Most of the time when I hear or read the phrase “War on Christmas” I know I’m in for some high-quality paranoid hyperbole. Some business that says “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” is not out to destroy the alleged Judeo-Christian basis of America (note: it’s actually more based on heathen German, Greek and Roman ideas, but never mind that for now), and nor is an effort to keep religion out of government an attempt to wipe out Baby Jeebus.
Still, that’s not to say that the idea of a “War on Christmas” is wholly without basis. Take, for instance…
Restaurant apologises after police called over “festive” Christmas menu
The offer was criticised as a Christmas celebration by religious groups like the Adhaalath Party and the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives (IFM), which have both praised local police for yesterday stopping the promotion at the café. … ‘’The place was decorated for Christmas with items related to the celebration, police arrested one person from the cafe to clarify more information about the case. They were also released last night,’’ said Shiyam. … However, the leader of Adhaalath Party, Sheikh Hussein Rasheed, said that celebrating Christmas was unlawful and that it was a responsibility of the police to stop those events.
‘’In a society there will be different types of persons,’’ said Sheikh Hussein. ‘’It really does not matter whether it is allowed in Islam for non-Muslims to celebrate their religious days, because it is prohibited in the constitution of the Maldives.’’
I think I’ll scratch the Maldives off my Saturnalia list.
9 Responses to “War on Christmas”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Might want to scratch the Maldives off your honeymoon list while you’re at it
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2010/10/muslims-insulting-non-muslim-tourists
It would be wise for Westerners to simply not go to Muslim dominated lands for vacations.
The thing about the Maldives is that it’s so low to the water (highest spot is apparently 7 feet above sea level) that two ideas immediately spring to mind:
1) A good tsunami should be able to wipe it clean.
2) It could be duplicated elsewhere.
Sure, the ocean has a whole lot of deep spots. But also a lot of shallow spots. It would seem straightforward enough to *build* new islands somewhere safer and stock them with people who are less crazy. The coasts of Hawaii, California and Floridawouls seem primed for this sort of thing. Probably Mexico too, but that place is about as safe as a blender full of rusty razorblades.
Wow, 7 feet would be within the projected range of AGW-driven sea level increase, yes?
Hmm… global warming as religious cleansing (I can’t say ethnic cleansing, because liberal insanity to the contrary, Islam is not a race). Interesting thought.
>’It really does not matter whether it is allowed in Islam for non-Muslims
> to celebrate their religious days, because it is prohibited
> in the constitution of the Maldives.’’
so celebrate the brith of Jesus is prohibited in this Islamic land
while in the Islam it Jenus who will come on “end of days” and made
the final judgment on humans destroys evil!
IFM are bunch of hypocrits…
we Germans use the phrase “War on Christmas”
as a mucking aroundf on extrem commercialization of Chrismas here.
because German Supermarkets start allready Christmas trade
on 23 SEPTEMBER
on 26 December start “War on Happy Easter!”…
> global warming as religious cleansing
IIRC, the nearest major nation to the Maldives is India. If the oceans begin to rise and the people of the Maldives have to flee… what do you think the chances are that India would want ’em?
(Looks it up on Google Maps…)
Looks like India, then Sri Lanka, then Somalia. If the oceans rise several feet, the Sri Lankans will have their own troubles, and I doubt the Indians will be in a welcoming mood. So, Somalia it is! Another Islamic paradise!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives#Religion
Starting with the idea of “global warming as religious cleansing,” we have two separate concepts in play. First, there’s global warming. Then we have the concept of religion, which includes in this case — and related cases — the acceptance of a God who controls all. Does that mean that God (however one defines God) is opposed to the religion of the Maldives if the Maldives is submerged?
“Does that mean that God (however one defines God) is opposed to the religion of the Maldives if the Maldives is submerged?”
So… you’re saying that the best way to solve the problem of Islam is to somehow get the Muslims to think that Allah is opposed to Islam? Considering how good they are at killing themselves already, that might actually work.