Lifestyles [2]

Has Linda Heard ever bothered to find out how many Muslims are on social security benefits? Even the one-eyed and one-armed terrorist cheerleader, Abu Hamza, is milking the state while declaring jihad on Britain. The sin of the British government, according to Linda, is that it wants information on the idiots responsible for terrorist activities.

We let these peoples in, give them shelter, feed them, educate them, give them money, and how are we repaid? By plans for mass murder. Linda should have been on one of those blown-up trains last July; only then would she appreciate the suffering caused by Muslims. I know what I am talking about; I am on location and I can hear the words and see the deeds of the Muslims she defends. I don’t know if Linda would consider this enough of an answer to her question, “”Why This Fear of Islam”? As for me, I do.

Fabius, United Kingdom published 29 October 2006

Israel’s Ingratitude

While the Palestinians are killing each other to show who loves the cause more, Israel is helping Fatah by killing Hamas supporters and helping Hamas by killing Fatah men. If our brave fighters wait for a few more months, they will have a great victory delivered to them, well, not on silver platters, but in wooden coffins. All this goes shows that Israel has no gratitude. Even now, when the Palestinians are doing its job by destroying themselves, no Israeli leader has said a word of thanks.

Jamaluddin K., Riyadh published 29 October 2006

Crude Hubris

It is good news for the region that North Korea has no plans to carry out a second nuclear test. The first has served its purpose. Pyongyang has proved that it has the know-how to produce a weapon. That takes it out of Bush’s to-be-kicked-around class to the must-step-around-carefully category. What I found amusing in the report “North Korea Does Not Intend to Carry Out a Second N-Test” (Oct. 25) was the sentence which quoted Chinese officials who said, “... but did not apologize for its test.”

Apologize for what and to whom? To China, which has developed a sophisticated arsenal of nukes, each development necessitating a number of blasts? Did Beijing apologize to North Korea when it conducted its own blasts? Or to America which carried out its most convincing test not under the ground, but on the civilian populations of two crowded cities?

Can hubris be any cruder than that?

Chan C., Dubai published 29 October 2006

Bloodshed in Iraq

The OIC’s efforts to stop the bloodshed in Iraq will succeed only if it can make the faction leaders realize how they are serving as tools of the occupiers. When the US and Britain invaded Iraq, they had thought the Iraqis would be flattered to have them as masters. The plan was to install a puppet government to serve their interests. But the fierce resistance they faced upset their plans and forced them to resort to the tried and tested imperial policy of divide and rule. The whole world knows it for what it is — except the Arabs. They never learn. Or, maybe, they don’t want to learn.

Every attempt of the occupiers to “bring peace” serves to provoke further bloodshed. It is too consistent to be coincidental. When they go to attack Sunni areas, they take along Shiite soldiers and when they attack Shiite areas, Sunni soldiers are their battering arm, every engagement intensifying the sectarian hate. This is a major factor in the continuation of the crisis.

Another factor is the training of the Iraqi Army and arming with inferior weapons. They are denied effective equipment under the pretext that they could fall into the resistances hands. The fact is that the occupiers do not want the army to be able to control the situation, because the anarchy they created with their invasion suits them. It gives them the excuse to stay on.

It is a known fact that the strategists in the Bush administration are all pro-Israel neocons or Zionists. They first convinced Bush that Iraq was a threat to the US and Israel and that Saddam needed to be stopped before it was too late. Then they convinced him that it would be an easy war. The ultimate goal was, and remains, to divide the region into small divided tribal areas with enough blood between them that they would never unite.

Since both Israeli and American strategies have come from the same brains, they use the same argument to justify their actions. Now they both blame the weakness of the victims. “The leadership” is not doing enough to stop the violence is the refrain. They both know that the leaderships in Iraq and Palestine have no real means to enforce laws because they will not allow them to arm their police forces.

Rashid M. Alhomaid, Tucson, Arizona published 29 October 2006

Nostalgia for Old Eid

Zainy Abbas’ report “Elderly Makkawis Remember Eid of Yesteryears With Nostalgia” (Oct. 25) made me, a person of a different faith, feel a great sense of sympathy for the elderly who see something precious slipping away. I can understand the sadness of the elderly man. I, a Catholic, can see the future of Muslim Eid in our Mardi Gras. You see, for the truly understanding Catholic person, this should be a time of mental preparation for an upcoming time of fasting, prayer and good deeds. Instead, some have turned it into a time of indulgence. Not everyone does it that way, but those who do always seem to be spotlighted. It gives the wrong impression to our Catholic youth and the world as to what this festival should be about.

Linda Villafano, Jeddah published 29 October 2006

Nostalgia for Old Eid [2]

I really enjoyed reading this article about Eid celebrations in Saudi Arabia some years ago and the traditions that seem to be fading away. It reminds me of the senior citizens in my culture who mourn the commercialization of Christmas and the loss of old customs and traditions.

Victoria Zaper, Canada published 29 October 2006

Nostalgia for Old Eid [3]

When Mshari Al-Qahtani said of the Eid in Makkah in the past that they used “to begin it with visits to relatives and friends in the neighborhood; after that the entire neighborhood would gather for a massive feast and the nights would be extra special,” it reminded me of my days in my village in India. We had no money or electricity, and our entertainment came from our own efforts — sports and games, folk songs and dances, visits and other forms of innocent fun, all of which involved interaction with others in one way or another. Everybody gave happiness to everybody else, with a smile, a greeting or a gift that did not cost anything much. Now we get our entertainment from TV. And our only group activity is for a few of us to gather at some private place and tell each other how superior we are to those in other groups.

Abdul Bari, Jeddah published 29 October 2006

Lifestyles

The “astute Egyptian friend” Linda S. Heard quoted in her article “Why This Fear of Islam” (Oct. 24) had, in a way, the same solution that Jack Straw has for the racial tensions in Britain: adopt our way, and everything will be all right. Women drinking is, as Linda’s friend, noted a social problem in Britain. It was the reason for many personal and family tragedies; but it has never threatened peaceful life in Britain, because no other community took it as a challenge to their way of life.

In the same manner, wearing veils may present problems to the wearer; many may have been denied jobs and many lost them as Aishah إzmi has; but that too need not threaten peaceful life in Britain, because no other community needs to take it as a challenge to their way of life. Problems come not from differences, but from the insistence of some that the other should conform to their habits and styles.

The Muslim immigrants in Britain are there as refugees — some from political repression and others from economic hardship. To demand that they give up their identity in exchange for the right to live in Britain is against the values that the British themselves hold dear and their leaders hold up as evidence of their enlightenment. When the British were in other countries — as colonists in Asia and Africa — they never changed their lifestyle. They wore the same dress, ate the same food, spoke the same language and played the same games as they had in their home country. They too were economic refugees — they were in the colonies to give themselves better lives. The difference is that they used guns as their visas, while the immigrants to Britain got visas at British consulates.

Why not allow the same freedom to those who are now in their country, and then move on to things that matter?

Kaleem Mustafa, Dammam published 29 October 2006