Jihad .... 'Radical' or 'Real' Islam???

 

I constantly get told that I'm biased against 'Islam' & that I tarnish All Islam with the brush of 'Radical' Islam. That Islam is a 'religion' of 'peace' & that the radicals are the few.  Is this true??   I see no such contradiction, however,  I do believe that the free exchange of ideas is how we learn & I'm always willing to scrutinize what I believe to be true.  I looked earlier this week at the position of Women in Islam & the whole question of Equality within Islam itself.   Today I want to explore an idea intrinsic to Islam, that of Jihad.  Jihad translates 'Struggle'.  And especially of 'Struggle by the Sword' & the notion of how many Muslims support killing civilians as a tactic.   Numbers I've seen quoted range from a tiny fraction up to 50% of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims.

Those who consider themselves liberal tend to lean towarda the tiny fraction estimate, whilst conservatives like me lean toward the larger numbers.  Part of what drives the thinking of liberals is their tendency to see things from a more idyllic viewpoint, plus their belief that few people, if any,  are evil,  and that at the core of everyone there is goodness to be found.   This view tends to discount the impact of living in a society where virtually every aspect of daily life is under strict adherence to fundamentalism,  and where jihad for Allah is considered the single holiest act of a true follower of the faith.  The martyr-killer is considered a hero,  and the martyr's family is showered with gifts and held in a place of honour amongst  fellow believers.  Could anyone actually forget the televised scenes of joy & celebration, and dancing in the streets of Pakistan & Gaza as pictures streamed in of the demise of the Twin Towers and the consequent loss of life on September 11th 2001???

How many adherents of Islam would support 9/11 or the 'principle' of Martyrdom??  If you don't are you a bad Muslim??  Is Struggle by the Sword & the commission of Slaughter for Allah acceptable to most Muslims??

The foregoing assessment is corroborated by a former Muslim terrorist, Walid Shoebat, who was born and raised in the Middle East, and who spent time in jail for his involvement with jihad. However, in the mid-1990s, he renounced Islam. By doing so he became an "enemy of Islam" and has been living under threat of death ever since. These days, in spite of being under a Fatwa, Walid writes books, and speaks at synagogues and university campuses numerous other events about Islam and Jihad.  I have browsed his books & I also frequent  this site  for accuracy when researching for my blogs!

One of the reasons there has been considerable debate on this flashpoint topic is that statistics are not readily available. However, recently a report was published providing information which allows some deductive conclusions to be drawn.  On February 27th, the Middle East Times, an America-based pro-Arab publication, ran an article with the following headline: ~ "Majority of Muslims Oppose Attacking Civilians".

 The portion which the headline referred to provided some interesting statistics.  To support the notion that the majority of Muslims oppose attacking civilians, five countries ~ Egypt, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan, along with the West Bank and Gaza, were listed alongside the percentages of their respective populations that opposed killing civilians. 

According to the report, the percentages of the respective populations that opposed killing civilians were as follows:

Egypt: 80% of 78 million
Azerbaijan: 70% of 8 million
Turkey: 70% of 71 million
Indonesia: 70% of 246 million
Pakistan: 60% of 166 million
West Bank/Gaza: 60% of 4 million ~ I don't agree with this designation as a geographical entity, but it is what the study used!

Conversely, while the article did not include specific statements about those who are not opposed to killing civilians, the implied deduction is that the remaining percentages favour it, since they chose not to oppose it.  They range from 20% [Egypt] to 40% [Pakistan, West Bank/Gaza] respectively.

By taking the current population of each referenced location, and turning the percentages into actual population figures, here's what the numbers look like for those who may be said to support killing civilians: ~

Egypt: 20% or 15.6 million
Azerbaijan: 30% or 2.4 million
Turkey: 30% or 21.3 million
Indonesia: 30% or 73,8 million
Pakistan: 40% or 66.4 million
West Bank/Gaza: 40% or 1.6 million

Cumulative total: 181 million

 181.000,000 want us all Dead!!   How many suicide bombers will try to achieve this for Allah?

Keep in mind that this figure refers to only the six places referenced in the report. If you take an average from this group, then the percent which supports killing civilians is 31.6 percent. By extending this to the worlds 1.5 billion Muslims, the figure comes close to 500 million!!  Also worth noting is that the report was published in a pro-Arab publication which, in its zeal to provide a positive view of Muslims, apparently didn't realize it was also providing information to the contrary. While the topic will likely remain controversial, at least we now have some documentation which can narrow the gap between hyperbole and credibility.

There was a similar poll taken in the UK,  & reproduced in 'the Guardian' that was similarly enlightening.   Most Muslims polled said they didn't agree with Al Qaeda, but almost all of them said they believed in the necessity of Jihad under the right circumstances.   But, the poll didn't try to ascertain what the right conditions were. Of course one would imagine "if attacked in accordance with the Qur’an",  which just screams to be looked at.   So what constitutes an attack ..... Cartoons of Muhammad, perhaps?   

Remember,  war is fought in the name of Allah and Jihad, NOT freedom of thought, or religon, or democracy, or equality or any other western 'notion!

There is another point, & one which I have often stressed,  and that is that according to Qur'an, everyone who is not a Muslim is guilty of treason against Allah.   Hence NO 'kaffir' (i.e. non-Muslim) is an innocent civillian.   Muslims tell the truth when they say that they "regret the deaths of innocent civillians in terrorist attacks".   But,  the only "innocent civillians" in such attacks are Muslims ~ both Muslim bystanders who die accidentally, and the suicide terrorists themselves.   ALL others are neither innocent nor civillians.  And any earnest muslim believer who thinks different is just a Bad Muslim!

So Some Quotes ....

"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: "Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!"

"Do we really believe in a culture of death? Absolutely not. We believe in the culture of martyrdom. Martyrdom is valuable, sacred, respectable, and great, not something that can be used as an accusation. It is an honor for us to be accused of believing in the culture of martyrdom.

"What is martyrdom? It is death for the sake of Allah, and in defence of what is just ~ Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem

“He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land,”  and it is followed by v. 33, which specifies the punishment for that mischief: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”  ~ Sura 5.32.

Is that clear enough???

Behave or else is it's tone ..... &  the religion of 'peace'  has a daily tally of the Islamic murders all done to emulate Mohamet's words, actions and orders to kill infidels!!

And again ..... "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued".  ~ Sura At-Tawba 9:29.

 The majority of the Qur’an’s texts themselves clearly identify Jihad as physical warfare in Islam and,  Islamically,  Allah’s way of establishing the 'Kingdom of God' on earth.  They hardly require to be interpreted metaphorically. Likewise, from the Hadith and the earliest biographies of Muhammad it is just as evident that the early Muslim community understood these Qu'ranic texts to be taken literally.  Historically, therefore,  from the time of Muhammad onwards,  Jihad as physical warfare in support of the message of Islam has been a reality for the Muslim community.  Hence it comes as no surprise when even terrorists easily appeal to these source materials to justify their actions,  not to speak of their teachers who teach the theory and the art of terrorism.

Then, what about the Muslim claims that Islam means "peace", that it is in harmony with other religions, that it rejects violence?   No doubt, for Muslims Islam may mean peace in its traditional Muslim sense,  .... that is in so far as they have submitted to the conditions Islam imposes upon them.  However,  Islamically speaking,  Islam has never meant peace for idolaters unless the idolaters abandon idolatry and embrace Islam.  Nor, Islamically, has Islam meant peace for the 'People of the Book'  (Jews ~ See Verse 9.29),  unless the People of the Book submit to Islamic political rule and the Dhimmi (Slave) conditions which the Shari‘ah imposes upon them as the People of the Book.

If by Islamic definition the primary purpose of Jihad is the extension and defence of Islamic dominion,  it also includes,  under the shadow of war,  the invitation to the enemy to submit to Islamic rule, perhaps even to embrace Islam itself, or to fight.   Islamically, this invitation is compulsory and naturally precedes any battle.  Truly, both word and sword are integral to Jihad, yoked equally and working in harmony.  Struggle by the Sword ..... Islamic teaching prohibits the deliberate targeting of women and children but allows their deaths as collateral damage.  What the Muslims did in Beslan or the theatre in Moscow would not be accepted by Muhammad, but he would bless and sanction the 9/11 attacks as collateral damage!  Muhammad destroyed his enemies financial strength during his conquests. He killed or massacred males from puberty on up, but he enslaved women and children.

The Islamic teachings that allow these murders are theological, but are to be applied in a social, and political, context too.   Islam is,  after all,  both a spiritual and political religion; there is no separation of church and state in Islam.   In order for a Western mind to understand Islam, they have to realize that Islam is more than a spiritual belief system.  It is an all-encompassing ideology that seeks to regulate the world's political affairs according to Shari'a law.  Islam challenges Western civilization itself, because it is a complete Way of Life and its Shari'a Law is not compatible with Western ideals and civilization.   At all.  Now or Ever!!

Back to the Flotilla!!

 Remember the Terror Flotilla that Conned the World?????

Well, today, Tuesday, 16th November sees the launch of the Hebron Aid Flotilla!!!!!

What is The Hebron Aid Flotilla I hear you ask ?????  

I'll let their literature do the telling ....  "The outpouring of hate against Israel and the Jews after the flotilla incident {last May} was absolutely unprecedented. Jews around the world and those who love Israel suddenly felt just like the Jews of Hebron ~ the Jews the media most loves to hate. We therefore decided to hold our annual fundraiser as a unique, united Zionist response to this situation. We must bring together the various groups that work for Israel in a show of confidence in the future of a united, large and strong Israel "

The whole world is concerned with the supposed 'suffering'  of the Arabs of the Gaza strip.  Yet while the Arabs build and open luxury hotels and state-of the-art shopping malls,  the Jews of Hebron live in impossible conditions with families with 6, 7 or more children living in 2-3 room apartments.  While the Arabs of Gaza are free to build wherever and whatever they like,  Jewish children are arrested for planting gardens and installing park benches in violation of the “building freeze”.

Gardener ~ Yitzchak Imes, who tenderly cared for the Machpela Gardens ~ was brutally gunned down together with his wife and two neighbours in a recent Arab terrorist attack.  
(Remember last week's blog post 'UNESCO makes a Mosque' we learnt that Jewish Heritage Sites,  preserved & revered by Jews for three thousand years ~ including the Machpela Site ~  have been declared 'Mosques' in order that they can be destined for desecration & placed in Arab hands).

While investors are free to invest in and develop the Gaza strip, Hebron properties purchased by Jews ~ whether in 1809 or in 2009 ~ are not free to be used by their legal owners.

While the Arabs of Gaza, their incessant construction and their terror regime are all subsidized by many  "civilized" countries and NGO’s to the tune of billions of dollars per year, the tax deductible status of the meagre donations to Hebron’s Jews comes under repeated scrutiny,  for no good reason except for Racism and Anti-Semitism.

 This is the Actual Legal position: ~ 

1)        Settlements are Legal.   When the US signed the 1924 San Remo accords, they became co-signers of the British Mandate in Palestine which calls for “close settlement of Jews upon their land.” The area in question includes the Jewish territories of Judah & Samaria,  now better known by the fraudlent term the "West Bank" !!

2)        Support for Settlements is tax deductible!    The fact that this administration may decide to fly in the face of  US law and commitment does not negate the tax deduction on donations to Jewish causes in Eretz Yisrael.  Even the NY Times wrote: ~  “…the tax code encourages citizens to support nonprofit groups that may diverge from official policy, as long as their missions are educational, religious or charitable.”  

In a series of events ~ in both Hebron and in New York ~  voices and funds will be raised today in protest against the evil discrimination against the Jews of Hebron and Eretz Yisrael. 

In Hebron on the Succot holiday,  the end of the building freeze was celebrated.  This cessation was as promised by the Israeli government.  Yet again, yesterday, the spectre of another "temporary moratorium" on building in our homeland was raised in the media.  WHY????  

Let us say loudly & resoundingly ..... NO to a building Freeze...... FREEZE THE FREEZE ..... BUILD BUILD BUILD our Homeland!!!!!!   

If you live in New York then you could attend this Special Dinner ....  If not then Donate something & Show Support for Hebron.

STAND TOGETHER FOR HEBRON & ERETZ YISRAEL!

The Hebron Aid Flotilla

Tuesday Evening, November 16, 2010

Leaving from Pier 59,  Chelsea Piers, 12th Avenue & West 23rd St.

Boarding: 6 PM * Departure: 7 PM  *  Return 9 PM

                                      Reception * Buffet Dinner  * Viennese Table * Couvert $300

                         THE HEBRON FUND  1760 OCEAN AVE. BROOKLYN, NY 11230                                                TEL. 718-677-6886 FAX 718-677-6886

It is even rumoured that Captain Stabbing himself might 'join the flotilla' tonight .....

Equality under the Law!!

Rather than post  Monday Movie Review today, I decided the Blog needed Balance. It's had a literary Bent lately ....

If there is one thing that is innate to the functioning of a democratic society, it is that every person is legally equal under the law. It is also why Islamic Law or Sharia, is incompatible with a democratic society, because Islamic law presumes the inequality of everyone who is not a Muslim male as a given.  The essential premise of Islamic law is that it is inherently superior to every other law.

There can be no middle ground of compromise between Islamic law and Civil law, because Sharia is not legal, it is religious. There can be no concession to the rights of the individual, because Islam does not recognize the worth of individuals or their power to make law, rather than be subject to it.
 
 In Sudan last Summer a dozen women were sentenced to be flogged for wearing trousers.  (Presumably because of the Qu'ranic edict that women are not permitted to look like or dress like men).  Lubna Hussein, a Sudanese journalist who faced 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public tried to turn the tables on the judges by daring them to carry out the sentence instead of begging for mercy. "Flogging is a terrible thing ~ very painful and a humiliation for the victim But I am not afraid of being flogged. I will not back down. I want to stand up for the rights of women, and now the eyes of the world are on this case I have a chance to draw attention to the plight of women in Sudan."  

Banda Ache ~ 40 Lashes

This she did & 'only' 10 of the women who meekly accepted their punishment were flogged.  Sadly, nothing changed by her stand as in November a 16 year old teenager, Silva Kashif  was arrested by a plain-clothed policeman in a Khartoum market for wearing a skirt beneath the knee. She was convicted of offending public morality and received 50 lashes in the courtroom.
     
"I was treated like a criminal," Kashif said in an interview at the time. "I am confused what to wear. The trousers were an issue. My skirt was beneath the knee. What more can I do? I am Christian. My tribe and my customs permit me to dress like this."

Naturally no men have ever been sentenced for wearing trousers. That is a law that applies only to women, because there is a fundamental difference between Islamic law and Western law, not simply in morality or structure ~ but in equality!   A Muslim man will never be sentenced to be flogged for wearing trousers, just as a Muslim Imam will never be tried for blasphemy no matter how many ugly things he says about Hindusim, Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism. Blasphemy is a charge that is meaningful only in relation to the doctrine that is at the heart of Islamic law, that is Islam itself.

Islamic law is law made by Muslim men for the benefit of Muslim men, and the detriment of everyone else. It is the product of an inherently unequal system, designed to perpetuate that system.

 Under it non-Muslims are inferior to Muslims because by rejecting the "truth" of Islam, they cast doubts about their moral fitness. A non-Muslim is an infidel who drinks alcohol, eats pork and has forbidden sexual relations. As far as Islamic law is concerned he is already of poor moral character and a criminal.

What Flogging Means ....

 Women are inferior to men, as they are lower in status than men. When Mohammed declared, or was said to declare in Islamic scripture, that, "I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women",  he was articulating the top down theology of a cult that defined sinfulness in terms of position of tribal power. Therefore in the Mohammedan vision of hell, the underworld was to be populated mostly by women for their ingratitude to their husbands, who under Islam were also their masters. And slaves are defined as moral only to the degree that they serve their masters.

Under the circular logic of Islam, women are second class citizens because they are untrustworthy, and untrustworthy because they are second class citizens. This makes women automatically suspect of all sorts of things.

It is why a woman who was raped is more at fault than the man who raped her. In the Islamic worldview, which is itself a carryover of Bedouin tribalism, a rapist has taken someone else's property. By contrast the woman who was raped was careless with the property of her husband or her father. Whether the woman had consensual sex or was raped does not matter very much, because in either case she is only property that was damaged. Not a human being. The honour killing is simply a male relative or spouse destroying what Islamic tribalism considers to be "damaged property". Her consent is not considered significant, because Islamic law does not take the agency of a woman seriously, or treat her as competent to make decision on the level of a man in the first place.

It is why the woman is always at fault. While Western jurisprudence considers diminished capacity to be an extenuating circumstance, Islamic jurisprudence considers it to be a statement of guilt. That is because Western jurisprudence presumes innocence, while Islamic jurisprudence presumes guilt. The lower the role, the more readily the presumption of guilt is applied. Since Islam treats all people as inherently sinful, and therefore perpetually guilty, the higher the form of awareness, the more likely the Muslim is to avoid sin. A Muslim man has more agency than a woman, and is more likely to do the right thing. A Muslim woman is considered to have less agency, which is why she must have a husband to master her, and why Islam considers her more likely to be at fault.

 Like slaves, women can only demonstrate their worth through submission to their masters. Muslim men in turn can only demonstrate their worth through submission to the will of Allah as expressed by the Imams. Since the core of Islamic law is held by Arab Muslims, they effectively serve as superior to non-Arab Muslims. And throughout it all, one thing is missing. Equality under the law and equal justice for all!!

 
If there is one thing that is innate to the functioning of a democratic society, it is that every person is legally equal under the law. It is also why Islamic Law or Sharia, is incompatible with a democratic society, because Islamic law presumes the inequality of everyone who is not a Muslim male as a given. Defenders of Sharia have tried to get around this by pointing to the things that Islamic law did not take away from women and non-Muslims while willfully ignoring the things that it did take away.

This is a basic reality that Westerners have been kept deliberately ignorant of.  Yet the moment a Western tourist sets foot in a Muslim country, she has left a system where she is legally the equal of anyone else, and entered a system in which she is dramatically unequal. A woman or any non-Muslim who enters a Muslim country is now under the power of a legal system that considers her or him inferior in morals, in character and in testimony.

At the heart of the problem are the fundamentally different realities at the heart of law in a democratic nation and within Islam.

Citizens of our Modern World nations see the legal system as part of a social contract with a government of their choice. The law is the expression of the wishes and values of the citizenry. And it treats everyone as inherently equal under the law because otherwise fairness becomes impossible. By contrast Islamic law is not part of any social contract, it is a decree of the Prophet and the various Muslim figures throughout the ages who have interpreted his sayings. It is not part of a bottom up civil society, it is a strictly top down series of clauses that mixes tribal customs, stolen scraps of other religions, with the determined will of a ruthless, & illiterate, warlord.

Iranian Injustice

Islam does not recognize human equality. It is premised on human inequality.  Women cannot be subject to the same laws as men, just as Mohammed was not subject to the same laws as men.  Indeed the Qu'ran records that Mohammed explicitly had the law rewritten on his behalf when he desired something, such as Zaynab, who happened to be married to his adopted son.  A minor matter for the Prophet. The Qu'ran also limited the number of permissible wives to four. This did not stop Mohammed from marrying as many as fifteen women.  Muslims do not see the contradiction in any of this, because there is no premise of equality under Islamic law. You are only as "equal" as your spiritual standing within the Ummah permits.

There is no "I" in Islam, except in the alphabetical sense. Islam means participation in the Ummah, the dead Mohammed's "Kingdom of Heaven" on earth, as exemplified by the Muslim community as a whole, to be ideally expressed as the Caliphate that everyone from Al Queda on down to a hundred different regional ethnic terrorist groups such as Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Hizbullah, the Taliban, Al-Ummah, Al-Faran and numerous others. What they all have in common is the mandate to enforce Islamic law as the only and absolute law, without any compromise, while scourging away any traces of Western law or culture whose pernicious individualism threatens the essential premise of the Ummah.

The suicide bomber best expresses the contempt that Islam has for the individual, whose life is better off sacrificed, often unnecessarily, simply to prove the willingness of Muslim believers to kill in the name of Islamic rule. There can be no middle ground of compromise between Islamic law and civil law, because Sharia is not legal, it is religious. There can be no concession to the rights of the individual, because Islam does not recognize the worth of individuals or their power to make law, rather than be subject to it.

It is why Islamic law is the antithesis of equal justice or equality under the law, and the two of them cannot co-exist side by side. If Western nations admit Sharia, then they are admitting to a state of inequality under the law. And that will be Islam's greatest triumph over the freedom of the individual and the equality of humankind.

In Iran 50 Women await Death by Stoning

 Late last Week, Iran's application to be part of the policy making 'Commission on the Status of Women of the UN' was rejected.  Thankfully.  However, Saudi Arabia was voted onto this commission.  The extreme form of Sharia practiced there, called Wahibism is not known for it's promotion of gender equality.   It has refused to sign the 'Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women', not that this body will do much,  but it is illustrative, I think,  of how it does not deserve it's position in any body that purports to represent the RIGHTS of WOMEN. 

Actually I'd like to raise a Qu'ranic objection to it's continued membership of this commission. The commission's website says it is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women."   That position is in direct violation of the 'Holy Quran', as I read it ..... "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them". Does this sound like gender equality to you????

Islam is & will always be the antithesis of Equality under the Law!!!!

The Stolen Child !!

Sunday Morning.  Sweet Images.  Soothing Sounds.  Softly flows the day away.  So, a Story for Sunday.  In Seanachaí Verse .....

The picture is of Glencar Waterfall, County Leitrim, Ireland.  It provided the inspiration for Irish Poet William Butler Yeats  (Ireland's Poet Laureate) to pen "The Stolen Child",  which was published in 1889 in 'The Wanderings of Oisin and Other Poems'.  This poem is based on Irish legend and concerns faeries beguiling a child to come away with them. Yeats had a great interest in Pagan Irish legend about Faeries resulting in his publication of 'Fairy and Folk Tales of the Irish Peasantry' in 1888 and 'Fairy Folk Tales of Ireland' in 1892. The places mentioned in the poem are in Leitrim and Sligo where Yeats spent much of his childhood. 

The poem reflects the early influence of Romantic literature and Pre-Raphaelite Verse & is considered to be one of Yeats' more notable early poems.

Where dips the rocky highland
Of Sleuth Wood in the lake,
There lies a leafy island
Where flapping herons wake
The drowsy water rats;
There we've hid our faery vats,
Full of berrys
And of reddest stolen cherries.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand.
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.

Where the wave of moonlight glosses
The dim gray sands with light,
Far off by furthest Rosses
We foot it all the night,
Weaving olden dances
Mingling hands and mingling glances
Till the moon has taken flight;
To and fro we leap
And chase the frothy bubbles,
While the world is full of troubles
And anxious in its sleep.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.

Where the wandering water gushes
From the hills above Glen-Car,
In pools among the rushes
That scarce could bathe a star,
We seek for slumbering trout
And whispering in their ears
Give them unquiet dreams;
Leaning softly out
From ferns that drop their tears
Over the young streams.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand.

Away with us he's going,
The solemn-eyed ~
He'll hear no more the lowing
Of the calves on the warm hillside
Or the kettle on the hob
Sing peace into his breast,
Or see the brown mice bob
Round and round the oatmeal chest
For he comes the human child
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand
From a world more full of weeping than he can understand

Even as a 'wee one' I understood that the world was full of Weeping & Woe & I spent my early childhood wanting to be a stolen child …. A Foundling Found by the Fairies!!

I Always believed in Magic .... still do!   Maybe that's my Misanthrope .....

Anyways, enjoy the Pictures below .... they are all of Ireland.  I miss the Soft Rains of Sunday Morning at home.  (I am more than a year away now!)  And, the Music is provided by Galway band, The Waterboys, Irish Lads!!!

The List is Life!

"Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire."  

It's Friday.  And, In the part of the world I come from we call movies Films. So,  Film Review for Friday for the second week running.  I Suppose I'm adding Film Friday to Movie Monday!!   And given the week that's in it 'Schindler's List' seems so perfect to review.  It is an almost perfect Movie!

Schindler's List (1993) is Steven Spielberg's award-winning masterpiece ~ a profoundly shocking, unsparing, fact-based, three-hour long epic of the nightmarish Shoah.  Italian - American catholic Martin Scorsese was originally slated to direct the film, but turned down the chance, claiming the film needed a director of Jewish descent ~ before turning it over to Spielberg. Then, before the film was made, Spielberg offered Holocaust survivor and director Roman Polanski the job of making the film, but Polanski declined.

Since then, ten years later, Polanski made his own honoured Holocaust film, the Best Director-winning 'The Pianist' (2002).   Equally as Haunting.  Stanley Kubrick abandoned his own plans to make a similar film in the planning stages, called "The Aryan Papers" ~ based on the Louis Begley novel 'Wartime Lies'!

Except for the bookends (its opening and closing scenes) & two other brief shots (the little girl in a red coat and candles burning with orange flames), the entire film in-between is shot in crisp black and white.   The film is marvellous for the way in which it crafts its story without contrived, manipulative Hollywood-ish flourishes (often typical of other Spielberg films).  It is also skillfully rendered with overlapping dialogue, parallel editing, sharp and bold characterizations,  contrasting compositions of the two main characters (Schindler and Goeth),  cinematographic beauty detailing shadows and light with film-noirish tones,  jerky hand-held cameras (cinema verite),  a beautifully selected and composed musical score (including Itzhak Perlman's violin),  and gripping performances all around. 

The Original 'List'

The screenplay by Steven Zaillian was adapted from Thomas Keneally's 1982 biographic novel (Schindler's Ark).  Its documentary authenticity vividly re-creates a dark, frightening period during World War II,  when Jews in Nazi-occupied Krakow were first dispossessed of their businesses and homes,  then placed in ghettos and forced labour camps in Plaszow,  and finally resettled in concentration camps for execution. The violence and brutality of their treatment in a series of matter-of-fact (and horrific) incidents is indelibly and brilliantly orchestrated.

The unanimously-praised film,  with a modest budget of $23 million deservedly won seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (the first for Spielberg),  Best Cinematography (Janusz Kaminski), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score (John Williams), Best Editing (Michael Kahn), and Best Art Direction.  It also won nominations for two of its male leads .... Best Actor (Liam Neeson) and Best Supporting Actor (Ralph Fiennes),  Best Costume Design,  Best Sound,  and Best Makeup.  Other organizations including the British Academy Awards,  the New York Film Critics Circle,  and the Golden Globes, likewise honoured the film.  It was the first black/white film since  'The Apartment' (1960) to win the Best Picture Academy Award,  and the most commercially-successful B/W film in cinematic history. In my opinion, deservedly so!!

There have been numerous documentaries and dramatic productions focusing on the Holocaust, including a television mini-series which many consider to be the definitive work. As a result, in deciding to film Schindler's List,  director Steven Spielberg set an imposing task for himself.  His vision needed to differ from that of the film makers who preceded him, yet the finished product had to remain faithful to the unforgettable images which represent the legacy of six million massacred Jews.  Those who see this motion picture will witness Spielberg's success.

Schindler's List gives us three major stories and a host of minor ones. First and foremost, it tells the tale of the Holocaust, presenting new images of old horrors. These are as ghastly and realistic as anything previously filmed, and Spielberg emphasizes the brutality of the situation by not pulling punches when it comes to gore.  The blood, inky rather than crimson in stark black-and-white,  fountains when men and women are shot in the head or through the neck.

  The second story is that of Oskar Schindler, the Nazi businessman who saved 1200 Jews from death. Schindler starts out as a self-centered manufacturer, concerned only about making money. He hires Jews because they're cheap, not because he likes them.  But his perspective changes, and he risks losing everything to save as many lives as he can.  His eventual lament that he couldn't save more is heartbreaking.

The third story belongs to Amon Goeth,  the Nazi commander of Krakow, a man who teeters on the brink of madness. Despite his intense hatred for Jews, he is inexplicably attracted to his Jewish housekeeper,  Helen Hirsch (Embeth Davidtz).  Disgusted by his feelings, he lashes out at her with a display of violence that is almost Scorsese-like in its blunt presentation. As written, Goeth could easily have become a conscienceless monster,  but Spielberg works carefully to show unexpected depth and complexity to his character.

Often, the experiences of the minor characters provide the most lasting images.  Helen's story is memorable, as is the plight of young Danka Dresner and her mother as they strive to avoid death while staying together. There's a Jewish couple that marries in the Plaszow camp, even though their chances of survival are dim, and a Rabbi who survives a close encounter with a Nazi gun.

Of course the Holocaust images are grim, but scenes of mass graves and exhumed bodies are not unique to Schindler's List.  While it's impossible to deny their power,  potentially more distubing are the instances of callous,  individual murder.  Spielberg doesn't spare his audience when it comes to sudden violence or the dehumanizing factors involved in such events. Schindler's List is replete with moments like this.

The acting is uniformly excellent. Liam Neeson's 'Schindler'  is shown in all his complexity, and his transformation is played with studied control. This is no sudden reversal of philosophy,  but a matter of conscience that slowly dawns on the man. With a keen sense of Schindler's character,  Neeson depicts the metamorphosis from self-centered businessman to driven self appointed messiah.

Ben Kingsley, whose Gandhi depiction also transfixed audiences, has the movie's most understated role ~ one that he acts with simple sincerity.  Equally as impressive is Embeth Davidtz, who snares the viewer's attention during her limited screen time as Helen Hirsch, the object of Amon Goeth's twisted affection. Speaking of Goeth, Ralph Fiennes stuns with his intricate, savage portrayal of the Nazi commander,  a man fascinated by power and murder. Fiennes' Goeth has the rare ability to both mesmerize and repulse,  and this is a performance that will long be remembered.

Despite the grisly subject matter,  this movie is essentially about uncovering a kernel of hope and dignity in the midst of a monstrous tragedy.  The story of Oskar Schindler sets this apart from other Holocaust dramas.  Uncompromising in its portrayal of good, evil, and all the shades in between,  Schindler's List offers a clear view of human nature laid bare .... hatred, greed, lust, envy, anger, and, most important of all, empathy and love. Because this film touches us so deeply, the catharsis has a power that few, if any, other moments in film history can match. And that's what establishes this as a transcendent motion picture experience.

  
And I've added the Music Video below because it clarifies such a defining moment in the movie ... where the extent of the ghetto liquidation is depicted through the eyes of Oskar Schindler as he begins to comprehend the Nazi programme of genocide in its fullest sense.  We see his senses shiver with his conscience as a humane human.  And, the little girl in the Red Coat who touches his comprehension shows the thoroughness of the cleansing sweep that swept through Judaism in Europe's Ghettos in those years.

"Today is history. Today will be remembered. Years from now the young will ask with wonder about this day. Today is history and you are part of it. Six hundred years ago when elsewhere they were footing the blame for the Black Death, Casimir the Great - so called - told the Jews they could come to Krakow. They came. They trundled their belongings into the city. They settled. They took hold. They prospered in business, science, education, the arts. With nothing they came and with nothing they flourished. For six centuries there has been a Jewish Krakow. By this evening those six centuries will be a rumor. They never happened. Today is history."

I did say on commencing this review that this movie was 'almost' perfect.  My two real negative quibbles are this ....  First,  is the old Rabbi whom Goeth chooses to execute, but every German pistol within a stone's throw somehow jams, saving his life and stretching believability too far. Second, and much more egregious, is the scene where the women are led into the shower rooms at Auschwitz but are greeted with water instead of poison gas. This, for me, is unforgivable ~  if there's a single image that sums up the Holocaust's mechanized, efficient destruction of  Judaism, it's the gas chamber, and the cheap "gotcha!" when that water rather than the poisonous gas comes down is among Spielberg's most cowardly mistakes as a director!!

And I'm not sure what I'd think if it turned out to be really true. It feels like melodrama, not reality.  The film is certainly melodramatic at times, especially the scene on the train tracks where Schindler weeps about how many more people he could have saved, but that scene tears me up every time.  I don't mind being manipulated if it's done so well.  And this movie is done Oh! so well in almost every aspect.  These are, however, tiny quibbles in what is essentially a Masterpiece of Cinematic Interpretation.

Watch & Weep!!