Nada de eso es cultural: tampoco es un artefacto histórico. Para comprender el caso de la violencia conyugal, por ejemplo, el Instituto de Ciencias Médicas de Pakistán ha determinado que más del 90 por ciento de las esposas paquistaníes han sido golpeadas, apaleadas o se ha abusado sexualmente de ellas -- por ofensas del orden de cocinar una comida no satisfactoria. Otras fueron castigadas por no dar a luz a un hijo varón. En la primavera de 2005, cuando la nación de África oriental de Chad intentaba instituir una nueva ley familiar que ilegalizaría la violencia conyugal, los clérigos musulmanes encabezaban la resistencia a la medida por anti- islámica.

El artículo trata de la situación de la mujer en el Islam, en respuesta los lavados de cara habituales de los medios de comunicación y los académicos.

Léelo entero, es en español: Ocultando la situación de las mujeres musulmanas.

Have you read about the puppy dog, the police in Dundee and the Muslims? Do you want to know what actually happened and what is going on? If so, you can continue to read my post. As an anthropologist working and living in this region of Scotland, I may clarify some points. However, before explaining what actually is going on, let me highlight some important aspects.  In a previous post I complained how the mass media paid attention to the most slight, trivial and ridiculous event involving Islam and Muslims in this country and in the world, but become shy and extremely politically correct (together with their readers) when reporting racial, nazi-inspired crimes, such as the case of the Nazi pedophile Mr Gilleard, a white, Christian, uber-British nationalist.

I did not need even one day to have another clear evidence of this fact. Today all the national newspapers are reporting the ridiculous story of the apologies offered by the Tayside police to the Muslim community for a postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman's hat issued for their new non-emergency telephone number. Of course, immediately the voices of the readers rise in indignation for such a ‘politically correct’ response of the police force. I leave it to you to read some of the comments, which also seem repetitive and similar from one newspaper to the other.  International broadcasters, such as Fox News, have reported this little ridiculous piece of news in sensationalist terms. 

 I remind you that no international TV news or newspapers had reported neither the Mr Sandalo ‘Love Jesus and kill Muslims’ terrorist network, nor the crusading nationalist plots of Mr Gilleard. 

Ask yourself why a stupid contested postcard should become an international case more than the evidence that dangerous, fanatic Nazi and Fascist movements are exploiting the much constructed fear of Islam in order to promote their ideology and find support among the general public by targeting Muslims? The reason is that the above news should be read within a meta-discourse which says ‘Here’s more evidence that we are becoming all Dhimmi’ as the new Christian prophets (among which we can mention Bat Ye‘or, andFallaci&co. This is the real reason for which newspapers should report such trivial stories (and possibly undermine others). 

Now, let me summarise the story. The police force in Tayside, of which Dundee is part, has issued a new card to be displayed in public places and shops to remind people of their new telephone number. Mr Mohammed Asif, the Muslim councillor of Dundee City, but also a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board, has advised the police force that the new card, because it displays the image of a black cute puppy dog,  ‘may be not be welcomed’ by some members of the Muslim communities owing shops, and consequently they may not display it.

Now this was the advice of a member of the Muslim community who had some knowledge of the community and was for this reason part of the Tayside Joint Police Board. As such, he had not only the right but actually the duty to advise the police on such a matter. 

I find interesting how the advice of a member of the Joint Police Board becomes the official complaint of an entire community, and how immediately newspapers remind their readers how Islam dislikes dogs. Again we are witnessing disinformation through essentialisation (for more you can read my book The Anthropology of Islam). First of all, Mr Asif was providing advice.

The reason for this advice is that the majority of the Muslim shopkeepers in Dundee are of South Asian background, particularly from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Without going too much into detail here, we can say that some Muslims from these areas dislike dogs, and see them as polluted (or are just scared of them, with some good reasons when we consider that many dogs in these countries are less than domestic). Yet the newspapers report that all Muslims dislike dogs because they are forbidden in Islam. Well, nothing is more easy to disprove than these misleading reports.

Muslims are different and likewise their Islam. I will use as an example to contradict the stereotype of Muslim-dog-hatred, not just some ‘soft-core’ Sufis, but nothing less than the most respectable Wahabi families: The Saudi family and their  love for  Salukis, read the article and laugh at those whom insist in claiming that all Muslims hate dogs! 

 I have not received any complaint about this card, and other sources have confirmed that many Muslims in Dundee have been very surprised about the scandal.  Clearly the Daily Mail and others are trying to use this ridiculous story for scare-mongering the Scottish population. 

Yet to have a totally clear picture about this story, you need more relevant information. We have to go back to 2006, in December, when the Tayside Special Branch seemed to become over-zealous in its activities in Dundee. I have personally collected stories of frightened students being fully interviewed, without real reason, by officers, and even asked how many times they went to the mosque, to which mosque, and how many times they prayed: all useful questions to find and recognise terrorists! Of course, these useless interviews and the apparently clumsy start of the new police unit, did not win the hearts and minds of the Muslims in Dundee. The result was tension and lack of collaboration.

Mistake after mistake, the relationship between the Muslim communities in Dundee and the police in general were at the lowest level; this despite the fact the no evidence was ever found of criminal activities and the Scottish Muslim communities in Dundee are among the most law abiding in the country.  

Now, we can clearly understand what really has happened in the police-card affair.   One Muslim councillor, who happened to be also part of an advisory organ of the Tayside police forces, knowing of the very fragile relationship between the local police force and the overall Muslim community in Dundee, has advised the police about the possible reactions, from some members of the communities, to the advertisement. The police in Dundee, which cannot renounce the assistance of the Muslim communities to fight violent extremists, decide to take the safer route, and apologise for the eventual offence to some of the members. 

Hence, there are some important conclusions to be stressed. This ‘affair’ is a very local one and influenced by local politics and previous local situations. It has nothing to do with Islam disliking cute dogs (as I have clearly proved). The majority of the Muslims in Dundee are surprised to read this stupid and ridiculous story no less than you and will agree with the majority of the people living in this country that this is a trivial case. Finally, we have another example of how the mass media are manipulating (some for money, others for political ideology) reality in order to convince the majority of non-Muslims that we are ready for Dhimmitude and our politicians and even police forces are not really able to prevent this and defend the Christians values of this country as well as our (not-so Christian) ‘style of life.’  

Once again, thanks to the irresponsibility of the mass media and their partial (or misleading) reporting,  Muslims find themselves in the middle of a sensationalism which will even further damage their lives and will see even more, in Dundee, their children bullied at school and in the street. At the same time, the fantasy scaremongering of a Dhimmi conspiracy will offer the Sandalos and the Gilleards more hopes for their dream of a Nazi-Christian-Aryan nation. 

Around 30 people gathered at the Islamic Foundation in Brno, south Moravia, May 5 for the screening of Fitna, a controversial new film by Dutch right-wing Deputy Geert Wilders.

The film starts off with the first lulling tones of the Arabian Dance from The Nutcracker ballet as a mock-up of a page from the Koran appears onscreen, along with an English translation of an excerpt from a verse: “Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering / to strike terror ... into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies.”

After several seconds, the Nutcracker music stops, replaced by news clips depicting the destruction of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The remainder of the film follows a similar pattern, interweaving violence-oriented excerpts from the Koran with footage of terrorist attacks, beheadings and Islamic extremist rhetoric...

[T]he Islamic Foundation in Brno organized its own screening of Fitna.

“We wanted to illuminate the parts of the Koran that were left out of the movie,” said Brno Islamic Foundation Chairman Muneeb Hasan, an Iraqi immigrant who has lived in the Czech Republic for 23 years. “The film depicts Muslims as people who are rigid in their views, so we wanted to show that we are not afraid of criticism, that we are open to discussion.”

For Hasan, Fitna is particularly dangerous because it instills the idea of a link between Islam and terrorism into the audience’s subconscious. “The film alleges that Muslims lack the ability to live in peace with other cultures, that women have an inferior position in society than men,” he said. “It’s biased and xenophobic.”

That's how you respond to speech you don't like and you think is dangerous.  You engage it and show it for what it is.  Geert Wilder's publicity stunt is a dismal failure, endorsements from Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mel Phillips, and the rest of the xenophobic alphabet soup notwithstanding. Shaking fists at the Dutch government is stupid, not in the least because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what open societies are and do.

In mid-April, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) unveiled a ten-point plan for fighting against jihadist activity in the U.S.

1) Investigate all military chaplains endorsed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is serving 23 years in prison for funding jihad terrorism.
2) Investigate all prison chaplains endorsed by Alamoudi.
3) Investigate the selection process of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and the FBI.
4) Examine the non-profit status of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has had several of its officials convicted on jihad terror-related charges, and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case.
5) Make it an act of sedition or solicitation of treason to preach or publish materials that call for the deaths of Americans.
6) Audit sovereign wealth funds in the U.S.
7) Cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their textbooks, which preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims.
8) Restrict religious visas for imams who come from countries that don't allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.
9) Cancel contracts to train Saudi police and security in U.S. counterterrorism tactics.
10) Block the sale of sensitive military munitions to Saudi Arabia.

All in favor, say Aye.

French translation available here, thanks to a kind soul by the name of Naibed.

This article was picked up by Campus Watch.

Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes spoke at length on April 8 about why they believe ["holy war"] is a much more accurate definition [for jihad]. Spencer and Pipes were invited to speak at Stanford by Students for an Open Society, in an event co-sponsored by The Stanford Review and the Stanford College Republicans.

[...]

Perhaps the most important point of the lecture, which both Spencer and Pipes agreed upon, is that the jihadist ideology cannot be defeated if the West continues to explain it away as unimportant, allow obfuscation by certain groups to replace candid investigation of it, or ignore it entirely. Recognition of the threat that this ideology poses to Western civilization is essential if victory is ever to be attained.

Read it all...