Words that are from Arabic that can be found in English
Admiral
Alcohol
Alcove
Algebra
Almanac
Arsenal
Azure
Candy
Coffee
Cotton
Elixir
Gazelle
Hazard
Magazine
Mattress
Ream
Saffron
Sahara
Satin
Sherbet
Sofa
Sugar
Zero
(tequila is also originally an Arabic word)
yup, interesting huh?
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Culture Mirror
People in America tend to make assumptions. Television and other forms of media easily sway them. Therefore, it is not surprising that the vast majority of people seem to think that Islam is synonymous with violence. They are astonished at the concept of a religion that advocates hatred and senseless violence. They elect politicians who bandy about words like “Islamo-fascist,” who claim to want to preserve the security of their constituents from aforementioned “Islamo-fascists” by starting wars with their leaders, yet who do not even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite Muslim.
These opinions and actions rest on several misconceptions. The first being that Islam directly advocates violence towards non-Muslims or towards western governments. The second is categorizing violence that is perpetrated by Muslims who use their religion as justification for senseless violence. Senseless violence is defined by the people who make these uninformed clams as violence that is not political in nature, but theological (Mamdani 2004). With this paper, I intend to prove that Islam does not sanction violence perpetuated by Muslims, who may or may not use Islam as justification. I also intend to prove that Islamic violence is not theological in nature but social and political, with a historical framework to support it.
It is popular opinion in America that Islam is inherently a violent religion. The concept of jihad is used to support this, as is the high incidents of human rights abuses that can be attributed to predominately Muslim countries. Examples include the withholding of rights from women and public beheadings in places like Saudi Arabia; the morality squads in Iran, who enforced the theocracy-dictated codes of appropriate behavior in the decades after the 1973 revolution; or the tribes in Africa who continue to practice female circumcision and use Islam as justification. The most common reasoning is nothing more than stereotyping. It is assumed that because there is an established concept of holy war then the religion itself must be based on violence. This religious stereotyping is not surprising given the emphasis on a secular state in the West. Because we are surrounded by a culture that insists on separation of religion from everyday life, it is impossible for us to understand the concept of a culture that is so ingrained with a religion that even the members of the society who do not practice the religion use many of the sayings and phrases.
I would like to start with the concept of the jihad. The misconception is that Muslims are required to kill "infidels" wherever they may be found. This is untrue. There are five pillars of Islam. In summary, the practices are (In order of priority):
· The Testimony of Faith (Shahadah) - the declaration that there is none worthy of worship except Allah (Arabic: God) and that Muhammad is His last messenger.
· Ritual Prayer (Salat) - establishing of the five daily Prayers.
· Obligatory (religious) almsgiving (Zakat) - which is generally 2.5% of the total savings for a rich man working in trade or industry, and 10% or 20% of the annual produce for agriculturists. This money or produce is distributed among the poor.
· Siyam, Fasting
· The Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj) - this is done during the month of Zul Hijjah, and is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it. If the Muslim is in ill health or in debt, he or she is not required to perform Hajj. (Wikipedia 2006)
These are the only things required of a Muslim, and in fact, the only one that is absolutely obligatory is the Zakat. Nowhere in the structure of Islam is there a requirement for holy war. That misconception is born from the ideals of radical Muslim groups who have insisted upon taking one passage from the Qur’an, which calls for resistance to a tyrant, as a message to struggle against the Western superpowers. That requirement for holy war is an earmark of the Salafiyya movement which seeks to combine Western technological advancement with Islamic religious teachings. This combination should be remembered by anyone who advocates a “modernization” of Islam.
There are two different forms of the jihad. The first is the internal jihad, the struggle of every Muslim to lead a life that is truly Islamic in mature, trying to reconcile personal obstacles to completing the five pillars. This can be expressed vocally or through art and writing. The second is the external jihad, which may or may not require armed conflict and is only acceptable in the case of unseating an oppressive tyrant (Asani 2002). Suicide bombing, despite popular western belief, is not sanctioned within the precepts of the external jihad. Murder and suicide are both sins in Islam. Nowhere does it state that intentionally killing yourself will send you to heaven. It is stated that death in the line of fighting for Islam will earn you great esteem and glory in the afterlife. Actions such as suicide bombing are actually earmarks of a population that is at the last desperate stage of being trampled. When you have no weapons but your bodies, then what else are you supposed to do? Actions such as suicide bombings are predictable end results of an oppressed society, not the by product of an inherently violent ideology.
There is an explanation for why the ideology of the jihad is so attractive to Muslims in countries with strong Anti-American standpoints and elsewhere. Most Muslim countries were once occupied territories. Many of them were colonized by European countries from the mid 18th century until the end of the First World War. Even after the end of colonialization, the Western powers had started to industrialize and began to export their culture of consumption. The tyrant that these groups oppose is the tyrant of a rampant consumer culture that removes people from relationships with each other or their faith and attempts to replace it with relationships to objects, products, brand names and companies. (Kilbourne2000) They are fighting to prevent the homogenization of their culture into a larger global culture.
Westerners see the level and techniques of violence perpetrated by Muslims as needlessly high and, dare I say, savage. Thus misconception is spawned from two different conditions of the western lifestyle and educations systems. The first is that most majority populations in the west have not been so oppressed as to understand the feeling of having no recourse but horrendous violence. The other failing is in the educational system of the west. In the west, there is a tendency to categorize violence that is committed by those who are enemies as theological, having no historical or political motive. I believe it is an attempt to ethnocentrically paint the west as the only true good way to be. A good example would be the Nazi movement. The Nazis are automatically portrayed as evil, their actions being driven by some shapeless concept that is antithetical to all that is good. It is ignored that the ground in Germany was fertile for the fascism of the Nazi movement because of the economic condition of the country, which was a direct result pf the exclusion of Germany from the League of Nations, which led to the imposition of reparations on the already stretched thin economy of Germany post-World War One.
In the same way that the Nazis are painted as being evil for evils sake, Muslims are painted as being overly violent and reactionary. Because of the lack of historical perspective and frame work, it is ignored that the Muslim religion has been under attack since its inception. First there is the original attack against Muslims by the Meccans, then the schism between the Sunnis and the Shiites, the oppression of the Arab Muslim world by the Ottoman Turks and then the colonies imposed by Europe, and once the European colonies were gone, there were the proxy wars of the Cold War, and now that there is no obligatory enemy for the West to compare itself to in order to prove its superiority, Islam has become the new enemy.(Halliday110) The war if capitalism against communism has been won, so now it’s the war of secularism versus religiosity.
The relationship of Islam to violent action is the same as most other major religions. Christianity also has a history of violence that was rationalized using the Scripture. It must be remembered that while Christianity was and still is used as justification for violence, it was never the source of Violence. This is true of Islam as well. To Westerners, it is unfamiliar ground, a non-secular world, so it is ignored that the violent actions that occur in the Middle East are reactions to current and past social and political situations. If that was admitted, it would have to come to light that maybe, just maybe, our own political system, which we espouse as the greatest in the world, may not be as wonderful as we claim. We may have to look and truly see the effects of attempting to create a homogenized, global economy that tramples local cultures. We would need to engage in self reflection, and the mirror is a very scary place.
These opinions and actions rest on several misconceptions. The first being that Islam directly advocates violence towards non-Muslims or towards western governments. The second is categorizing violence that is perpetrated by Muslims who use their religion as justification for senseless violence. Senseless violence is defined by the people who make these uninformed clams as violence that is not political in nature, but theological (Mamdani 2004). With this paper, I intend to prove that Islam does not sanction violence perpetuated by Muslims, who may or may not use Islam as justification. I also intend to prove that Islamic violence is not theological in nature but social and political, with a historical framework to support it.
It is popular opinion in America that Islam is inherently a violent religion. The concept of jihad is used to support this, as is the high incidents of human rights abuses that can be attributed to predominately Muslim countries. Examples include the withholding of rights from women and public beheadings in places like Saudi Arabia; the morality squads in Iran, who enforced the theocracy-dictated codes of appropriate behavior in the decades after the 1973 revolution; or the tribes in Africa who continue to practice female circumcision and use Islam as justification. The most common reasoning is nothing more than stereotyping. It is assumed that because there is an established concept of holy war then the religion itself must be based on violence. This religious stereotyping is not surprising given the emphasis on a secular state in the West. Because we are surrounded by a culture that insists on separation of religion from everyday life, it is impossible for us to understand the concept of a culture that is so ingrained with a religion that even the members of the society who do not practice the religion use many of the sayings and phrases.
I would like to start with the concept of the jihad. The misconception is that Muslims are required to kill "infidels" wherever they may be found. This is untrue. There are five pillars of Islam. In summary, the practices are (In order of priority):
· The Testimony of Faith (Shahadah) - the declaration that there is none worthy of worship except Allah (Arabic: God) and that Muhammad is His last messenger.
· Ritual Prayer (Salat) - establishing of the five daily Prayers.
· Obligatory (religious) almsgiving (Zakat) - which is generally 2.5% of the total savings for a rich man working in trade or industry, and 10% or 20% of the annual produce for agriculturists. This money or produce is distributed among the poor.
· Siyam, Fasting
· The Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj) - this is done during the month of Zul Hijjah, and is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it. If the Muslim is in ill health or in debt, he or she is not required to perform Hajj. (Wikipedia 2006)
These are the only things required of a Muslim, and in fact, the only one that is absolutely obligatory is the Zakat. Nowhere in the structure of Islam is there a requirement for holy war. That misconception is born from the ideals of radical Muslim groups who have insisted upon taking one passage from the Qur’an, which calls for resistance to a tyrant, as a message to struggle against the Western superpowers. That requirement for holy war is an earmark of the Salafiyya movement which seeks to combine Western technological advancement with Islamic religious teachings. This combination should be remembered by anyone who advocates a “modernization” of Islam.
There are two different forms of the jihad. The first is the internal jihad, the struggle of every Muslim to lead a life that is truly Islamic in mature, trying to reconcile personal obstacles to completing the five pillars. This can be expressed vocally or through art and writing. The second is the external jihad, which may or may not require armed conflict and is only acceptable in the case of unseating an oppressive tyrant (Asani 2002). Suicide bombing, despite popular western belief, is not sanctioned within the precepts of the external jihad. Murder and suicide are both sins in Islam. Nowhere does it state that intentionally killing yourself will send you to heaven. It is stated that death in the line of fighting for Islam will earn you great esteem and glory in the afterlife. Actions such as suicide bombing are actually earmarks of a population that is at the last desperate stage of being trampled. When you have no weapons but your bodies, then what else are you supposed to do? Actions such as suicide bombings are predictable end results of an oppressed society, not the by product of an inherently violent ideology.
There is an explanation for why the ideology of the jihad is so attractive to Muslims in countries with strong Anti-American standpoints and elsewhere. Most Muslim countries were once occupied territories. Many of them were colonized by European countries from the mid 18th century until the end of the First World War. Even after the end of colonialization, the Western powers had started to industrialize and began to export their culture of consumption. The tyrant that these groups oppose is the tyrant of a rampant consumer culture that removes people from relationships with each other or their faith and attempts to replace it with relationships to objects, products, brand names and companies. (Kilbourne2000) They are fighting to prevent the homogenization of their culture into a larger global culture.
Westerners see the level and techniques of violence perpetrated by Muslims as needlessly high and, dare I say, savage. Thus misconception is spawned from two different conditions of the western lifestyle and educations systems. The first is that most majority populations in the west have not been so oppressed as to understand the feeling of having no recourse but horrendous violence. The other failing is in the educational system of the west. In the west, there is a tendency to categorize violence that is committed by those who are enemies as theological, having no historical or political motive. I believe it is an attempt to ethnocentrically paint the west as the only true good way to be. A good example would be the Nazi movement. The Nazis are automatically portrayed as evil, their actions being driven by some shapeless concept that is antithetical to all that is good. It is ignored that the ground in Germany was fertile for the fascism of the Nazi movement because of the economic condition of the country, which was a direct result pf the exclusion of Germany from the League of Nations, which led to the imposition of reparations on the already stretched thin economy of Germany post-World War One.
In the same way that the Nazis are painted as being evil for evils sake, Muslims are painted as being overly violent and reactionary. Because of the lack of historical perspective and frame work, it is ignored that the Muslim religion has been under attack since its inception. First there is the original attack against Muslims by the Meccans, then the schism between the Sunnis and the Shiites, the oppression of the Arab Muslim world by the Ottoman Turks and then the colonies imposed by Europe, and once the European colonies were gone, there were the proxy wars of the Cold War, and now that there is no obligatory enemy for the West to compare itself to in order to prove its superiority, Islam has become the new enemy.(Halliday110) The war if capitalism against communism has been won, so now it’s the war of secularism versus religiosity.
The relationship of Islam to violent action is the same as most other major religions. Christianity also has a history of violence that was rationalized using the Scripture. It must be remembered that while Christianity was and still is used as justification for violence, it was never the source of Violence. This is true of Islam as well. To Westerners, it is unfamiliar ground, a non-secular world, so it is ignored that the violent actions that occur in the Middle East are reactions to current and past social and political situations. If that was admitted, it would have to come to light that maybe, just maybe, our own political system, which we espouse as the greatest in the world, may not be as wonderful as we claim. We may have to look and truly see the effects of attempting to create a homogenized, global economy that tramples local cultures. We would need to engage in self reflection, and the mirror is a very scary place.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
an aside...
In other news, my right arm is in a sling until I find out if its broken or not. I took a spill yesterday and have possibly broken my elbow. so, I'm in pain on top of everything else
Erroneous language
Ok, new rage, but short.
I have been accused of becoming anti-Semitic because of my view on the Israel-Palestine conflict (Israel is imperialistic and over-reactionary. My view is akin to my view on militarism in general. It amounts to: STOP BEING ASSHOLES AND KILLING PEOPLE! Anyway, back to rage, sorry to slow you down.) A few problems with this term.
-First of all, I am technically a Jew (I do not practice, I was raised with exposure from my mothers side, but I was never bat mitzvahed) and I am not a self-hating Jew. I don't know enough about that part of my heritage to hate it.
-Second, the term "Semitic" technically includes Arabs, Jews and any other group that can be traced back to the area around the Levant and the Arabian peninsula.
So, my issue is mostly the assumption that Anti-Semitic is for Jews and Jews only, when technically it includes the very people who I wish Israel would stop attacking. If you're gonna insult me, at least properly use your words. You already look like an asshole, but at least you will look like a less stupid asshole.
I have been accused of becoming anti-Semitic because of my view on the Israel-Palestine conflict (Israel is imperialistic and over-reactionary. My view is akin to my view on militarism in general. It amounts to: STOP BEING ASSHOLES AND KILLING PEOPLE! Anyway, back to rage, sorry to slow you down.) A few problems with this term.
-First of all, I am technically a Jew (I do not practice, I was raised with exposure from my mothers side, but I was never bat mitzvahed) and I am not a self-hating Jew. I don't know enough about that part of my heritage to hate it.
-Second, the term "Semitic" technically includes Arabs, Jews and any other group that can be traced back to the area around the Levant and the Arabian peninsula.
So, my issue is mostly the assumption that Anti-Semitic is for Jews and Jews only, when technically it includes the very people who I wish Israel would stop attacking. If you're gonna insult me, at least properly use your words. You already look like an asshole, but at least you will look like a less stupid asshole.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
And the deconstruct!
So, as a followup to the article I just posted, I give you, my deconstruction.
…more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values. And this is based on what level of understanding in regards to Islam? How many of the people who are getting up on soapboxes about the cultural conflict between Islam and the West have actually studied Islam from an unbiased source?
“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point. Actually, he quoted a 14th century text that was written by someone who was a Christian and still believed that Muslims worshipped a different God. It was a text that essentially called Muslims “heathens” and “murderers.” Take this in the context of the Crusades which had occurred before the writing of the quoted document. I highly doubt that the Christian soldiers who participated in that lovely little cluster-fuck did so without killing and brutalizing in the name of their God (who was also known as “Our Lord of Untaxed Trade Routes” but I digress)
His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence. And here we see one of the first problems in putting together these two viewpoints. Islam is highly spiritual. While there are somewhat secular Muslims, they are largely a minority. One fundamental part of Islam is the relationship with God. So when you stick Muslims into a culture that relies completely on secular values, you are going to have problems. Especially when a secular country does not respect the weight that having a Muslim identity carries for Muslims. This is also ignoring the fact that from their perspective, the West has been attacking Islam for centuries! So when criticism comes along, it is being received by a defensive group that is expecting to be attacked!
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.” Or, translated “This is something I know nothing about. It scares me because I cannot remove myself from my bubble long enough to understand that someone may find expressing their identity as a Muslim to be supremely important. I don’t define myself by my religion, so no one else should either. Plus, I have no idea what the actual significance of the veil is. I am therefore, talking out of my ass” Its funny how when a western liberal is uncomfortable with something, then it is automatically a bad thing, yet it seems to be so very hard to understand how uncomfortable a woman who chooses to veil would be without it. It is not understood that it is a choice, or at least, that it should be. I have worn a veil; I did so for one whole week. Taking it off, even in the solitude of my own home was difficult, and I was only experimenting! If I felt it was an integral part of my expression of my identity, then I can only imagine what it would feel like to have someone tell me that I was not to wear it because it made them uncomfortable. I love hypocrisy. As western liberals, we talk about granting autonomy while insisting on denying it to people who don’t fit our definition of “free.” The assumption that every woman who wears the veil is unable to choose it for herself, at least when she is living in a (supposedly) free country, is arrogant and insulting. By pushing for one narrow definition of autonomy, you have effectively denied actual autonomy.
When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth. Yup, cause there’s nothing evil about raping little boys! It’s just evil to expect respect and autonomy, to expect to have their countries finally free of the powers that colonized them. And of course people who have no experience with Islam past what the media and their governments feed them would believe this to be true. Fucking sleep walkers.
Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate. And what motivation has been given them? Immigrants come to another country for greater opportunity and freedom, and now they have to face the stripping of their identity because you can’t get your head out of your ass long enough to try and, gee, I don’t know DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH? God forbid you actually examine the things you decry. No, instead you ride on fear mongering and threats of violence from people that you are intentionally provoking in order to win power for yourself. At least a terrorist attack is straight forward.
But many Europeans — even those who generally support immigration — have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims’ deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality. Again, based on whose information and research? I believe if the research is done, you will find that many of those more conservative views are the property of the nationality and the ethnicity of those who hold them, and have simply been adapted into the religion. People wouldn’t say stupid shit like this if they actually bothered to learn about Islam from an (and here’s the important part) unbiased source.
“So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.” Yeah, ‘cause its totally like those problems are SOLVED in your society. Everyone treats women equally! Gays are free to be who they are and get married and…ooops. Wait… No they aren’t! Huh. I thought I was losing my mind there for a minute. So what are you really afraid of? I think I can tell you. If you have to teach these values to others, other who are adults with rational thought, not easily brainwashed children, then you may get criticism because it isn’t really all that equal, that work isn’t really finished. You would have to admit that your lovely little “free” society still has the same problems it had back in the 60’s and 70’s, they are just more subtle now. You may have to admit that those cultural revolutions aren’t over. OH NOES!!!!11eleventyone11!!!
Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation. Dangerous ground boys and girls. Dangerous ground.
Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen. Cause we cant give those dirty Muslims an education! Then they may want to stand up for themselves, and demand rights! They may get involved and actually become active citizens! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion. Or to their faith which is under attack as far as they can see. And we have been over the importance of Muslim identity and I do not like repeating myself.
So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government last winter introduced a primer on those values for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: embrace our culture or leave. yeah, I can really see the “tolerance” part now. “We are tolerant but only if you are willing to give up your identity because we think it doesn’t fit in with the rest of our views”
Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence. Freedom of expression if its view that we support. We (ie western liberals) need to be able to express ourselves freely no matter what we want to say and how it may make others feel. But if a girl wants to wear her veil to school, she can’t because a secular state doesn’t allow that. The secular state finds it “offensive” and can therefore ban it. So, people should be free to criticize Islam, but can’t be free to express it. *beats head repeatedly against the wall*
In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears. As much as I hate repeating myself, I will for this little bit. Remember when we talked about the fact that you’re dealing with a group of reactionary people that are convinced that they are being destroyed and attacked. And you know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE! IF ANYONE BOTHERED TO DISPLAY JUST A HINT OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND RESEARCH, OR AT LEAST GET SOME BACKGROUND INFO ON THE CULTURE THEY ARE RIPPING, THEN THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND THE REACTIONS AND MAYBE NOT BE SUCH ARROGANT ASSHOLES!!!
Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that never existed before that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts. Yay for assimilation! It totally fits with the whole freedom thing! So someone explain to me how this type of expectation is any better than walking into another country, pointing your guns at them and saying “You’re free now, but only if you do things our way.”?
We have yet to escape our imperialist, colonialist past and attitudes. The Western world has to accept that there are values other than our own, and if we are to be consistent in our views of equality and freedom of choice, we have to allow people to choose which value system to follow. As long as no one impresses their value system on someone that doesn’t want it, then I seriously don’t see the problem. We are not the be all and end all of freedom. We also have to accept that our own fights for freedoms within our own communities are not finished, not by a long shot. Therefore we have very little right to judge those who wish nothing more than to practice and express their views in peace, even if those views directly conflict with our own.
…more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values. And this is based on what level of understanding in regards to Islam? How many of the people who are getting up on soapboxes about the cultural conflict between Islam and the West have actually studied Islam from an unbiased source?
“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point. Actually, he quoted a 14th century text that was written by someone who was a Christian and still believed that Muslims worshipped a different God. It was a text that essentially called Muslims “heathens” and “murderers.” Take this in the context of the Crusades which had occurred before the writing of the quoted document. I highly doubt that the Christian soldiers who participated in that lovely little cluster-fuck did so without killing and brutalizing in the name of their God (who was also known as “Our Lord of Untaxed Trade Routes” but I digress)
His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence. And here we see one of the first problems in putting together these two viewpoints. Islam is highly spiritual. While there are somewhat secular Muslims, they are largely a minority. One fundamental part of Islam is the relationship with God. So when you stick Muslims into a culture that relies completely on secular values, you are going to have problems. Especially when a secular country does not respect the weight that having a Muslim identity carries for Muslims. This is also ignoring the fact that from their perspective, the West has been attacking Islam for centuries! So when criticism comes along, it is being received by a defensive group that is expecting to be attacked!
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.” Or, translated “This is something I know nothing about. It scares me because I cannot remove myself from my bubble long enough to understand that someone may find expressing their identity as a Muslim to be supremely important. I don’t define myself by my religion, so no one else should either. Plus, I have no idea what the actual significance of the veil is. I am therefore, talking out of my ass” Its funny how when a western liberal is uncomfortable with something, then it is automatically a bad thing, yet it seems to be so very hard to understand how uncomfortable a woman who chooses to veil would be without it. It is not understood that it is a choice, or at least, that it should be. I have worn a veil; I did so for one whole week. Taking it off, even in the solitude of my own home was difficult, and I was only experimenting! If I felt it was an integral part of my expression of my identity, then I can only imagine what it would feel like to have someone tell me that I was not to wear it because it made them uncomfortable. I love hypocrisy. As western liberals, we talk about granting autonomy while insisting on denying it to people who don’t fit our definition of “free.” The assumption that every woman who wears the veil is unable to choose it for herself, at least when she is living in a (supposedly) free country, is arrogant and insulting. By pushing for one narrow definition of autonomy, you have effectively denied actual autonomy.
When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth. Yup, cause there’s nothing evil about raping little boys! It’s just evil to expect respect and autonomy, to expect to have their countries finally free of the powers that colonized them. And of course people who have no experience with Islam past what the media and their governments feed them would believe this to be true. Fucking sleep walkers.
Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate. And what motivation has been given them? Immigrants come to another country for greater opportunity and freedom, and now they have to face the stripping of their identity because you can’t get your head out of your ass long enough to try and, gee, I don’t know DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH? God forbid you actually examine the things you decry. No, instead you ride on fear mongering and threats of violence from people that you are intentionally provoking in order to win power for yourself. At least a terrorist attack is straight forward.
But many Europeans — even those who generally support immigration — have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims’ deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality. Again, based on whose information and research? I believe if the research is done, you will find that many of those more conservative views are the property of the nationality and the ethnicity of those who hold them, and have simply been adapted into the religion. People wouldn’t say stupid shit like this if they actually bothered to learn about Islam from an (and here’s the important part) unbiased source.
“So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.” Yeah, ‘cause its totally like those problems are SOLVED in your society. Everyone treats women equally! Gays are free to be who they are and get married and…ooops. Wait… No they aren’t! Huh. I thought I was losing my mind there for a minute. So what are you really afraid of? I think I can tell you. If you have to teach these values to others, other who are adults with rational thought, not easily brainwashed children, then you may get criticism because it isn’t really all that equal, that work isn’t really finished. You would have to admit that your lovely little “free” society still has the same problems it had back in the 60’s and 70’s, they are just more subtle now. You may have to admit that those cultural revolutions aren’t over. OH NOES!!!!11eleventyone11!!!
Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation. Dangerous ground boys and girls. Dangerous ground.
Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen. Cause we cant give those dirty Muslims an education! Then they may want to stand up for themselves, and demand rights! They may get involved and actually become active citizens! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion. Or to their faith which is under attack as far as they can see. And we have been over the importance of Muslim identity and I do not like repeating myself.
So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government last winter introduced a primer on those values for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: embrace our culture or leave. yeah, I can really see the “tolerance” part now. “We are tolerant but only if you are willing to give up your identity because we think it doesn’t fit in with the rest of our views”
Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence. Freedom of expression if its view that we support. We (ie western liberals) need to be able to express ourselves freely no matter what we want to say and how it may make others feel. But if a girl wants to wear her veil to school, she can’t because a secular state doesn’t allow that. The secular state finds it “offensive” and can therefore ban it. So, people should be free to criticize Islam, but can’t be free to express it. *beats head repeatedly against the wall*
In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears. As much as I hate repeating myself, I will for this little bit. Remember when we talked about the fact that you’re dealing with a group of reactionary people that are convinced that they are being destroyed and attacked. And you know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE! IF ANYONE BOTHERED TO DISPLAY JUST A HINT OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND RESEARCH, OR AT LEAST GET SOME BACKGROUND INFO ON THE CULTURE THEY ARE RIPPING, THEN THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND THE REACTIONS AND MAYBE NOT BE SUCH ARROGANT ASSHOLES!!!
Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that never existed before that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts. Yay for assimilation! It totally fits with the whole freedom thing! So someone explain to me how this type of expectation is any better than walking into another country, pointing your guns at them and saying “You’re free now, but only if you do things our way.”?
We have yet to escape our imperialist, colonialist past and attitudes. The Western world has to accept that there are values other than our own, and if we are to be consistent in our views of equality and freedom of choice, we have to allow people to choose which value system to follow. As long as no one impresses their value system on someone that doesn’t want it, then I seriously don’t see the problem. We are not the be all and end all of freedom. We also have to accept that our own fights for freedoms within our own communities are not finished, not by a long shot. Therefore we have very little right to judge those who wish nothing more than to practice and express their views in peace, even if those views directly conflict with our own.
from today's new york times
A deconstruction of this article is following.
October 11, 2006
Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center
By DAN BILEFSKY and IAN FISHER
BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.
“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.
“Rationality is gone.”
Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.
His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.
For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.”
When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth.
The line between open criticism of another group or religion and bigotry can be a thin one, and many Muslims worry that it is being crossed more and more.
Whatever the motivations, “the reality is that views on both sides are becoming more extreme,” said Imam Wahid Pedersen, a prominent Dane who is a convert to Islam. “It has become politically correct to attack Islam, and this is making it hard for moderates on both sides to remain reasonable.” Mr. Pedersen fears that onetime moderates are baiting Muslims, the very people they say should integrate into Europe.
The worries about extremism are real. The Belgian far-right party, Vlaams Belang, took 20.5 percent of the vote in city elections last Sunday, five percentage points higher than in 2000. In Antwerp, its base, though, its performance improved barely, suggesting to some experts that its power might be peaking.
In Austria this month, right-wing parties also polled well, on a campaign promise that had rarely been made openly: that Austria should start to deport its immigrants. Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate.
The idea is unthinkable to mainstream leaders, but many Muslims still fear that the day — or at least a debate on the topic — may be a terror attack away.
“I think the time will come,” said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and said he himself did not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, “We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes.”
Many experts note that there is a deep and troubled history between Islam and Europe, with the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire jostling each other for centuries and bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam. A sense of guilt over Europe’s colonial past and then World War II, when intolerance exploded into mass murder, allowed a large migration to occur without any uncomfortable debates over the real differences between migrant and host.
Then the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, jolted Europe into new awareness and worry.
The subsequent bombings in Madrid and London, and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Moroccan stand as examples of the extreme. But many Europeans — even those who generally support immigration — have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims’ deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality.
“A lot of people, progressive ones — we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right — are saying, ‘Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the 60’s and 70’s,’ ” said Joost Lagendik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party, who is active on Muslim issues.
“So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.”
Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation.
Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen.
Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion.
So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government last winter introduced a primer on those values for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: embrace our culture or leave.
Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence.
In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears.
With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera’s cancellation. “It makes no sense to retreat.”
The backlash is revealing itself in other ways. Last month the British home secretary, John Reid, called on Muslim parents to keep a close watch on their children. “There’s no nice way of saying this,” he told a Muslim group in East London. “These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombing, grooming them to kill themselves to murder others.”
Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that never existed before that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts.
Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-born activist here in Belgium, said that for years Europeans had emphasized “citizenship and human rights,” the notion that Muslim immigrants had the responsibility to obey the law but could otherwise live with their traditions.
“Then someone comes and says it’s different than that,” said Mr. Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. “You have to dump your culture and religion. It’s a different deal now.”
Lianne Duinberke, 34, who works at a market in the racially mixed northern section of Antwerp, said: “Before I was very eager to tell people I was married to a Muslim. Now I hesitate.” She has been with her husband, a Tunisian, for 12 years, and they have three children.
Many Europeans, she said, have not been accepting of Muslims, especially since 9/11. On the other hand, she said, Muslims truly are different culturally: No amount of explanation about free speech could convince her husband that the publication of cartoons lampooning Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was in any way justified.
When asked if she was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of Muslim immigration in Europe , she found it hard to answer. She finally gave a defeated smile. “I am trying to be optimistic,” she said. “But if you see the global problems before the people, then you really can’t be.”
Dan Bilefsky reported from Brussels, and Ian Fisher from Rome. Contributing were Sarah Lyall and Alan Cowell from London, Mark Landler from Frankfurt, Peter Kiefer from Rome, Renwick McLean from Madrid and Maia de la Baume from Paris.
October 11, 2006
Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center
By DAN BILEFSKY and IAN FISHER
BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.
“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.
“Rationality is gone.”
Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.
His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.
For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.”
When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth.
The line between open criticism of another group or religion and bigotry can be a thin one, and many Muslims worry that it is being crossed more and more.
Whatever the motivations, “the reality is that views on both sides are becoming more extreme,” said Imam Wahid Pedersen, a prominent Dane who is a convert to Islam. “It has become politically correct to attack Islam, and this is making it hard for moderates on both sides to remain reasonable.” Mr. Pedersen fears that onetime moderates are baiting Muslims, the very people they say should integrate into Europe.
The worries about extremism are real. The Belgian far-right party, Vlaams Belang, took 20.5 percent of the vote in city elections last Sunday, five percentage points higher than in 2000. In Antwerp, its base, though, its performance improved barely, suggesting to some experts that its power might be peaking.
In Austria this month, right-wing parties also polled well, on a campaign promise that had rarely been made openly: that Austria should start to deport its immigrants. Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate.
The idea is unthinkable to mainstream leaders, but many Muslims still fear that the day — or at least a debate on the topic — may be a terror attack away.
“I think the time will come,” said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and said he himself did not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, “We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes.”
Many experts note that there is a deep and troubled history between Islam and Europe, with the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire jostling each other for centuries and bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam. A sense of guilt over Europe’s colonial past and then World War II, when intolerance exploded into mass murder, allowed a large migration to occur without any uncomfortable debates over the real differences between migrant and host.
Then the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, jolted Europe into new awareness and worry.
The subsequent bombings in Madrid and London, and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Moroccan stand as examples of the extreme. But many Europeans — even those who generally support immigration — have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims’ deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality.
“A lot of people, progressive ones — we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right — are saying, ‘Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the 60’s and 70’s,’ ” said Joost Lagendik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party, who is active on Muslim issues.
“So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.”
Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation.
Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen.
Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion.
So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government last winter introduced a primer on those values for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: embrace our culture or leave.
Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence.
In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears.
With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera’s cancellation. “It makes no sense to retreat.”
The backlash is revealing itself in other ways. Last month the British home secretary, John Reid, called on Muslim parents to keep a close watch on their children. “There’s no nice way of saying this,” he told a Muslim group in East London. “These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombing, grooming them to kill themselves to murder others.”
Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that never existed before that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts.
Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-born activist here in Belgium, said that for years Europeans had emphasized “citizenship and human rights,” the notion that Muslim immigrants had the responsibility to obey the law but could otherwise live with their traditions.
“Then someone comes and says it’s different than that,” said Mr. Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. “You have to dump your culture and religion. It’s a different deal now.”
Lianne Duinberke, 34, who works at a market in the racially mixed northern section of Antwerp, said: “Before I was very eager to tell people I was married to a Muslim. Now I hesitate.” She has been with her husband, a Tunisian, for 12 years, and they have three children.
Many Europeans, she said, have not been accepting of Muslims, especially since 9/11. On the other hand, she said, Muslims truly are different culturally: No amount of explanation about free speech could convince her husband that the publication of cartoons lampooning Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was in any way justified.
When asked if she was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of Muslim immigration in Europe , she found it hard to answer. She finally gave a defeated smile. “I am trying to be optimistic,” she said. “But if you see the global problems before the people, then you really can’t be.”
Dan Bilefsky reported from Brussels, and Ian Fisher from Rome. Contributing were Sarah Lyall and Alan Cowell from London, Mark Landler from Frankfurt, Peter Kiefer from Rome, Renwick McLean from Madrid and Maia de la Baume from Paris.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Here I go...
So...
Here I am.
I am not too good at this...
I guess I can start with a bit of a purpose statement. I would like to use this blog as a place to chronicle my education in regards to the Middle East, Arabic and Middle Eastern culture. I am currently a junior in college, and an international studies major. I have been studying Arabic for two and a half years now and I am applying for a study-abroad program that will take me to Amman, Jordan. I would like to use this blog to post publicly about my experiences in this travel and this vein of study, considering I have recently been exposed to some amazing poetry and other cultural experiences that seem to be lacking in most discourse regarding the Middle East. I must state that I have a very low tolerance for ignorant behavior. I don't mind comments or even criticism, but hate speech that revolves around race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc, will not be taken well. If you must express something ignorant and hateful, if you just can't hold it in until you're around someone who cares about your narrow view, then at least express it in relatively proper English, spelled correctly, and with some point other than that you hate me/what I say/who I'm talking about. If you don't like what I say, then ignore me. I've got no problem with that.
I am open to debate, and discussion. I'm trying to learn, and to teach, so if you can present me with logical arguments and data to back you up, we can discuss and debate like adults. I am also very open to giving, receiving and searching for information, but I will not go and look up something if it is presented to me as fact on a dissenting side of the debate. If you call something into question, please be able to show me where your information came from.
I will occasionally be posting rants and verbal vomit. I'm easily frustrated in regards to the total lack of care for other cultures in my culture, or the total ignorance of supposedly "educated" individuals. These will come with a warning tag, and if something is a rant, or a rage, or a roar for that matter, then it is NOT up for debate or discussion.
Anyway, just had to get that all out of the way.
I plan on posting some poetry as soon as possible
~Dori
Here I am.
I am not too good at this...
I guess I can start with a bit of a purpose statement. I would like to use this blog as a place to chronicle my education in regards to the Middle East, Arabic and Middle Eastern culture. I am currently a junior in college, and an international studies major. I have been studying Arabic for two and a half years now and I am applying for a study-abroad program that will take me to Amman, Jordan. I would like to use this blog to post publicly about my experiences in this travel and this vein of study, considering I have recently been exposed to some amazing poetry and other cultural experiences that seem to be lacking in most discourse regarding the Middle East. I must state that I have a very low tolerance for ignorant behavior. I don't mind comments or even criticism, but hate speech that revolves around race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc, will not be taken well. If you must express something ignorant and hateful, if you just can't hold it in until you're around someone who cares about your narrow view, then at least express it in relatively proper English, spelled correctly, and with some point other than that you hate me/what I say/who I'm talking about. If you don't like what I say, then ignore me. I've got no problem with that.
I am open to debate, and discussion. I'm trying to learn, and to teach, so if you can present me with logical arguments and data to back you up, we can discuss and debate like adults. I am also very open to giving, receiving and searching for information, but I will not go and look up something if it is presented to me as fact on a dissenting side of the debate. If you call something into question, please be able to show me where your information came from.
I will occasionally be posting rants and verbal vomit. I'm easily frustrated in regards to the total lack of care for other cultures in my culture, or the total ignorance of supposedly "educated" individuals. These will come with a warning tag, and if something is a rant, or a rage, or a roar for that matter, then it is NOT up for debate or discussion.
Anyway, just had to get that all out of the way.
I plan on posting some poetry as soon as possible
~Dori
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)