This woman is amazing, and there should be more people like her.
There's also a story about this on HuffPost, but since I don't know how to do links, I couldn't add it. Sorry bbs!
ETA: Here is the link to the Source.
Ex-spy chief Sir John Scarlett has told the Iraq war inquiry there was "no conscious intention" to manipulate information about Iraq's weapons.He denied being under pressure to "firm up" the September 2002 dossier which contained the claim Iraq could use WMD within 45 minutes of Saddam's order. But he said it would have been "better" to have made clear it referred to battlefield munitions not missiles. He was not asked about an MP's claim a taxi driver was the claim's source. Tory MP Adam Holloway published a report on Tuesday saying advice casting doubt on the 45-minute claim was "ignored", but Sir John was not asked about this.
( Collapse )I fully recognise that sometimes Muslims ought to protest against other Muslims. The obvious example is the protests by the British Muslims For Secular Democracy and Muslims4UK in opposition to the extremist group Islam4UK (which is a spin-off group from Al Muhajiroun). However, the Ahmadi's are simply asking for a place of worship in a disused building. By objecting to their request for a place to worship simply because they don't agree with Ahmadi beliefs, they are opening the floodgates for the right-wing bastards currently expressing the same sentiment towards Islam as a whole. There are measures being taken in both Jordan and Egypt to undermine Shias and Ismailis. Not only is that kind of bigotry not acceptable, but in the UK where Sunni Islam does not have the same priveledged position that kind of sentiment is liable to backfire badly. Religious groups often fear heretics more than non-believers and it seems that despite the message of unity one would hope the Hajj to teach, this is still true in Islam.
Freedom of worship for Ahmadis
Tuesday 8 December 2009
Here we go again. The Wolverhampton Express and Star reports that an "application to build a mosque" has been refused by a town council, this time Walsall council. The proposal to convert an empty town warehouse into a place of worship was rejected by planning officers on the grounds of it being an "unsuitable location" and that it would cause "traffic congestion". In addition, more than 800 complaints were received from local residents.
But wait – what's this? Those doing the complaining appeared to be mainly Muslims. A photograph in a local paper shows Muslims demonstrating against the plans and holding up placards saying "Listen to police advice" and "No more congestion". What's going on? The news report quotes a local Muslim as saying "There are enough places of worship in the area." Another added: "We are happy the right decision has been made. It would have been a public nuisance and is a relief." What's going on?
Well, it turns out that the planning application had been submitted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association UK. The Ahmadis derive their name from the 19th century Indian figure Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who claimed to be the incarnation of the promised Messiah. Jesus – according to the Ahmadis – survived the crucifixion and went to live in India to administer to the lost tribes of Israel. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims rejected Ghulam Ahmad's claims and to this day his followers, the Ahmadis, are regarded as being non-Muslims by a consensus of Islamic scholars across the world because their beliefs contradict the Islamic teaching on the finality of Muhammad's prophethood. The Ahmadis themselves, of course, see it differently.
By Shazia Z. Rafi
The author, an expert on parliamentary diplomacy, says we must focus today on a strengthened political process to successfully end international military engagement in Afghanistan—and that process must respect the rights of women.
December 8, 2009
Watching President Obama deliver his decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan at West Point brought to mind ancient Rome as the Caesars sent saluting gladiators to their deaths. The TV camera lingered on an audience of outwardly resolute young faces as a shadow came over them, when he mentioned receiving the caskets; replaced by a mixture of relief and puzzlement, when he announced that U.S. troops would withdraw from Afghanistan starting July 2011.
The immediate days following saw Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates back off in testimony to Congress. The July 2011 deadline was not an exit strategy but a date by which the United States would assess the situation on the ground and begin withdrawals district by district. Withdrawal from the country could take up to four years. Pushed for clarifications by senators, Gates acknowledged that there would have to be a negotiated withdrawal; the Taliban have to be “convinced” through military force that they “cannot win” and hence sue for peace.
I was simultaneously signed on to several news commentary sites from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States; commentators were immediately having a field day with the “we are going in deeper only to pull out” strategy. A New York Post comment on Obama’s announcement to the cadets of a withdrawal date was an editorial cartoon of a Taliban commander telling his own troops, ”We are attacking Afghanistan in July 2011!”
Jokes aside, the more serious question here is not whether the United States or the Taliban can militarily “win” this war but who will sue for peace at the end, at what terms and through whose mediation. In the past year several news stories have circulated in the U.S., European, Afghan and Pakistani press on back channel negotiations with the Afghan Taliban. Recently high-level political representatives such as the U.K. Foreign Minister David Miliband, U.S. Envoy to AfPak Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and yesterday Secretary Clinton also stated that negotiations are possible, some already taking place. Holbrooke has stated to media in Pakistan that the mediators are the Saudi government. “I talked to King Abdullah about it myself. We would be supportive of anything that the kingdom chose to do in this regard,” he added. Meanwhile Afghan sources confirm reports that U.S. Ambassador in Kabul General Karl Eikenberry has reached out to Taliban officials for a limited role in Southern provinces in return for cessation of hostilities. U.S. allies as far afield as Japan are hosting their own “closed door” negotiations with the Taliban facilitated with the Saudis.
For women in Afghanistan—and their sisters across the border in Pakistan engaged in their own battle against the Taliban, as well as in the United States—these revelations are extremely troubling. ( Collapse )
The Catholic Information further reveals that Christian Organizations are alarmed over the Bill. For example, among others, the Executive Council of the Anglican Church in Canada voted unanimously to oppose the Bill, that it is a “fundamental violation of human rights”. That 17th November was dedicated as international day for prayer on the issue. They are challenging their sympathizer, Archbishop (of Canterbury) Rowan to give his comment and stop it.Those are the words of Bishop Joseph Abura of Karamoja Diocese (Province of the Anglican Church of Uganda).
It is indeed appalling to read of all these and the agitation there in. It is indeed deplorable that humanity has or is nearing extinction just like the time of Noah and the flood in the Book of Genesis chapters 6 and 7. Yes the Lord Jesus prophesied of the last days that people will be lovers of self. Truly, humans have natural evil bent. They are bent to evil by nature. Laws, rules, commandments are in place geared towards saving man from own direction and destruction.
The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles has elected a lesbian as assistant bishop, the second openly gay bishop in the global Anglican fellowship, which is already deeply fractured over the first.Actually, Rowan Williams exact words in his swift press release regarding this assistant bishops' election was as follows:
The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.So what do we gauge from this? Well it seems that outright bigotry and prejudicial laws in Africa are happily ignored, while the election of an assistant bishop in America might lead to a loss of affection from the Archbishop. I doubt I'm the only person reading this shit who thinks Rowan Williams has a very odd set of priorities.