You won't find here spontaneous instant reactions to current affairs, unless they warrant and can tolerate a brief and instant response.

Otherwise most responses to current affairs are posted only after careful thought and consideration, and the time to get different sides of the story as fairly as possible. Thus commentary is posted some time after the events have occurred, but give the reader a more profound and substantive analysis of the events, in a format that will usually be effective and applicable to future cases and quotable in a variety of similar situations. Each analysis provides significant talking points.

CONTENTS

Some mediated 'current affairs' commentaries submitted to HaSM by members of the public may be posted here.

HaSM brief commentaries on Current Affairs (archived)

HaSM offers its sincerest and most heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims who lost their lives in the despicable, misguided, profoundly cowardly and senseless attack on Bombay by terrorists who apparently are "Muslim" but who are definitely not true Muslims except for the label. They are in fact, the lowest form of criminal in the world.

To our Hindu and Sikh brothers and sisters in particular, as well as all others who were affected in any manner by the attacks, our sympathies and our hearts and minds are totally with you.
Sadly, we are reminded yet once again what HATE leads to when left to run rampant. Whether The Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, 9/11, or any other tragedy and atrocity deriving from hate, each such horror exhorts us to do more to combat hate and haters on all sides.

Barak Obama's election is a victory not for Obama - who was simply a test strip in that spontaneous experiment called the American elections - but for the American people. It is a victory of tolerance and non-prejudice over hate and racism; a triumph of moderation over extremism; a triumph of secularism over religious conservatism, a triumph of liberalism over closed-mindedness, a triumph of inclusion over exclusion, a triumph of humanity over tribalism, a triumph of love over hate.

The American people are the winners, the ones who passed the test with flying colours, with a grade six million points ahead of the runner-up.

Both sides may well love America, but love comes in different forms, the harmful, hateful, exclusionary, racist love, versus the open, tolerant, inclusive love. The latter won the day, and hopefully many days to come.

We can't but join the views of those we usually denounce as haters when they apply those views to all Muslims, but in cases like that preacher, it is absolutely irrational and injudicious to both release him and not have him deported.

We firmly, very firmly indeed, believe that if you preach hate - on either side - you are worse than the terrorists and you breed terrorists.

In the case of non-citizens, anywhere, not only Britain, they should be deported. In the case of citizens who preach insidious hate they should be ostracized. That means those well-known haters of Muslims and Islam who spew their hate against Muslims and Islam collectively are included as well. And if they preach violence - either side - they should be jailed as Qatada was (though only on deportation hearings). Hate laws are severely wanting, even in Britain where they are relatively stricter than elsewhere.

If jail time has not rehabilitated Qatada, their ought be serious provisions to send him right back in, or deport him. It is a catastrophe that he was released. He harms innocent Muslims and Islam much more than haters of Muslims and Islam do with their daily and nightly bashing.

We can get some consolation and peace of mind from the fact that there are very strong restrictions placed on his activities after his release.

Unfortunately, western hate preachers, like writer Theodore Dalrymple who preached violence against innocent Muslims, rarely meet with the same outrage. True, he wrote his despicable views outside of Britain, where no respectable newspaper would come near his neo-Nazi like preaching of hate, but that still does not excuse it.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Sharon Stone suggests that the earthquake that hit China happened because bad things happen to people who have done wrong, in this case Tibet’s occupation. Imagine gloating over the misfortune of simple farmers, villagers and other innocent people who have no involvement in what is happening in Tibet, or what their government is doing in Tibet. It is the same as supporting suicide bombers who kill innocent people at random because the government of those people is committing wrong.

And that's not the first time we’ve heard similar despicable language. Prominent "Christian" religious figures like the late Jerry Falwell and other "Christian" leaders suggested the Katrina hurricane was God’s response to homosexuality.

Killing all those hundreds of people at random and sowing all that destruction on innocent people because of something those clergy deem wrong! That, again, is exactly like supporting random violence, and worst yet, on account of no wrong except in their minds.

On other occasions Pat Robertson too made similar suggestions. Go figure.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

If we were similarly inclined as Mr. Coren - that is to demonise people on account of the crimes of some of them, we would have been exploiting those repeated horrors to their utmost potential against the white race, for example. By contrast we only highlight that such crimes occur because our hands are forced by the likes of Mr. Coren, and in response to his incessant, intolerant statements made about Muslims and Islam.

Obviously, that kind of thing - being forced to respond - is a good example of the consequences of promoting hate. Those who make generalised accusations based on individual crimes start a cycle of accusations and counter accusations, and of exposing each other's crimes that leads to nowhere except to ill-feelings, because all groups have criminals and good people, and none are exempt, and none are better than the other.

We ask Mr. Coren wouldn't it be much more constructive if we focussed our energies on highlighting our shared humanity and the positive in our lives, and how, in doing so, we can all - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc., together isolate the extremists and haters among us all?

Will you do it Mr. Coren, so we can do something good for this wonderful nation and its people?

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

We mailed that brief letter to Maclean's, but it did not have the guts or integrity to publish it. We soon found out the reason why in the very next issue of Maclean's. It had yet another whining bout by Mr. Steyn.

Imagine publishing a letter about his whining in the very same issue in which he is actually whining yet some more.

Andrew Coyne and his boss Ken Whyte could not get themselves to publish it. Their self-esteem and self-confidence must be very weak that a short, little letter like that was too much to bear for the big guys who speak to us about accepting criticism and not taking offense.

Poor little guys, what do they have to hide? Perhaps that they, in fact, have allowed and do allow intolerance on the pages of a "respectable" magazine? So, of course, they now have to protect their choice writer from anything that will discredit him even slightly, even such a tiny, brief, little letter.

But it's Muslims who need to have thicker skins, they tell us.

In fact, what their conduct repeatedly and indisputably tells us about them, is that they do not deserve to be in the positions they are in, and that they are an embarrassment to the journalistic profession of a civilized nation like Canada.

They are supposed to be serving the mainstream, civilized readership, not a bigoted small segment of the population.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

(In case the reader is unfamiliar with American affairs, actually it's the Christian pastor of the Church Mr.Obama attends who said that. We're just being sarcastic)

Selected views from the world on current affairs (archived).

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

A full and unequivocal recognition of Israel and diplomatic and other relations with Israel by Arab and Muslim nations.

Creation of a Palestinian state on the land occupied after the 1967 war, give or take by exchanging real estate between both sides in a just and fair manner.

Obviously, our position does not differ much, and closely reflects that of Arab nations and a multitude of Muslim nations who have already taken the same positions and made various moves and declarations in that direction, including the milestone conference held in Beirut in March 2002, which resulted in the Beirut Declaration on Saudi Peace Initiative.

"..the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace."

Our own detailed position is also expressed in the HaSM Studies and analyses page.

We also reject any forms of anti-Semitism. In that respect, using the wrongs of Israel to promote hatred against Jews is the most unacceptable and un-Islamic conduct possible for any Muslim to engage in. It goes against the tolerant nature of Islam as witnessed in its gloriously tolerant history.

We categorically reject, and unreservedly condemn any such conduct, and note to all Muslims that it goes completely against Islam's honorable teachings and gives an unrepresentative, wrong portrayal of Islam.

We also remind all Muslims that not only is it morally wrong according to Islam's teachings, but it is also unfair and misguided since the most ardent defenders of Palestinians and their rights are themselves Jews and other non-Muslims way beyond any Muslims.

If Muslims ask objectivity of the west in not laying blame on all Muslims for the deeds of some of them, Muslims should do the same, and indeed lead by example.

See Also:

IRAQ

HaSM's position is simple. Though, like most of the world, we were opposed to the invasion of Iraq and preferred that other means are exhausted first - and they certainly weren't - we fully support using all force required at present to assure that once the occupation forces leave Iraq will not revert to any form of violence, human rights abuses, or religious or ethnic strife. As such we support without qualification the existence of the foreign military forces in Iraq till a state of near stability and security is attained there. We commend the American administration and President George Bush for staying the course once they committed themselves.

It would have been very easy to break it and leave it broken and run. They did make a monumental error that cost so much unnecessary bloodshed, death and destruction that is hard to forgive, but they redeemed themselves to a certain extent by staying the course once that happened. Without the stabilizing effect of those forces, we believe Iraq would have been literally torn apart by religious and ethnic armed conflict that would have resulted in greater bloodshed than any we have seen there so far.

We do not believe America has any interest in keeping an occupation force in Iraq indefinitely.

You can get more views on our position on Iraq from various original HaSM articles.

Darfur

HaSM is against the targeting of non-combatant civilians in any armed conflict, whether by government forces, foreign forces, rebels, insurgents, separatists, freedom fighters, or anyone else. In Darfur every effort needs to be made to end the armed conflict in favour of a negotiated solution.

All displaced refugees should be allowed to return to their land, and no ethnic cleansing, if any occurred, allowed to stand.

Any designated and confirmed war criminals should be brought to justice on both sides. Though what appears to be ethnic cleansing seems to have been a goal of the groups who pushed the ethnic Darfurians into Chad, there does not appear to have been a deliberate attempt or planned genocide (See links below).

From all evidence as well, it seems that both parties - both Muslims - are struggling over land and resources on one side (the government supported forces - referred to as "Arabs"), and greater rights and greater autonomy on the ethnic Darfurians' side (referred to as not "Arabs").

The point of “not Arabs” is a side issue, but only a blind person would call Sudanese racially or ethnically "Arabs", such as the Saudi Arabs, for example. The Arab connotation is yet one more example of the racists trying to attribute anything negative they can to "Arabs". It reflects negatively basically on their deceptive nature rather than on Arabs.

The conflict might as well have been between two "Arab" tribes in Darfur fighting over resources or land, and it would have made no difference in the nature, or the consequences of the conflict.

The fight is between group A and B over resources not a fight between group A and B because one is "Arab" and the other is not.

The proof is in the infighting between even the Darfurian rebel groups of the same ethnic group which the supposed Arabs are fighting. (See following links for further information on those points.)

An African-American Missouri state representative who visited Sudan to investigate the conflict for herself remarked that she could not tell the one from the other. She thought that there were Arabs and Africans, and she found they were all Africans whom she could not tell apart - “Arabs” from “Africans”. All were black. If only there was more such honesty in the world.

Afghanistan

Please see Iraq. The only difference, we supported the invasion of Afghanistan for a host of reasons, getting Osama Bin Laden being the first and foremost of them.

On Canada's involvement in Afghanistan see Alert to Canadian-Muslims on Afghanistan

Preachers of Hate

HaSM's position is clear: If they preach generalised hate against all of the western world, the whole of a particular western nation, or western society generally in any manner, they should be dealt with very firmly. If they aren't Canadian citizens they should be deported. If they are Canadian citizens they should be denied their position as preachers, and/or the location they preach at closed, using whatever laws possible to accomplish that. If they aren't deported they should be placed under surveillance.

The best solution is to have hate laws that outlaw that kind of hate-incitement in the first place.

But hate is a two way street. Terrorists are created as much by haters in the fringe of Muslim society working in the shadows on the other side of the world or in the west, as by preachers of hate in the mainstream west working out in the open using our mainstream media like "madrassas" of hate reaching the west's mainstream public at large.

If we crack down on haters and hate preachers - as we rightly should - we should do the job right and act as forcefully against haters in the mainstream west as on haters among the fringe Muslims. Both lead to harm, violence, and discord in society.

Terrorism

HaSM's position on any kind of random violence is clear from various parts of this web site, including the introductory passages of the 'Home Page'.

The Veil

Sharia (Islamic law)

As secularists, we do not subscribe to any manner of religious arbitration. But being humanists, we do not believe we have the right to impose our beliefs on anyone, or that we should act superior to others. And so we take into consideration the realties of the world and the fact that while Canada has a few hundred thousand Muslims, the world has 1.2 billion, and sharia will be around for a long time to come.

The way to deal with problematic issues within sharia is through engagement, polite and respectful debate, appreciation of Muslim jurisprudence, and then working objectively on modifying, amending, reforming whatever parts of it cannot be reconciled with modern ways.

We are categorically opposed to provocative, insulting, degrading, and alienating simplistic condemnation and denunciation which solve nothing and advance no noble causes.

Simple condemnation means taking the easy way out; it’s for the lazy looking for expeditious, not genuine statements and solutions.

Engagement and reaching out to others mean hard work, complicated discussion, lots of give and take, difficult, time-consuming negotiations and arguments, and many obstacles to overcome, but it’s the honorable, constructive way of doing things.

It’s the method most conducive to change, as opposed to simple condemnation that only leads to a widening of the rift and gap between east and west, rather than bringing them closer, and reaching pragmatic solutions.

This article at:
http://www.secularmuslims.com/positions.php

Copyright 2005-2008, Humanist and Secular Muslims (HaSM), www.secularmuslims.com