#Muslim Welfare Community

[rightnewshindi]

कमिश्नर कोर्ट के फैसले के खिलाफ हाई कोर्ट पहुंची मुस्लिम वेलफेयर कम्युनिटी, आज नागा साधु करेंगे शहर की परिक्रमा

#News कमिश्नर कोर्ट के फैसले के खिलाफ हाई कोर्ट पहुंची मुस्लिम वेलफेयर कम्युनिटी, आज नागा साधु करेंगे शहर की परिक्रमा

Mandi News: जिला मुख्यालय के जेल रोड स्थित मस्जिद में बिना नक्शे के अवैध निर्माण को लेकर कमिश्नर कोर्ट के फैसले को मुस्लिम वेलफेयर कम्युनिटी के लोगों ने शुक्रवार को हाईकोर्ट में चुनौती दी है। नगर निगम मंडी की कमिश्नर कोर्ट ने 12 सितंबर को मस्जिद में किए गए अवैध निर्माण को 30 दिन के भीतर ध्वस्त करने और पुरानी यथास्थिति बहाल करने का फैसला सुनाया था। फैसले के अनुसार मस्जिद में बिना नक्शा पास कराए…

[teh-tj]

Greenbelt Maryland. Or, how America almost solved housing only to abandon it.

**I AM NOT AN EXPERT! I AM JUST AN ENTHUSIST! DO NOT TREAT MY OPINIONS/SPECULATION AS EDUCATION!**

During the Depression America faced a housing crisis that rhymes with but differs from our own. It’s different in that there wasn’t a supply issue, there were loads of houses in very desirable areas, but they were still unaffordable as people’s incomes collapsed causing a deflationary spiral. While the housing supply subtly grew and succeeded demand, people simply couldn’t pay the meager rents and mortgages. Herbert Hoover failed to manage the Depression, while his inaction is greatly exaggerated, his policy of boosting the economy with works projects and protecting banks from runs failed and the depression only got more pronounced in his term. In comes Franklin Roosevelt, a progressive liberal much like his distant and popular cousin/uncle-in-law Teddy. Franklin’s plan was to create a large safety net for people to be able to be economically viable even if they’re otherwise poor. These reforms are called the New Deal and they did many controversial things like giving disabled and retired people welfare, giving farmers conditioned subsidies to manipulate the price of food, a works program to build/rebuild vital infrastructure, etc. One of these programs was the USHA (a predecessor of America’s HUD), an agency created to build and maintain public housing projects with the goal of creating neighborhoods with artificially affordable rents so people who work low-wage jobs or rely on welfare can be housed.

In this spirit, the agency started experimenting with new and hopefully efficient housing blueprints and layouts. If you ever see very large apartment towers or antiquated brick low-rise townhouses in America, they might be these. The USHA bought land in many large and medium-sized cities to build “house-in-park” style apartments, which is what they sound like. Putting apartment buildings inside green spaces so residents can be surrounded by greenery and ideally peacefully coexist. Three entire towns were built with these ideas outside three medium-sized cities that were hit hard by the depression; Greenbelt outside DC, Greenhills outside Cincinnati, and Greendale outside Milwaukee. The idea was to move people out of these crowded cities into these more sustainable and idyllic towns. There were many catches though, the USHA planned for these towns to be all-white, they used to inspect the houses for cleanliness, they required residents to be employed or on Social Security (which basically meant retired or disabled), they also had an income limit and if your income exceeded that limit you were given a two-month eviction notice, and you were expected to attend town meetings at least monthly. While the towns didn’t have religious requirements they did only build protestant churches. Which is an example of discrimination by omission. While a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, etc could in theory move into town they also couldn’t go to a Catholic church, synagogue, or Islamic center without having to extensively travel. Things planned communities leave out might indicate what kind of people planned communities want to leave out. Basically, the whole thing was an experiment in moving Americans into small direct-democracy suburbs as opposed to the then-current system of crowded cities and isolated farm/mine towns. This type of design wasn’t without precedent, there were famously company towns like Gary and Pullman which both existed outside Chicago. But those lacked the autonomy and democracy some USHA apparatchiks desired.

The green cities were a series of low-rise apartments housing over a hundred people each, they were short walks from a parking lot and roads, and walking paths directly and conveniently led residents to the town center which had amenities and a shopping district. Greenbelt in particular is famous for its art deco shopping complex, basically an early mall where business owners would open stores for the townspeople. These businesses were stuck being small, given the income requirements, but it was encouraged for locals to open a business to prove their entrepreneurial spirit. Because city affairs were elected at town meetings the city was able to pull resources to eventually build their own amenities the USHA didn’t originally plan for like a public swimming pool or better negotiated garbage collection.

These three cities were regarded as a success by the USHA until World War II happened and suddenly they showed flaws given the shift in focus. These towns housed poor people who barely if at all could afford a car, so semi-isolated towns outside the city became redundant and pointless. The USHA also had to keep raising the income requirement since the war saw a spike in well-paying jobs which made the town unsustainable otherwise. During the war and subsequent welfare programs to help veterans, these green cities became de facto retirement and single-mother communities for a few years as most able-bodied men were drafted or volunteered. Eventually, the USDA would make the towns independent, after the war they raised the income limit yet again and slowly the towns repopulated. As cars became more common and suburbanization became a wider trend these towns would be less noticeably burdensome and were eventually interpreted as just three out of hundreds of small suburban towns that grew out of major cities. They were still all-white and the town maintained cleanliness requirements; after all they lived in apartments it just takes one guy’s stink-ass clogged toilet to ruin everyone’s day.

By the 1950’s these towns were fully independent. Greendale and Greenhills voted to privatize their homes and get rid of the income limit all together so the towns can become more normal. Greenhills, Ohio still has many of these USHA-era houses and apartments, all owned by a series of corporations and private owners. Greendale, Wisconsin property owners have demolished most of these old houses and restructured their town government so most traces of its founding are lost. But Greenbelt, Maryland still maintains a lot of its structure to this day. Greenbelt has privatized some land and buildings, but most of the original USHA apartments are owned by the Greenbelt Homes, Inc cooperative which gives residents co-ownership of the building they live in and their payments mostly go to maintenance. Because Greenbelt was collectively owned the House Un-American Activities Committee would blacklist and put on trial most of Greenbelt’s residents and officials. Though they didn’t find much evidence of communist influence, the town was a target of the red scare by the DMV area, residents were discriminated, blacklisted, and pressured into selling their assets. While Greenbelt did commodify some of the town, the still existing co-ownership shows the town’s democratic initiative to maintain its heritage. The green cities desegregated in the 50’s and 60’s depending on state law, Greenbelt was the last to desegregate under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while discrimination persisted for years by the 1980’s the town would become half non-white, today the town is 47% black and 10% Asian.

Though these towns largely integrated with a privatized and suburbanized America, they do stand as a memorial to an idea of American urbanism that died. They were designed for walkability and were planned to be more democratic and egalitarian towns, with the conditions that came with segregation and government oversight. You can’t ignore the strict standards and racism in their history, but you can say that about many towns. How do you think America would be different if more cities had green suburbs that were more interconnected and designed for community gatherings?

[vague-humanoid]

In the past few days, the United Kingdom has witnessed a wave of violent disorder. Many of those involved are undoubtedly motivated, not so much by politics, as by the kind of excitement that football hooligans the world over have long derived from attacking the authorities. But there is no doubt that the attacks have been instigated and orchestrated by right-wing extremists tapping into what are, sadly, often widespread prejudices – particularly when it comes to people of colour, Muslims and asylum seekers.

Racist attacks in the UK nothing new

Of course, riots ostensibly driven by religious and racial hatred and opposition to immigration are nothing new in the UK. Indeed, one can go back as far as 1780 to see London suffering a week of violent anti-Roman Catholic disorder while, in the late 1950s, various towns and cities were afflicted by “race riots” on the part of white men objecting to the arrival of Black and south Asian immigrants from the British Commonwealth.

More recently, 2001 saw riots in cities and towns in northern England, most notably in Oldham, Greater Manchester, which saw conflicts between far-right activists and people from the town’s south Asian (predominantly Pakistani-origin) community.

Nor are violent protests outside hotels being used to house asylum seekers or attacks on mosques anything new. Last February, for example, a police vehicle was set ablaze and missiles were thrown at officers outside a hotel in Knowsley, Merseyside. True, the country’s mosques have rarely seen anything on that scale. But there are plenty of examples of isolated attacks on their property and on their worshipers – most horrifically in 2017, when a far-right extremist drove a van into a crowd outside the Muslim Welfare House and near a mosque in Finsbury Park, London.

[frithwontdie]

the average immigrant is smarter and harder working than you and your crowd of inbred entitled conspiracy theorist crackers<3

Not even close. Very few are, most no. I've worked with immigrats. Some of them were really hard working. Like the Asians I actually enjoyed working with. Who were hard working and smart. And some Hispanics. But most of the others, were incompetent, entitled, arrogant, rude idiots. Most mooch off of our welfare programs, are a net loss to the economy. Claiming they're smart when we had to lower our standards, test scores and things too easy for them. Each proved to be a failure. Oh, and you really need to see who's truly inbred in this scenario. Don't like it? Chimp out about it.

Although rare in the Americas and modern Europe, consanguineous marriage is notably common in North Africa and the Middle East, where it is a traditional and respected aspect of many Arab and Muslim cultures.

Today, 70 percent of all Pakistanis are inbred and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants”). A rough estimate reveals that close to half of everybody living in the Arab world is inbred. A large percentage of the parents that are blood related come from families where intermarriage has been a tradition for generations.

A BBC investigation in Britain several years ago revealed that at least 55% of the Pakistani community in Britain was married to a first cousin. The Times of India affirmed that “this is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.”

The BBC’s research also discovered that while British Pakistanis accounted for just 3.4% of all births in Britain, they accounted for 30% of all British children with recessive disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality. It is not a surprise, therefore, that, in response to this evidence, a Labour Party MP has called for a ban on first-cousin marriage.

[asexualannoyance]

“[...] Like other movements within political Islam, the movement [Hamas] reflected a complex local reaction to the harsh realities of occupation, and a response to the disorientated paths offered by secular and socialist Palestinian forces in the past. Those with a more engaged analysis of this situation were well prepared for the Hamas triumph in the 2006 elections, unlike the Israeli, American, and European governments. It is ironic that it was the pundits and orientalists, not to mention Israeli politicians and chiefs of intelligence, who were taken by surprise by the election results more than anyone else. What particularly dumbfounded the great experts on Islam in Israel was the democratic nature of the victory. In their collective reading, fanatical Muslims were meant to be neither democratic nor popular. These same experts displayed a similar misunderstanding of the past. Ever since the rise of political Islam in Iran and in the Arab world, the community of experts in Israel had behaved as if the impossible was unfolding in front of their eyes. [...]

In 2009, Avner Cohen, who served in the Gaza Strip around the time Hamas began to gain power in the late 1980s, and was responsible for religious affairs in the occupied territories, told the Wall Street Journal, “the Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.” Cohen explains how Israel helped the charity al-Mujama al-Islamiya (the “Islamic Society”), founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 1979, to become a powerful political movement, out of which the Hamas movement emerged in 1987. Sheikh Yassin, a crippled, semi-blind Islamic cleric, founded Hamas and was its spiritual leader until his assassination in 2004. He was originally approached by Israel with an offer of help and the promise of a license to expand. The Israelis hoped that, through his charity and educational work, this charismatic leader would counterbalance the power of the secular Fatah in the Gaza Strip and beyond. [...]

In 1993, Hamas became the main opposition to the Oslo Accord. While there was still support for Oslo, it saw a drop in its popularity; however, as Israel began to renege on almost all the pledges it had made during the negotiations, support for Hamas once again received a boost. Particularly important was Israel’s settlement policy and its excessive use of force against the civilian population in the territories. [...]

It also captured the hearts and minds of many Muslims (who make up the majority in the occupied territories) due [to] the failure of secular modernity to find solutions to the daily hardships of life under occupation. [...]

The new Israeli methods of oppression introduced during the Second Intifada—particularly the building of the wall, the roadblocks, and the targeted assassinations—further diminished the support for the Palestinian Authority and increased the popularity and prestige of Hamas. It would be fair to conclude, then, that successive Israeli governments did all they could to leave the Palestinians with no option but to trust, and vote for, the one group prepared to resist an occupation described by the renowned American author Michael Chabon as “the most grievous injustice I have seen in my life.” [...]

The obvious failure of the Palestinian groups and individuals who had come to prominence on the promise of negotiations with Israel clearly made it seem as if there were very few alternatives. In this situation the apparent success of the Islamic militant groups in driving the Israelis out of the Gaza Strip offered some hope. However, there is more to it than this. Hamas is now deeply embedded in Palestinian society thanks to its genuine attempts to alleviate the suffering of ordinary people by providing schooling, medicine, and welfare. No less important, Hamas’s position on the 1948 refugees’ right of return, unlike the PA’s stance, was clear and unambiguous. Hamas openly endorsed this right, while the PA sent out ambiguous messages, including a speech by Abu Mazen in which he rescinded his own right to return to his hometown of Safad. [...]”

—Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappé, Chapter 9: “The Gaza Mythologies”, the section titled “Hamas Is a Terrorist Organization”

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

I realized that if I'm disappointed in the transmission of real information about Sudan and the Congo, I can just make the posts myself!

I am not surprised that people haven't been provided a strong understanding of the violence in the global south, but I *am* mad about it.

So let's talk about Sudan and the Congo

Since 2003 or so, an estimated 450,000 Sudanese refugees have fled to Chad, looking for safety from routine waves of ethnic cleansing committed by the Rapid Support Forces and their state/civilian allies.

While the Massalit make up the majority of those attacked, many other ethnicities are included amongst victims. It is NOT a religiously motivated cleansing, as most of those being victimized as well as most of those doing the victimizing are Muslim, and communicate the foundations of the violence as being the result of ethnic-cultural divides in the region current social system. Many of those speaking against the ethnic cleansing occurring agree, and also add that economic interactions appear to be major driving factors in who is targetted and when.

The Congo, meanwhile, has been going through it's own ethnic cleansing. One that has been more or less ongoing since 1996. An approximated 6mil people have been killed since.

Due to this relationship between economic motives and targets, ongoing desertification has been exacerbating violence in the region for years by making resources scarcer, more precious, and less stable to access.

The primary factors being credited with responsibility for this desertification and resultant resource volatility?

Climate change and human impact on the environment (via societal features such as urbanization, agriculture, waste management services, social welfare services, deforestation and bush removal, etc)

From FairPlanet ^

Funny how the global north causes lethal climate change but the global south is forced to die from it.

Funny how the global north forces the environmental recovery conversation to avoid study of environmental imperialism and remain solely focused on "incremental changes that can protect future generations". Whose future generations? What about the people dying NOW because of environmentally toxic industries??

And Nasreldin Atiya Rahamtalla via the International Journal of Social Sciences and Conflict Management says the following:

Hmm, I wonder why local power and social welfare infrastructure in Sudan and especially in Darfur might be diminished from previous governance:

It's almost like the British had a habit of pitting different regional communities against each other along enforced ethnic lines while pillaging some and sparing others, then blowing the whole governance network in a temper tantrum on their way out the door during decolonization, a method of inflicting one last violemt devastation and sabotage peaceful futures most often epitomized by Rwanda and the Belgian Empire:

It's almost like the imperialist businesses that feed off African continental resources and were installed during colonization as a form of economic imperialism were often THE ONLY PARTS of the social system left largely functional after withdrawal and "decolonization". It's almost like imperialism and colonization never actually stopped!!! It just??? Changed shape ☆->¤ still a fuckin crime against humanity my guy!!! Especially when child slaves are dying in your mines!!!

Sudan's economic imperialism comes in the form of Blood Diamonds! You know. The reason that none of us are buying earth mined diamonds anymore when lab made are literally the same goddamn thing RIGHT????????

Oh! They also have oil. The thing we're using to fuel our climate change machine. The climate change machine that's KILLING THEM.

And unfortunately for those of us with Nickel allergies, gold and silver have the same problem. If you haven't already switched to surgical steel, you might wanna. Of course, then we're right back to climate change since steel production allegedly creates a whopping 7% of global emissions due to relying on coke (coal) as a fuel source. So. I dunno really. I like my jewelry as much as anyone. But do I like it enough to know people are dying so I can have it?????

Not really. I'd rather save that risk addition for surgical steel being used in ACTUAL surgeries like the plates, pins, and screws that reattached my foot, or the replacement knee joint that my mom got. At least until we have a body-safe material for these things that ISN'T a source of devastation in the global south.

My point is, basically, that historically militerized conflict almost always stems, at least, in part, from efforts to control resources. It's the most timeless reason to go to war. To make sure you and the people you care about can guarantee themselves access to survival need-meeting. As consumerist and capitalist societies, it is DEEPLY important that we understand the price we ask other people to pay for our luxuries. For our right not to be made uncomfortable by too much radical change too quickly. We need to make that causal link A LOT more visibly explicit and unavoidable, because as it stands, allowing the hierarchy to go unspoken is going to kill billions.

I don't want that on my hands.

I highly recommend learning what civil disobedience and mutual aid infrastructures of care look like. How can we hold corporations (and the individual people who work there) accountable for the countless deaths directly attributable to their profit margins? How can we maximize our local resource distribution to ensure everyone has what they genuinely need to survive, even if that means we take a little less from the community resources for ourselves, or we have to give up things that can't be fully replaced by regionally sustainable alternatives.

I promise that we will adapt.

The dead can't.

[ed-recoverry]

Some good news to get you through

As someone super into history and current events, everything always sucks so I just want to make a little masterlist of some glimmers of hope. Will try to make multiple of these.

I shopped around for all of these, but this website and this website offers happy stories all in one place for those who don't have the time.

Colombia outlaws child marriage after 17-year campaign

Jordan Recognized as First in the World to Eradicate Leprosy

Norway, Paraguay, Antigua and Barbuda join the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty

Orran Gala Raises $400,000 for Armenia’s Most Vulnerable

Hanover firefighter creates ‘Belize Heroes’ to donate lifesaving equipment to home country

‌Norway’s Kon-Tiki Museum returns artifacts to Chile’s remote Easter Island

Minneapolis man's murder conviction vacated after 16 years

Hiking group for Muslim women breaks barriers as hundreds flock to the outdoors

Scientists find a 35,000-year-old saber-toothed kitten in the Siberian permafrost

Tupelo Preschool Teacher Donates Organ to Student

Author Katherine Rundell donates royalties to climate charities in Trump protest

Pan-Mass Challenge Raises Record $75 Million for Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Texas woodpecker no longer endangered after 54 years

Researchers discover 'lost' frog species in the Andes after over a century

More states are adopting laws to protect children of family vloggers

A 19-Year-Old Who Spent Her Childhood In Foster Care Was Finally Adopted By A Former Caseworker

Dolly Parton Gifts $4.5 Million to Nashville Public Library

New Mexico sees nearly 10% more first-year college students, bucking national trend

21-Year-Old Raising His 4 Siblings Since Their Mom Died Surprised With $40K and a New Car

Easy-fit prosthetics offer hope to thousands of Gaza amputees

UNM alumni hike tallest peaks in Ecuador to make prosthetic care more accessible

London charity helps young mums thrive

Italian charity sends 15 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Gaza via Cyprus

Climate report shows the largest annual drop in EU greenhouse gas emissions for decades

Washingtonians defend the Climate Commitment Act

Voters decide MN Lottery will keep funding environmental causes

Finnish fathers taking nearly double length of paternity leave since 2022 reform

Oysters reintroduced to Firth of Forth appear to be 'thriving'

German union says auto and engineering workers to get 5.5% wage rise

Seaweed farming brings hope to Kenyan villagers hit by climate change

Previously extinct Cape Water Lily restored at False Bay Nature Reserve

From landfill to limelight, Ghana waste entrepreneurs win Earthshot Prize

A derogatory term for Native women will be removed from place names across California

Texas Native Health expands facility to better serve the state's Indigenous community

Borneo’s ‘omen birds’ find a staunch guardian in Indigenous Dayak Iban elders

African cinema takes to global stage with diverse storytelling

Maori haka in NZ parliament to protest at bill to reinterpret founding treaty

Animal welfare group works to rescue lions, pets in Lebanon

Inside a Massachusetts studio showcasing the work of artists with disabilities

[orthodoxadventure]

St Sabbas Orthodox Monastery has been asked by St Porphyius Orthodox Church in Gaza to fundraise on their behalf.

My name is Archimandrite Pachomy (John Belkoff) and I am the abbot of St. Sabbas Orthodox Monastery in Harper Woods, Michigan. On the evening of October 19 2023, the campus of St. Porphyrius Orthodox Church in Gaza, a community which dates back to the 5th century A.D., was struck by several missiles; 18 civilians were killed, including elderly and children. The church halls were providing shelter to hundreds of both Muslim and Christian civilians. His Eminence, Archbishop Alexios Moschonas of Tiberias lives at St. Porphyrius as the local bishop and is a personal friend of mine. As often as circumstances allow, he calls me and gives updates about how he and the people who make up his flock are struggling to survive. St. Sabbas Monastery is raising money to contribute to the humanitarian welfare of civilians taking shelter at the campus of St. Porphyrius Church. People are in dire need of fuel, power, water, food, and other basic necessities. To that end we are asking for the support of people of good will across the globe. All proceeds will be directed from St. Sabbas to the official Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, to which St. Porphyrius belongs. Please read more about our cause from this article of the Detroit Free Press. Thank you and God bless you all.

[howtomuslim]

The Rights of Non-Muslims Under Sharia Law

Sharia law is often misunderstood, especially regarding its treatment of non-Muslims. However, the Sharia has a rich tradition of pluralism, allowing non-Muslims such as Christians and Jews to follow their own laws while living in Muslim-majority societies.

1. Pluralism Under Sharia: A Historical Perspective

Sharia law is not a monolithic system but rather a framework that has historically embraced justice. Within Islamic societies, non-Muslims, particularly “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews), were allowed to practice their religion freely and follow their own legal systems concerning personal matters like marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error.” (Quran 2:256)

This verse underscores that faith is a personal choice and that people should be allowed to practice their religion without coercion.

2. Dhimmi Status: Protection, Responsibilities, and Benefits

Non-Muslims living under Islamic rule were given the status of “dhimmi,” which granted them protection and certain rights in exchange for the payment of jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslim citizens. The jizya was not merely a tax but a means to ensure the safety and protection of non-Muslims in a Muslim-majority state. It also exempted them from military service, which was obligatory for able-bodied Muslim men.

A lesser-known aspect of the jizya is that it also contributed to providing pensions and other benefits to non-Muslims. This system ensured that non-Muslims were cared for in the state, particularly in old age or during times of need.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) emphasised the sanctity of the protection given to non-Muslims:

“Whoever kills a mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise…” (Sahih Bukhari 3166)

“If somebody harms a disbeliever that’s living under the protection of the Muslims, they have harmed me; if they have harmed me, they have harmed God.” — Prophet Muhammed, Peace be Upon him

Islamic law does not allow for double standards when it comes to justice. Non-Muslims have the right to seek justice if they are wronged by a Muslim. Historical examples show that even the highest leaders, like Caliph Ali and Caliph Umar ibn Abdulaziz, upheld the rights of non-Muslims, ensuring that justice was served when a non-Muslim was wronged.

For instance, during Caliph Ali’s time, a Muslim who killed a non-Muslim was brought to justice, and the non-Muslim’s family was given the choice to demand the death penalty or accept compensation. Islamic Governance made sure everyone was responsible for their actions and justice was served.

3. Legal Autonomy: Non-Muslims and Their Laws

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Sharia’s application is its respect for the legal autonomy of non-Muslim communities. Non-Muslims were allowed to maintain their religious laws and customs in matters of personal status. This legal pluralism was practiced in various Islamic states, where Christian, Jewish, and other religious communities had their courts and legal systems.

“To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way…” (Quran 5:48)

4. The Role of Jizya in Social Welfare

Non-Muslims under Sharia law were required to pay a tax called jizya (often being lower than the 2.5% tax on the wealth of Muslims paid towards charity yearly). However, this tax was a system that provided benefits, including protection and exemption from military service and those who would be burdened to pay it were exempted from paying it. Furthermore, certain groups, such as Christian monks who dedicated their lives to worship, were even exempted from paying the jizya, showing the flexibility and fairness of the system.

In contrast to modern taxation, where everyone must contribute regardless of their role in society, Islamic law recognised the unique circumstances of different communities and adjusted its requirements accordingly.

The Jizya was used not only for the administration and protection of the state but also to provide pensions and social services and support for those in need, including the elderly and disabled non-Muslims. This practice ensured that non-Muslims were not only protected but also cared for, reflecting the Islamic commitment to justice.

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” (Quran 5:8)

The positive effects of this system can be seen during the time of Umar ibn Abd-Alaziz, poverty was wiped out, justice was deeply woven into the society and the animals were fed with the surplus food and wealth as they were seen as also a part of the responsibilities of the Caliph.

There are numerous historical examples of Islamic leaders advocating for the rights of non-Muslims. For instance, the scholar Taqi al-Din famously negotiated with the Tartar leaders to secure the release of both Muslim and non-Muslim prisoners of war, demonstrating that Islamic justice extends beyond the Muslim community.

To learn more about Islam visit: howtomuslim.org

[probablyasocialecologist]

Muslim anarchist and Islamic anarchist discourses, through what I refer to as Anarcha-Islām (an anarchistic, Qur’ānic non-authoritarian, non-capitalist, feminist, and social just interpretation of Islām, and Islamic interpretation of anarchism), explicitly argue that capitalist nation-states that are inherently cisheteropatrairchal, theologically, ethico-politically, contradict Qur’ānic Islamic communal nonauthoritarian and non-capitalist governance concepts such as Shūrā (mutual consultation), Ijmā (mutual consensus), Maṣlaḥa (public welfare), Muḍārabah/Mushārakah (productive partnerships), and pluralistic, as opposed to singular, conceptualizations of Khulafā (caretakers), such that governance and leadership is embodied, acted, if not remade every day, vis-à-vis egalitarian practices related to deep reciprocity (tabādul al-ḍiyāfa), intimate practices (hamīma or ulfa). Moreover, Islamic anarchist discourses tend to argue for a global interdependence that spirals across and through space-time, and emergent from and responsive to networks of (non)human relationships.

Mohamed Abdou, Islam and Anarchism: Relationships and Resonances

[goldsasa]

Dear Sirs!

(or have some ladies also signed?)

A few days ago, you, Mr Musk, together with Mr Wozniak, Mr Mostaque and other signatories, published an open letter demanding a compulsory pause of at least six months for the development of the most powerful AI models worldwide.

This is the only way to ensure that the AI models contribute to the welfare of all humanity, you claim. As a small part of the whole of humanity, I would like to thank you very much for wanting to protect me. How kind! 🙏🏻

Allow me to make a few comments and ask a few questions in this context:

My first question that immediately came to mind:

Where was your open letter when research for the purpose of warfare started and weapon systems based on AI were developed, leading to unpredictable and uncontrollable conflicts?

AI-based threats have already been used in wars for some time, e.g. in the Ukraine war and Turkey. Speaking of the US, they are upgrading their MQ-9 combat drones with AI and have already used them to kill in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The victims of these attacks - don't they count as humanity threatened by AI?

I am confused! Please explain to me, when did the (general) welfare of humanity exist, which is now threatened and needs to be protected by you? I mean the good of humanity - outside your "super rich white old nerds Silicon Valley" filter bubble? And I have one more question:

Where was your open letter when Facebook's algorithms led to the spread of hate speech and misinformation about the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar?

Didn't the right to human welfare also apply to this population group? Why do you continue to remain silent on the inaction and non-transparent algorithms of Meta and Mr Zuckerberg? Why do you continue to allow hatred and agitation in the social media, which (at least initially) belonged to you without exception?

My further doubt relates to your person and your biography itself, dear Mr Musk.

You, known as a wealthy man with Asperger's syndrome and a penchant for interplanetary affairs, have commendably repeatedly expressed concern about the potentially destructive effects of AI robots in the past. I thank you for trying to save me from such a future. It really is a horrible idea!

And yet, Mr Musk, you yourself were not considered one of the great AI developers of Silicon Valley for a long time.

Your commitment to the field of artificial intelligence was initially rather poor. Your Tesla Autopilot is a remarkable AI software, but it was developed for a rather niche market.

I assume that you, Mr Musk, wanted to change that when you bought 73.5 million of Twitter's shares for almost $2.9 billion in April?

After all, to be able to play along with the AI development of the giants, you lacked one thing above all: access to a broad-based AI that is not limited to specific applications, as well as a comprehensive data set.

The way to access such a dataset was to own a large social network that collects information about the consumption patterns, leisure activities and communication patterns of its users, including their social interactions and political preferences.

Such collections about the behaviour of the rest of humanity are popular in your circles, aren't they?

By buying Twitter stock, you can give your undoubtedly fine AI professionals access to a valuable treasure trove of data and establish yourself as one of Silicon Valley's leading AI players.

Congratulations on your stock purchase and I hope my data is in good hands with you.

Speaking of your professionals, I'm interested to know why your employees have to work so hard when you are so concerned about the well-being of people?

I'm also surprised that after the pandemic your staff were no longer allowed to work in their home offices. Is working at home also detrimental to the well-being of humanity?

In the meantime, you have taken the Twitter platform off the stock market.

It was never about money for you, right? No, you're not like that. I believe you!

But maybe it was about data? These are often referred to as the "oil of our time". The data of a social network is like the ticket to be one of the most important AI developers in the AI market of the future.

At this point, I would like to thank you for releasing parts of Twitter's code for algorithmic timeline control as open source. Thanks to this transparency, I now also know that the Twitter algorithm has a preference for your Elon Musk posts. What an enrichment of my knowledge horizon!

And now, barely a year later, this is happening: OpenAi, a hitherto comparatively small company in which you have only been active as a donor and advisor since your exit in 2018, not only has enormous sources of money, but also the AI gamechanger par excellence - Chat GPT. And virtually overnight becomes one of the most important players in the race for the digital future. It was rumoured that your exit at the time was with the intention that they would take over the business? Is that true at all?

After all I have said, I am sure you understand why I have these questions for you, don't you?

I would like to know what a successful future looks like in your opinion? I'm afraid I'm not one of those people who can afford a $100,000 ticket to join you in colonising Mars. I will probably stay on Earth.

So far I have heard little, actually nothing, about your investments in climate projects and the preservation of the Earth.

That is why I ask you, as an advocate of all humanity, to work for the preservation of the Earth - with all the means at your disposal, that would certainly help.

If you don't want to do that, I would very much appreciate it if you would simply stop worrying about us, the rest of humanity. Perhaps we can manage to protect the world from marauding robots and a powerful artificial intelligence without you, your ambitions and your friends?

I have always been interested in people. That's why I studied social sciences and why today I ask people what they long for. Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's a good idea to ask the people themselves what they want before advocating for them.

The rest of the world - that is, the 99,9 percent - who are not billionaires like you, also have visions!

With the respect you deserve,

Susanne Gold

(just one of the remaining 99% percent whose welfare you care about).

[entropyblog]

Greenbelt Maryland. Or, how America almost solved housing only to abandon it.

**I AM NOT AN EXPERT! I AM JUST AN ENTHUSIST! DO NOT TREAT MY OPINIONS/SPECULATION AS EDUCATION!**

During the Depression America faced a housing crisis that rhymes with but differs from our own. It’s different in that there wasn’t a supply issue, there were loads of houses in very desirable areas, but they were still unaffordable as people’s incomes collapsed causing a deflationary spiral. While the housing supply subtly grew and succeeded demand, people simply couldn’t pay the meager rents and mortgages. Herbert Hoover failed to manage the Depression, while his inaction is greatly exaggerated, his policy of boosting the economy with works projects and protecting banks from runs failed and the depression only got more pronounced in his term. In comes Franklin Roosevelt, a progressive liberal much like his distant and popular cousin/uncle-in-law Teddy. Franklin’s plan was to create a large safety net for people to be able to be economically viable even if they’re otherwise poor. These reforms are called the New Deal and they did many controversial things like giving disabled and retired people welfare, giving farmers conditioned subsidies to manipulate the price of food, a works program to build/rebuild vital infrastructure, etc. One of these programs was the USHA (a predecessor of America’s HUD), an agency created to build and maintain public housing projects with the goal of creating neighborhoods with artificially affordable rents so people who work low-wage jobs or rely on welfare can be housed.

In this spirit, the agency started experimenting with new and hopefully efficient housing blueprints and layouts. If you ever see very large apartment towers or antiquated brick low-rise townhouses in America, they might be these. The USHA bought land in many large and medium-sized cities to build “house-in-park” style apartments, which is what they sound like. Putting apartment buildings inside green spaces so residents can be surrounded by greenery and ideally peacefully coexist. Three entire towns were built with these ideas outside three medium-sized cities that were hit hard by the depression; Greenbelt outside DC, Greenhills outside Cincinnati, and Greendale outside Milwaukee. The idea was to move people out of these crowded cities into these more sustainable and idyllic towns. There were many catches though, the USHA planned for these towns to be all-white, they used to inspect the houses for cleanliness, they required residents to be employed or on Social Security (which basically meant retired or disabled), they also had an income limit and if your income exceeded that limit you were given a two-month eviction notice, and you were expected to attend town meetings at least monthly. While the towns didn’t have religious requirements they did only build protestant churches. Which is an example of discrimination by omission. While a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, etc could in theory move into town they also couldn’t go to a Catholic church, synagogue, or Islamic center without having to extensively travel. Things planned communities leave out might indicate what kind of people planned communities want to leave out. Basically, the whole thing was an experiment in moving Americans into small direct-democracy suburbs as opposed to the then-current system of crowded cities and isolated farm/mine towns. This type of design wasn’t without precedent, there were famously company towns like Gary and Pullman which both existed outside Chicago. But those lacked the autonomy and democracy some USHA apparatchiks desired.

The green cities were a series of low-rise apartments housing over a hundred people each, they were short walks from a parking lot and roads, and walking paths directly and conveniently led residents to the town center which had amenities and a shopping district. Greenbelt in particular is famous for its art deco shopping complex, basically an early mall where business owners would open stores for the townspeople. These businesses were stuck being small, given the income requirements, but it was encouraged for locals to open a business to prove their entrepreneurial spirit. Because city affairs were elected at town meetings the city was able to pull resources to eventually build their own amenities the USHA didn’t originally plan for like a public swimming pool or better negotiated garbage collection.

These three cities were regarded as a success by the USHA until World War II happened and suddenly they showed flaws given the shift in focus. These towns housed poor people who barely if at all could afford a car, so semi-isolated towns outside the city became redundant and pointless. The USHA also had to keep raising the income requirement since the war saw a spike in well-paying jobs which made the town unsustainable otherwise. During the war and subsequent welfare programs to help veterans, these green cities became de facto retirement and single-mother communities for a few years as most able-bodied men were drafted or volunteered. Eventually, the USDA would make the towns independent, after the war they raised the income limit yet again and slowly the towns repopulated. As cars became more common and suburbanization became a wider trend these towns would be less noticeably burdensome and were eventually interpreted as just three out of hundreds of small suburban towns that grew out of major cities. They were still all-white and the town maintained cleanliness requirements; after all they lived in apartments it just takes one guy’s stink-ass clogged toilet to ruin everyone’s day.

By the 1950’s these towns were fully independent. Greendale and Greenhills voted to privatize their homes and get rid of the income limit all together so the towns can become more normal. Greenhills, Ohio still has many of these USHA-era houses and apartments, all owned by a series of corporations and private owners. Greendale, Wisconsin property owners have demolished most of these old houses and restructured their town government so most traces of its founding are lost. But Greenbelt, Maryland still maintains a lot of its structure to this day. Greenbelt has privatized some land and buildings, but most of the original USHA apartments are owned by the Greenbelt Homes, Inc cooperative which gives residents co-ownership of the building they live in and their payments mostly go to maintenance. Because Greenbelt was collectively owned the House Un-American Activities Committee would blacklist and put on trial most of Greenbelt’s residents and officials. Though they didn’t find much evidence of communist influence, the town was a target of the red scare by the DMV area, residents were discriminated, blacklisted, and pressured into selling their assets. While Greenbelt did commodify some of the town, the still existing co-ownership shows the town’s democratic initiative to maintain its heritage. The green cities desegregated in the 50’s and 60’s depending on state law, Greenbelt was the last to desegregate under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while discrimination persisted for years by the 1980’s the town would become half non-white, today the town is 47% black and 10% Asian.

Though these towns largely integrated with a privatized and suburbanized America, they do stand as a memorial to an idea of American urbanism that died. They were designed for walkability and were planned to be more democratic and egalitarian towns, with the conditions that came with segregation and government oversight. You can’t ignore the strict standards and racism in their history, but you can say that about many towns. How do you think America would be different if more cities had green suburbs that were more interconnected and designed for community gatherings?

[dandelionh3art]

Sharia law, often misunderstood, is a moral and legal framework derived from Islamic teachings found in the Quran and the Hadith (sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad). It encompasses a wide range of topics, including personal ethics, family matters, finance, and, in some cases, criminal justice. Here's a breakdown to clarify misconceptions:

1. Sharia is not a single book of laws.

Sharia literally means "path" or "way" in Arabic and is more of a guiding principle than a codified law. Different Islamic scholars and schools of thought interpret Sharia differently, leading to variations in its application across Muslim-majority countries.

2. Sharia is primarily about personal conduct.

Most of Sharia focuses on guiding individual Muslims on how to live a moral and ethical life. This includes:

Prayer: Guidelines for worship.

Charity: Obligations to help the needy (Zakat).

Dietary rules: Prohibitions like avoiding alcohol or eating certain foods.

Marriage and family: Guidelines on marriage contracts, divorce, and inheritance.

3. Criminal justice is a small and often misunderstood part of Sharia.

Criminal punishments under Sharia (known as Hudood laws) are the most controversial aspect but apply only in specific circumstances with very strict evidence requirements. For example:

Theft requires eyewitnesses and specific conditions to be met before severe punishments can be imposed.

Many of these punishments are rarely carried out and, in practice, are often replaced by other legal systems in modern states.

4. Sharia applies only to Muslims.

Sharia governs the lives of Muslims who choose to adhere to its teachings. It is not imposed on non-Muslims, even in Islamic countries. Non-Muslims often have their own legal frameworks, especially in matters of marriage, inheritance, and religious practice.

5. Sharia promotes justice, compassion, and community welfare.

The principles of Sharia aim to ensure fairness, protect human dignity, and prevent harm. For example:

The prohibition of usury (interest) is intended to prevent exploitation in financial transactions.

Charity is a fundamental obligation to reduce poverty and inequality.

6. Sharia differs from country to country.

Sharia is interpreted differently depending on culture, history, and local laws. For instance, many Muslim-majority countries combine Sharia principles with modern, secular legal systems. The strict implementation often highlighted in media represents only a minority of cases.

7. Misconceptions stem from cultural practices, not Sharia.

Some practices attributed to Sharia, such as forced marriages or honor killings, are cultural traditions and not supported by Islamic teachings. Islam explicitly prohibits coercion in matters of faith and personal choice.

8. Non-Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries:

In most Muslim-majority countries, non-Muslims are free to practice their own faith and are not governed by Sharia in personal matters. For example, they may follow their own religious laws regarding marriage and inheritance.

In Summary:

Sharia is a holistic moral framework meant to guide Muslims in living an ethical life, not a universal legal system imposed on everyone. The misconception that Sharia seeks to govern non-Muslims or enforce harsh punishments universally is largely a result of misinformation and cultural misunderstandings.

By understanding the spiritual, ethical, and personal aspects of Sharia, people can see it as a system rooted in principles of justice, compassion, and mutual respect.

[dragoneyes618]

European Jewish leaders have sharply criticized a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR), which upheld a ban on kosher slaughter in Belgium, slamming it as a significant setback for religious freedom across Europe.

Dismissing legal and humanitarian appeals by Belgium’s Jewish community and Jewish leaders worldwide, the seven-judge panel in the Strasbourg court—the EU’s highest judicial body– invoked “the protection of animal welfare” as “an ethical value” that supersedes the Jewish and Muslim religious mandates.

The judges confirmed the ban already in place in Belgium that insists that animals be “stunned” prior to slaughter, regardless of Jewish law and Islamic practice that forbid it.

Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, President of the Conference of European Rabbis and Russia’s chief rabbi, called the ruling “a black day for Europe, when fundamental religious rights are no longer respected.”

“The court’s decision to enforce the ban on ritual slaughter in the Flanders and Wallonia regions of Belgium will be felt by Jewish communities across the continent,” Rabbi Goldschmidt said. “The bans have already had a devastating impact on the Belgian Jewish community, causing supply shortages. And we are all very aware of the precedent this sets in challenging our rights to practice our religion.”

Belgium is home to some 500,000 Muslims and 30,000 Jews. Those who want to observe shechitah and Muslim ‘halal’ must now obtain meat from abroad.

“This distorted verdict implies that the rights of citizens to freedom of religion and worship are of lower importance than the “rights” of animals,” said Rabbi Menachem Margolin, chairman of the Brussels-based European Jewish Association. He warned that the restrictions on Jews practicing their faith will lead to “serious damage to the fabric of life throughout the continent.”

Fearing A Domino Effect

By upholding the Belgian ban, the EU Court of Human Rights has effectively signaled other states within the European Union that they can implement their own laws prohibiting kosher slaughter for Jews and halal slaughter for Muslims, without fear of religious discrimination lawsuits.

The threat of legal consequences has until now acted as a brake on the anti-shechitah movement. But the EUHR ruling has removed that barrier, setting the stage in an expected domino effect for a wave of copycat restrictions on ritual slaughter by European governments.

“We are already seeing attempts across Europe to follow this Belgian ban, now sadly legitimized by the ECHR,” Dr. Ariel Muzicant, president of the European Jewish Congress, said in a statement.

The bans, imposed in the two regions several years ago, were the result of a long-running campaign by animal welfare activists. But they also raised fears among Muslim and Jewish community groups that they were “a cover for nationalist politicians to foster anti-immigrant sentiment,” reported Politico.

Ben Weyts, the Flemish minister responsible for animal welfare, was the first to propose the idea of a ban and expressed satisfaction with the verdict. “Now the door is open for a ban on ritual slaughter not only in Brussels but in the whole of Europe,” Weyts, of the far-right New Flemish Alliance, gloated in a television interview.

Yohan Benizri, president of the Belgian Federation of Jewish Organizations that opposed the slaughter ban, said he was “appalled” by the ruling. “This is the first time that the ECHR decides that protection of animal welfare is a matter of public morals that can trump the rights of minorities,” Benizri told Politico.

Hostility To Shechitah Deeply Rooted in European History

The hostility to shechitah endorsed by the Strasbourg court hardly comes as a shock; that animus has underpinned Belgian society for generations, deeply rooted in a legacy of Jew-hatred that has flourished throughout European history.

Blood libels across the ages have been fueled by malicious portrayals of shechitah as barbaric and cruel. Grotesque carvings on countless medieval church facades depicting Jews in obscene acts with pigs, on display to this very day, continue the tradition of mocking Jewish dietary restrictions.

Several European countries in the 19th and 20th Centuries oppressed their Jewish populations with bans against shechitah. Switzerland did so in 1893 to stop Jews fleeing pogroms from entering their country. Poland enacted a similar ban in 1936, Sweden in 1937.

Germany passed anti-shechitah laws three months after the Nazis came to power in 1933, citing cruelty to animals, and maligning kosher slaughter as a Jewish celebration of animal suffering. One of the first acts of the Nazi regime, the laws banning shechitah were aimed at making Germany unlivable for Jews, forcing them to emigrate.

Legislation prohibiting shechitah often follows the Nazi model, masquerading under the banner of animal welfare, and fueled by the canard that kosher slaughter inflicts undue suffering on animals. This misconception has persisted through generations and continues to resonate in various parts of the world.

In 2009, bowing to pressure from liberals and parties hostile to Jews and Muslims, the EU Council implemented the pre-slaughter stunning law. Following outcries from religious groups, the law made allowances for member States to provide exemptions to accommodate ritual slaughter by Jews and Muslims.

A number of countries including France, Germany, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Spain make use of that exemption. Other European countries refuse to grant any exemptions from the stunning law. These include Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Cyprus, Spain, Slovenia, and now Belgium.

Five Years of Court Battles   

The Strasbourg court’s ruling marked the culmination of legal battles waged by Jewish and Muslim groups, together with seven advocacy groups, against bans enacted in 2017 and 2018 in Flanders and Wallonia against shechitah and Islamic ritual slaughter.

The bans were pushed through the Belgium parliament by an alliance of anti-shechitah forces, animal rights groups and anti-Muslim politicians.

The litigants first brought a religious discrimination lawsuit in a Belgium court, then at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in 2020, and finally the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Their appeals argued that the laws violate guarantees of religious freedom enshrined in EU law; in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; the European Convention on Human Rights; and the Belgian Constitution itself.

The Strasbourg court dismissed their arguments, stating that animal welfare was a component of “public morals” and carried significant weight in modern-day democracies.

Critics have drawn attention to Articles 9 and 14 under the European Convention of Human Rights, formulated in 1953, which protects the political and civil rights of Europeans. Its provisions guarantee freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Muzicant said the Strasbourg court, in upholding the anti-shechitah law, “had violated the very charter” from which it draws its authority.

“We call on the European Commission and European Parliament to enact legislation which truly protects these fundamental rights and to give real meaning to their long-stated claims that they foster Jewish life in Europe,” Muzicant affirmed on the EJC website. “Jewish communities in Europe, now more than ever, need the protection of national governments and pan-European organizations to ensure that thousands of years of Jewish life on this continent do not come to an abrupt end.”

“Restrictions on fundamental aspects of Jewish religious freedom of expression, coupled with a background of massive increases in anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish communities, lead us to seriously consider whether Jews have a future in Europe,” the EJC representative said.

The EU Lowers Its Mask

Commenting on the Strasbourg court ruling upholding Belgium’s anti-shechitah ban, noted British political commentator Melanie Philips mocked the EU for its hypocrisy.

“The European Union likes to pose as the embodiment of tolerance, freedom and all civilized values. Now it has ripped off its own disguise to reveal something rather more ugly,” she wrote in the Jewish Star.

“The idea that stunning is humane is laughable,” Philips elaborated. “It’s often ineffective, causing the animal to be subjected to this assault more than once before it eventually loses consciousness. And even with prior stunning, meat processing plants in Europe are often inhumane places where livestock are factory farmed, pumped full of chemicals and industrially killed.”

So if the requirement for stunning actually has little to do with animal welfare, what’s the real driving force behind it?

At its core, writes Phillips, the law reflects a switch in priorities; animals being given priority over basic human rights, with a corresponding rise in ignorance and hypocrisy over what actually constitutes animal welfare.

“That moral confusion is one of the outcomes of the dogma of secularism, as well as the hostility to religion upon which the EU itself is based,” writes the author. Another key factor contributing to Western decay is its “moral and cultural relativism,” which preaches there are no absolute values.

“All of these [dark forces] have propelled the rise of paganism and the veneration of the animal at the expense of humanity.”

Pitfalls of Stunning an Animal

The practice of “stunning” refers to the methods of rendering an animal or bird unconscious prior to slaughter.

It was originally developed to facilitate the killing of large numbers of animals at once, in factory-like conditions. The main stunning method used for slaughtering cattle and sheep is by captive bolt gun, in which a steel bolt is shot into the skull at the front of the animal’s brain, details the National Institute  Health.

Another method is by electric shock, whereby electrodes are clamped to the animal’s head and heart, electrocuting it.

These methods are contrary to Jewish law which stipulates that an animal intended for food must be healthy and uninjured at the time of shechitah. Stunning injures and sometimes kills the animal, in either case rendering it forbidden for Jews to eat.

Apart from the halachic prohibition, there are other objections to stunning. Despite the rhetoric from animal rights activists, there is no conclusive evidence that stunning an animal renders it insensible to pain, experts say.

Some scientists claim that the animal is often only paralyzed—not fully sedated—and thus prevented only from displaying its pain.

In addition, when the captive bolt method fails, as happens not infrequently, it inflicts considerable suffering and distress on the animal. The conscious animal is left in acute pain as the captive bolt gun is reloaded and reapplied, or the electrical tongs reapplied to re-stun it.

According to Britain’s Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA), stunning is done differently for poultry. “Birds are hung upside down by their legs on metal shackles along a moving conveyor belt,” the RSPCA details.

“They move along the production line to a stunning water bath; when the bird’s head makes contact with the water, an electrical circuit between the water bath and shackle is completed, which stuns the bird. The conveyor belt then moves the birds to a mechanical neck cutter, which cuts the major blood vessels in the neck.”

Shechitah avoids all the technical risks and humanitarian pitfalls of stunning. Yet, in one of the supreme ironies of this world, despite the gruesome, torturous nature of non-kosher slaughter, it is shechitah with its meticulous laws aimed at minimizing animal suffering that is being painted as barbaric and cruel.

*****

Why Isn’t Stunning Required for Animals Killed in Belgian Sporting Events? 

One of the EJC’s earliest legal appeals drew attention to the discriminatory nature of the Belgian anti-shechitah legislation, noting that hunting and killing animals in sporting events are not subject to any of the “humane” regulations that have been imposed on ritual slaughter.

On the contrary, the laws governing the popular activity of game-hunting in Belgium, whether for recreation of food consumption, make no reference whatever to the welfare of animals. The law’s concern instead is over environmental protections.

As a feature article in Flanders Today makes clear, the government’s aims in regulating hunting are purely environmental; to ensure that the region’s wildlife supply is not significantly reduced and that no damage is done to the land.

The article goes on to enthuse about the opportunities for hunting wild game in Belgian resort areas. “Hunting wild game in the winter is a hit among hunters, butchers and consumers,” the article begins, going on to list “deer, wild boar, partridge, ducks and pheasant” as “huntable animals.”

The Jewish community’s appeal challenged the double standard inherent in these hunting laws. It argued that since the law in Belgium permits the hunting and killing of animals at “cultural or sporting events” without prior stunning, how can the same government impose “stunning” requirements on ritual slaughter?

The court’s response exposed its show of caring about animal welfare as empty posturing.

“Cultural and sporting events result at most in a marginal production of meat which is not economically significant,” the court said. “Consequently, such events cannot reasonably be understood as a food production activity, which justifies their being treated differently from slaughtering.”

What does that gibberish mean? What does food production have to do with the obligation to spare an animal from undue suffering?

What the court seemed to be saying was that imposing humanitarian restrictions on game-hunting will make no economic dent on Jewish or Muslim meat-production industries (and by association, on Jewish or Muslim immigration), so why make a fuss over whether hunting game is done humanely?

In other words, hunt and kill for sport however you please, gentlemen, no stunning necessary, because we don’t really care about animals. That was never the point.

*****

Shocking Scenarios of Animals ‘Rights’ Superseding Human Life

“The protection of nature is gradually taking ideological precedence not only over the right to exercise one’s religion but also over the well-being of humans,” Prof. Eric Mechoulan who teaches in Paris, attested in Mosaic Magazine.

The writer describes a trip he took to Denmark a number of years ago, when he was confronted with a real-life scenario in which obsession over animal welfare trumped concern for the health and well-being of thousands of people.

The writer recalls during his trip being “trapped for six hours in a humongous traffic jam on the highway between Copenhagen and the island of Funen.”

“A truck carrying pigs had overturned and the animals had wandered into a field adjacent to a bridge pier,” he recalled “Not only did a crane have to be brought in to get the animals back into their truck, but “a veterinarian had to be called in to catch and kill the injured pigs in the middle of the countryside, as Danish law prohibits the transport of suffering animals.”

“It took [the veterinarian] a long time,” the author writes. “For this reason, a quarter of the country was blocked and tens of thousands of humans, women and children, old and sick, lacking water and washroom facilities, stayed for hours under the scorching sun.”

“The nature-worshippers in Europe wear the mask of progressive ecology and behind it lurks anti-speciesism,” the author scoffs. Anti-speciesism is an atheistic movement, rooted in the 70’s that claims that no species, including the human species, is more important than any other.

Animal Rights Activists Fight Municipal Orders to Kill Marauding Bears

In some parts of the world where sanity still rules, multiple sightings of a bear in populated areas where fatal bear attacks have taken place would naturally spur efforts to kill the animal as a safety precaution.

However, in regions were animal and environmentalists equate animal rights with those of human beings, threats to public safety are not considered valid grounds to end the life of suspected killer bear.

An incident unfolded early this month in Torentino, a northern province in Italy, that highlighted this unhinged mentality. A bear, identified by its collar and ear markings as M90, was sighted on 12 occasions “in residential areas or in the immediate vicinity of permanent dwellings.”

After Bear M90 reportedly stalked people on numerous occasions, terrifying them, he was deemed a danger to public security, tracked to its lair in the forest and killed, the Guardian reported.

Animal and environmental activists were incensed, slamming the action as “shortsighted and hostile to animals” and accusing the municipality of not “protecting biodiversity,” according to the article. The animal-loving activists went on to rally for the welfare of the brown bears in the provincial capital, Trento.

In other headlines from Italy, even after a hiker was fatally mauled by a bear last year in the Italian village of Caldes, and the same bear had previously attacked a father and a son, the order to kill the deadly animal was cancelled by an administrative court after intense lobbying by animal activists, reported the Guardian.

Only after intense counter pressure was brought to bear by influential parties was the order renewed and carried out.

Isolated incidents in Denmark and Italy? Or episodes reflecting something deeper and sicker in the fabric of European society, and in the moral rot lurking behind the EU judiciary’s shameful anti-shechitah ruling.

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: ISLAM AND OTHER RELIGIONS: DIALOGUE: Part 9

Interreligious Dialogue: Part 2

Muslims should not be the party that avoids dialogue; they should advocate that dialogue should be carried out for the common interests of human beings. However, if the other party ceases to see it as a religious issue and attempts to use it as an instrument for the political and economic interests of the world of Christianity, instead of losing time, attempts should be focused on the youth that inclines towards atheism. That is, the dialogue should be carried out with the youth.

After these explanations, let's deal with the issue on the outline and without any prejudice:

There are several dimensions of such a dialogue carried out with good intentions. One of them is cooperation against negativeness which is the common enemy of all religions. What is negativeness? Let's list some of them that we recall now: - Atheism reaching great dimensions in Europe -The disappearance of honor as a result of the ethnic crisis and waning of the family life -The commitment of all kinds of corruption, cruelty, and betrayal for the sake of worldly interests as a result of the declining of the belief in the hereafter - Spread of alcohol and drug addiction increasingly as an indication of the lack of nourishment of the hearts and souls - The attempts to fill in the purposelessness with some aberrant ideas like Satanism - And the anarchy that disturbs everybody. Bloodshed by the robot people who do not know who they kill and why. The flow of money to the arms network instead of to the peace and welfare of human beings.

The justification of being friends with the People of the Book is presented clearly as follows:

Now, let's think like this: Why should people oppose the cooperation of people from different religions and their determination of a common strategy against common enemies and problems, some of which we listed above? Only the people who have the negative ideas we mentioned should oppose such cooperation, shouldn't they?

This question always strains my mind and I can never associate it with the reality that Islam is universal.

Two verses relating to this issue:

The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His will). (Chapter Aal-e-Imran, 19)

This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. (Chapter al-Maeda, 3)

Our Prophet (PBUH) is the prophet of the end of time and Islam is the only guide of humanity till the Day of Judgment. So isn't it our duty to convey the principles of this religion to humanity? Cant the dialogue we have mentioned be an opportunity to inform the followers of other religions who come together to heal the wounds of the community about Islam?

For instance, let's talk about Christianity: Through such a dialogue, either they will accept and take the belief of oneness from us, or we will incline towards their belief of trinity. Have we got any doubts about our belief to avoid dialogue? Since it is a reality that today a lot of Christian clergymen abandon trinity and embrace oneness, isn't it more reasonable than the other party should avoid dialogue? Let's leave aside the speculations and wrong theories and have a look at the reality:

During the period when there was a great rate of unemployment and when backwardness prevailed, a lot of workers immigrated to Europe, especially to Germany. How many of them abandoned Islam and became Christians? There are almost no Muslims becoming Christians in statistics except for a few love affairs. Some of our workers who went to Europe for the first time were affected by the Western Culture and indulged in alcoholism, debauchery in the too permissive environment but they managed to maintain their beliefs. The following generation realized the gravity of the situation and struggled to return to their selves. Now the situation is quite heartwarming and hopeful.

Not the religion but the lifestyle of the West affected our citizens who immigrated to Europe; not the churches but the pubs of the West attracted them then. Apart from the mistakes and weaknesses of our citizens, the following reality was obvious: in Europe not Christianity but debauchery was prevalent.

In today's Europe, there hasn't been any positive progress in terms of Christianity. In some universities, up to 90% of the youth (a grave rate) become atheists. Let alone building new churches, the old churches especially those with no historical values are pulled down one by one and transformed into office premises and some of them into mosques in Europe. Now we are faced with a Europe in which drugs have replaced alcohol. It is contrary to reality to fear interreligious dialogue in the name of Islam in such a medium. If we see any harm in terms of the interests of our nation and state and feel a secret plan, it is natural not to ignore it and take necessary measures. It is something different. According to Ahl-us Sunnah belief, If there are ninety-nine proofs showing a person's unbelief and only one proof showing his belief, the mufti gives his decision in accordance with the only one proof. The following hadith of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is spine-chilling and calls all of us to show maximum attention: Any person who called his brother an unbeliever (has in fact done an act by which this unbelief) would return to one of them. If it were so, as he asserted (then the unbelief of man was confirmed but if it was not true), then it returned to him (to the man who labeled it on his brother Muslim).

Lastly:

A Muslim is not an introvert person. When the Quran states that we are the best ummah, the reason is explained as we convey what is right and good to others and prohibit them from committing wrong and forbidden acts. The common way of all prophets is to show the people the true path and to liberate them from unbelief, polytheism, and disobedience to Allah.

So we should present ourselves not as murderers who kill those who are in the wrong path but as improvers who try to show them the true path and show it by our style of living.

Now let's turn to ourselves and settle accounts with ourselves: Am I feeling sorry for and trying to save people who are deprived of the light of Islam; or am I looking for occasions to end their lives and send them to hell? If my soul favors the latter it means I am deviating from the common line of the prophets. I should come to my senses, determine my duty and act accordingly. Our Prophet was an enemy of the polytheism but he felt sorry for the polytheists and tried to save them, as a doctor is an enemy of the illness, not the patient. How much do I conform to the way of my dear Prophet?

Such an inner dialogue will make us give the best decision about dialogue.

[eretzyisrael]

by Sam Westrop

Recent analysis published by Israeli analysts place Hamas’s annual budget in Gaza at between $2 and $3 billion. At least an estimated $500 million of this is provided by the “Hamas Charity Coalition” and various investment entities. New sanctions imposed by U.S. Department of the Treasury are based on similar conclusions, and target a range of charities and companies.

One named entity in the U.S. government document is the “Gaza-based and [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]-affiliated Al-Ansar Charity Association (Al-Ansar),” which “provides millions of dollars … for the families of terrorists affiliated with Hamas and PIJ. Al-Ansar claims to provide funds to families affiliated with these terrorist groups as an extension of Iranian support to the Palestinian people, but the funding ultimately serves as a recruiting tool for terrorist activities.”

Indeed, radical movements have long used charitable programs and promises of social welfare to build a base of support and help with recruitment. Crucially, as the U.S. government realizes, charities do not have to fund Hamas’s terrorist operations directly to benefit the terrorist organization financially or ideologically.

Across the Islamist world, in fact, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Khomeinists, Wahhabis, ISIS, and al-Qaeda and, indeed, Islamist groups all around the world, have made use of charitable programs to expand and consolidate control over Muslim communities. Hamas and other terror groups refer to this approach as da’wa. The term is usually employed to mean a proselytizing call to Islam, but in the case of Islamist movements and its terror offshoots such as Hamas, it serves as a call to Islamism – and thus a vehicle to impose Islamist rule. Counter-terrorism experts and an increasing number of governments note that the use of da’wah through charity facilitates an influx of largely-unchecked foreign funds, helps to recruit to new members, frees up money for violent operations, and serves to sanitize the reputation of terror movements.

Much of the charitable work is indeed real, but it still serves to benefit terror. In Gaza, for instance, decades ago, Hamas came to the fore by distinguishing itself, through its charitable work, from the incompetence and corruption of the PLO. While Palestinian nationalists embezzled millions, their Islamist rivals set up medical clinics, orphanages and summer camps for Palestinian youth, winning grassroots support. Decades earlier, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt pioneered a similar approach.

The designation of Al-Ansar is certainly not the first time the link between charity and terror has been officially recognized. After the 9/11 attacks, Western governments quickly came to realize, with horror, the ease with which these foreign terrorist organizations could exploit nonprofit industries. Worse still, Western governments eventually began to notice that extremist networks within Western Muslim communities were willing to set up nonprofits on behalf of these foreign terrorist groups.

In response, a slew of prosecutions, designations and bans across America and Europe during the 2000s shut down significant numbers of these Islamist charities, but political enthusiasm for prosecutions and investigations eventually waned. Since then, a decade of lax oversight and fears over the political fallout from new prosecutions has allowed the Islamist nonprofit industry to grow once again.

Nonetheless, in 2010, the solicitor-general, Elena Kagan, now on the Supreme Court, reiterated that “Hezbollah builds bombs. Hezbollah also builds homes. … When you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs.”

Today, however, the law is still simply not being enforced. The activities of terror-aligned charities are largely ignored by law enforcement and policy-makers. Sometimes, the taxpayer even funds these radical charities through a wide array of obscene government grant programs.

There is a broader problem too. A search by the Middle East Forum of electronically-filed Schedule F forms (part of nonprofits’ 990 tax returns) – which are supposed to disclose foreign spending by 501(c)s – for mentions of “Palestine” or “Palestinian(s)” yielded hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures in the Palestinian territories in recent years, with hundreds of millions more likely uncountably listed under broader regional terms such as “Middle East.” Actual recipient names are redacted or unprovided, making the true amounts going to Gaza impossible to track properly.

Nonetheless, through open-source investigation, in the wake of the October 7th attacks, Focus on Western Islamism has put together a list of Islamist nonprofits in the United States, along with fellow travelers, which we believe make-up a major Hamas-aligned charitable industry in North America. Through searches of the electronic 990 filings, we have also gathered and summarized these charities’ top funders through the 501(c) system, totaling a worrying $262 million.

(Note: 501(c)s’ 990 Tax Returns occasionally contain inaccurate information. Misspelled names, incorrect EIN numbers, among other problems. Every effort has been made to ensure the funding data is comprehensively accurate and the grantees listed in these 990s are indeed the nonprofits listed in this report, although it remains possible that a negligible number of false positives have made their way into the final data.)

By Hamas-aligned, we mean that our list comprises charities that have previously collaborated with Hamas or related terror groups, funded charitable proxies for Hamas in the Gaza Strip, or employed officials who publicly express support for Hamas with apparent impunity. A second list of additional Islamist charities with extremist histories relevant to their work in Gaza, but whose current involvement with Hamas or Hamas proxies is unknown, is also included. The charities in both lists (see table of comments) deserve close investigation by media, law enforcement and policymakers.

Hamas-Aligned Charities

Rahma Worldwide Aid & Development

Rahma Worldwide, also known as Rahma Relief, is a Michigan charity run by Shadi Zaza.