Spanish Pundit (II)

junio 2, 2008

Wind Rose Hotel: Why Western civilization is worth fighting for

Filed under: Uncategorized — Nora @ 8:41 pm

Wind Rose Hotel: Why Western civilization is worth fighting for:

Rather more significant is to know what their all-round relationship is to certain values that have always been central to the historical project of the left: democratic and egalitarian values; a decent conception of justice (such as aims to achieve for everyone the possibility of a secure and fulfilled existence); and the protection of individual human beings from the more egregious types of assault to which they are subject when such values are denied or cast aside. Christopher Hitchens’s present choice is not my own. I remain attached to the idea of arguing for these values within the left. A left which showed no respect for them wouldn’t be worth belonging to.

But all the same, I appreciate and feel the difficulty of accepting a common political identity with the contemporary apologists for terrorism, the mumblers and rootcausers, the people seemingly capable of understanding everything except the need for drawing a clear line between those who uphold the politics of democracy and those dedicated to their destruction. The left today has no reason for self-congratulation. This is a loose movement which is able (and has seen fit) – from the Falklands to Iraq – to mobilize always hundreds, and sometimes thousands and tens of thousands, to oppose conflicts fought by the Western democracies against the ugliest of tyrannies and/or reactionary social and political forces, but musters nothing comparable, or indeed just nothing, against a global campaign of terrorist murder; or, equally, against genocidal processes as these periodically unfold in one country after another, destroying the fabric of entire communities and uncountable numbers of lives.

(…) With those, both within the left and without it, who fight for democratic principles, practices and institutions and the fundamental rights of human beings; against those, whatever their political colour, who always have a reason, or a tactful silence, to offer on behalf of the forces fighting against these things; as well as against these oppressive and murderous forces.

(…) In his What Went Wrong book, Lewis has shown what made Islam so different from other monotheistic religions, particularly from a political and cultural point of view. For centuries, he says, the Islamic world was in the forefront of human achievement—the foremost military and economic power, the leader in the arts and sciences of civilization, etc.—while Christian Europe was sunk in the darkness of barbarism. And then everything changed. What went wrong? Lewis offers no easy answers, but he points out the lack of secularism and its roots at the core of Islam itself.

Secularism in the modern political meaning—the idea that religion and political authority, church and state are different, and can or should be separated—is, in a profound sense, Christian. Its origins may be traced in the teaching of Christ, confirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shaped and, in a sense, imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom.
[…]
In imperial Rome Caesar was God, reasserting a doctrine that goes back to the god-kings of remote antiquity. Among the Jews, for whose beliefs Josephus coined the term “theocracy,” God was Caesar. For the Muslims, too, God was the supreme sovereign, and the caliph was his vice-gerent, “his shadow on earth.” Only in Christendom did God and Caesar coesixt in the state, albeit with considerable development, variety, and sometimes conflict in the relations between them
.”

Just go there and read what Rob has written: a magnificent post about fighting for Western civilization and why it is really worth the effort…

So the reason for fighting for the Western civilization is just that it is the only one which has, in its strict sense, discovered and really developed the separation between Religion and State, thanks to the famous words of Christ: “Give to the Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”. Nowadays, however, it looks like that secularization, that is just that, is the same as “laicism”, a French term which was “discovered” in the French Revolution, and which is something strictly different. In the secularization, neither Caesar wants that which is God’s nor God’s (or His representants) wants that is Caesar’s. That is, the temporal power does not meedle in religious affairs nor the religious power wants to meddle in strictly temporal affairs. Just for example, the temporal power will never try to teach religious or moral values and the religious power will not impose its own moral views as scientific ones.

“Laicism” (there is virtually no similar word in English) is discovered, as I said, in the French Revolution with the enthronement of the Goddess Reason. It consists in a new Religion, made up by power, different from the Rest, with superior values to the rest of them and which exceed the ones which could be considered only as related to civility or citizenship. For examplo, and just by referring myself to something very controversial nowadays, we would have to distinguish between the moral consideration of homosexuality, something private and entirely related to the values each human being has, and the considerations homosexuality would have for Law and the State.

If we consider a “liberal” in European concept, someone who must fight for freedom and to reduce the meddling of the State in private affairs, laicism must repel as the meddling of any other religion, because it is about telling each citizen about how to consider morally human acts. State should only worry about acts which go against the basic protected juridical goods (that is, if someone beats or hurts someone for being an homosexual or consider that acts as morally acceptable) but not about the determination of what should each people think about those acts of strict intimacy, whose good/bad control can only be done from a moral point of view (that is, if it’s morally acceptable to have homosexual relations or to be an homosexual).

That implies that the first ones must be punished from a juridical point of view. The others can only be punished from the inner self of the human being, as he is the only one who has conscience and who is fully aware of his own intentions and actions.

Between moral and juridical laws, there are very few differences but there are two which are fundamental: the punishment (in the case of the moral is located on a personal/inner view -repentance, internal considerations-, and in the juridical one is of a juridical character -imposed on the culprit by a Tribunal, Judge, administrative figure…) and the place where it is located (the moral is in the relationship between each individual and his conscience while the juridical ones, are located in the relations between the individuals). If the State introduces itself, using its own regulations, in those relationships which are merelly personal, of each individual with his conscience, it’s not doing something different from what theocratic Islamic (or religious in general) regimes are doing. There is a difference though as Rob underlines in his post: Christianity always had a resort to point out where the limit is (even if it was in a theory, but it was always there), to temporal power. Now that limit is considered as a faulty one and so, it does not exist in reality. What is more, it’s widely considered as just to impose on citizens a laic State, considering that it would be the last resort against Islamisation. What this people do not consider is that, in fact, France, a “laic” State is really the most islamised in Europe to the day. The reason is that islamic faith is in reality a really total religion, which has also a political part at the core of it, and which cannot really make any difference between Religion and State. And just having to choose between something which cannot tells us about a future life and something which already does it, most of the people will choose the latter.

Islamic faith does tell you about the future life. Laicism does not. That is a very important reason for most of the people, even if agnostics or atheists do not see it.

*****

De modo que la razón por la que se debe luchar por la civilización occidental es porque es la única en la que en un sentido estricto, descubre la separación Religión-Estado, gracias al Cristianismo, es decir, a “dad al César lo que es del César y a Dios lo que es de Dios”. Sin embargo, a día de hoy parece que la secularización que es eso, se confunde con el laicismo, que es algo distinto. En la secularización, ni el César se mete en lo que es de Dios ni Dios en lo que es del César, esto es, el poder temporal no opina sobre los valores religiosos porque es algo que excede a su cometido y el poder religioso opina sólo sobre las cuestiones netamente religiosas o que influyan sobre la cuestión religiosa. Por poner un ejemplo, el orden temporal no educará en valores religiosos o morales y el orden eclesiástico no impondrá valores religiosos como científicos.

El laicismo es algo diferente: proviene de la Revolución Francesa y la entronización de la Diosa Razón. Consiste en que el poder temporal entroniza una nueva religión diferente de las demás, con valores superiores a las de esas religiones y que exceden los que deberían considerarse como propios de la urbanidad o de la ciudadanía. Por ejemplo, y por referirme a algo polémico, sería considerar la homosexualidad como algo intrínsecamente bueno, determinando así una valoración moral que excede de las actividades del Estado.

Curiosamente, si se es liberal, el laicismo debería repeler tanto como cualquier otra religión impuesta desde el Estado porque trata de decir a cada individuo cómo debe valorar moralmente los actos. El Estado debería limitarse a determinar cuáles son los actos que van contra los bienes jurídicos protegidos básicos (esto es, si se agrede a alguien por ser homosexual) pero no a determinar lo que deba pensar cada uno sobre los actos que sean de estricta intimidad o de control sólo por valores morales (i.e.: mantener relaciones de carácter homosexual).

Entre las normas morales y las normas jurídicas hay pocas diferencias pero hay dos fundamentales: la sanción (en el caso de la moral es de carácter personal -el arrepentimiento, el pesar interno- y en el del Derecho es de carácter jurídico -impuesta por un tribunal, juez, autoridad administrativa..-) y el ámbito en el que se produce (en el caso de la moral, se produce en las relaciones de cada individuo con su conciencia y en el del Derecho, en las relaciones entre los individuos). Si el Estado se introduce, mediante la regulación, en aquellas relaciones que son meramente de carácter interno al individuo, de cada uno con su conciencia, no está haciendo algo distinto de lo que hacen los regímenes teocráticos islámicos o religiosos anteriores, con la diferencia de que el Cristianismo, siendo religión mayoritaria, siempre supuso un límite (al menos, teórico) al poder terrenal. Ahora ese límite es denigrado y, por tanto, no existe en la realidad. Es más, se considera que lo justo es precisamente considerar al laicismo como la solución al problema islámico, sin pensar que el país de hecho más islamizado de Europa es también el más laico, Francia. La razón es que la islámica es la religión más estatista que existe y puestos a creer, elegimos siempre aquello que nos pueda dar una vida en el otro mundo. Y el laicismo no la da. El Islam sí. A pesar de que los agnósticos o los ateos (o una parte de ellos) no pueda verlo.
Anuncios

Why Western civilization is worth fighting for?

Filed under: Christianity,Islamism,Islamismo,religión — Nora @ 8:11 pm

Wind Rose Hotel: Why Western civilization is worth fighting for:

Rather more significant is to know what their all-round relationship is to certain values that have always been central to the historical project of the left: democratic and egalitarian values; a decent conception of justice (such as aims to achieve for everyone the possibility of a secure and fulfilled existence); and the protection of individual human beings from the more egregious types of assault to which they are subject when such values are denied or cast aside. Christopher Hitchens’s present choice is not my own. I remain attached to the idea of arguing for these values within the left. A left which showed no respect for them wouldn’t be worth belonging to.

But all the same, I appreciate and feel the difficulty of accepting a common political identity with the contemporary apologists for terrorism, the mumblers and rootcausers, the people seemingly capable of understanding everything except the need for drawing a clear line between those who uphold the politics of democracy and those dedicated to their destruction. The left today has no reason for self-congratulation. This is a loose movement which is able (and has seen fit) – from the Falklands to Iraq – to mobilize always hundreds, and sometimes thousands and tens of thousands, to oppose conflicts fought by the Western democracies against the ugliest of tyrannies and/or reactionary social and political forces, but musters nothing comparable, or indeed just nothing, against a global campaign of terrorist murder; or, equally, against genocidal processes as these periodically unfold in one country after another, destroying the fabric of entire communities and uncountable numbers of lives.

(…) With those, both within the left and without it, who fight for democratic principles, practices and institutions and the fundamental rights of human beings; against those, whatever their political colour, who always have a reason, or a tactful silence, to offer on behalf of the forces fighting against these things; as well as against these oppressive and murderous forces.

(…) In his What Went Wrong book, Lewis has shown what made Islam so different from other monotheistic religions, particularly from a political and cultural point of view. For centuries, he says, the Islamic world was in the forefront of human achievement—the foremost military and economic power, the leader in the arts and sciences of civilization, etc.—while Christian Europe was sunk in the darkness of barbarism. And then everything changed. What went wrong? Lewis offers no easy answers, but he points out the lack of secularism and its roots at the core of Islam itself.

Secularism in the modern political meaning—the idea that religion and political authority, church and state are different, and can or should be separated—is, in a profound sense, Christian. Its origins may be traced in the teaching of Christ, confirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shaped and, in a sense, imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom.
[…]
In imperial Rome Caesar was God, reasserting a doctrine that goes back to the god-kings of remote antiquity. Among the Jews, for whose beliefs Josephus coined the term “theocracy,” God was Caesar. For the Muslims, too, God was the supreme sovereign, and the caliph was his vice-gerent, “his shadow on earth.” Only in Christendom did God and Caesar coesixt in the state, albeit with considerable development, variety, and sometimes conflict in the relations between them
.”

Just go there and read what Rob has written: a magnificent post about fighting for Western civilization and why it is really worth the effort…
So the reason for fighting for the Western civilization is just that it is the only one which has, in its strict sense, discovered and really developed the separation between Religion and State, thanks to the famous words of Christ: “Give to the Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”. Nowadays, however, it looks like that secularization, that is just that, is the same as “laicism”, a French term which was “discovered” in the French Revolution, and which is something strictly different. In the secularization, neither Caesar wants that which is God’s nor God’s (or His representants) wants that is Caesar’s. That is, the temporal power does not meedle in religious affairs nor the religious power wants to meddle in strictly temporal affairs. Just for example, the temporal power will never try to teach religious or moral values and the religious power will not impose its own moral views as scientific ones.
“Laicism” (there is virtually no similar word in English) is discovered, as I said, in the French Revolution with the enthronement of the Goddess Reason. It consists in a new Religion, made up by power, different from the Rest, with superior values to the rest of them and which exceed the ones which could be considered only as related to civility or citizenship. For examplo, and just by referring myself to something very controversial nowadays, we would have to distinguish between the moral consideration of homosexuality, something private and entirely related to the values each human being has, and the considerations homosexuality would have for Law and the State.
If we consider a “liberal” in European concept, someone who must fight for freedom and to reduce the meddling of the State in private affairs, laicism must repel as the meddling of any other religion, because it is about telling each citizen about how to consider morally human acts. State should only worry about acts which go against the basic protected juridical goods (that is, if someone beats or hurts someone for being an homosexual or consider that acts as morally acceptable) but not about the determination of what should each people think about those acts of strict intimacy, whose good/bad control can only be done from a moral point of view (that is, if it’s morally acceptable to have homosexual relations or to be an homosexual).
That implies that the first ones must be punished from a juridical point of view. The others can only be punished from the inner self of the human being, as he is the only one who has conscience and who is fully aware of his own intentions and actions.
Between moral and juridical laws, there are very few differences but there are two which are fundamental: the punishment (in the case of the moral is located on a personal/inner view -repentance, internal considerations-, and in the juridical one is of a juridical character -imposed on the culprit by a Tribunal, Judge, administrative figure…) and the place where it is located (the moral is in the relationship between each individual and his conscience while the juridical ones, are located in the relations between the individuals). If the State introduces itself, using its own regulations, in those relationships which are merelly personal, of each individual with his conscience, it’s not doing something different from what theocratic Islamic (or religious in general) regimes are doing. There is a difference though as Rob underlines in his post: Christianity always had a resort to point out where the limit is (even if it was in a theory, but it was always there), to temporal power. Now that limit is considered as a faulty one and so, it does not exist in reality. What is more, it’s widely considered as just to impose on citizens a laic State, considering that it would be the last resort against Islamisation. What this people do not consider is that, in fact, France, a “laic” State is really the most islamised in Europe to the day. The reason is that islamic faith is in reality a really total religion, which has also a political part at the core of it, and which cannot really make any difference between Religion and State. And just having to choose between something which cannot tells us about a future life and something which already does it, most of the people will choose the latter.
Islamic faith does tell you about the future life. Laicism does not. That is a very important reason for most of the people, even if agnostics or atheists do not see it.
*****
De modo que la razón por la que se debe luchar por la civilización occidental es porque es la única en la que en un sentido estricto, descubre la separación Religión-Estado, gracias al Cristianismo, es decir, a “dad al César lo que es del César y a Dios lo que es de Dios”. Sin embargo, a día de hoy parece que la secularización que es eso, se confunde con el laicismo, que es algo distinto. En la secularización, ni el César se mete en lo que es de Dios ni Dios en lo que es del César, esto es, el poder temporal no opina sobre los valores religiosos porque es algo que excede a su cometido y el poder religioso opina sólo sobre las cuestiones netamente religiosas o que influyan sobre la cuestión religiosa. Por poner un ejemplo, el orden temporal no educará en valores religiosos o morales y el orden eclesiástico no impondrá valores religiosos como científicos.
El laicismo es algo diferente: proviene de la Revolución Francesa y la entronización de la Diosa Razón. Consiste en que el poder temporal entroniza una nueva religión diferente de las demás, con valores superiores a las de esas religiones y que exceden los que deberían considerarse como propios de la urbanidad o de la ciudadanía. Por ejemplo, y por referirme a algo polémico, sería considerar la homosexualidad como algo intrínsecamente bueno, determinando así una valoración moral que excede de las actividades del Estado.
Curiosamente, si se es liberal, el laicismo debería repeler tanto como cualquier otra religión impuesta desde el Estado porque trata de decir a cada individuo cómo debe valorar moralmente los actos. El Estado debería limitarse a determinar cuáles son los actos que van contra los bienes jurídicos protegidos básicos (esto es, si se agrede a alguien por ser homosexual) pero no a determinar lo que deba pensar cada uno sobre los actos que sean de estricta intimidad o de control sólo por valores morales (i.e.: mantener relaciones de carácter homosexual).
Entre las normas morales y las normas jurídicas hay pocas diferencias pero hay dos fundamentales: la sanción (en el caso de la moral es de carácter personal -el arrepentimiento, el pesar interno- y en el del Derecho es de carácter jurídico -impuesta por un tribunal, juez, autoridad administrativa..-) y el ámbito en el que se produce (en el caso de la moral, se produce en las relaciones de cada individuo con su conciencia y en el del Derecho, en las relaciones entre los individuos). Si el Estado se introduce, mediante la regulación, en aquellas relaciones que son meramente de carácter interno al individuo, de cada uno con su conciencia, no está haciendo algo distinto de lo que hacen los regímenes teocráticos islámicos o religiosos anteriores, con la diferencia de que el Cristianismo, siendo religión mayoritaria, siempre supuso un límite (al menos, teórico) al poder terrenal. Ahora ese límite es denigrado y, por tanto, no existe en la realidad. Es más, se considera que lo justo es precisamente considerar al laicismo como la solución al problema islámico, sin pensar que el país de hecho más islamizado de Europa es también el más laico, Francia. La razón es que la islámica es la religión más estatista que existe y puestos a creer, elegimos siempre aquello que nos pueda dar una vida en el otro mundo. Y el laicismo no la da. El Islam sí. A pesar de que los agnósticos o los ateos (o una parte de ellos) no pueda verlo.

The seven islamists imprisoned in A Lama accused of March 11th bombings, ask for help to the prison’s Catholic priest

Los siete islamistas del 11-M presos en A Lama piden ayuda al capellán de la cárcel – Galicia – Faro de Vigo, thanks to Alawen:

The islamists which are imprisoned in the Galician prison of A Lama after being condemned because of the March 11th bombings, which killed 191 and hurt 1824 people, has asked the Catholic Church for help.

The seven imprisoned -sentenced from 12 to 23 years in jail- have interviewed themselves with the prison’s chaplain to try to reach their goals. Their target is to make the priest intercede in their behalf to benefit from pensions, company and ill people’s attention which can only be reached by the Penitentiary Catholic Service, whose boss is the priest. Volunteers of the Catholic Pastoral Service have confirmed the contacts.

Hamid Ahmidan, Abdelmajid Bouchar, Rachid Aglif, Mohamed Bouharrat, Sael el Harrak, Basel Ghalyoun and Mohamed Larbi Ben Sellam, arrived in the end of November 2007 to the Pontevedra’s prison. One of them knew it already, because he spent the time before the process in it, as “preventive imprisoned”. He is Hamid Ahmidan, The Chinese‘s cousin, one of the seven suicide terrorist of Leganés and leader of the criminal organization whose benefits -primarily from the drug trafficking- contributed to the financing of the terrorist attacks.

The seven Islamists are in the same part of the prison and are isolated from the rest of the imprisoned population in individual cells. They only are entitled to four hours in the yard and to two hours to practice sports and study. The rest of the day they are in their cells.

The Islamists’ strategy to resort to the Catholic priests to improve their situation in prison, is not only used in A Lama. They already stated in their conversation with the priest that in the prisons they were before that moment, they had the assistance of Catholic priests.

A Lama’s chaplain, according to the same sources, did not have any problem to speak with them in what they described as a “first contact”, because that is something it’s normally done with the imprisoned guys who apply for it, whether they are Catholic, Muslim or Agnostic.

“The main objective of all the Penitentiary Pastoral is the service and attention to the people who are deprived of freedom of their families, and their accompaniment and integration through workrooms, but that does not mean at all justifying their crimes or motives that could cause their internment in prison”, the responsible of the program stated.

Football let them began to speak in the first meeting. Real Madrid, which had won the Spanish League those days, and the situation of the Barcelona centered the first part of the conversation between the Islamists of the March 11th terrorist attacks and the A Lama’s chaplain.

After that, the imprisoned Islamists got interested in the possibility that the priest interceded for them to get benefits through the Penitentiary Pastoral to have the opportunity of receiving personal mail.

In Spain the packages for the inmates, even if they are duly inspected, before reaching them, cannot be sent by mail and should be given by hand. A job which is done generously by the team of laic volunteers to whom it’s solicited for not having any relatives or because they live far away.

Even if the risk exists of recurring to one of their main enemies, the Catholic Church, to clean their image, the help petitions to Penitentiary Pastoral are something very regular among the elevated number of Muslim inmates (around 200, nearly 80% of all the foreign inmates in A Lama). Most of them are Moroccans or Algerians which are sheltered in their leave days in apartments which belong to the pastoral team.

Father Isaac, the chaplain of the Pontevedra’s prison of A Lama, is cautious when being asked about the contacts maintained and states that this was only the first meeting, that it will be continued. About the fact that this group could have interviewed themselves with an Imam and not with a Catholic priest, he answers that there is freedom of belief inside the prison, “according to the Constitution” and they could have spoken with imams.

The team of the Penitentiary Pastoral provides humanitarian and social help to the people that needs it and applies for it without asking about their religion“, he assures. “It’s a humanitarian service for the inmates. We don’t ask them about their crimes“, he concludes.

As Alawen says in the post, that gave me the tip, what a difference with this.
****
Todos los enlaces están en español y cada uno puede sacar las conclusiones que considere oportunas.

The seven islamists imprisoned at A Lama accused of March 11th bombings, ask for help to the prison’s Catholic priest

Los siete islamistas del 11-M presos en A Lama piden ayuda al capellán de la cárcel – Galicia – Faro de Vigo, thanks to Alawen:

The islamists who are imprisoned in the Galician prison of A Lama after being condemned because of the March 11th bombings, which killed 191 and hurt 1824 people, have asked the Catholic Church for help.

The seven imprisoned -sentenced from 12 to 23 years in jail- have interviewed themselves with the prison’s chaplain to try to reach their goals. Their target is to make the priest intercede in their behalf to benefit from pensions, company and ill people’s attention which can only be reached by the Penitentiary Catholic Service, whose boss is the priest. Volunteers of the Catholic Pastoral Service have confirmed the contacts.

Hamid Ahmidan, Abdelmajid Bouchar, Rachid Aglif, Mohamed Bouharrat, Sael el Harrak, Basel Ghalyoun and Mohamed Larbi Ben Sellam, arrived in the end of November 2007 to the Pontevedra’s prison. One of them knew it already, because he spent the time before the process in it, as “preventive imprisoned”. He is Hamid Ahmidan, The Chinese‘s cousin, one of the seven suicide terrorist of Leganés and leader of the criminal organization whose benefits -primarily from the drug trafficking- contributed to the financing of the terrorist attacks.

The seven Islamists are in the same part of the prison and are isolated from the rest of the imprisoned population in individual cells. They only are entitled to four hours in the yard and to two hours to practice sports and study. The rest of the day they are in their cells.

The Islamists’ strategy to resort to the Catholic priests to improve their situation in prison, is not only used in A Lama. They already stated in their conversation with the priest that in the prisons they were before that moment, they had the assistance of Catholic priests.

A Lama’s chaplain, according to the same sources, did not have any problem to speak with them in what they described as a “first contact”, because that is something it’s normally done with the imprisoned guys who apply for it, whether they are Catholic, Muslim or Agnostic.

“The main objective of all the Penitentiary Pastoral is the service and attention to the people who are deprived of freedom of their families, and their accompaniment and integration through workrooms, but that does not mean at all justifying their crimes or motives that could cause their internment in prison”, the responsible of the program stated.

Football let them began to speak in the first meeting. Real Madrid, which had won the Spanish League those days, and the situation of the Barcelona centered the first part of the conversation between the Islamists of the March 11th terrorist attacks and the A Lama’s chaplain.

After that, the imprisoned Islamists got interested in the possibility that the priest interceded for them to get benefits through the Penitentiary Pastoral to have the opportunity of receiving personal mail.

In Spain the packages for the inmates, even if they are duly inspected, before reaching them, cannot be sent by mail and should be given by hand. A job which is done generously by the team of laic volunteers to whom it’s solicited for not having any relatives or because they live far away. 

Even if the risk exists of recurring to one of their main enemies, the Catholic Church, to clean their image, the help petitions to Penitentiary Pastoral are something very regular among the elevated number of Muslim inmates (around 200, nearly 80% of all the foreign inmates in A Lama). Most of them are Moroccans or Algerians which are sheltered in their leave days in apartments which belong to the pastoral team.

Father Isaac, the chaplain of the Pontevedra’s prison of A Lama, is cautious when being asked about the contacts maintained and states that this was only the first meeting, that it will be continued. About the fact that this group could have interviewed themselves with an Imam and not with a Catholic priest, he answers that there is freedom of belief inside the prison, “according to the Constitution” and they could have spoken with imams.

The team of the Penitentiary Pastoral provides humanitarian and social help to the people that needs it and applies for it without asking about their religion“, he assures. “It’s a humanitarian service for the inmates. We don’t ask them about their crimes“, he concludes.

As Alawen says in the post, that gave me the tip, what a difference with this.
****
Todos los enlaces están en español y cada uno puede sacar las conclusiones que considere oportunas. 

6 killed in blast at Danish Embassy in Pakistan

6 killed in blast at Danish Embassy in Pakistan – Pakistan – msnbc.com: “A huge car bomb exploded outside the Danish Embassy in the Pakistani capital on Monday, killing at least six people and wounding dozens more, officials and witnesses said.

Anjum Naveed / AP
A Pakistani security official stands amid the rubble of the adjacent building after a bomb explosion outside the Danish Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Monda

 

It has happened the same day as this has been published: Taliban Leader Flaunts Power Inside Pakistan @ NYTimes.com.

the usually reclusive leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, held a news conference of his own, in the same region, to show just who was in charge. 

He rolled up in an expensive-looking Toyota pickup packed with heavily armed Taliban fighters, according to the Pakistani journalists invited to attend. Squatting on the floor of a government school, Mr. Mehsud, clasping a new Kalashnikov, announced he would press his fight against the American military across the border in Afghanistan.

“Islam does not recognize boundaries,” he told the journalists, in accounts published in Pakistani newspapers and reported by the BBC. “There can be no deal with the United States.”

What has to say Zapatero and new Spanish Minister of Defense, Chacón, about this? Does anyone consider how “special” is to see the Taliban leader holding a news conference in Pakistan, while announcing he is going to press his fight against the military forces in Afghanistan?
****
Un atentado contra la embajada danesa en Islamabad ha matado a seis personas y a herido a docenas, mientras el líder talibán, Baitullah Mehsud, que normalmente se esconde dio ayer una rueda de prensa en la que declaró que “el Islam no reconoce fronteras. No puede haber ningún acuerdo con los EEUU“, mientras añadía que endurecería su lucha contra los militares americanos en Afganistán.
¿Qué tienen que decir a esto Zapatero y la Ministra Chacón? ¿A nadie le parece raro que el líder talibán dé una conferencia de prensa en Paquistán, mientras anuncia que va a endurecer su lucha en Afganistán?

6 killed in blast at Danish Embassy in Pakistan

6 killed in blast at Danish Embassy in Pakistan – Pakistan – msnbc.com: “A huge car bomb exploded outside the Danish Embassy in the Pakistani capital on Monday, killing at least six people and wounding dozens more, officials and witnesses said.

Anjum Naveed / AP
A Pakistani security official stands amid the rubble of the adjacent building after a bomb explosion outside the Danish Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Monda

It has happened the same day as this has been published: Taliban Leader Flaunts Power Inside Pakistan @ NYTimes.com.

the usually reclusive leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, held a news conference of his own, in the same region, to show just who was in charge.

He rolled up in an expensive-looking Toyota pickup packed with heavily armed Taliban fighters, according to the Pakistani journalists invited to attend. Squatting on the floor of a government school, Mr. Mehsud, clasping a new Kalashnikov, announced he would press his fight against the American military across the border in Afghanistan.

“Islam does not recognize boundaries,” he told the journalists, in accounts published in Pakistani newspapers and reported by the BBC. “There can be no deal with the United States.”

What has to say Zapatero and new Spanish Minister of Defense, Chacón, about this? Does anyone consider how “special” is to see the Taliban leader holding a news conference in Pakistan, while announcing he is going to press his fight against the military forces in Afghanistan?
****
Un atentado contra la embajada danesa en Islamabad ha matado a seis personas y ha herido a docenas, mientras el líder talibán, Baitullah Mehsud, que normalmente se esconde dio ayer una rueda de prensa en la que declaró que “el Islam no reconoce fronteras. No puede haber ningún acuerdo con los EEUU“, mientras añadía que endurecería su lucha contra los militares americanos en Afganistán.
¿Qué tienen que decir a esto Zapatero y la Ministra Chacón? ¿A nadie le parece raro que el líder talibán dé una conferencia de prensa en Paquistán, mientras anuncia que va a endurecer su lucha en Afganistán?

Islam’s war doctrines ignored by scholars

“Islam’s war doctrines ignored” Middle East Strategy at Harvard:

“As recent as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that “the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered.This is more ironic when one considers that, while classical military theories (Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, et. al.) are still studied, the argument can be made that they have little practical value for today’s much changed landscape of warfare and diplomacy. Whatever validity this argument may have, it certainly cannot be applied to Islam’s doctrines of war; by having a “theological” quality, that is, by being grounded in a religion whose “divine” precepts transcend time and space, and are thus believed to be immutable, Islam’s war doctrines are considered applicable today no less than yesterday. So while one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the same cannot be said of Islam, particularly the exploits and stratagems of its prophet Muhammad—his “war sunna”—which still serve as an example to modern day jihadists.

For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s 7th century, hijacked planes or WMD by analogy today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treatises whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15: 4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or hudna, is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.

(…) The greater irony—when one talks about Islam and the West, ironies often abound—is that, on the very same day of the ASMEA conference, which also contained a forthright address by premiere Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis (“It seems to me a dangerous situation in which any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam is, to say the least, dangerous”), the State Department announced that it had adopted the recommendations of a memo stating that the government should not call Al Qaeda-type radicals “jihadis,” “mujahadin,” or to incorporate any other Arabic word of Islamic connotation (“caliphate,” “Islamo-fascism,” “Salafi,” “Wahhabi,” and “Ummah” are also out).”

About the use of certain words, Jihad Watch reported precisely about that some days ago:

Government officials should depict terrorists “as the dangerous cult leaders they are” and avoid words that aggrandize them, like “jihadists,” “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamists” and “holy warriors,” the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.
“Words matter,” the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term “moderate Muslims,” a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.
“Mainstream,” “ordinary” and “traditional” better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.
Dan Sutherland, head of the agency’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and author of the paper, said the paper is a recognition that words can help the government achieve its strategic goals.
Sutherland said he is starting to see results, with government officials using the term “mainstream Muslims” in meetings.
Sutherland’s nine-page paper says the government should be careful not to demonize all Muslims or the Islamic faith or depict the United States as being at war with Islam.
The terminology the [government] uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology,” the paper says.
(…) Some argue that “war” is too grandiose and adds legitimacy to the other side, because there are two legitimate sides to wars

So, if the man with an “internal struggle” wants to fight because the rest are infidels, how are they going to name that?
***********

Traduzco lo que he copiado arriba porque es súmamente interesante lo que apunta:
En una fecha tan reciente como 2006, el anterior oficial del Pentágono Willian Gawthrop lamentó que los colegas del Servicio Senior del Departamento de Defensa no hubieran incorporado en su currículum un estudio sistemático de Mahoma como un líder político o militar. Como consecuencia de ello, no entendemos profundamente la doctrina de lucha en la guerra de Mahoma, cómo sería aplicada hoy a un número creciente de grupos islámicos, o como pudiera ser contrarrestada.

Esto es muy irónico, cuando consideramos que, mientras las teorías militares clásicas (Clawsewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavello, etc) todavía son estudiadas, puede considerarse el argumento de que hoy tienen un valor práctico muy limitado por lo que ha cambiado el actual panorama de guerra y diplomacia. Sea cuál sea la validez que tiene este argumento, no puede ser aplicado a las doctrinas de la guerra en el Islam; porque por tener una calidad “teológica”, esto es, por estar envueltos en una “religión” cuyos preceptos trascienden el tiempo y el espacio y por tanto se cree que son inmutables, la doctrina de la guerra en el Islam deben considerarse tan aplicables hoy como ayer. Así que mientras algunos pueden argumentar que aprender cómo Alejandro maniobró con sus caballería en la Batalla de Guagamela en el año 331 aC es anacrónico y académico, esto no puede decirse del Islam, particularmente de las hazañas y estratagemas de su profeta Mahoma -su “Sunna de la guerra”- lo que sirve todavía a los jihadis modernos.

Por ejemplo, basándose en las palabras y los hechos de Mahoma, la mayoría de las escuelas de la jurisprudencia islámica aceptan como legítimo lo siguiente en la guerra contra el Infiel: el uso indiscriminado de armamento con misiles, incluso si hay mujeres y niños presentes (catapultas en el siglo 7º, aviones secuestrados o ADM por analogía hoy); la necesidad de siempre engañar al enemigo e incluso romper tratados formales siempre que sea posible (podeis Shaih Muslim 15, 1057); y que la única función de un tratado de paz o hudna, es la de dar a los ejércitos islámicos el tiempo necesario para reagruparse para una ofensiva renovada y por tanto, no es necesario que duren más de 10 años.

La gran ironía -cuando uno habla sobre el Islam y Occidente, las ironías a menudo surgen por doquier- es que, en el mismo día de la conferencia ASMEA, que incluía un discurso por el estudioso islámico de primera Bernard Lewis (“Me parece una situación peligrosa aquella en la que discutir sobre el Islam, cualquiera que sea el tipo de discusión, sea, al menos peligroso”), el Departamente de Estado anunció que había adoptado recomendaciones de una memoria en la que se determinana que el Gobierno no debía llamar a los radicales del tipo Al-Qaeda, “jihadis”, “mujaidines”, o que no debía incorporar cualquier otra palabra árabe de connotación islámica (“califato”, “Islamo-fascismo”, “salafismo”, “Wahabismo” y “Umma” también está fuera).
Hace unos días precisamente, Jihad Watch publicaba que EEUU había adoptado precisamente esa política porque consideraba que llamar “jihadistas” o “guerreros santos” a los terroristas era agrandarlos. Afirmaba asimismo que:

La terminología que usa el Gobierno debe anunciar la magnitud del problema al que nos enfrentamos, pero también debe evitar exagerar a las bases religiosas y la llamada glamurosa de la ideología extremista.

(…) Algunos argumentan que la “guerra” es demasiado grandiosa y que añade legitimación al otro lado, porque hay dos lados legítimos en las guerras.

Interesante que desde el Departamento de Defensa se considere que su enemigo puede ser legítimo.

Islam’s war doctrines ignored by scholars

Filed under: EEUU,Islam,Islamism,Islamismo,Jihad,USA — Nora @ 10:51 am

“Islam’s war doctrines ignored” Middle East Strategy at Harvard

“As recent as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that “the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered.

This is more ironic when one considers that, while classical military theories (Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, et. al.) are still studied, the argument can be made that they have little practical value for today’s much changed landscape of warfare and diplomacy. Whatever validity this argument may have, it certainly cannot be applied to Islam’s doctrines of war; by having a “theological” quality, that is, by being grounded in a religion whose “divine” precepts transcend time and space, and are thus believed to be immutable, Islam’s war doctrines are considered applicable today no less than yesterday. So while one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the same cannot be said of Islam, particularly the exploits and stratagems of its prophet Muhammad—his “war sunna”—which still serve as an example to modern day jihadists.

For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s 7th century, hijacked planes or WMD by analogy today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treatises whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15: 4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or hudna, is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.

(…) The greater irony—when one talks about Islam and the West, ironies often abound—is that, on the very same day of the ASMEA conference, which also contained a forthright address by premiere Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis (“It seems to me a dangerous situation in which any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam is, to say the least, dangerous”), the State Department announced that it had adopted the recommendations of a memo stating that the government should not call Al Qaeda-type radicals “jihadis,” “mujahadin,” or to incorporate any other Arabic word of Islamic connotation (“caliphate,” “Islamo-fascism,” “Salafi,” “Wahhabi,” and “Ummah” are also out).”

About the use of certain words, Jihad Watch reported precisely about that some days ago:

Government officials should depict terrorists “as the dangerous cult leaders they are” and avoid words that aggrandize them, like “jihadists,” “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamists” and “holy warriors,” the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.
“Words matter,” the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term “moderate Muslims,” a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.
“Mainstream,” “ordinary” and “traditional” better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.
Dan Sutherland, head of the agency’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and author of the paper, said the paper is a recognition that words can help the government achieve its strategic goals.
Sutherland said he is starting to see results, with government officials using the term “mainstream Muslims” in meetings.
Sutherland’s nine-page paper says the government should be careful not to demonize all Muslims or the Islamic faith or depict the United States as being at war with Islam.
The terminology the [government] uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology,” the paper says.
(…) Some argue that “war” is too grandiose and adds legitimacy to the other side, because there are two legitimate sides to wars.

So, if the man with an “internal struggle” wants to fight because the rest are infidels, how are they going to name that? 
***********

Traduzco lo que he copiado arriba porque es súmamente interesante lo que apunta:
En una fecha tan reciente como 2006, el anterior oficial del Pentágono Willian Gawthrop lamentó que los colegas del Servicio Senior del Departamento de Defensa no hubieran incorporado en su currículum un estudio sistemático de Mahoma como un líder político o militar. Como consecuencia de ello, no entendemos profundamente la doctrina de lucha en la guerra de Mahoma, cómo sería aplicada hoy a un número creciente de grupos islámicos, o como pudiera ser contrarrestada.

Esto es muy irónico, cuando consideramos que, mientras las teorías militares clásicas (Clawsewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavello, etc) todavía son estudiadas, puede considerarse el argumento de que hoy tienen un valor práctico muy limitado por lo que ha cambiado el actual panorama de guerra y diplomacia. Sea cuál sea la validez que tiene este argumento, no puede ser aplicado a las doctrinas de la guerra en el Islam; porque por tener una calidad “teológica”, esto es, por estar envueltos en una “religión” cuyos preceptos trascienden el tiempo y el espacio y por tanto se cree que son inmutables, la doctrina de la guerra en el Islam deben considerarse tan aplicables hoy como ayer. Así que mientras algunos pueden argumentar que aprender cómo Alejandro maniobró con sus caballería en la Batalla de Guagamela en el año 331 aC es anacrónico y académico, esto no puede decirse del Islam, particularmente de las hazañas y estratagemas de su profeta Mahoma -su “Sunna de la guerra”- lo que sirve todavía  a los jihadis modernos.

Por ejemplo, basándose en las palabras y los hechos de Mahoma, la mayoría de las escuelas de la jurisprudencia islámica aceptan como legítimo lo siguiente en la guerra contra el Infiel: el uso indiscriminado de armamento con misiles, incluso si hay mujeres y niños presentes (catapultas en el siglo 7º, aviones secuestrados o ADM por analogía hoy); la necesidad de siempre engañar al enemigo e incluso romper tratados formales siempre que sea posible (podeis Shaih Muslim 15, 1057); y que la única función de un tratado de paz o hudna, es la de dar a los ejércitos islámicos el tiempo necesario para reagruparse para una ofensiva renovada y por tanto, no es necesario que duren más de 10 años.

La gran ironía -cuando uno habla sobre el Islam y Occidente, las ironías a menudo surgen por doquier- es que, en el mismo día de la conferencia ASMEA, que incluía un discurso por el estudioso islámico de primera Bernard Lewis (“Me parece una situación peligrosa aquella en la que discutir sobre el Islam, cualquiera que sea el tipo de discusión, sea, al menos peligroso”), el Departamente de Estado anunció que había adoptado recomendaciones de una memoria en la que se determinana que el Gobierno no debía llamar a los radicales del tipo Al-Qaeda, “jihadis”, “mujaidines”, o que no debía incorporar cualquier otra palabra árabe de connotación islámica (“califato”, “Islamo-fascismo”, “salafismo”, “Wahabismo” y “Umma” también está fuera).

Hace unos días precisamente, Jihad Watch publicaba que EEUU había adoptado precisamente esa política porque consideraba que llamar “jihadistas” o “guerreros santos” a los terroristas era agrandarlos. Afirmaba asimismo que:

La terminología que usa el Gobierno debe anunciar la magnitud del problema al que nos enfrentamos, pero también debe evitar exagerar a las bases religiosas y la llamada glamurosa de la ideología extremista.

(…) Algunos argumentan que la “guerra” es demasiado grandiosa y que añade legitimación al otro lado, porque hay dos lados legítimos en las guerras.

Interesante que desde el Departamento de Defensa se considere que su enemigo puede ser legítimo.

Crea un blog o un sitio web gratuitos con WordPress.com.