Pulse Media
13.5.07
If you still wondered whether Blair was a Socialist
For the none french speakers, basically he congratulates Nicolas Sarkozy, who he 'considers a friend', and sucks up to the 'great nation' of France which he in passing congratulates for an 'impressive election' (one wonders if he even bothered watching it).
Cringe!
25.4.07
On intolerence
campusleak.com Being Muslim is difficult in a post 9/11 world and if you are a homosexual, it is a double whammy. You are in a constant battle of fighting off “Islamophobia” with other communities and homophobia with your own. There is “no recognition by any Muslim group so far of gay legitimacy as a community,” as pointed out by Farzana, Chair of Imaan Group, a social group for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Muslims, their families, friends and supporters.
“It is shocking in this climate of Islamophobia that a part of Muslim community is compounding anti-Muslim prejudice with homophobia,” said Tatchell.
The difference, of course, is between a cultural and a religious intolerence. Culturally, I could rightly be described (particularly by someone of a different cultural group) as christian or a judeo-christian despite the fact I neither practise a religion nor believe in a divine being and/or word. I have my own beliefs which are open to criticism, just as should be those of any member of any religious faith. My beliefs and my culture are not, however, inextricably bound. Although my culture is judeo-christian, I am neither a Christian or a Jew (in the religious sense). The fact, that some muslims justify homophobia on religious grounds should have no incidence on the cultural intolerence usually embodied in islamophobia which tends to tarnish anyone associated with islam (as I am associated - culturally - with Christianity and Judaism) with the same brush.
A little fun with Thomas L. Friedman
The walls had fallen down and the Windows had opened, making the world much flatter than it had ever been—but the age of seamless global communication had not yet dawned.
How the fuck do you open a window in a fallen wall? More to the point, why would you open a window in a fallen wall? Or did the walls somehow fall in such a way that they left the windows floating in place to be opened?
4.4.07
3.4.07
22.3.07
Giving Europe a soul?
In a speech delivered at the conference "A Soul for Europe," German filmmaker Wim Wenders says Europeans must believe in the power of their own imagery
"What is Europe?"
"How is Europe?"
One has the impression
that Europe is a wreck,
fucked,
"foutue",
if you think back to the constitution disaster,
reflect on Europe's actual political influence
or on the lack of enthusiasm shown by its citizens
for "the European Cause" in recent times.
"The Europeans" have had it up to here with Europe...
On the other hand,
Europe is heaven on earth,
the promised land,
as soon as you look at it from the outside.
Over the last couple of months,
I have seen Europe from Chicago and New York,
from Tokyo and Rio,
from Australia,
from the heart of Africa, the Congo,
and, just last week, from Moscow.
I am telling you:
In each case, Europe appeared in a different light,
but always as paradise,
as a dream of mankind,
as a stronghold of peace, prosperity and civilization.
Europe:
Now you see it,
now you don't.
Those who have lived for a long time in Europe
seem weary of it.
Those who are not there, who live somewhere else,
want to get here at any price and join us.
What is it then
that some HAVE,
yet no longer want,
and for which others YEARN so much?
I can just as well ask myself:
Why is it that I find Europe so "holy",
as soon as I see it from a distance,
and why does it appear so profane, humdrum, almost boring,
as soon as I am back?
When I was young,
I dreamed of a Europe without borders.
Now, I travel back and forth
without ever having to show my passport,
and I even get to use the same currency all over,
(even if it is pronounced differently everywhere),
but where has that big emotion gone?
Here in Berlin, I am German,
in the meantime with all my heart.
Yet, hardly do you set foot in America,
than you no longer say you are from Germany, France, Italy or wherever.
You come "from Europe," or you're about to return there.
For Americans, this epitomizes culture,
history, style, "savoir vivre."
It's the only thing they feel strangely inferior about.
Even rather permanently.
And even when viewed from Asia, let alone other parts of the world,
Europe appears to be a bastion of human history,
dignity, and, yes, this word again: culture.
Europe has a soul, indeed.
No need to invent or create one for our continent.
It's there in plain sight.
It is not to be found in its politics or in its economy.
It is first and foremost embedded in its culture.
I am kicking open doors.
Two years ago, the President of the European Commission
stood here in Berlin and stated the matter quite clearly.
I quote from the end of his speech:
"Europe is not only about markets, it is also about values and culture.
And allow me a personal remark:
in the hierarchy of values, the cultural ones range above the economic ones.
If the economy is a necessity for our lives,
culture is really what makes our life worth living."
I could quote other sections of his memorable speech,
in fact I'd like to read it in its entirety,
so much he took the words out of my mouth.
But, I'm afraid,
reality looks quite different:
to the outside world, and especially to its citizens,
Europe continues to present itself first of all as an economic power,
insisting on using political and financial arguments
over cultural ones at any give time.
Europe is not taking advantage of its emotional potential!
Who loves his (or her) country on account of its politics or its economy?
No one!
Just next door, 100 metres from here,
you'll find one of the "showrooms" of the European Community.
There's one like that in every other European capital.
And what's on display there?
Lots of maps, brochures, mostly economic information,
all sorts of statistics and stuff on the history of the European Union.
What a drag!
Who can possibly feel represented there?
Who are these places trying to reach,
or boring to death?
We live in the age of the image.
Today, no other realm of culture displays so much power
than that of the image.
Words, music, literature,
books, newspapers, rock'n roll, theatre...
nothing comes even close
to the authority of moving images, in cinema and television.
Why is it that today, not only in Europe,
but all over the world,
"going to the pictures"
is synonymous with
"seeing an American film"?!
Because the Americans realized long ago
what moves people most
and what gets them dreaming.
And they radically implemented that knowledge.
The whole "American Dream"
is really an invention of cinema,
and it is now being dreamed by the whole world.
I don't want to discredit this,
but merely ask the question,
"Who is dreaming the European Dream?"
Or better: How are we encouraged to dream it?
A concrete, current example just occurred to me:
In the next 2 months or so,
some 20, 30, or even 50 million Europeans
will watch one and the same film.
It started the other day:
every channel up and down,
every programme and news show,
- and I've been surfing TV stations throughout Europe -
reported at large on a film premiere in London.
As you have probably guessed already,
all the racket was about James Bond,
that knightly British gentleman,
who has been saving the world from disaster for the last forty years.
Do you recall that magnificent Scotsman, Sir Sean Connery,
who used to embody this European hero?
Or that most elegant, cultivated Irishman, Pierce Brosnan?
Now, over Christmas and through New Year's Eve probably,
millions of Europeans will all be watching, at the same time,
somebody who looks more like a thug,
and whose resemblance to Russian President Vladimir Putin
can scarcely be denied.
This new Bond is supposedly quite ruthless
and not too particular when it comes to applying violence.
What is the message here?
What is this American production trying to tell us?
All right, I might be exaggerating,
but the heart of the matter remains pretty much true:
our own myths don't belong to us anymore.
Nothing forms our contemporary imagination so intensely,
so specifically
and permanently
as cinema.
But we are no longer in control.
It doesn't belong to us anymore.
Our very own and precious invention has slipped away from us.
European cinema
- and it exists, in spite of everything! -
is produced in almost 50 European countries,
yet in European theatres our own European stories
no longer play a significant role.
Those images of European cinema,
could help a whole new generation of Europeans to recognize themselves,
they could define what Europe is all about
in emotional, powerful and lasting terms.
These films could convey European thinking to the world.
We could communicate our most valuable asset,
our CULTURE, in a contagious way,
could spread the word of the "Open Society,"
which was so urgently invoked here by George Soros, only yesterday,
our civilization of dialogue, peace, and humanity…
But we have let this weapon slip out of our hands.
I intentionally say WEAPON,
because images are the most powerful arms of this 21st century.
There will be no "European consciousness",
no emotions and no attachment felt towards our home continent,
in brief: no future European identity,
if we are unable to project, and to absorb,
our own myths,
our own history,
and our own ideas and emotions!
Spain, for example, has no stronger and more influential ambassador
to the world than Pedro Almodovar.
For Britain that would be Ken Loach,
Andrzej Wajda or Polanski for Poland.
Although he died some 13 years ago,
Federico Fellini continues to define the Italian soul…
And that is exactly what European cinema does -
it shapes and forms our consciousness of ourselves
and of each other!
It creates a European belief,
a European will,
that very European "soul" that we"re talking about here.
However, have a look around
at the place we actually give to our TREASURE,
what a poor role it actually plays in the cultural life of Europe.
Yes, look at how European politics
continue to dismally neglect
not only cinema, but culture in general.
Yet, this is the CEMENT,
the glue that bonds European EMOTIONS!
All these countries yearning for Europe,
including all the new and future member countries from Eastern Europe,
could on one hand have the opportunity to introduce themselves,
tell us about themselves,
win us over,
and on the other hand be welcomed and embraced
by the European CAUSE
and the European SOUL…
… if only
we would provide more support for our mutual ambassadors,
if only Europe could be brought to believe in the power of images.
Mind you, a grave error is being made here.
Europe prefers to use political and economical arguments,
over emotional ones!
Next door, in the showroom,
the most boring maps are hanging on the walls,
while in our most important embassies,
in cinemas and on TV,
the superpower of imagery, America, is pulling people under its spell,
including our European citizens, of course.
These young people
now suffering from a "European withdrawal"
will one day turn against European policy makers
with the harsh and bitter reproach:
Why did you allow
a whole generation to get bored of Europe?!
Why did you just babble on about politics,
instead of SHOWING us how much our magnificent home continent
could have meant to us!
Europe HAS a cultural history,
it HAS its own culture of life, of conflict, of dialogue,
yes, it HAS an amazing political culture.
George Soros calls it "The Open Society."
And because, as he explained, America had failed in recent times
to exemplify and demonstrate its moral and political values,
Europe represents an even more important MODEL for the world.
BUT:
This model is invalid and weak
if it has no confidence in the power of its own imagery!
No one, esteemed Mr. Soros,
will be swept away, enthused and inspired by the OPEN SOCIETY,
as long as it remains an ABSTRACT IDEA.
Such a vision has to be attached to feelings,
to places, to memories.
These "European emotions" are right in front of our eyes,
you can almost grasp them,
the citizens of Europe are certainly yearning for them…
but politics is widely ignoring them.
The field of images
is largely being left to others.
I hope that Europe is not too late in recognizing
which crucial battlefield is about to be abandoned
with little resistance.
20.2.07
12.2.07
The French neo-feminist-republicanist-secularist-leftwing-con representative
Interesting how she claims to be unbiased, because her paper publishes cartoons criticising Israel. She makes the same 'mistake' of comparing Israel to a religion as the west's super-zionists. Israel is a state, with a government which is responsible for its acts of terror, and therefore open to criticism and/or ridicule. Islam and Judaism (and christianity, for that matter) are faiths, and the few muderous thugs who profess to act in the name of religion do not represent that religion. I believe in total free speech (as long as it does not constitute a libel or a direct call to murder or violence). I also believe we should not be surprised when provocation brings a reaction (be that reaction violent or intellectual).
the whole debate can be viewed here
The debate is not be about free speech (it should not be in my opinion), though such a debate is important. I have said it before, I believe in free speech. In that respect, I agree with Caroline Fourest and Gijs Van de Westlaken for example. The debate in my opinion is about hypocrisy. It is about censorship - legal censorship (as in France, Germany, Austria, Turkey, Iran...) or self-censorship in the main stream media. If we can criticise and ridicule one religion and its believers, or a state, its government, its thinkers, then we can criticise others as well. If we can show cartoons depicting Muhammad as a terrorist - and I wish Channel 4 had - then we can if we so wish - and I would not wish to do so not least because I am the grandson of a jewish refugee - deny the Shoah and we can definitely criticise the terrorist actions of the State of Israel without being accused of anti-semitism.
Furthermore, the debate is about balance of power - political and media. If there was strong and continuous uproar over how muslims are treated in the West and in their own countries by western powers and their clients, then perhaps there would be less ill-feeling on the part of muslims.
6.2.07
5.2.07
Welcome To Planet Blitcon
Another exercise is beyond the reach of any of the Blitcons. There are exotic creatures they cannot imagine in their fictions and diatribes: the generality of Muslims, people who believe in something other than the Blitcons' understanding of Islam, people who live humdrum lives on the streets of Bradford, Karachi or Jakarta, people far removed from the festering imagination of the Blitcon. Amis has never even met an ordinary Muslim in his life.
But I lie. He has met one. In "The Age of Horrorism", Amis tells us that in Jerusalem he came face to face with the "maximum malevolence" of an Islamist, the gatekeeper at the Dome of the Rock. Amis writes that he wanted to enter the mosque in contravention of some "calendric prohibition" - there are none, actually - which led to a transformation in the gatekeeper: "His expression, previously cordial and cold, became a mask; and the mask was saying that killing me, my wife, and my children was something for which he now had warrant." By the simple observation of facial expression, Amis was able to divine the entire plot. But might it not be that the humble gatekeeper had never encountered such an obnoxious, arrogant and ignorant tourist?
Presumably, facial expressions explain Amis's claim that only one thing does not fit in multicultural Britain: Islam. How does this fit with the lives of the doctors, teachers, policemen, businessmen, entrepreneurs, bankers, solicitors, academics, scientists and even other writers and novelists as well as postmen, bakers and candlestick makers who are British Muslims living ordinary lives and making their contributions to British society? Perhaps they should change their facial expressions, acquire a new set of teeth and smile a bit more in the face of the avalanche of Islamophobia they have to endure.
22.1.07
Ignoramus and a free media
This is London As per usual we are asked to be shocked by the appearance of ignorance/bigotry/racism (make your choice) in the media, without the majority of us (ie. those who haven't actually read/heard the original ignorant/bigoted/racist remarks in the first place) knowing what the remarks even were. The population at large is asked to remain ignorant as to what those remarks were and to accept, that they were ignorant/bigoted/racist without questioning that. In a very orwellian manor, the media refrains from appearing racist by refusing to explain in detail what the original remarks were, thus failing in it's mission to keep us informed and allow us to make up our own minds on the issue. So, what do we learn in the article linked above? Shetty's accent was mocked, her cooking was criticised, Goody called her "Shilpa Poppadom" and said "she makes my skin crawl" while another contestant added: "She should f*** off home.
Quite apart from the lack of clarity as to what was actually racism on Goody's behalf, and who the others were, and why they were not accused of racism, what can actually be said to be indeed racist? Mocking an accent? How many English readers can stand up and say they have never mocked a scottish, welsh or irish accent? Hmm, Mish Moneypenny? Criticising her cooking? France's president Chirac didn't mock Tony Blair's cooking. No, he mocked British food. How racist is that? Sure, he was slammed by the British media. No doubt he should be tried in a court of law for racist comments. "Shilpa Poppadom"? Well, I drink at a British pub here in Toulouse, called "Frog&Rosbif". However, I will admit context is everything. Calling an Indian a 'poppadom' is obviously not the same as calling a Frenchman a 'frog'. That said, I would say it shows ignorance rather than racism. To that I will return later. And how are we to know-that is 'we' who have not heard/read the original comments in their original context-why Shetty made Goody's skin crawl? Are we supposed to accept, that this vaguely quoted comment constitutes racism? It seems to me, that the most racist comment quoted above ('she should f*** off home') is not even attributed to Goody! Now, whether the comments were racist or just plain ignorant, is it right to condemn a media for airing those comments-especially a media such as Big Brother? After all, the idea of BB is to show 'reality'. We can question how much actually constitutes reality on the programme, but is it right to demand less reality in the form of censorship? As Trevor Phillips says, after calling for a C4 chief to be 'censured', it is important to recognise that the behaviour of Jade and other housemates "mirror(ed) actually what happens in real life: these sort of low-level private conversations that we don't normally see in public where people say things between friends".
So, is it not right, is it not positive, is it not the purpose of BB, that we should see these 'private conversations' which betray a certain kind of ignorance/bigotry/racism? Jade Goody has 'admitted' she made racist remarks. An anti racist group wants to 'help' Goody combat her racism. One is reminded of Mel Gibson's 'apology' for his anti-semitic remarks and his promise to get help from Jewish leaders 'curing himself' and one is left somewhat sceptical. While such high-profile people may be 'convinced' they did wrong, what convinces 'normal' people, that their ignorant/bigoted/racist views or remarks are unacceptable? Are they expected to suddenly see the light thanks to calls for censorship and/or calls to sue people like Goody or media outlets like C4 or BB? If that's what is expected of the population, then the population must really be dumb. Personally, I don't think the population is dumb, and I don't think our politicians and 'thinkers' believe the population is that dumb. They just want to be seen to be doing something, while not actually addressing the problems of ignorance/bigottry/racism in our society. No, the population ain't dumb, it's just lazy, and our leaders know that too.
2.1.07
Deploring a free media
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has described the circumstances of Saddam Hussein's execution as "deplorable".I can only suppose Mr Prescott deplores the images of the dead civilians in Irak and other wars around the world. Or perhaps he thinks those images can only be shown by obedient self-censoring media...
Mobile phone footage showed Saddam being told to "go to hell" by people attending the hanging, while the ex-leader mocks their "bravery".
Mr Prescott said those responsible for the scenes at the gallows in Baghdad should be "ashamed of themselves".
31.12.06
Executed
BBCIt was only nine o'clock in the evening in Crawford but George Bush was already embedded in the land of nod, with orders not to be woken until the morning. The blithe indifference of deep slumber was the final snub to the dead man who once described himself as "Salahadin II", "the Redeemer of all the Arabs" and "the Lion of Baghdad".
Indeed, the man once dubbed by the west as 'the Iraqi strongman' before he became less of a middle-eastern tool. Shortly thereafter the White House issued a pre-prepared written statement: "Today Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial - the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime."
A fair trial, in an occupied country?President Bush and his advisers have always liked to compare the birth pangs of Iraqi democracy to the emergence of a free Germany after the World War II. Bloodletting But what they were dealing with was not Germany 1945 but Germany in 1648 emerging from the feudal bloodbath of the 30 years war. Another example would have been Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Al Jazeera For some Iraqi Kurds, the execution was a "fair decision" regardless of timing, though it has dashed hopes of justice for crimes against them. Saddam was due to face charges against Iraqi Kurds during a second trial in what is known as the Anfal, or "spoils of war", campaign. This was due to resume next month.
Is that democratic justice? Perhaps the people in charge couldn't risk the truth about US-Iraqi relations being discussed in court.
And now what of the man who - apparently - was really behind the September 11th 2001 attacks, namely Bin Laden?
1.12.06
Of god
So, here we go again for the big debate on wether there is a creator or wether science can explain all. Recently, I came to the conclusion, that faith is a personal matter which can not and need not be proven. I believed that would be a definition which would please hard core atheists, sceptics such as myself as well as believers in a creator. I also thought it would be a good way of diffusing differences in a heated argument on the subject, a subject on which neither side is ever willing to cede ground. This is not necessarily the case, though, as I found out talking to a muslim believer the other day. Our discussion was fairly amicable and we parted on friendly terms both pleased to have been able to exchange our thoughts. We were, however, both right, and determined to have the last word. I say that, but I remain unconvinced as to how anyone can be 'right' on this issue. The man assured me, that the existence of a creator could be proven, if not scientifically, at least philosophically in the sense, that everything we see around us, everything material must come from somewhere, someone or something must have created it. Sure, I said, but who created the creator? Here, he said, I was thinking in materialistic terms when I should have been thinking outside the material sphere. Problem is, he was using a spiritual creator to 'explain' the origin of the material world. I respect him for making a difference between scientific and philosophical proof, but in fact it comes to the same thing as the scientist I saw on the news recently arguing, that schools should be open to teaching about creationism as a scientific theory simply because nothing disproves it. As far as I know schools don't usually teach a theory unless it has actually already been proven (though perhaps education systems tend to accept 'proven' theories a little to easily). In the end, I believe I am still right in saying faith is personal and proof has no role in it. Of course, we may never know everything about where we come from. Of course, it doesn't seem to make any sense to say we appeared out of nothing, and yet it makes no more sense to say some non-material being created us, since the question remains: where does that being come from? For all of us who are not scientists, belief in a creator is as valid as belief in the idea, that the world came out of nothing. When I say 'belief', I really mean 'theory'. None of us know, however, who the creator is, why he/she/it created us, and what we were created for. That all belongs to the domain of faith, and should not be imposed as fact. Neither the Bible, the Qu'ran , the Torah or any other holy book can be seen as anything more than legend. They are certainly not proof. Some people may think their after-life depends on them praying regularly to their god and imposing their beliefs on others, but they run the risk of being utterly mistaken and reaching death having wasted their lives and the lives of others in the process. This is why for me faith should remain a theory and/or a personal matter. There is so much to say on this subject, and I am sure I am far from having written everything I could write. If anyone is interested in continuing the debate, please leave a message!
27.11.06
Painting the Picture
It's interesting, that just as reserving the presidency to one community, the PM to another and the speaker of parliament to yet another is not entirely democratic, the same goes for restricting democracy to one religious/ethnic community within society. It might be said Lebanon and Israel are on a par. The difference is, of course, that in one case, several communities must strive to live together in harmony, whereas in the other only one community is officially represented by the state, which was in fact created for that one single community. The others, who lived on the same land for generations must accept second-class status.
The other Lebanese problem - which the people of Northern Ireland will immediately spot - is that a sectarian state, where only Maronites can be the president and where only Sunnis can be the prime minister, cannot be a modern state. Yet if you take away the sectarianism France created, Lebanon will no longer be Lebanon. The French realised all this in the same way - I suspect - as the Americans have now realised the nature of their sectarian monster in Iraq. Listen to what that great Arab historian, Albert Hourani, wrote about the experience of being a Levantine in 1946 - and apply it to Iraq. To live in such a way, Hourani wrote: "is to live in two worlds or more at once, without belonging to either; to be able to go through the external forms which indicate the possession of a certain nationality, religion or culture, without actually possessing it. ... It is to belong to no community and to possess nothing of one's own. It reveals itself in lostness, cynicism and despair." Amid such geopolitical uncertainties, it is easy for westerners to see these people in the borders and colours in which we have chosen to define them. Hence all those newspaper maps of Lebanon - Shias at the bottom and on the right, the Sunnis and Druze in the middle and at the top, and the Christians uneasily wedged between Beirut and the northern Mediterranean coast. We draw the same sectarian maps of Iraq - Shias at the bottom, Sunnis in the middle (the famous "Sunni triangle" though it is not triangular at all) and Kurds at the top. The British army adopted the same cynical colonial attitude in its cartography of Belfast. I still possess their sectarian maps of the 1970s in which Protestant areas were coloured orange (of course) and Catholic districts were green (of course) while the mixed, middle-class area around Malone Road appeared as a dull brown, the colour of a fine, dry sherry. But we do not draw these maps of our own British or American cities. I could draw a map of Bradford's ethnic districts - but we would never print it. I could draw a black-white ethnic map of Washington - but the Washington Post would never dream of publishing it.
25.11.06
Very Cross and other stories
On this issue of BA banning a small cross, I think Ian Hislop put it well on Have I got News for You. Of course, it's not only nonsensical for BA to dig their feet in over such a small item of jewelry, it's also unfair to expect a person to hide their faith when others are allowed to show theirs. That said, such a ban doesn't amount to persecution of christians. As Hislop said, persecution is stoning, beating etc. I do believe people or groups can be persecuted without physical violence, but to say christians are persecuted in Britain, a country whose head of state is also head of the church, is almost comical.
I also think this case has shown how politicians, especially elected ones, should be careful when they open their mouths. Jack Straw may feel intimidated when a veiled muslim woman comes into his surgery (poor thing), but his job as an elected representative is to defend the rights of all first and foremost. If he believes a christian BA worker should be allowed to wear her cross, then he should defend the right of a muslim woman to wear the veil if she so chooses, and however intimidated he feels. I find it hard to believe an experienced politician such as him, what's more MP in an ethnically diverse town in a multicultural country, could be so ignorant and small minded as to feel uneasy facing a veiled citizen.
My personal view is, that the veil or niqab was never a problem until recently. Similarly, islamic terrorism never took place in this country until 7/7/05. I don't think it is coincidental, that this all takes place post-9/11/01 and post US/UK invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. I think Blair and his minions which include Straw, would like us to conveniently ignore those links, and believe, that islam has suddenly become a faith to be feared, for no apparent reason.
Finally, I would like to point out, that faith is a personal issue. Some christians may say the cross is not necessary as some muslims may not feel the veil is necessary. It is not for anyone to say what a believer should or should not wear. Faith, in my opinion, is cultural. This is why in some muslim countries women wear a niqab and in others they wear a hijab or nothing. It is also why in some muslim communities in Britain women will be more likely to wear a niqab than in others. This is why it is more a case of cultural tolerance than religious tolerance. Furthermore, since faith is a personal matter but also a belief, who are we to say what believers should or should not believe. When western politicians call on muslims to practice a moderate islam, they are belittling the faith. If a muslim believes in a radical islam, that is his or her right, so long as he or she does not harm others.
