This was sent to morning@npr.org.
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=02-Apr-2004&prgId=3
Today, 2 April 2004, on Morning Edition, the act of throwing stones was protrayed as violent. Palestinians have taken to throwing stones as part of their resistance methods. When tanks, APCs, and jeeps invade Palestine in a willful breach of international law, the youth of the city that has been illegally invaded typically gather, stones in hand, to defend their city. They generally remain in the open, making themselves easy targets for Israeli gunfire - much of which consists of both rubber and live bullets, as well as poisoned "tear gas" containing DDT. I have heard the sound of a ston hitting an APC. APCs are obviously not as fortified as tanks. The stone made a sort of "plonking" sound. It did not do any damage whatsoever, even form a short range. The person who was reporting live through the radio indicated that there was not even a dent in the vehicle. The hand of a yong person is tiny; and the amount of rock that a youth can carry, much less throw, is minimal.
These stones are not violent.
What is violent is the Israeli response: the poisoned tear gas, the bullets, and the tank shells which the USA has gifted to the Israelis thanks to our own tax dollars. On Saturday, 11 January 2004, Israel illegally invaded the Balata Refugee Camp near the major Palestinian city of Nablus, violating once again the 4th Geneva Convention and several UN Security Council Resolutions. As usual, they were greeting with youth bearing stones. Oshan `Abdul Aziz Shanir, 22 years old, was shot in the heart and immediately killed. Omar Alloush, 16, was shot in the chest. Salhi, 16, was shot in his shoulder. A youth whose last name is known as Taha, 17, was shot in the calf. Omar Saqar, 18, was shot in his groin. Another youth with the last name Zabbara, 18 years old, was shot in the shoulder. Two more children were taken to the hospital - names and injuries unknown. Every single stone lying on the ground after the Israeli assault on these children was the size of a child's palm.
Bullets to the chest rip through lung tissue, major arteries, and the heart. They cause massive bleeding, suffocation, and heart failure. Bullets aimed at the shoulders slice through lung tissue, leaving children sufficating. Shots to the groins open up major veins and slice through reproductive organs. These children often bleed to death or, if they survive, are unabl to bear children - a deliberate sterilisation campaign. Bullets shot through the lower legs shatter small bones and rip apart muscle tissue. These troops kow what they are doing. Shots to these vital body parts occur often enough that the international community knows that they are intentionally aimed. Children who are unable to access medical attention die from blood loss and suffocation. Illegally occupying Israeli military vehices often intentionally prevent ambulances from reaching these wounded children. Then they are detained at illegal checkpoints andprevented from reaching the hospital. All of these measures are direct violations of international law as per the Geneva Conventions.
Who is violent? What is violent? Is it the youth? The stones? Or is it the DDT-laced tear gas, the bullets, and the tank shells. Were the facts actually reported, we the people could decide.
This time, the reporter was Julie McCarthy. However, we usually hear Linda Gradstein reporting on Palestinian issues. Everyone knows of this woman's corruption. No-one trusts her reports from the Middle East. She is known for her many speeches as zionist functions, as well as the donations that she accepts from zionist sympathisers. In February 2002, Coca-Cola (a well-known pro-zionist corporation) cosponsered a lecture given by the pro-zionist NPR correspondent Linda Gradstein at the University of Minnesota. On Tuesday 19 February 2002, Coca-Cola partnered with the University of Minnesota to fund a pro-Israel propaganda lecture, which was given by Linda Gradstein. The event was co-sponsored by zionist organizations like Friends of Israel and National Hillel.
Gradstein has long been a favorite on the pro-Israeli lecture circuit, especially with Hillel, a nationwide organization which in close cooperation with AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the Israeli government, works to promote a strongly pro-Israeli agenda on college campuses. In fact, at least in one case, Hillel openly acknowledges that it sees Linda Gradstein as a propagandist for Israel. Gradstein was paid $2,500 for this appearance, according to the Hillel evaluation, $2,000 of which was raised from Hamagshimim, a group that describes itself (below) as "a dynamic pro-Israel/Zionist movement for young adults."
Gradstein received a $1,000 honorarium from the Amy Adina Schulman Fund, a foundation whose stated funding criteria include promoting "Zionist youth movement" activities, for a lecture she gave in Princeton in April 2001. These are only two examples of the dozens of appearances Gradstein has made since 1993 for many of which she has received cash honoraria and in-kind benefits from pro-Israeli lobby groups.
Are you an Israeli spokespiece, or are you a media outlet based on journalistic integrity? Your record of shabby reporting and zionist affiliations seems to indicate the former, not the latter.
Freedom to Be Me: The meanderings of a freed mind.
Friday, 2 April 2004
Misrepresenting Islam on Air
Since I originally posted this in 2004, my views on hijab have shifted - namely, that I do not consider it proper to impose any dress code on anyone else, regardless of what anyone's opinions are on the view of Islam and clothing.
This is a revision of what I sent to Border Crossing's email address, bcrossings@bcrossings.org. Border Crossings is a public Affairs programme that airs on KPFT 90.1 FM Houston/89.5 FM Galveston every other Thursday.
On 11 March 2004, some South Asian women activists who were guests on Border Crossings discussed women's rights in Pakistan and neighbouring regions. Through the natural course of the discussion, the topic of how women are treated by Islam and by Muslims came up. Several things about the nature of the programme disturbed me. First and foremost was the nearly monolithic nature of the views of the guests on the show. No female activists were included whose opinions on the topic differed with those of the guests. Neither were phone calls taken so that affirming and dissenting opinions could be gathered from the listening audience, even though at least one Muslim attempted to call in to express her outrage at the way in which Islam was being mal-portrayed on the show.
More disturbing, however, were the vilification of Islam and the distortions of the religion that took place when the guests presented their opinions on Islam. The several verses of the Qur'an which either treat women equally or even give them a special status to women were ignored, as were ahadith that accomplish the same. The fact that there have been several female Muslim scholars throughout the ages, from the very daughter or Prophet Muhammad during the earliest days of Islam to Aminah as-Sadr (the one who was murdered by Saddam, aka "Bint al Huda") in recent years to such up-and-coming modern giants as Shaykha Aisha Bewley, was completely ignored.
The famous (and overused!) myth of the two witnesses was dredged up once again without any effort to offer the explanations of the principle by Muslim scholars. In addition, the fact that the Qur'an does not specify the amount of female witnesses in many other verses was misused to rationalise the disposal of that rule by way of classifying it as an exemption to the rule. However, the fact is that the principle of the application of the Qur'an in Islamic Law is that such a singular reference is thereafter treated as a general rule which defines proceeding otherwise indefinite references. Furthermore, the introduction of another number and means of witnessing in the altogether different situation of adultery stands as witness that heretofore a general principle had been in application, contrary to the opinion of the guests on the show. Lastly, when the example of the witness for adultery was brought up as a way of introducing the idea that one woman could testify in court, the guests failed to realise that the same could be true of a man whose wife has accused him of adultery.
In their ignorance of the complexities of the Islamic Sciences and Islamic Law, and spurred on by modernist and anti-Islamic definitions of what constitutes gender equality, the guests on the show attempted to rip Islam apart by attacking its sources. For example, the excuse that many scholars have been men was used as a way to dismiss centuries of Qur'anic commentary, even where the work of female scholars has agreed with that of male scholars. The fact that the methods used by Islamic scholars in interpreting the Qur'an and ahadith and applying the Qur'an, Prophetic Sunnah, Scholarly Consensus, and Logical Analysis to formulate Islamic Law were actually set out by Prophet Muhammad, his family (including the women), and his pious companions (including, again, the women). In fact, the Qur'an and the Shari`ah were treated as completely separate concepts, when the truth is that the Qur'an is one of the four major sources of Islamic Law as listed above.
Even the hijab suffered when the concept of the khimar in 24:31 was dropped to the shoulders and chest and labelled an "unwarranted innovation", in complete ignorance of the wealth of ahadith and scholarly commentary that exist on the topic of the headscarf from the very days of Prophet Muhammad. Among these are the hadith of the likeness of crows atop the women's heads, the hadith of the hands and face, the hadith of covering in front of the blind man, the hadith of remaining unseen by non-related men, and the hadith of women's prayer. Of course, the fact that most of these ahadith were related by the daughter and wives of Prophet Muhammad were also ignored. Incidentally, the last-mentioned hadith, the hadith of women's prayer, states that a woman's salah is invalid without a khimar. No Muslim woman, even today, dares to say that a Muslim woman can pray with a bare head. Obviously, the word khimar has never referred to a chest covering, or women all over the world would be praying with naked heads and cloths draped over their shoulders. The fact that so many women feel liberated under the hijab from what we see as the oppression of make-up and nakedness was mentioned, but no more than 30 seconds was devoted to that topic before the attacks on the hijab began.
The next time that Islam is covered on Border Crossings, I hope to hear the viewpoints of some qualified scholars of Islam discussed on the show - either by such scholars themselves, people who espouse their views, or at least by the guests who wish to challenge those views. Unlike clear-cut cases such as my neighbour who verbally abuses and beats up his wife and then mistakenly tries to base his abuse on Pakistani culture, Islam has various scholarly and more than a few unscholarly interpretations that can be discussed well enough by people whose opinions may not coincide.
This is a revision of what I sent to Border Crossing's email address, bcrossings@bcrossings.org. Border Crossings is a public Affairs programme that airs on KPFT 90.1 FM Houston/89.5 FM Galveston every other Thursday.
On 11 March 2004, some South Asian women activists who were guests on Border Crossings discussed women's rights in Pakistan and neighbouring regions. Through the natural course of the discussion, the topic of how women are treated by Islam and by Muslims came up. Several things about the nature of the programme disturbed me. First and foremost was the nearly monolithic nature of the views of the guests on the show. No female activists were included whose opinions on the topic differed with those of the guests. Neither were phone calls taken so that affirming and dissenting opinions could be gathered from the listening audience, even though at least one Muslim attempted to call in to express her outrage at the way in which Islam was being mal-portrayed on the show.
More disturbing, however, were the vilification of Islam and the distortions of the religion that took place when the guests presented their opinions on Islam. The several verses of the Qur'an which either treat women equally or even give them a special status to women were ignored, as were ahadith that accomplish the same. The fact that there have been several female Muslim scholars throughout the ages, from the very daughter or Prophet Muhammad during the earliest days of Islam to Aminah as-Sadr (the one who was murdered by Saddam, aka "Bint al Huda") in recent years to such up-and-coming modern giants as Shaykha Aisha Bewley, was completely ignored.
The famous (and overused!) myth of the two witnesses was dredged up once again without any effort to offer the explanations of the principle by Muslim scholars. In addition, the fact that the Qur'an does not specify the amount of female witnesses in many other verses was misused to rationalise the disposal of that rule by way of classifying it as an exemption to the rule. However, the fact is that the principle of the application of the Qur'an in Islamic Law is that such a singular reference is thereafter treated as a general rule which defines proceeding otherwise indefinite references. Furthermore, the introduction of another number and means of witnessing in the altogether different situation of adultery stands as witness that heretofore a general principle had been in application, contrary to the opinion of the guests on the show. Lastly, when the example of the witness for adultery was brought up as a way of introducing the idea that one woman could testify in court, the guests failed to realise that the same could be true of a man whose wife has accused him of adultery.
In their ignorance of the complexities of the Islamic Sciences and Islamic Law, and spurred on by modernist and anti-Islamic definitions of what constitutes gender equality, the guests on the show attempted to rip Islam apart by attacking its sources. For example, the excuse that many scholars have been men was used as a way to dismiss centuries of Qur'anic commentary, even where the work of female scholars has agreed with that of male scholars. The fact that the methods used by Islamic scholars in interpreting the Qur'an and ahadith and applying the Qur'an, Prophetic Sunnah, Scholarly Consensus, and Logical Analysis to formulate Islamic Law were actually set out by Prophet Muhammad, his family (including the women), and his pious companions (including, again, the women). In fact, the Qur'an and the Shari`ah were treated as completely separate concepts, when the truth is that the Qur'an is one of the four major sources of Islamic Law as listed above.
Even the hijab suffered when the concept of the khimar in 24:31 was dropped to the shoulders and chest and labelled an "unwarranted innovation", in complete ignorance of the wealth of ahadith and scholarly commentary that exist on the topic of the headscarf from the very days of Prophet Muhammad. Among these are the hadith of the likeness of crows atop the women's heads, the hadith of the hands and face, the hadith of covering in front of the blind man, the hadith of remaining unseen by non-related men, and the hadith of women's prayer. Of course, the fact that most of these ahadith were related by the daughter and wives of Prophet Muhammad were also ignored. Incidentally, the last-mentioned hadith, the hadith of women's prayer, states that a woman's salah is invalid without a khimar. No Muslim woman, even today, dares to say that a Muslim woman can pray with a bare head. Obviously, the word khimar has never referred to a chest covering, or women all over the world would be praying with naked heads and cloths draped over their shoulders. The fact that so many women feel liberated under the hijab from what we see as the oppression of make-up and nakedness was mentioned, but no more than 30 seconds was devoted to that topic before the attacks on the hijab began.
The next time that Islam is covered on Border Crossings, I hope to hear the viewpoints of some qualified scholars of Islam discussed on the show - either by such scholars themselves, people who espouse their views, or at least by the guests who wish to challenge those views. Unlike clear-cut cases such as my neighbour who verbally abuses and beats up his wife and then mistakenly tries to base his abuse on Pakistani culture, Islam has various scholarly and more than a few unscholarly interpretations that can be discussed well enough by people whose opinions may not coincide.
Wednesday, 24 March 2004
Tribute to a Fallen Leader
Content Note: This is an old post which reflects a certain amount of extremism which I experienced at the time. In this case, I used abusive language against Zionists, which could be taken as anti-Semitic. I have never considered myself to be anti-Semitic. However, the language that I used when writing this more than a decade ago could be troubling for some.
These days I find myself in a quandry.
I am among those who support the `ulama (almost) regardless of sectarian boundaries, and so I am in mourning for Shaykh Ahmad Yassin. I heard of the illegal murder of Sh Yassin on Sunday night. Immediately my knees failed me, and I collapsed on the floor. So soon again have we lost another great `alim of the Muslim Ummah - the occupation dogs picked off Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al Hakim in Iraq just a few months ago; and now the zionist dogs have slaughtered a wheelchair-bound elderly Palestinian `alim. I have not even begun to taste my grief, but my tears are already flowing. Allah curse those dogs and cast them into the Hellfire; and may we live to see their physical downfall! Curse those dogs, those lower than dogs! Curse them!
Amidst the inspirational messages that I have been able to see on the television is a Congratulations on the Martyrdom of Sh Yassin. My mind can't comprehend this, and I end up crying every time that I see it. I still feel as if this is just a nightmare and that I will wake up soon, and Sh Yassin will be on TV the next morning giving another speech. How can I possibly give congratulations when I am in this state of mind?
What remains with us is the fact that a terrorist government has murdered one of the `ulama of Islam, a weak elder who himself posed such little threat that the zionist dogs released him from their own prison system - a man who had been convicted of absolutely nothing by any justice or unjust system. They have slaughtered in cold blood one of the top Filastini mujahidin who has been struggling for decades to recover the Palestinian land for the Palestinian people. These terrorist najis dogs have similarly assassinated not only multi-faceted mujahidin such as Sh Yassin, but also complete pacifists - whether Palestinian, American, or Israeli; and these zionist murderers and criminals are plotting their next attack, sighting their next victim.
I can say that if it were not for the advises and inspirations of our `ulama such as Sh Nasrullah, Ayatullah as-Sistani, and Imam Khumayni, I would certainly feel even more lost. May Allah bless and protect our `ulama, and may He hasten the appearance of Imam Mahdi.
* U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the murder of Shaykh Yassin will further harm efforts to settle the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution."
*Javier Solana, foreign policy chief of the European Union, said that the move would hurt peace efforts.
* EU Foreign ministers: "Israel is not ... entitled to carry out extra-judicial killings. Not only are extra-judicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law which is a key element in the fight against terrorism." Yassin's assassination "has inflamed the situation ... Violence is no substitute for the political negotiations which are necessary for a just and lasting settlement."
* José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, PM-elect of Spain, said that Israel's killing of Yassin proved wrong U.S. assertions that the invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam Hussein would bolster the cause for Middle East peace.
* British foreign secretary Jack Straw "yesterday condemned the assassination of Sheikh Yassin as unacceptable, unjustified and unlawful."
* A spokesman for Tony Blair said, "It goes without saying that the prime minister also condemns today's killing. We have repeatedly made clear our opposition to Israel's use of targeted killings and assassinations."
* French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said it would "only fuel the cycle of violence".
* Joschka Fischer, German FM, expressed "deep concern about the possible consequences".
* Poland's foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said: "I understand that Israel defends its own country. However the picture of a wheelchair-bound person who was killed with a rocket is probably not the best way of promoting Israeli security."
* Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said that reviving the peace process will not be any "easier when you have killings like that going on in Gaza. Terror and violence is not the way ahead."
* Jean Paul II a déclaré "s'associer à la communauté internationale pour déplorer cet acte de violence qui ne peut se justifier dans aucun Etat de droit". (John Paul II has declared "associating himself with the international community in order to deplore this act of violence which can not be justified in any State of right.")
* Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen: "This act will contribute to increased tensions in the area and will make it more difficult to implement the road map for peace and a possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza."
* Asked what impact the assassination would have on the peace process, President Hosni Mubarak replied: "What peace process?"
And do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay, (they are) alive, but you do not perceive. And We will most certainly try you with somewhat of fear and hunger and loss of property and lives and fruits; and give good news to the patient, Who, when a misfortune befalls them, say: Surely we are Allah's and to Him we shall surely return. Surah Baqarah of the Qur'an, 2:154-156
And what is wrong with you that you do not kill in the way of Allah and of the weak from among the men and the women and the children; those who say, 'O our Lord! Let us out of this town of oppressive people! Make for us from Your presence a guardian! Make for us us from Your presence a helper! Surah an-Nisa' 4:75
[NB: While the "kill" aspect of this ayah is not applicable in today's circumstances (no tanglible messianic leader), I use this ayah to reason that the Muslim ummah should be striving to help struggling people.]
These days I find myself in a quandry.
I am among those who support the `ulama (almost) regardless of sectarian boundaries, and so I am in mourning for Shaykh Ahmad Yassin. I heard of the illegal murder of Sh Yassin on Sunday night. Immediately my knees failed me, and I collapsed on the floor. So soon again have we lost another great `alim of the Muslim Ummah - the occupation dogs picked off Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al Hakim in Iraq just a few months ago; and now the zionist dogs have slaughtered a wheelchair-bound elderly Palestinian `alim. I have not even begun to taste my grief, but my tears are already flowing. Allah curse those dogs and cast them into the Hellfire; and may we live to see their physical downfall! Curse those dogs, those lower than dogs! Curse them!
Amidst the inspirational messages that I have been able to see on the television is a Congratulations on the Martyrdom of Sh Yassin. My mind can't comprehend this, and I end up crying every time that I see it. I still feel as if this is just a nightmare and that I will wake up soon, and Sh Yassin will be on TV the next morning giving another speech. How can I possibly give congratulations when I am in this state of mind?
What remains with us is the fact that a terrorist government has murdered one of the `ulama of Islam, a weak elder who himself posed such little threat that the zionist dogs released him from their own prison system - a man who had been convicted of absolutely nothing by any justice or unjust system. They have slaughtered in cold blood one of the top Filastini mujahidin who has been struggling for decades to recover the Palestinian land for the Palestinian people. These terrorist najis dogs have similarly assassinated not only multi-faceted mujahidin such as Sh Yassin, but also complete pacifists - whether Palestinian, American, or Israeli; and these zionist murderers and criminals are plotting their next attack, sighting their next victim.
I can say that if it were not for the advises and inspirations of our `ulama such as Sh Nasrullah, Ayatullah as-Sistani, and Imam Khumayni, I would certainly feel even more lost. May Allah bless and protect our `ulama, and may He hasten the appearance of Imam Mahdi.
* U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the murder of Shaykh Yassin will further harm efforts to settle the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution."
*Javier Solana, foreign policy chief of the European Union, said that the move would hurt peace efforts.
* EU Foreign ministers: "Israel is not ... entitled to carry out extra-judicial killings. Not only are extra-judicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law which is a key element in the fight against terrorism." Yassin's assassination "has inflamed the situation ... Violence is no substitute for the political negotiations which are necessary for a just and lasting settlement."
* José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, PM-elect of Spain, said that Israel's killing of Yassin proved wrong U.S. assertions that the invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam Hussein would bolster the cause for Middle East peace.
* British foreign secretary Jack Straw "yesterday condemned the assassination of Sheikh Yassin as unacceptable, unjustified and unlawful."
* A spokesman for Tony Blair said, "It goes without saying that the prime minister also condemns today's killing. We have repeatedly made clear our opposition to Israel's use of targeted killings and assassinations."
* French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said it would "only fuel the cycle of violence".
* Joschka Fischer, German FM, expressed "deep concern about the possible consequences".
* Poland's foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said: "I understand that Israel defends its own country. However the picture of a wheelchair-bound person who was killed with a rocket is probably not the best way of promoting Israeli security."
* Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said that reviving the peace process will not be any "easier when you have killings like that going on in Gaza. Terror and violence is not the way ahead."
* Jean Paul II a déclaré "s'associer à la communauté internationale pour déplorer cet acte de violence qui ne peut se justifier dans aucun Etat de droit". (John Paul II has declared "associating himself with the international community in order to deplore this act of violence which can not be justified in any State of right.")
* Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen: "This act will contribute to increased tensions in the area and will make it more difficult to implement the road map for peace and a possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza."
* Asked what impact the assassination would have on the peace process, President Hosni Mubarak replied: "What peace process?"
And do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay, (they are) alive, but you do not perceive. And We will most certainly try you with somewhat of fear and hunger and loss of property and lives and fruits; and give good news to the patient, Who, when a misfortune befalls them, say: Surely we are Allah's and to Him we shall surely return. Surah Baqarah of the Qur'an, 2:154-156
And what is wrong with you that you do not kill in the way of Allah and of the weak from among the men and the women and the children; those who say, 'O our Lord! Let us out of this town of oppressive people! Make for us from Your presence a guardian! Make for us us from Your presence a helper! Surah an-Nisa' 4:75
[NB: While the "kill" aspect of this ayah is not applicable in today's circumstances (no tanglible messianic leader), I use this ayah to reason that the Muslim ummah should be striving to help struggling people.]
Wednesday, 4 February 2004
Israeli Broadcasting Corp?
That is what it sounds like to me at the moment. The way in which the interviewer on the piece about the presidential election campaign in the US allowed the Israeli mouthpiece to employ stereotypes, racist comments, and other expressions of zionist apartheid imperialism grated on my nerves. I am more accustomed to hard-hitting interviews in which this kind of rhetoric is challenged than a simple handing over of the mic so that BBC becomes nothing more than yet another podium for Israeli politicians to rationalise their apartheid policies.
Ever since you allowed yourselves to be censored by the Israelis, you have reduced yourselves to a welcome mat for racist apartheid Israeli politicians to walk all over you. Even tiny community-based listener-sponsored such as Pacifica Network have begun to edge past you as far as journalism goes. Don't you remember? You're journalists. Not stenographers. The former have value. The latter are worthless and a waste of m time.
submitted to http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us/contact/index.shtml
Ever since you allowed yourselves to be censored by the Israelis, you have reduced yourselves to a welcome mat for racist apartheid Israeli politicians to walk all over you. Even tiny community-based listener-sponsored such as Pacifica Network have begun to edge past you as far as journalism goes. Don't you remember? You're journalists. Not stenographers. The former have value. The latter are worthless and a waste of m time.
submitted to http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us/contact/index.shtml
Tuesday, 3 February 2004
Western "Civilisation" - the Modern Disease
Western "civilisation" is a disease, and its most apparent symptom is imperialism. Its most insidious yet unapparent symptom is the fog of sleep in which the minds of so many of the colonised exist.
Free your mind. Heal your soul. Shake the chains from your body.
Free your mind. Heal your soul. Shake the chains from your body.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)