Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Morocco to restrict mosque money, construction

The Occident might take a lesson from one of its former colonial holdings:
Morocco has enacted a law that restricts the construction of mosques.

Parliament approved legislation that increases supervision over Islamic charities and activities. The new law, passed on Jan. 16, would regulate donations for the construction of mosques, Middle East Newsline reported.

Under the bill, donors must register with Moroccan authorities before establishing or contributing to a mosque fund. The law also stipulated that a special permit would be required for the construction of a Muslim house of worship.

Islamic Affairs Minister Ahmed Al Tawfiq said the law was meant to prevent the exploitation of mosques. Al Tawfiq denied that the legislation was recommended by Morocco's allies in the West.
How delightfully scandalous would it be to find that certain Western governments actively encouraged the Parliamentary measure? The situation is a little more desperate in North Africa than in Europe or the US. So quixotic notions of unfettered religious freedoms for Muslims must be put on hold there (as it is for Christians and Jews throughout most of the Islamic world), pragmatic Western dipolomats are arguing.

Parenthetically, I'd love to find out that Western governments are doing just that. Seems to me the best way to regulate the Islamic world is to separate ourselves from it by ending Islamic immigration to North America and Western Europe, write the $300+ billion squandered in Iraq as a tragic loss and pour money into alternative energy projects (creating research prizes or a instituting a sort of Manhattan Project for energy independence) to try and obsolesce Middle Eastern oil, and promise Islamic governments that if they do not sufficiently keep their populations in check--from an unapologetic Western perspective--the US will carpet bomb their capitals, knock them out of power, and kill their (extended) families. Said leaders will have free reign as to how they make this happen.

That Western governments may have encouraged King Mohammad to let his Parliament vote the way it did is just my conjecture. What is more interesting is how this story has received virtually no coverage in Western media. That a country whose population is more than 99% Muslim must create a bureacracy to regulate the construction of, and fundraising for, mosques, is quite telling. It begs the obvious question as to why new mosques are permitted to be built in Dearborn, Birmingham, or Paris. Yet a week after the Parliamentary vote in Morocco (and I can't find a breakdown of how overwhelmingly the 600+ representatives voted in favor of the measure, which Islamic parties oppose), it's all quiet on the western front.

5 comments:

JSBolton said...

The moslem faith is actually a military indoctrination with dark age spirituality appropriately superabundant. If the above is true, doesn't it follow that there is a waekness in our constitution in not explicitly mentioning, and forbidding the free exercise of, that indoctrination.
The Moroccan king's heresy appears to be that, although he might cause a crisis among the infidel by withholding phosphate supplies, he fails to use this military advantage. On the Islamic indoctrination's military terms, all weapons of possible total war which can be used to do damage to the infidel, which a moslem ruler can get away with using, are sinful not to use. That is, unless I've misjudged the situation, but I don't think I have.

crush41 said...

I don't think that you have. As force is to be used in defense of the faith, and a failure to submit (that being the literal tranlsation, after all) an attack on the faith, dealing with the West is a rejection of the faith. And so it goes.

Moroccan said...

Let me remind this neo-Nazi fascist blogger who calls for the carpet bombing of civilian cities few facts:

1- Al-Qaeda and co hasn't killed a 10th of what the US government killed ruthlessly in the last 50 years.

2- In Vietnam alone, the US military murdered (and napalmed) over 2 million civilians and countless combatants.

3- In Iraq, the US government starved to death half a million Iraqi children by widthholding medicine. The criminal Madeliene Albright said it was "worth the price".

The US government is by far the most violent western government in the world and has killed more human beings than all western governments combined and ALL Islamic governments combined since the end of WWII.

Find me one single Western government or Islamic government that has murdered as many human beings as in the bloodbath of Vietnam. There just isn't a single one.

As such, the US government is the greatest threat to world peace.

The US government may operate democratically inside of America but outside it really is a mafia government that can kill and bomb countries with impunity.

Every nation in the world must start arming itself with nuclear weapons. It is the only option that will restrain the fascist US government.

On oil, well if Arab countries had democratic governments, we would have cut it off a long time back.

Down with fascism

Down with colonialism

Long live freedom (and not US-government style).

I think for America to be saved from its fascist violent government, it should be divided.

Red America (that supports violence and which has fascist tendencies) must be seperated from blue America (the humanist part).

crush41 said...

"Neo-fascist"?

Al Qaeda has made no contributions to human progress. Per capita, it's kill rate far surpasses any national government.

Yes, several governments have seen the deaths of far more people than the US government has. How about communist China and Soviet Russia?

I think for the Occident to be saved it should totally cut itself, and its magnanimous aid, off from low IQ third-world miasmas.

Moroccan said...

China is not a western country and neither was the Soviet union.

The soviets did kill 2 million people in Afghanistan but again the US is doing the same today.

You must remember that Vietnam claims that 4 million people were killed because of the war (napalm and agent orange long term effects) and the US government has not denied this figure.

The only thing that comes close to Vietnam was the Korean war (3 million people) in which the US was involved anyway.

The US government is one murderous government. Millions of innocent people have been killed directly by its forces.