadly car chase is the dangerous life of an opposition./ The generation who became the devotees of the stone ages are the people who in 1979 revolution rooted for today's theocracy. And now they beg for the scraps of the freedom they willingly gave up./

Hafez is one of the greatest Persian poets who used wine and drinking metaphorically a lot in his poems. I guess this poet was inspired by that./ Razi was a Persian physician, philosopher and alchemist who discovered a way to extract alcohol from fermented materials./ Getting drunk like a bottle of wine that could turn into Molotov cocktail means living in defiance of the regime and also be ready to fight it actively./ The surface meaning of the poem about drinking and getting punished is valid too.

That's all I could think of in case you missed any metaphor or double meanings.

#SoundCloud #music #protest song #persian music #iran #iran protests #human rights #politics #iran revolution #middle east #lyrics #poetry #metaphor #double meaning #protests #the voice #persia #drunk

84 notes · View notes

crymeariveronceagain · 2 years

Text

i said i could talk about it and i think i will

Hunter's possession in Thanks To Them is highkey.... ironic.

The Owl House is most assuredly considered a criticism of religious extremism and of cultism. Belos is a cult leader, the only one who can talk to the god, who knows the will of the god, yada yada yada. This is all a sort of basic primal religious identity, and if you look through history, Kings and Emperors were often seen as literal gods or as the messengers of the gods, who were able to talk to the gods and commune with them.

Now, of course, the catch is that Belos is using his cult to straight up kill people. But the point remains that it is a cult, and it is a extreme and dangerous organization, whose primary focus is less on order, and structure for society(as primal religions were ordered) and on his end goal of destroying the witches and wild magic altogether. It's not about knowledge of self, for Belos, or identity for the wild society. It's about him achieving his selfish goals, and achieving a totalitarian control over the lives of his followers, especially Hunter. He brands them with his symbol, and then tortures them. He's a cult leader even down to his typology, with his manipulative words and smiles and professed care about people, all for his own evil ends.

The Owl House is ultimately less religion-critical, and more cult-critical. Think twice before you get a tattoo of a man's secret society on your hand. That's kind of the method of logic the show follows.

Moreover, it can be argued that the show is a condemnation of theocracy, of religion ruling all thought to a degree that drives the thinker further away from the Godly and more deeply into the dark. Nepotism, narcissism, and pride are all very key traits of Belos.

However, as a whole, the show seems critical of religion, in very loose terms, especially ones that try to control your life, or your being, or your expression of self, even through seemingly mundane rules.

This brings up something very interesting when it comes to Hunter's possession by Belos in Thanks To Them.

Possession has never, ever, ever been a good thing.

Not to any religion, as far as I'm aware. Especially not Abrahamic traditions. In Christianity, possession is considered the worst form of demonic affliction, and one that you need to do everything to avoid. That is not an end goal, that is not a good. That is something to be avoided at all costs.

Something other than you having complete control over your will, your being, is the exact opposite of what Judeo-Christian(Can't speak for Islam, I'm not super certain on their beliefs) Religions want you to achieve. True freedom is the goal of Judeo-Christian practices, and the ability to be wholly and completely yourself with God. Literally. That's the goal. They want you to become the perfection God intended for you from the beginning.

Possession is. Not it.

Even the word calls up thoughts of demons, of satanism, and of spiritual danger.

And therein lies the irony.

Belos possessed Hunter.

A religious/cult leader, with power that has slowly dwindled, took over someone else to do his bidding. That's literally what demons do.

(Of course, don't worry, demons aren't going to mess with you, dear reader. Christianity states that most often, just a little temptation is all it takes for us to sin, so why would they bother us with the big guns? Also. Like. In Christianity, to be possessed, you have to consent to the demons taking over you. So! Let that be a lesson to you! The world has a spiritual nature too, and what you invite will accept your invitations!)

Anyways.

It's ironic that the man considered to be a theocratic despot, a cult leader, a manipulator that stands for everything that should be avoided, was possessed, and then in turn possessed another.

It implies that religion is simply the tool being used by a greater evil. The idea of The Emperor's Coven as a cult is a tool used in a larger, more sinister design.

Because, if possession is inherently demonic, as it always is and always will be, then The Owl House has never really been about theocracy, or religion, or even cults.

It's about how darker forces can use those things to gain power and control.

It's about how darkness can twist even things like religion, which is a good, and is extremely important.

It reminds me of what one of my professors was talking about the other day, a Latin Phrase. Corruptio optimi pessima est. The corruption of the highest is the worst. Essentially, the Latin version of "The Bigger They Are, The Harder They Fall". It relates to how good is corrupted by distorting it, and how the worst things are all corruptions of what good is meant to be.

So, really.

Hunter getting possessed changes the entire focal point of the series.

Because it's no longer a single man possessed and ruined, destroying as many as he can out of narcissistic power-hungry desperation.

It's that same man taking over others in order to get control, and gain what he wants.

Belos is, for all events and purposes, a demon. His behavior is demonic, and his attacks are demonic.

And so, it's ironic.

It's ironic that a character seen as a religious leader is possessing the creature he made by playing god. It's ironic that possession is involved in this work at all. It's ironic that sacrifice had to be used to free Hunter. It's ironic. It is irony on top of irony on top of irony.

It's ironic that a series so widely considered to be critical of organized religion and cults is really just saying the age old tune.

Corruptio optimi pessima est.

191 notes · View notes

intersectionalpraxis · 6 months

Text

The fact that Israel has been and continues to target and bomb THE most vulnerable places -hospitals, refugee camps, schools, and places of worship -should be horrifying to us all. Don't let American or any Western media source numb you to ANYTHING that happened or continues to because this is beyond inhumane, immoral, and criminal. And yes, this also includes communities all around the world with whom the media has normalized, ignored, or silenced genocides and imperial/colonial violence (past, and ongoing).

Let me make it clearer for folks who still don't think this is a genocide being concealed by Western media in Palestine by reminding ya'll some of what has happened:

Israel bombed a major academic institution in Gaza recently, Al-Azhar University, and Western news media outlets were neither shocked nor grieved over the deliberate destruction of Gaza's educational space. When Israel bombed the oldest Greek Orthodox Church in Gaza, the Western world barely batted an eyelash; but when Notre Dame went on fire in Paris, the world grieved for over a week.

Israel fighter jets/warplanes bombed 3 refugee camps: Jabalia refugee camp (which was considered THE most devastating strike at the time: killing at least 50 Palestinians and injuring 150; some other reports suggested higher -in the hundreds). Bureij refugee camp, where over a dozen people were killed. And most recently, al-Maghazi refugee camp, where dozens of people were killed. At all these spaces, Palestinian people are SEEKING REFUGE & SHELTER. Some of the many places that should be SAFE, but Israel's defense?? Hamas commanders were potentially there. Based on HUNCHES -not with ANY confirmation whatsoever... and even so, if we're all living in the real world here -why would a space that is keeping tens of thousands of innocent civilians safe be a place any country/power targets unless there were nefarious intentions?

Israel also bombed and continues to bomb hospitals (and near them). The first, and most horrifying we heard of at Al-Ahli, where about 500 people were either killed or injured. It was also the first time we got Israel's start of their ever-failing PR game of 'but it was actually a Hamas rocket,' -of which Israel claimed was a Islamic Jihadist strike -despite ground footage and experts/people who served in the US military DEBUNKING that absurd lie. Israel even tried to EDIT a fake video about the event to evade accountability for this WAR CRIME. And yet, despite all I've mentioned before, on top of video evidence of white phosphorus being air dropped too, THEY'RE NOT BEING INVESTIGATED BY INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS. Let's also not forget to talk about how Israel has shelled/devastated al-Shifa hospital -a place of critical care for cancer patients, and one where MANY journalists take refugee to charge their equipment/phones/where they edit their work because it's one of the only places with solar panels --is being targeted.

As a few days ago, the Palestinian health minister said: "55% of health sector partners had to suspend operations" due to lack of fuel, "16 out of 35 hospitals in Gaza had to shut down" due to lack of fuel shortages and/or Israeli bombing. There are around 5000 Palestinian women who will give birth this month/in the coming weeks, and without access to proper care, disasters will be eminent.

Most recently, it was reported that al-Quds Hospital will run out of fuel in less than 48 hours; this specific hospital has equipment used to help babies on incubators, and thus will be rendered useless. Israel bombed/shelled this hospital to the extent where it's going to shut down, and they're now LYING about storage spaces on hospital sites by saying they are tunnels, when they are NOT. Blueprints were even uploaded to prove they're a small space; but, despite being DEBUNKED immediately, western media has made it seem like it's a hiding place for Hamas.

Israel has also bombed ambulances, medical convoys (one most recently in front of al-Shifa hospital, killing 13 people), and has labelled independent Palestinian journalists as terrorists and is intending to DOXX them in the coming days so their information is widely available to the IDF/Israeli military.

And the most terrifying news I heard today from letstalkpalestine's backup account: "The UN estimates there’s only enough food in Gaza for the next 5 days 🚨"

For anyone still saying that Israel is a victim, and they they are just 'defending,' themselves still -have more than some shame, have some more humanity. Israel has been destroying infrastructure in Gaza for a reason, and that should terrify you, not fuel your pro-Israel agenda.

This is a genocide, not a war. I repeat: this is a GENOCIDE not a war.

#feminist #feminism #israel is an apartheid state #freepalastine🇵🇸#free palestine #free gaza #gaza #israel is committing genocide #israel #genocide #israeli propaganda

31 notes · View notes

workersolidarity · 6 months

Text

[Residential building in Gaza is destroyed by an Israeli regime air strike on Tuesday morning]

🇮🇷🇵🇸 IRANIAN LEADER WARNS THE RESISTANCE COULD STRIKE

The leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in a meeting with Iranian academics and scientists, warned on Tuesday that Muslims nations across the world are angry over the siege and bombardment of civilians in Gaza.

“If these crimes continue, the Muslims and the resistance forces will become impatient, [and] no one would be able to stop them,” he said.

“This is a fact that exists. Of course, whatever the Zionist regime does, it will not be able to make up for the scandalous failure it suffered.”

The Iranian leader further told the meeting that the eyes of the entire world were on Palestine, witnessing the genocidal crimes of the Israeli regime.

He further said that those that claim Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians are wrong. Since Israeli settlers carry weapons, they're hardly civilians under a normal understanding of what a civilian actually is.

“Now let’s suppose that they are civilians. How many civilians were killed? This occupying regime is killing a hundred times more civilians; women, children, the elderly and youth. The armed forces are not living in Gaza buildings. They are in their own place. They (the Israelis) know it too. These are all people. They choose crowded sites and hit them… The occupying government of the Zionist regime must be put on trial today.”

The Iranian leader went on to criticize the United States, noting that current information suggests the US is helping formulate policy in Israel.

"The Americans should consider their responsibility [regarding Israeli crimes in Gaza]… The bombings must stop immediately,"

Ayatollah Kamenei urged scholars and scientists not to remain indifferent to the predicament of Palestinians in Gaza.

"Today, in the case of Gaza, all of us have the responsibility to react. We must show a reaction. Some people are hungry, some are under bombardment, and some are being martyred in hundreds. A scholar, a university, or a seminary scholar must try to recognize the truth and stand by it. Looking indifferently [at issues] is not permissible for scholars and scientists,” Ayatollah Khamenei noted.

#source

@WorkerSolidarityNews

21 notes · View notes

eretzyisrael · 2 months

Text

by Hadar Sela

On the morning of March 1st we asked a question:

As we noted in our post, the ITIC recently published a report showing that over 50% of the journalists that the Hamas media office says were killed in the Gaza Strip between October 7th 2023 and February 18th 2024 were affiliated with terrorist organisations, including 44 from Hamas and 19 from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

THE BBC, JOURNALISM AND TERRORISM

“As we have previously observed in relation to BBC coverage of the topic, the safety of journalists while doing their job is of course an important issue. So too is the abuse of journalism and journalists by terrorist organisations and repressive regimes.

The blurred lines between journalism and terrorism in the Gaza Strip have long been on record but the BBC nevertheless has to date shown no interest in denouncing the exploitation of journalism by cynical terrorist organisations or in drawing a line between legitimate media organisations and those promoting the interests of terrorist organisations or terror funding regimes.”

Little did we know that the answer to our question had already been provided.

The CPJ’s “open letter” reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, stand united with Palestinian journalists in their call for safety, protection, and the freedom to report. For nearly five months, journalists and media workers in Gaza – overwhelmingly, the sole source of on-the-ground reporting from within the Palestinian territory – have been working in unprecedented conditions: at least 89 have been killed in the war, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, more journalists than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year. These journalists – on whom the international news media and the international community rely for information about the situation inside Gaza – continue to report despite grave personal risk. They continue despite the loss of family, friends, and colleagues, the destruction of homes and offices, constant displacement, communications blackouts, and shortages of food and fuel. Journalists are civilians and Israeli authorities must protect journalists as noncombatants according to international law. Those responsible for any violations of that longstanding protection should be held accountable. Attacks on journalists are also attacks on truth. We commit to championing the safety of journalists in Gaza, which is fundamental for the protection of press freedom everywhere.”

In the Gaza Strip, however, not all “journalists are civilians”. Some – like the two whose terror links the BBC tried to downplay in January – are active members of terrorist organisations. Others are employees of the media arms of terrorist organisations. Obfuscating that fact clearly does nothing “for the protection of press freedom”.

Nevertheless, one of the people who chose to sign the CPJ’s “open letter” is Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC News. Readers may recall that in October of last year, Turness attempted to do damage control following criticism of BBC coverage of the war initiated by Hamas on October 7th.

However, as we see, Turness’ commitment to providing BBC audiences with “trusted journalism” does not include recognition of the fact that her profession is being abused by people who function both as journalists and terror operatives.

The BBC’s participation in this CPJ campaign, which whitewashes the issue of the terror affiliations of some journalists in the Gaza Strip, is particularly relevant given that – as noted by Jeremy Bowen in a recent Radio 4 item – the corporation is currently using local freelancers to produce content.

Bowen: “The only journalists in Gaza at the moment are Palestinians who were there on the 7th of October and haven’t left. Many Palestinian journalists have been killed. Many others, including my colleagues from our BBC office in Gaza, have got out with their families. The ones left behind, whether by choice or because they haven’t had permission to cross into Egypt, are extremely courageous. We work with freelancers inside Gaza who liaise with a talented young Palestinian producer in our office in Jerusalem. […] We would be precisely nowhere without them.”

Indeed, BBC audiences have seen reports from the Gaza Strip that are credited to journalists who are not present on the ground but fail to clarify who actually did the filming and interviewing.

With the BBC now having made it clear by means of Turness’ endorsement of this CPJ letter that the issue of journalists engaging in terrorism is not one of its concerns, some difficult questions obviously arise regarding Turness’ claim to provide “trusted journalism” to the corporation’s funding public.

#bbc #journalism #journalists #hamas #gaza #deborah turness #media bias

10 notes · View notes

thesherrinfordfacility · 8 months

Note

(Sorry. Religion grad student) I think another reason why GO only works with Christianity is because the concept of Hell literally doesn't exist in Judaism. Fallen angels don't, either. Satan is an angel who's simply executing God's will by testing his followers. It also ENCOURAGES you to question both God and authority; he gave us free will because he wanted us to use it and think critically. Crowley would be a hero and I know Gaiman has talked about how heavily Jewish coded Crowley is- this is one of the major reasons why lmao.

It's fascinating how Christianity is so focused on the idea of punishment but both Judaism and Islam are rooted in hope. A lot of Christianity works through threats/fear of being "damned" and going to Hell when you die. Judaism says we all end up in the same place anyway so you should just live your best life and be kind. Because you CAN. Not because you don't want to get punished.

Judaism and Islam would argue that God counted on Crowley not killing anyone and Aziraphale helping him during Job.

you guys are keeping me FED✨ i was aware generally that free will is a more explored (if that's the right word) concept in judaism, and i think it does say something that the libertarianism vs determinism argument is becoming more and more opaque in GO...

but yk i never really thought to look at the 'hope' aspect... kant ideas on the presupposition of hope before faith seems especially appropriate - and oooh the concept of heaven as paradise being the ideal vs whether there could possibly exist a true utopia on earth??? gosh...

but yeah, the aspect of being good because you can, not because you have to be in order to earn reward... i kinda touched on it in a musing about pascal (here, if anyone wants to read), but i hadn't truly appreciated this from the viewpoint of judaism, which was rather short-sighted of me (given i lean into nietzsche a lot here too)✨

#good omens #ask #im loving this discussion???!!!!#edit: turns out i cant spell determinism lmao #also reading back its so glaringly obvious my ignorance on religion that i just immediately revert back to philosophy #and im sorry for that the two practically go hand in hand but my brain is just so biased to Not Realising That #im doing my best promise #the fall/the great war spec #ineffable plan spec #heaven theory

26 notes · View notes

saturns-kiss · 21 days

Text

Talk about:

How Sex based oppression is real even if you consider it terfy all that diminishes actual struggles and we get nowhere.

How Dylan Mulvaynes song is misogynistic and people trying to like it out of spite and justify it due to alleged transphobia allows TRAs to get away with things like this and only allows more misogyny to happen.

The sham of womanhood (a tool to sell more from corporations, and womanhood is no shared experience and it is harmful to believe so.

How the belief that radfems are partners with the far right is harmful and is seen being spread to more trans people and their allies. This couldn’t be further from the truth and only allows the radical liberation of women be reduced down to well they work with the right (which isn’t true) and all our ideas go down the drain due to brainwashed individuals.

How radfems are critiqued on the actions of a few individuals who claim to be radical feminists, this is used as talking points from the TRAs during debates and when trans women and their crimes are brought up they will tell you not to judge a whole ideology based on the few. This grace is obviously not given to radical feminists

Why do people get mad when women boil down what it means to be a woman by their struggles. Shouldn’t that be seen as a cry for help instead of what they think is ‘taking away what it means to be a woman’? If someone is oppressed all day every day based on something they can’t change since the start of time then yes I do believe women will end up basing who they are around these struggles since who they are is the reason they face these struggles.

How I hink more radical feminists should speak about religion without being afraid to hurt a few people. When I say religion I don’t only mean Christianity, I mean all religions especially the other Abrahamic religions. I grew up with Islam and still pretend to practice it since I will literally be killed if I attempt to leave it in the country I live in.I’m only 15 and I can tell that religion hurts women while the grown adults believe it benefits them. Religion is used as a tool to oppress and it has brainwashed every where and infiltrated every corner of the earth.

How when women say they hate men. I personally believe it is completely justified to hate your oppressor. When the men come out of the woodworks to claim that they don’t hate women,what about them?, not all men! To that I reply why haven’t you done anything to help stop misogyny, if all you do is claim to not hate women and you still run in anti feminist circles and don’t speak about the oppression of women(which life would be a lot better if those men actually attempted to do anything for us) then by definition you hate women.

Mens place in feminism and what they should do and what it means for women.

How most of the violence committed against trans people are done by men and the blame is placed on radical feminists for some reason. The reason many men hate trans people is due to misogyny the very same reason they hate women. I think there needs to be a difference established between these acts of violence and why they are done or else we get nowhere and trans people and their allies can use it to justify their claims of how they are being killed (which I don’t deny) but all it does is allow them to deflect every sort of criticism since there is no difference in The Who’s and why’s of the violence against them.

How every radfem is a terf (or at least the majority) but not every terf is radfem. This one goes hand in hand with the last point. Most women terfs I’ve seen (most not all) are just people who are obviously confused and upset about their sudden and obvious deprivation of rights which makes a lot of sense. They are completely confused about the trans ideology suddenly being accepted without any explanation or care of what they have to say about it, it also stems from the lack of education trans people have provided about the trans ideology (which is quite literally how they exist). This is why you usually hear the ‘women are people with vaginas!’ Or ‘Women give birth!’ argument since they quite literally know no better since not everybody knows details about sex and gender. This also goes hand in hand with the lack of and inconsideration of sex education for women which is another good topic.

Lesbian erasure and the manipulation of lesbians by trans ‘women’ to think that they should be included in everything lesbians do (lesbian dating and sex and lesbian spaces) or else they are a disgusting fascist.

How sexuality and personality have become interchangeable within the trans community and the effects it will have people who are actually lesbian,gay,bi etc. it would force all sexualities to become inclusive to things that go against the biology and psychology of who they love (like lesbians having to include penises and gay men having to include vaginas)

How men are completely kept out of the new revolutionary inclusive language made by trans people (mostly trans women). People are pushing for women to be referred to as: people with vaginas, chest feeders, birthing people, people who menstruate etc etc. where is this language for the men? Absolutely nowhere to be found. This is usually trans ‘women’ and their internally misogynistic henchmen the trans ‘men’. Which again falls under men policing women.

Male lesbians?????

More will added once I think of them. Feel free to post your own takes on these subjects these are just the main questions I have as a learning radical feminist who once fell prey to anti feminist cults (religion) and the TRA movement( I thought I was gendefluid lol)

On this page I’d like to go through these one by one. I love to learn about different views and opinions and if anyone knows good feminist book recommendations feel free to tell me I’m still very much learning about this type of feminism and am always open to the idea of learning more!

#radfem #radblr #radical feminism #terfblr #lesbian #important #radical feminist safe #radical feminists do interact

12 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 2 months

Text

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Feb 26, 2024

[ Credit: Miriam Elia ]

Far away in the land of Sylvania, some woodland creatures have gathered to celebrate Pride. There’s a cross-dressing fox, a PVC-clad boar, a rabbit in full drag on a float. Rainbow flags and bunting abound. But just out of sight, perched above an ice-cream kiosk, are three sinister little figures in black face masks. They could be hedgehogs. They could be squirrels. One of them has a machine gun.

Isis in Sylvania was the work of the satirist Miriam Elia, a set of tableaux which was meant to be shown at the Passion for Freedom art exhibition at the Mall Galleries in London in 2015. The pieces were withdrawn after police said they might cause offence. That the gallery capitulated so easily would suggest that its self-declared “passion for freedom” was limited.

Elia’s display brilliantly lampooned our infantile response to the growing threat of Islamic terrorism, and it seems more relevant today than ever. After the police had sent emails to the gallery declaring that Isis in Sylvania was “not art” and that “all mentions of it should be removed from the promotional materials, social media etc”, Elia responded:

“The decision to censor shows that our establishment is more threatened by satire, clarity and truth than by young men willing to kill, rape and pillage in the name of Islam. Apparently my images were ‘potentially inflammatory’ to terrorists. This is the equivalent of saying an anti-Nazi cartoon in the late 1930s was offensive… to Nazis. Those who justify and protect barbaric totalitarianism, in whichever form, are on the fast track to becoming totalitarian themselves.”

The reaction of the police, of course, exemplified the very problem that Elia had been satirising in the first place.

It should be clear to everyone by now that kowtowing to the wishes of terrorists only encourages them. Last week Lindsay Hoyle, speaker of the House of Commons, was pressurised into overriding parliamentary convention because of an apparent risk to security. He spoke of “absolutely frightening” threats directed at MPs because of their reluctance to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. He also alluded to the murder of MP David Amess by an ISIS sympathiser. “I never want to go through a situation where I find a friend from any side has been murdered,” he said, “I also don’t want another attack on this House.” The word “Islamist” was not mentioned, as though not talking about the problem might make it disappear.

Hoyle is correct that the threat of violence is very real. Nobody would seek to downplay the murder of David Amess at his constituency surgery in Essex in 2021, or the beheading of schoolteacher Samuel Paty in Paris in 2020, or the massacre at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015. But our tendency to forget these atrocities, and move on as if nothing has happened, is chilling. Many of our politicians are too afraid to address the issues out of fear of being branded “islamophobic”, an absurd neologism often deployed to conflate anti-Muslim hatred with legitimate criticism of Islam.

How much reflection was there after the Manchester Arena bombing in May 2017 in which children and teenagers were slain? After the killing of Amess there was endless discussion in parliament about how we needed to crack down on social media, as though the radical Islamist responsible was motivated by online trolling rather than the creed of a medieval death-cult. We are like the woodland animals in another of Elia’s scenes, blissfully enjoying a picnic while armed and masked assailants appear on the horizon.

[ Credit: Miriam Elia ]

So while I have sympathy for Hoyle’s very human reaction to the spectre of violence, it is clear that the failure of politicians to accurately diagnose the problem is only making matters worse. Those few brave individuals who are prepared to speak out are putting themselves in danger. But with a collective effort the risk could be spread and at least become tolerable. After the Charlie Hebdo atrocity, media outlets refused to show the offending cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, but if all of them had done so simultaneously, the threat could have been diluted.

If the speaker of the House of Commons is prepared to modify parliamentary procedures due to threats from far-left cranks and radical islamists, where does this leave our democracy? It is hardly surprising that increasingly we are seeing commentators claiming that the values of liberalism cannot be sustained against this particular brand of authoritarianism. They suggest that liberals are too weak to tackle those who do not share their commitment to individual freedom.

It is true that too often exemptions have been made out of fear of causing offence to religious minorities. Police in the north of England failed to enforce the law against predominately Pakistani grooming gangs for fear of being branded “racist”. The inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing found that security guards held back from intercepting the killer for similar reasons. Sharia courts have been operating in the United Kingdom for decades and, although their rulings have no legal standing, they do hold authority within Muslim communities. And we have seen how police have overlooked some of the worst behaviour at the now regular pro-Palestine marches in London.

But this is not a weakness at the heart of liberalism; it is the failure to properly follow its principles. All branches of liberal thought – from the conservative liberalism of Friedrich Hayek to the social liberalism of John Rawls – share an understanding that the rule of law is paramount. Individual autonomy cannot be preserved if the state is unable to maintain the peace and impartially resolve the natural conflicts of human existence.

A well-intentioned commitment to multiculturalism has enabled parallel societies to flourish within the United Kingdom. In turn, this has granted authority to the most reactionary elements within religious communities. Sharia law may be an ambition for ultra-conservative theocrats, but many female and gay Muslims will not find it such an appealing prospect. We need to stop appeasing these minorities within minorities, small groups of extremists that by no means represent the average British Muslim. And this means that our parliamentarians must retain their courage, even in the face of violent threats.

More than anything, we need to be able to talk about this crisis with honesty and candour. However comforting it might be in the short term, our political class cannot go on living in their Sylvanian fantasy, wilfully oblivious to the masked elephant in the room. This denialism is a form of procrastination, putting off the inevitable for another day. The values of our liberal democracy and our hard-won rights are under threat. It’s time to grow up.

A limited edition book of all the images in Miriam Elia’s “Isis in Sylvania” series is available to buy here. A signed limited edition print of the picnic scene is available here.

We have to stop being panicked when people claim to be offended.

#Andrew Doyle #islam #this is islam #islamophobia #islamic violence #islamic authoritarianism #authoritarianism #sharia #sharia law #Miriam Elia #islamism #liberalism #liberal values #religion is a mental illness

8 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 1 month

Note

If there's one good thing from the Israel-Palestine conflict, it's how conflicted liberals are between their love of uwu old man biden and their hatred of Israel.

"Omg Biden just supported Israel ! 😱 Should we wait until he's re-elected before we hold him accountable, or is Israel not that bad actually ?"

I'm both enjoying and terrified by the honesty of all of the people that are removing their mask for this one myself.

Wild to see people going full nazi and terrifying as well, not wholly unexpected, but still terrifying to see.

That and the utter double standard from the Islamic community, this is directly pointed at the Uyghur community.

Where's the protests when china says they're going to do what amounts to ethnic genocide of their muslim population, people in literal concentration/reeducation camps.

Forcing marriage with the Han population to assimilate not only in thought but also in appearance, cuz kids.

But there's not a Jewish population in China, not much of one at least so I guess this is ok, I'm sure the communist party won't be rewriting the Koran in order make themselves look better to the faithful and remove possible criticism or anything.

Samuel Paty, teacher in France was beheaded because a student lied about him insulting Islam, but this is barely a blip on the radar.

Charlie Hebdo got worldwide protests and a terrorist attack that killed so many people, over a cartoon, what about this though?

Israel/palestine conflict is not about Muslims displaced or injured or any of that, and that should be evident to most everyone that sees the response to what is going on here.

Ironically the Jewish community is one of the ones I've seen being the most vocal about what china is up to, something about taking never again seriously.

#anonymous

8 notes · View notes

mask131 · 7 months

Text

I want to share with you something about the French reception of the attack on Israel. A little point which, I promise, will lead to a bigger and more general point.

And this little point is the reason why you will not see any French politician or public figure approve or applaud the actions of the Hamas, and why almost all of them are currently sharing opinions supporting Israel, and why the few that do not condemn the Hamas' actions are currently under big criticism.

Because in France there is a crime known as "apology of terrorism". It is quite simple: the law condemns and deems criminal any kind of public support or approval of terrorist organizations and terrorist attacks. This is the set of laws that, for example, prohibited French people from loudly screaming "Well done! This dirty criminal-government is getting its right justice and these deaths were perfectly justified!" when 9/11 happened. These are much needed law for France's current situation to fight back the rise of extreme Islam on the French territory, and to criminalize things such as people rejoicing at Samuel Paty's death. This is the same set of laws that currently prevent people from sharing any support of the Hamas.

Because, and this is something that NEEDS to be remembered and brought back in this whole talk: the Hamas is recognized by many countries as a terrorist organization. France recognizes it as terrorist, because France is part of the European Union which, as a whole, considers the Hamas terrorist ; and so does the United-States, and Canada, and Japan, and Paraguay... Even countries that do not recognize the entirety of the Hamas as terrorist (Great-Britain, Australia, New-Zeland, Egypt...) do recognize that it is semi-terrorist and that it has terrorist branches within it. And it isn't just countries and governments, oh no! People should also recall that many humanitarian organizations, AND many human rights organisms, have frequently and regularly denounced the crimes and the terrorist nature of the Hamas. Not against Israel, no - against the Palestinians themselves. Amnesty International, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and Human Rights Watch, have all spoken against the Hamas, its immoral methods, and its crimes. Note something when people speak of condemning these attacks: people condemn the HAMAS, say the HAMAS should be punished. Nobody condemns Palestine, nobody says Palestinians should be punished - and that's because the Hamas is not Palestine in the eyes of these goverments - the same governments that recognize the Hamas as a terrorist organization refuse to see it as any kind of legitimate representative of Palestine.

Let's remember how for example in the very texts that founded the Hamas and in the Hamas very public ideology, there is a clear refusal of any kind of peace attempt with Israel - the organization was born with the sole goal to declare war on Israel, and with the dream to see Israel completely destroyed and all its inhabitants gone in one way or another ; and as a result they are known to have intimidated, captured, tortured and killed anyone they deemed as "allies" or "favorites" of Israel. This included the Hamas opposing in many different ways all attempts at peace treaties or negociations with Israel, and the Hamas capturing and torturing any Palestinian they deemed too leanient or too friendly or not aggressive enough with Israel, to the point Palestinians who were actually working on trying to change for the better Israel-Palestinian relationships had to leave Palestine due to how threatened they were.

Let's remember how the Hamas is a very openly antisemitic group, whose goals are clearly spelled out as a "jihad against the Jews" ; that deems one of the main problems of Israel's existence is its Jewishness ; who for decades have shared texts explaining that Muslims are the natural ennemies of the Jews, or that the Jews controlled the world medias with all the "money" they had, or that the Jews were secretly behind the French and Soviet Revolutions, and that WWII was actually organized by the Jews to amass an enormous amount of money. And that it is only very recently, and because they clearly needed to "look clean", that they decided to adopt views such as "We don't have problems with Jews in Europe or America, just those in our region" and "Maybe the Holocaust did happen and was bad - but we want to do our own thing, so it's good, since we're not Nazis". Even in their sentences saying that a peaceful cohabitation between the three religions of the book was possible, they insist that such a peace is only possible as long as Islam is recognized as the most important and superior religion, under which the others could live in peace.

Let's recall all the testimonies of Palestinians who lived in fear of the Hamas, and dreaded receiving a bullet in the leg or in the head because they would accused of "collaborating" with Israel. Let's recall the accusations of the Hamas participating in the human-trafficking rings at work in north-east Africa. Ismaël Haniyeh has declared that Ben Laden was a "holy warrior of Islam" and that his death made him a Muslim martyr - confirming what everybody knew already, that the Hamas and Al-Qaïda had relationships with each other. In 2012 Sahar El-Mougy already denounced that the Hamas, which started as a resistance movement against the Israelian oppresor, had turned into the new oppresor of Palestine and into a fanatical religious group that erased Palestinian culture by censoring or destroying its arts, literature and cinema, to enforce exclusively religious works.

All in all: the Hamas is bad for Palestine, and the Hamas is bad, and that's it. This isn't the fact that "Israel was attacked" which is the true problem and core of the debate here - here the situation is "the HAMAS attacked Israel". No matter what Israel did in the past, or how far-right it might be, or how half of the Israelian population is against its current leader, or anything else - if we just take the present situation, in the eyes of the law and the government of many of those countries, it boils down to, "A terrorist group attacks a democratic government. We thus have to stand by the democracy's side, no matter if we actually like the democracy in question, out of principle, because we, as nations fighting against terrorism on our own grounds, cannot support a terrorist group".

So, maybe to many of you it seems "unfair" or "hypocrite" or "vile" to not be "Let's have Israel destroyed", but the situation is that these countries are not going to support an antisemitic, religiously-extremist, terrorist group that has been known to commit human rights crime against its own people.

#hamas #israel #palestine #human rights #antisemitism #antisemitic

18 notes · View notes