Terrorism has dominated the history of Islam, as demonstrated by the murder of three of the first four caliphs who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad: Umar ibn Abd al-Khattab (644 C.E.), Uthman Ibn Affan (656 C.E.) and Ali ibn Abi Talib (661 C.E.). Islamic terrorism has been one of the most active and dangerous volcanoes — domestically, regionally and globally — since the inception of Islam in the seventh century. Historically, all Arab regimes have achieved, sustained and eventually lost power through domestic violence, subversion or terrorism.
Currently, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Libya have become battlegrounds of rival Islamic terror organizations. Pro-U.S. Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE face clear and present terror threats. Iran and Saudi Arabia — the two leading sources of funding for Islamic terrorism — are confronting each other militarily, economically, ideologically and religiously. Intra-Muslim fragmentation, unpredictability, instability, intolerance, subversion, terrorism and the provisional nature of Islamic regimes have been recently intensified in an unprecedented manner.
So far, the lava of Islamic terrorism has affected mostly Muslims, but it is aiming to spill over into the abode of the “infidel” and is currently spreading into the streets of the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, India, Africa, Asia and Australia.
While most terrorists are Muslims, the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. However, the will of the majority has been systematically suppressed or oppressed in most Muslim societies (including Muslim communities in Western countries). These Muslim societies have never experienced democracy, exposing the majority to tectonic eruptions of violence by rogue regimes and organizations.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the 1,400-year-old volcanic Islamic terrorism has traditionally not been triggered by social and economic deprivation or by the absence of civil liberties. It has been triggered by the 14-century-old megalomaniacal, supremacist, intolerant, anti-democratic, repressive, non-negotiable and eternal aspiration — led by educated Islamic elites — to force the world of the infidel and the apostate to submit to Islam. The latter is, supposedly, the only legitimate religion, divinely ordained to rule the world.
According to the Quran, Islam is the only worthy and legitimate successor to the Abrahamic and Mosaic Judaism. Thus, the subordination of humanity to the legacy of Muhammad should be achieved, preferably, via nonviolent means (dawah), deceit/double-talk (taqiyya) and immigration (hegira). But, in face of defiant infidels and apostates, the believers should resort to non-compromising, non-merciful violence (jihad), subversion, breach of international accords and terrorism.
Unlike the Western definition of terrorism (the deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians), the Quran’s definition of terrorist (irhab) is the derivative of the verb arhaba (to terrify, scare), which is a tactic employed against the infidel to advance the goals of Islam (Quran 8:60). The Muslim bottom line is that “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.”
Contrary to political correctness — and as demonstrated by the 1,400-year-old track record of Islamic violence and terrorism and the lack of intra-Muslim peaceful coexistence — Islam has never considered itself to be “a religion of peace” as defined by Western dictionaries.
According to Muhammad’s legacy, the term salam (peace) — which is derived from the same root as Islam — is employed when addressing fellow Muslims, but not when addressing non-Muslims, unless constrained by temporary military, economic or political inferiority.
Furthermore, Arab/Muslim societies invoke verses from the Quran and precedents from Islamic history as guidelines for contemporary, daily, personal, tribal, regional and national conduct. For example, Sura 20, verses 47-48 state that “peace be on whoever follows the guidance [of Allah] … and punishment shall afflict those who deny and turn their back [on Allah].” Thus, salam is reserved only for those who submit to Islam, while those who renege on their commitment to Islam are doomed. Moreover, any agreement with the infidel is defined as sulh, hudna, a tenuous truce of limited duration, until the balance of power facilitates total submission of the infidel to Islam.
Sacrificing reality and long-term national security on the altar of political correctness and short-term convenience, key Western policymakers and public opinion molders have refused to recognize the central role (or any role) played by Islam in the intensifying threat of terrorism. These movers and shakers have also insisted that providing employment and educational opportunities is the most effective way to combat terrorism.
Tariq Alhomayed, the former editor-in-chief of leading Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat, wrote on February 22, 2015: “ISIS is not looking for jobs, neither are al-Qaida or Hezbollah. … According to [U.S. President Barack] Obama, oppressing the opposition leads to extremism and terrorism. However, the oppression of the Green Revolution by the Iranian regime has not led to extremism or terrorism in Iran. … Why is the entire Middle East, except Iran, targeted by terrorism? Why are some of al-Qaida’s leaders in Iran?”
Winston Churchill’s famous words on relations with communists apply even more so to terrorists: “Trying to maintain good relations with a communist is like wooing a crocodile. You do not know whether to tickle it under the chin or beat it over the head. When it opens its mouth, you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat you up. … An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last.”
Earlier this week, UTT published the first in a series of articles about sharia (Islamic law) entitled “Understanding the Threat” which amplified the fact that sharia is the focal point and driving force behind everything jihadis across the globe are doing.
Today, we will breakdown what sharia actually is and its origins.
All Islamic sources define Islam as a “complete way of life governed by sharia.”
According to the most widely used text book in Islamic junior high schools in the United States (What Islam is All About), “The Shari’ah is the ideal path for us to follow.”
There are two sources of sharia: the Koran and the Sunnah.
Islam is the system of life under sharia. Those who submit to Islam and the sharia are called “Muslims.”
The Koran (also Quran or Qur’an)
According to Islam, the Koran is the “uncreated word of Allah,” who is the Islamic god, and the contents of the Koran were revealed to the Prophet Mohammad between the years 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. in the Arabian peninsula through an angel. The Koran has 114 chapters or “suras” which are arranged in no particular order. They are generally arranged by size from largest to smallest. However, the first chapter is approximately the smallest, and the sizes of the chapter vary so this is not a perfect rule.
The Islamic scholars have authoritatively listed the chapters of the Koran in chronological order. This is very important because Allah said in the Koran (2:106, 16:101) that whatever comes chronologically last overrules anything that comes before it. This is called “abrogation.” Allah revealed his message to Mohammad progressively over time. By the time it was all revealed, what came last was the most important and overrules anything that was said earlier.
“It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that though mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages.” (Koran 17:106)
So, for instance “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256) is overruled or abrogated by “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him” (Koran 3:85) which is why we get “Take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends…” (Koran 5:51). Chapter 5 in the Koran is the last chronologically to speak about relations between Muslim and non-Muslims.
Chapter 9 is the last to discuss jihad.
“Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
Furthermore, every verse in the Koran has been legally defined in the Tafsir. The most authoritative Tafsir scholar in Islam is a man named Ibn Kathir. For instance, the Tafsir defines a portion of verse 9:5 above as follows: “This is the Ayah (verse) of the sword…’and capture them’ (means) executing some and keeping some as prisoners…’and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush’ (means) do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 4, pages 375-376)
The Tafsir is taught at mosques in the United States on a regular basis. There is no such thing in Islam as a “personal interpretation” of a particular verse of the Koran.
The Sunnah
The Sunnah is the example of the Prophet Mohammad who is considered the al Insan al Kamil in Islam – the most perfect example of a man. If Mohammad did it or said it, it is an example for all Muslims to follow for all time.
His words and deeds are recorded in the authoritative biographies (Sira) and the collection of the Hadith or stories about him. In Islam there are many Hadith scholars, but the most authoritative are by men named Bukhari and Muslim.
The Prophet said, “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.” Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926. Volume: Jihad; Chapter: Fighting the Jews
The above quote from Mohammad is doctrine in Islam. Mohammad said it and it is authoritatively recorded by Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam. This is why the above quote is not only in the Hamas Covenant, it is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools.
Example: Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl? Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was six (6) years old and consummated the relationship when she was nine (9). Mohammad is the perfect example, therefore, it is a capital crime in Islam to suggest this is wrong behavior.
The Koran, as understood with the Koranic concept of abrogation, and the Sunnah form the “Sharia” or the way for all Muslims to follow. This is a totalitarian legal system and cannot be altered or amended because it comes from Allah and was exemplified by the actions and words of Mohammad. Therefore, when it comes to the definition of jihad, the obligation of jihad, the law of jihad, the obligation of the Caliphate (Islamic State), the rules under the Caliph, and relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is no disagreement among any of the scholars.
If Allah said it chronologically last in the Koran, Mohammad said it, and Mohammad did it, how could there be a legal “gray area” in sharia?
“Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
Mohammad said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.” Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim
Mohammad went out and fought many battles against non-Muslims until they converted to Islam or submitted to Islam. Those who did neither were killed.
Creeping sharia infiltrates every nook and cranny of America. Including our classrooms. Among other things, the Muslim Brotherhood (as well as the Saudis) wields enormous influence over curriculum that threatens not only public schools, but private and parochial schools as well.
After reporting on Islamic supremacy in our schools a year ago, I thought it worthwhile to see how things have progressed since then, for better or for worse. (Guess which it is.) When last we left off, here’s where things stood. In most cases, information only came to light because parents stumbled upon homework assignments or their child told them something of concern.
Students learned to recite allegiance to Allah along with Muslim prayers and chants. Students were also taught the Five Pillars of Islam, that Muslims pray to the same God as Christians and Jews, that Mohammed was a man with strong moral values, that terrorists are “freedom fighters,” that Muslims treat those they conquer better than America does, along with the taqiyya version of CAIR’s mission. Sharia law was promoted, Qurans were introduced into classrooms, students studied Arabic, female students wore burqas as part of a lesson on Islam, and special courses on Islam prohibited students from wearing a cross or saying the name “Jesus.”
Homework assignments required students to promote the “Golden Age of Islam” while students also had to write about what it would be like to travel to Mecca. All the while, Muslim students were given special privileges that Christian and Jewish students were not afforded, including time off during the day to pray.
Textbooks whitewashed Islam while diminishing Christians and Jews, videos framed non-Muslims as bigots and validated enforcement of blasphemy laws, a Muslim author gave a lecture that stretched over four days about her Islamic-themed book, and field trips to mosques (including the one the Tsarnaev brothers attended) involved non-Muslim students praying to Allah, with non-Muslim boys joined adult Muslims in prayer while girls were told Islam is pro-woman.
Teachers who spoke out were punished. An elementary school teacher was forced to resign after making critical comments about Islam on a talk radio program, CAIR attempted to smear another teacher by accusing her of being a “racist” after she drew an analogy between the Taliban and Hamas during a lesson on bullying, and Christian teachers were harassed by Muslims in the school hierarchy.
So where do things stand today? Sadly, we have more of the same. Much more of it, as Islamic supremacy continues to gain ground in our schools. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
A workbook for a three-week course on Islam told students that for the duration of the course they will “become Muslim” by selecting Muslim names and wearing them on ID tags around their necks, dressing up as Muslims and acting the part in order to receive a good grade, being told jihad is a struggle against oppression, playing a dice game called Jihad that pits one group of students against another, reading the opening chapter of the Quran and analyzing various other verses, and memorizing the Shahada (the prayer for conversion to Islam).
Students across various school districts were told that Islam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terror attacks, were taught an Islamic fight song that implied that Allah is the only God, completed a project that involved making pro-ISIS propaganda posters, and a Palestinian activist gave a presentation to third graders that urged them to become “freedom fighters for Palestine.”
Homework assignments included analyzing statements by bin Laden, material from an ISIS blog featuring a female recruiter, and statements from Obama’s Cairo speech that demonized the West and framed Muslims as victims. Students also had to write the Shahada (including the oath “There is no God by Allah”) and sing “Allahu Akbar” in an Arabic song. And a Muslim cleric who was a public school teacher peddled sharia and routinely left school early to conduct prayer services at his mosque. (He’s since been fired.)
Meanwhile Muslims continued to press for special accommodations, such as school closures for Muslim holidays. Mind you, federal law allows students of minority religions to take off from school on their religious holidays without any penalty. But this is not good enough for many Muslims who offer all manner of rationales for why they need more. Some cite relatively high (emphasis on relatively) percentages of Muslims who live in certain districts. But even when their numbers are scant the same pressure is applied, as in Baltimore where no tests are scheduled on Muslim holidays, despite the fact that Muslim students comprise a mere two-to-three percent of the student body.
In one case, a Muslim community leader argued that Muslim students don’t want to miss class even if the absence is excused because it would place an undue burden on them to catch up for the day they missed. So he wants school policy to prohibit tests on Muslim holidays and the day after so Muslim students won’t have any pressure to study during their observance. He admits the ultimate goal is for the school district to close schools completely on those days because: “We want our sons and daughters to feel as American as anyone else and to be on equal footing as everyone else.” (Nice try. How about Muslim students cope just like Jewish students and Hindu students and students from other religious minorities who have been faring just fine? Deal with it!)
Another example of we-are-a-tiny-minority-but-you-owe-us rationale can be found in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, where Muslims comprise less than two percent of the population. No matter. Sporting events are banned the night prior to Muslim holidays and no tests are administered on the holidays themselves.
Then there’s this rationale offered up in Burlington, Vermont, where it is being recommended that schools close for Muslim holidays because most Muslim students are recently arrived refugees who don’t speak much English and missing school will have a negative effect on their learning. But as often happens in these cases a domino effect kicks in, and now the small Hindu community in Burlington wants school closures on their holidays. However no accommodations will be made for Hindus.
Here’s another scenario. In Irvington, N.J., where the superintendent had no idea how many Muslim students were in the school system, schools are closed on Muslim holidays based on “inclusion” rather than necessity. Riiiiiiiiight. And what “necessity” could one ever argue in any of these cases?
But who needs “necessity” when you can stand on the soap box of “rights,” as Kaity Assaf, a Muslim teenager in New Jersey did when she claimed it comes to down having the “right” to have the two most important Muslim holidays acknowledged publicly by closing all schools in her district.
Then there are those who claim victimhood and make loud demands, as happened a couple of months ago in Jersey City, NJ, when the school board made a “difficult and gut-wrenching” decision and refused to close schools for Muslim holidays after Muslims in the community requested this accommodation on six days notice. One Muslim in attendance screamed, “My child should be able to celebrate the holiday!” (as if anyone was stopping that from happening) while another stated “We feel alienated!” (what’s new?). Still another stepped up to the microphone and smirked: “We’re no longer the minority. That’s clear from tonight. We’re going to be the majority soon.”
Arrogance, demands, victimhood, threats, and above all, being above all.
Hat tips: Fox News, Counterjihad Report, Breitbart, Jihad Watch, The Clarion Project, Atlas Shrugs, The Right Scoop, Legal Insurrection, Front Page Magazine
British Prime Minister David Cameron recently wrote that “aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and activities … run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
He described the movement as fertile ground for growing violence and, based on research he commissioned, determined that membership in the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a possible indicator of extremism.
Among the assertions raised by Cameron, his staunch opposition to Muslim Brotherhood members who support Palestinian sister group Hamas sticks out. This is a very important point that stands to benefit Israel: A Western leader views support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s violence against Israel as evidence of the group’s extremism.
The research upon which Cameron based his statements mentions the goal of some of the movement’s members to turn Britain into an Islamic state. But it does not manage to prove that this is an official goal of the group as a whole. Really? As early as 2007, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi declared: “The conquest of Rome — the conquest of Italy, and Europe — means that Islam will return to Europe once again. Must this conquest necessarily be through war? No. There is such a thing as peaceful conquest [through proselytizing].”
In an interview with a Norwegian journalist in 2011, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt until 2010, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said, “The Muslim Brotherhood’s dream is to form a total Islamic state.” Pressed for more details on this goal, he responded, “We Muslims are currently scattered all over. There is still a long way to go before we are able to take control in Europe.”
Ahmed Jaballah, head of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is also recognized by local authorities, has said that the union “is a two-stage rocket. The first stage is democratic; the second will put an Islamic society into orbit.”
The hidden danger for Europe is less the terrorist attacks, which do not significantly alter the foundations of a society, and more this Muslim Brotherhood plan — which, for now, does not include violence or explicit threats. This plan for the occupation of Europe will succeed via the fertility rate among Muslim women, which is much higher than that of European women; through record-breaking immigration; and through calls to join Islam.
In addition to this, there is the orthodox Islamic education of the young generation, which is more religious than previous ones and is, for the most part, unwilling to accept the values of its host societies. There is also the issue of Islamic law creeping into society’s daily life: Popular French fast-food chain Quick has recently decided to serve only halal meat at all its locations.
In both Israel and Europe, the only way to stop the vision of Islamic political takeover of the world from coming to be is to address the root of the problem and to outlaw Muslim education that preaches Islamic conquest — not just that which preaches Islamic violence.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
In Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes her execrable life as a devout Muslim girl in Somalia, Kenya and Saudi Arabia. She explains why she became an Infidel after experiencing freedom in the Netherlands. In Heretic, she seeks a reformation of Islam, with a focus on women’s rights but including tolerance and freedom of thought and speech for all. That will not happen soon, even though there are other current and former Muslims who want it and others who claim to want it.
From the first page of Heretic:
On ______, a group of ______ heavily armed, black-clad men burst into a ______ in ______, opening fire and killing a total of ______ people. The attackers were filmed shouting “Allahu akbar!”
Speaking at a press conference, President ______ said: “We condemn this criminal act by extremists. Their attempt to justify their violent acts in the name of a religion of peace will not, however, succeed. We also condemn with equal force those who would use this atrocity as a pretext for Islamophobic hate crimes.”
. . . .
Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace. For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions— or even in theological error— but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an “Islamophobe.” I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed. In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims— for whom I am already an apostate— but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such “insensitive” pronouncements. [Emphasis added.]
_______________________
Heretic explores differences between political Islam and Islam as a religion. Hirsi Ali tells of some horrors of Islam as currently practiced in Islamic states, officially pursuant to Sharia law but also unofficially and with little or no intervention by those states to prevent or ameliorate it. Here is an example of the latter type of political Islam:
Political Islam is rooted in and, I think, inseparable from, religious Islam as commanded by the Qu’ran, the Hadith and Sharia law. An article titled The Lure of Fantasy Islam disparages hopeful reformers such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a self-described “devout Muslim,” as promoting “fantasy Islam” by obscuring the nature of Islam as it has developed over the centuries and as it now is.
Dr. Jasser advocates the separation of mosque and state. He
That’s very good; but how can a “devout Muslim” call for the separation of mosque and state? He also appears to pretend that Islam today is something it is not: a peaceful, tolerant religion. Obama and organizations He supports do the same. He and they do not seek Islamic reformation but instead oppose it. Obama apparently believes that Islam is fine as it is. He is not stupid and must know what Islam is now and has long been.
Hirsi Ali does not pretend that today’s Islam is what it is not: she recognizes today’s Islam as a violent, intolerant and otherwise evil religion that seeks civilizational domination. She is the executive producer of, and appeared in, this Clarion Project Honor Diaries Video as well as others:
For producing the Honor Diaries videos, Hirsi Ali is deemed an “Islamophobe.” Although the suffix “phobia” in “Islamophobia” still invokes the notion of irrationality, that seems to have disappeared in current usage. Now, Islamophobia “(or anti-Muslim sentiment) is the prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims” — regardless of the rationality of such prejudice, hatred or fear.
Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Azeezah Kanji — the featured speaker in the above video — has been very active in disparaging Honor Diaries. Like CAIR, she has ties to the Obama White House and was named a “Champion of Change” by the White House in 2011. What changes in Islam does Ms. Kanji champion? None, apparently, of those intrinsic to it.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the CAIR, condemned Ayaan Hirsi Ali as “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide.”
Please see also my article titled Islam: Hate, Honor, Women’s Rights and Congress. Obama’s “Champion for Change” would most likely agree with the proponents of House Resolution 569 that “Islamophobia” is a hate crime.
What can we do to promote an Islamic reformation?
To a great extent, it’s up to the Muslims. However, Hirsi Ali suggests the following in Heretic:
There is probably no realistic chance that Muslims in countries such as Pakistan will agree to dispense with sharia. However, we in the West must insist that Muslims living in our societies abide by our rule of law. We must demand that Muslim citizens abjure sharia practices and punishments that conflict with fundamental human rights and Western legal codes. Moreover, under no circumstances should Western countries allow Muslims to form self-governing enclaves in which women and other supposedly second-class citizens can be treated in ways that belong in the seventh century. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
It is no longer plausible to argue that organizations such as Boko Haram— or, for that matter, Islamic State— have nothing to do with Islam. It is no longer credible to define “extremism” as some disembodied threat, meting out death without any ideological foundation, a problem to be dealt with by purely military methods, preferably drone strikes. We need to tackle the root problem of the violence that is plaguing our world today, and that must be the doctrine of Islam itself. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[The] phenomenon of Christophobia (as opposed to the far more widely discussed “Islamophobia”) receives remarkably little coverage in the Western media. Part of this reticence may be due to fear of provoking additional violence. But part is clearly a result of the very effective efforts by lobbying groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Over the past decade, these and similar groups have been remarkably successful in persuading journalists and editors in the West to think of each and every example of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination as an expression of a deep-rooted Islamophobia. [Emphasis added.]
What does Islam need to reform?
Islam . . . . needs a Voltaire. But I have come to believe it is in dire need of a John Locke as well. It was, after all, Locke who gave us the notion of a “natural right” to the fundamentals of “life, liberty, and property.” But less well known is Locke’s powerful case for religious toleration. And religious toleration, however long it took to be established in practice, is one of the greatest achievements of the Western world.
. . . .
Most Americans, and indeed most Europeans, would much rather ignore the fundamental conflict between Islam and their own worldview. This is partly because they generally assume that “religion,” however defined, is a force for good and that any set of religious beliefs should be considered acceptable in a tolerant society. . . . [Emphasis added.]
But that does not mean we should be blind to the potential consequences of accommodating beliefs that are openly hostile to Western laws, traditions, and values. For it is not simply a religion we have to deal with. It is a political religion many of whose fundamental tenets are irreconcilably inimical to our way of life. We need to insist that it is not we in the West who must accommodate ourselves to Muslim sensitivities; it is Muslims who must accommodate themselves to Western liberal ideals. [Emphasis added.]
Unfortunately, not everyone gets this.
In the fall of 2014, Bill Maher, host of the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher, held a discussion about Islam that featured the best-selling author Sam Harris, the actor Ben Affleck, and the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Harris and Maher raised the question of whether or not Western liberals were abandoning their principles by not confronting Islam about its treatment of women, promotion of jihad, and sharia-based punishments of stoning and death to apostates. To Affleck, this smacked of Islamophobia and he responded with an outburst of moralistic indignation. To applause from the audience, he heatedly accused Harris and Maher of being “gross” and “racist” and saying things no different from “saying ‘you’re a shifty Jew.’ ” Siding with Affleck, Kristof interjected that brave Muslims were risking their lives to promote human rights in the Muslim world. [Emphasis added.]
After the show, during a discussion in the greenroom, Sam Harris asked both Ben Affleck and Nick Kristof, “What do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Qur’an on tonight’s show?” Sam then answered his own question, “There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when IS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands— all in the name of Islam— the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag [# NotInOurName].” [Emphasis added.]
Islam is apartheid and should be recognized as such.
Too often, when it comes to women’s rights (and human rights more generally) in the Muslim world, leading thinkers and opinion makers have, at best, gone dark. [Emphasis added.]
I cannot help contrasting this silence with the campaign to end apartheid, which united whites and blacks alike all over the world beginning in the 1960s. When the West finally stood up to the horrors of South African apartheid, it did so across a broad front. The campaign against apartheid reached down into classrooms and even sports stadiums; churches and synagogues stood united against it across the religious spectrum. South African sports teams were shunned, economic sanctions were imposed, and intense international pressure was brought to bear on the country to change its social and political system. American university students erected shantytowns on their campuses to symbolize their solidarity with those black South Africans confined to a life of degradation and impoverishment inside townships. [Emphasis added,]
Today, with radical Islam, we have a new and even more violent system of apartheid, where people are targeted not for their skin color but for their gender, their sexual orientation, their religion, or, among Muslims, the form of their personal faith. [Emphasis added.]
. . . . As I have repeatedly said, the connection between violence and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to Muslims when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect. We need to ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Should it be blasphemy— punishable by death— to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Why, when I have made these arguments, have I received so little support and so much opprobrium from the very people in the West who call themselves feminists, who call themselves liberals? [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
A Unique Role for the West
Whenever I make the case for reform in the Muslim world, someone invariably says: “That is not our project— it is for Muslims only. We should stay out of it.” But I am not talking about the kind of military intervention that has got the West into so much trouble over the years. For years, we have spent trillions on waging wars against “terror” and “extremism” that would have been much better spent protecting Muslim dissidents and giving them the necessary platforms and resources to counter that vast network of Islamic centers, madrassas, and mosques which has been largely responsible for spreading the most noxious forms of Islamic fundamentalism. For years, we have treated the people financing that vast network— the Saudis, the Qataris, and the now repentant Emiratis— as our allies. In the midst of all our efforts at policing, surveillance, and even military action, we in the West have not bothered to develop an effective counternarrative because from the outset we have denied that Islamic extremism is in any way related to Islam. We persist in focusing on the violence and not on the ideas that give rise to it. [Emphasis added.]
Are you listening, President Obama? Not at all likely.
Why the Tide Is Turning
Three factors are combining today to enable real religious reform:
• The impact of new information technology in creating an unprecedented communication network across the Muslim world.
• The fundamental inability of Islamists to deliver when they come to power and the impact of Western norms on Muslim immigrants are creating a new and growing constituency for a Muslim Reformation.
• The emergence of a political constituency for religious reform emerging in key Middle Eastern states.
Together, I believe these three things will ultimately turn the tide against the Islamists, whose goal is, after all, a return to the time of the Prophet— a venture as foredoomed to failure as all attempts to reverse the direction of time’s arrow.
. . . .
In November 2014, an Egyptian doctor coined an Arabic hashtag that translates as “why we reject implementing sharia”; it was used five thousand times in the space of twenty-four hours, mostly by Saudis and Egyptians. In language that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, a young Moroccan named Brother Rachid last year called out President Obama on YouTube for claiming that Islamic State was “not Islamic.”[Emphasis added.]
Here is the referenced video: Please listen. It’s powerful and compelling, albeit “Islamophobic.”
. . . .
I agree with Malala Yousafzai, the Nobel Peace Prize– winning Pakistani schoolgirl whom the Taliban tried to kill:
The extremists are afraid of books and pens. The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them. That is why they are blasting schools every day— because they were and they are afraid of change, afraid of the equality that we will bring to our society. They think that God is a tiny, little conservative being who would send girls to the hell just because of going to school.
Here, surely, is the authentic voice of a Muslim Reformation.
Conclusions
Islamic reformation will take a long time. Until there is an Islamic reformation, those who cry “Islamophobe!” — a made-up word intended to box people to keep them “politically correct” — will have won. So will those who despise our freedoms and want to “fundamentally transform” America.
Until we, and our “leaders,” stop damning “Islamophobes” and helping such organizations as CAIR, there will be no significant reformation. If and when we and our “leaders” also begin to take the other steps Hirsi Ali suggests, there may eventually be a reformation that will benefit us as well as Muslims.
(Few Muslims speak favorably about an Islamic Reformation and many speak unfavorably about it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in Heretic, urges that there be a reformation and points to the voices for and against. I just finished Heretic and plan to write a review. — DM)
In the wake of the Paris bloodbath, the attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., and Bamako, Mali, and murders elsewhere before and since, people desperately want to understand the root cause of all this violence. That’s true not only in the West, where many blame Islam itself. It’s true in the Middle East, too, where we are struggling to come to grips with the carnage and the region’s role in it.
Many of the usual suspects were singled out in the reaction here to the most recent attacks. Various Arab and Muslim writers blame Iran and Israel; others point to the West’s policies in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Of course, some media voices repeat the well-worn view that we Arabs are the victims of hidden conspiracies. But more self-critical voices have arisen as well.
Though their influence might still be minimal, a few journalists are speaking out. In the Arabic newspaper Al-Mada, Iraqi writer Adnan Hussein offered a suggestion: We must overhaul the educational system. In a piece published just two days after the Paris attacks on Nov. 13, he said that from elementary school through university, our young people are taught — sometimes with a stick — that Islam is not only great, but also better than other religions, and that those who are not like us belong in hell. What has emerged, he wrote, is a “savage faith that stirs up decapitation, spills blood, instigates plunder and rape.” As for the real Islam, he lamented: “It has no place in our lives, or in the best of cases, it has a barely audible voice that almost nobody hears.”
On the same day, celebrated Lebanese writer and editor of the Al-Hayat newspaper Ghassan Charbel wrote that to rescue itself, the Arab and Muslim world must participate in the struggle against Islamism. Charbel called for shutting down platforms of hate and said the Middle East needs to undertake “a deep re-examination” of its society. He called for “universities, schools, mosques, TV and electronic sites to reclaim their platforms from that handful” of destructive ideologues who control them. “What threatens the Arab and Islamic world today,” he said, “is no less dangerous than the threat that Nazism posed to Europe.”
Such writers are asking Middle Easterners to examine their institutions and society more broadly for their share of the responsibility for the violence. But this view is not limited to elite journalists; it is one that many of my own students at American University in Dubai share.
Recently, I asked my students what they thought about commentary that appeared in the Guardian newspaper in November suggesting that France and Britain had failed their immigrants through clumsy — and ultimately alienating — efforts to promote multiculturalism (in Britain’s case) and assimilation (in France’s). In this way, author Kenan Malik said, French and British policies gave Islamism an entrée into isolated Muslim communities.
Nearly all my students rejected the premise, arguing that immigrants were responsible for their own actions whether they were isolated or not. Of course, many of these students come from families who fled countries terrorized by Muslim extremists and have no sympathy for them. But they don’t blame Western multiculturalism for the rise of home-grown Islamism. “That’s silly,” shrugged one Syrian girl.
Why, then, I asked them, don’t Muslims march in the streets of London, Paris and New York loudly condemning the Islamic State? Because, they answered, mainstream Muslims are too scared that the extremists would come after them. The class brainstormed about what could be done instead. Most concluded that they, too, would be afraid to call attention to themselves.
When I asked another class what responsibility we have to explain to others that terrorists don’t represent all Muslims, the response was mixed. One Saudi student said it was not at all our responsibility. “If a (Western) person wants to learn about Islam, he should Google it,” she said. Another, an Egyptian, was angered by the question: “If I hear one more time that Muslims have not done enough to condemn terrorists. . . .” Many Muslims are weary of such criticism.
But others emphasize the work that needs to be done, whether it is in coming to terms with their own cultures’ problems, as Hussein and Charbel urge, or through advancing the acculturation of Muslim communities into Western societies. The Jordanian journalist Mousa Barhouma has written about such challenges for years, advising Muslims living in the West to integrate. If you are a Muslim who moves to Holland, he told me, “Don’t act shocked if they serve beer at the local restaurants.”
In a recent piece in Al-Hayat, Barhouma wondered whether anyone was struck by the fact that the carnage at Paris’s Bataclan theater took place on Boulevard Voltaire. Perhaps they were, and perhaps it was in response to this assault against not only life but also against reason itself, that more voices demanding responsibility are beginning to be heard.
The Muslim Brotherhood is to Islamic terrorism what a virus is to disease. Major terrorist leaders from the Caliph of ISIS to Arafat have the Muslim Brotherhood on their resume. And the current leader of Al Qaeda led a Muslim Brotherhood splinter terror group. But its linkages to Islamic terrorism are only a secondary aspect of the organization whose focus is on Islamizing nations through more subtle means.
Paradoxically the Brotherhood has met with far less success in the Muslim world than in the West. Its greatest victories in the Arab Spring would not have happened without Obama’s backing and its takeovers of Egypt and Tunisia were rolled back by popular uprisings while its efforts in Libya, Syria and Yemen were stymied by armed conflict with other Muslims.
The Muslim Brotherhood is unpopular in Egypt these days. It’s also unpopular with Americans.
In one poll, 61 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 11 percent had a positive view of the Islamic supremacist organization. Only 5 percent of Americans saw the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt as a positive development.
Unfortunately Obama is at odds with the views of most Americans. The Muslim Brotherhood may have lost power in Cairo, but it still wields a great deal of power in Washington D.C. Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA have open access to the media and dominate all discussions about Islam. The MSA dominates American campuses despite its history of terror ties.
As David Horowitz has warned, “The principal institutions of Islam in this country, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America, to name a few — are all fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.”
But not every country is equally willing to roll over for the Muslim Brotherhood’s hate network.
The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters was in London, but while Washington D.C. panders to the violent Islamic supremacist organization, the UK decided it did not want to host its Jihad. Last year, the British government authorized a report on the Muslim Brotherhood by veteran diplomat Sir John Jenkins. The report has been submitted to parliament and it’s making waves.
The British government report defines “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics” as “contrary to our national interests and our national security.” It’s a striking contrast with a White House where the Muslim Brotherhood has its own revolving door and a rogue’s gallery of operatives.
Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States have been allowed to dismantle our counterterrorism training and replace it with Islamist propaganda. Even now, Obama pushes Countering Violent Extremism programs that encourage law enforcement to partner with Brotherhood front groups. Secretary of State Kerry urges including the Muslim Brotherhood in the political process.
Meanwhile the UK government has stepped forward to assert that the Muslim Brotherhood is not the solution to terrorism, instead it’s the source of the problem.
The Jenkins report rejects the “moderate” label so often slapped on the hate group by lazy media hacks. Instead it describes the Brotherhood as a clandestine group organized into a “secretive ‘cell’ structure” seeking to create a “Caliphate under sharia law” using a doctrine that allows “the use of extreme violence in the pursuit of the perfect Islamic society”. That ideology inspired “Al Qaida and its offshoots”. The most obvious offshoot to employ this Takfiri approach is ISIS.
It’s quite a contrast from the claim by Obama’s Director of National Intelligence that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence”.
The British report rejects the idea that the Brotherhood is peaceful. Instead it states that it is prepared to engage in violence, but prefers “incremental change on the grounds of expediency” because it believes that the “political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamisation is complete”.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate or peaceful. It just thinks long term. Its endgame is the same as ISIS. It just has a slower and surer way of getting there. As fellow Islamist dictator Erdogan once said in Turkey, democracy is “a train that takes you to your destination, and then you get off.”
The British report takes a hard look at the Muslim Brotherhood’s support for Hamas and its local organizations in the UK. It notes that, “much about the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK remains secretive, including membership, fund raising and educational programmes” but that its front groups “which have claimed to represent Muslim communities” wield “an influence here which is disproportionate to their size”.
It’s a vital observation that can’t even be voiced in the Senate here, let alone in the media or the White House. It is utterly inconceivable that Obama and Hillary, who have fought wars on behalf of the Brotherhood, would ever be willing to authorize the creation of a similar report on the Brotherhood.
And yet such a report is desperately needed. The Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups have hijacked our foreign policy, involved us in foreign wars, endangered our national security and undermined our ability to fight terrorism. They promote a program of mass Muslim migration while pushing anti-American agendas with the ultimate aim of destroying the Constitution and replacing it with Islamic law.
Changes are already taking places in the UK after the release of the Brotherhood report. The Board of Deputies of the Jewish community distanced itself from the Brotherhood’s Muslim Council of Britain. While the government will not currently ban the Brotherhood, Prime Minister Cameron has stated that “membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism”. That may sound mild, but it should be contrasted with the position of Democrats and even some Republicans in this country that the Muslim Brotherhood is our best friend.
Prime Minister Cameron warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a transnational network, with links in the UK, and national organisations in and outside the Islamic world. The movement is deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive.” He stated that “it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism.” He concluded that aspects of its activities “run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
This is a major development not only for the UK, but for the US where any criticism of the Islamic hate network has been banished as Islamophobic. The British finding is an important weapon in our own struggle with the Brotherhood and its collaborators on the left and the right.
Cameron has warned that the UK will keep a close watch to see “whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.” This is a clear warning to the Brotherhood not to abuse the hospitality of the UK or face government action. By taking this step, the UK is joining a diverse group of countries, from Egypt to the UAE to Israel, in confronting the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama insists that his critics are isolated, but his affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the elements that isolated his foreign policy even in the Muslim world. Western countries are beginning to wake up to the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and his CVE policy will one day go down in history as a shameless whitewashing of a violently bigoted organization that has endangered our national security.
The UK has found that the Muslim Brotherhood is a national security threat. It’s time for Republicans and Democrats to start speaking the truth about the Brotherhood.
Italian journalist Giulio Menotti documents the madness that has overtaken British universities–a madness that is eerily familiar:
“Rhodes Must Fall” cry the students and professors outside Oxford, many of whom are themselves part of the Rhodes Scholarship group, the program built by the “racist” tycoon to allow foreign students to study at Oxford.
It’s exactly like students at Amherst and Harvard denouncing Jeffrey Amherst and Isaac Royall.
Meanwhile, across the UK, a general air of hostility is spreading against opinions that could cause even only a hint of distress in students, forcing theFinancial Times to publish an editorial: “It is in the interest of universities to maintain a free and fertile academic environment.”
Ditto in the U.S.
Iranian dissident Maryam Lamaze … was attacked and prevented from speaking at many UK colleges, like Goldsmiths and Warwick. Her hymn against religion and for Western free speech “offended” British students of Islamic faith.
At University College in London, a former student, Macer Gifford, was prevented from telling his experience in the ranks of Kurdish fighters committed to battle against the Islamic State. The reason? “In every conflict there are two sides and our college does not want to take sides.”
Should we be anti-ISIS? That’s too close a question for universities in Britain, as in the U.S., to call.
The University of East Anglia has just banned the use of the sombrero, because it is considered hateful towards Hispanic students.
Just like the recent fiasco at Yale. It’s odd, though. Doesn’t every kind of hat originate with one culture or another, and mustn’t all hats therefore be banned? And why stop with hats?
Oxford has canceled a debate on abortion, because women’s organizations had complained about the presence, among the speakers, of “a person without a uterus.” Don’t laugh, it is really happening at the university founded in 1096.
Don’t laugh, because feminists don’t have a sense of humor, either here or in the U.K.
The University of Cardiff has tried to remove the feminist Germaine Greer, “guilty” of not considering women and transsexuals as equals.
Transsexuals, slightly more common than unicorns, have opened up whole new horizons of insanity.
Meanwhile, these British “safe spaces” are used by apologists for Islamist cutthroats who gather support and are affiliated with these universities (“Jihadi John”, the late Isis executioner, was a brilliant student of Westminster).
I hadn’t realized that. Apparently “brilliant” students aren’t what they used to be.
Some days ago, the Telegraph published an article entitled: “The ideology of the ISIS dominates British universities.”
Why are so many students and professors attracted to evil? It was true in the 1930s, too, when German students and professors were among the most enthusiastic supporters of National Socialism, and when Nazis were weirdly popular–as it seems today–on many American campuses.
The same universities that are uncomfortable accommodating heterodox feminists and Islamic dissidents, such as the Queen Mary University of London, allow events under the banner of Islam where women sit separated from men, in accordance with the Sharia or Islamic law, as if they were in Riyadh or Tehran.
Because that’s diversity.
Muslim activist for women’s rights, Maryam Namazie, has been driven away by fanatic Islamists with the approval of the stupid gay militants. In British colleges it was Namazie who needed a “safe space” to deliver her speech, protected by bodyguards….
Much like the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Michelle Malkin here in the United States. And finally:
Meanwhile, British professors, writers, musicians, intellectuals and professionals are busy promoting initiatives to boycott the Jewish State and its professors.
All of this is nauseatingly familiar. My question is: why? Why have British universities gone off the rails in precisely the same ways as American universities? Steve has referred to the “spreading virus” of madness on American campuses, but the virus has apparently replicated itself in England. Why?
I mean the question seriously. Have British students and professors taken inspiration from their American cousins? Or vice versa? Is it because Leftism is an international movement? Do left-wing British professors and students, like their American counterparts, hate the society that sustains them, and does their hatred produce eerily similar symptoms? I don’t know the answer to these questions. But a contagion is loose that transcends, apparently, international boundaries.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
A pro-Islamist resolution, HR 569, was introduced in Congress and referred to the Judiciary Committee on December 17th. Although it is quite unlikely that a binding law implementing the resolution will be enacted anytime soon, the resolution shows that troublesome views are held by many members of Congress.
The fight for the rights of women is among the most difficult aspects of the fight against Islam and Islamisation. The views expressed in HR 569, if implemented, would make that fight even more difficult.
Here is a list of the seventy-four members who supported H.R. 569:
Mr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Norton, Ms. McCollum, Ms.Kaptur, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Peters, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Takai, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Keating, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr.Butterfield, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Gutiérrez, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Esty, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Farr, Mr. Pallone, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Lee, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sires, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Polis, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs.Dingell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Pocan, Mr.Conyers, Mr. Takano, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Heck of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character. [Emphasis added.]
[S]ince our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
. . . .
I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. [Emphasis added.]
A problem with Obama’s stated desire to deal with Islam as it is, not as it isn’t, is that His perceptions of what it is and what it isn’t are essentially backward.
The House Resolution does not mention such Muslim “contributions” to America as those made at Ford Hood, Texas several years ago or those more recently made at San Bernardino, California. Nor does it mention their “contributions” of honor killings and female genital mutilation, about which more is provided later in this post. It bemoans the disparagements some Muslims have suffered due to their “contributions” and others simply because they are Muslims.
Here’s a particularly disturbing part of the bill, set forth under “Resolved:”
The House of Representatives
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim; [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; [Emhasis added.]
Note the inclusion in (3) of “hate speech” as a “hate crime.”
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker. [Emphasis added.]
In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to anotherif those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. [Emphasis added.]
Hate speech, fighting words and hate crimes
HR 569’s apparent inclusion of anti-Muslim “hate speech” as a “hate crime” is inconsistent with American law and the American Constitution. However, it is consistent with Attorney General Lynch’s remarks shortly after the December 2nd San Bernardino Islamic attack. She then
complained that the First Amendment allows people to say hateful things and noted that many do so from the safety of their computer keyboard. It’s something, she said, the DoJ would “take action” against, especially when that speech “edges towards violence, when we see the potential to lift…that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric.” [Emphasis added.]
Later, in response to many objections, Ms. Lynch pulled back with this: “Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words.” Really?
Statements such as “Islam is the religion of death” or “Mohamed was a pedophile” could indeed “provoke” a devout Muslim and perhaps “cause” him to react violently. Are such statements “fighting words,” which we have “no right to speak?”
Can “hateful” words be construed as “hateful” actions or “hateful” deeds” and therefore “hate” crimes? Is the following passage from Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Heretic, “hate” speech? Are her words “fighting words,” which the ABA material quoted above claims we have no right to speak? The quoted paragraph deals with an event in Somalia. However, she now lives in America, her books are sold in America and could offend devout Muslims in America.
In my homeland of Somalia, a thirteen-year-old girl reported that she had been gang-raped by three men. The Al-Shabaab militia that then controlled her town of Kismayo, a port city in the south, responded by accusing her of adultery, found her guilty, and sentenced her to death. Her execution was announced in the morning from a loudspeaker blaring from a Toyota pickup truck. At the local soccer stadium, Al-Shabaab loyalists dug a hole in the ground and brought in a truckload of rocks. A crowd of one thousand gathered in the hours leading up to 4: 00 p.m. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow— named after the Prophet Muhammad’s nine-year-old wife— was dragged, screaming and flailing, into the stadium. It took four men to bury her up to her neck in the hole. Then fifty men spent ten minutes pelting her with rocks and stones. After the ten minutes had passed, there was a pause. She was dug out of the ground and two nurses examined her to see if she was still alive. Someone found a pulse and breathing. Aisha was returned to the hole and the stoning continued. One man who tried to intervene was shot; an eight-year-old boy was also killed by the militia. Afterward, a local sheik told a radio station that Aisha had provided evidence, confirmed her guilt, and “was happy with the punishment under Islamic law.” [Emphasis added.]
She related that incident to point out that that sort of thing is, unfortunately, both Islamic and common. It is both, as indicated later in this article. Where, other than in Islamic lands, does it happen? Perhaps writing, publishing or selling any book that disparages the present condition of Islam “as it is” according to Obama, and seeks the reformation of what Obama insists upon calling the religion of peace and tolerance now, could be considered a “hate” crime. After all,
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, condemned [Ayaan Hirsi Ali as] “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide.”
Neither HR 569, nor a criminal law based on it, will likely be passed anytime soon by either house of Congress. However, the mere introduction of such a bill, supported by seventy-four House members, is disturbing enough. It’s part of our multicultural, politically correct march for moral equivalence which ignores our — Judeo-Christian versus Islamic — distinctions between what is good and what is evil.
Was it good or evil to stone a thirteen-year-old Somali girl to death for her “crime” of having been raped by a gang of young men? Being raped was deemed to be her crime of adultery. Was her inability, and hence failure, to prevent her rape more or less evil than stoning her to death or, indeed, the rape itself? Few if any sane westerners would have difficulty answering such questions. Muslims? That’s different.
According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other current and former Muslims, Muslims are taught about “honor” from infancy. However, Islamic conceptions of “honor” are very different from Judeo-Christian conceptions. In Islam, “honor” consists of honoring one’s family and clan, and thereby Mohamed and Allah. “Adultery” by a woman dishonors her husband, family, her clan, Mohamed and Allah. It does so even if her “adultery” consisted of being raped. It warrants death by stoning. To react “dishonorably” by not imposing such punishments would be a weakness which would dishonor them all.
Those women are not fighting for free birth control, abortions or even health care. Nor are they fighting for safe spaces against microaggressions or where unpleasant views cannot be heard. They are fighting for the most important “women’s rights,” absent under Islam. Has Obama ever spoken about the work those and other brave women are doing or why they are doing it? If so, I am not aware of it. American “feminists,” other American women and men? Europeans? If they are not, and I am not aware of many who are, they should be ashamed of themselves.
[W]hile certain stoning-related passages have been removed from Iran’s new penal code, other passages in the new code refer to stoning, and stoning remains as a possible form of punishment under the new Iranian penal code.
Amnesty International has documented 76 cases of lethal stoning between 1980-1989 in Iran, while the International Committee Against Execution (ICAE) has reported that 74 others were stoned to death in Iran between 1990-2009.
Is Iran better than the Taliban? Here’s a video, with the obligatory remarks that stoning adulterers is mandated by the Bible and denials that this sort of thing is either widespread or Islamic.
Great. Should the Taliban be given a pathway to “the bomb?”
Pakistan?
Pakistan already has nukes. Should we help her to get more and better nukes?
Saudi Arabia has a criminal justice system based on a hardline and literal form of Shari’ah law reflecting a particular state-sanctioned interpretation of Islam.
The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[4]including murder, rape, false prophecy, blasphemy, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[5] adultery,[6] witchcraft and sorcery[7][8][9][10]and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[11] or more rarely by firing squad, and sometimes by stoning.[12][13][Emphasis added.]
The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading.[14] The last reported execution for sorcery took place in August 2014.[15][16] There were no reports of stoning between 2007 and 2010,[14] but between 1981 and 1992 there were four cases of execution by stoning reported.[17]
Crucifixion of the beheaded body is sometimes ordered.[7] For example, in 2009, the Saudi Gazette reported that “An Abha court has sentenced the leader of an armed gang to death and three-day crucifixion (public displaying of the beheaded body) and six other gang members to beheading for their role in jewelry store robberies in Asir.”[18] (This practice resembles gibbeting, in which the entire body is displayed).
In 2003, Muhammad Saad al-Beshi, whom the BBC described as “Saudi Arabia’s leading executioner”, gave a rare interview to Arab News.[5] He described his first execution in 1998: “The criminal was tied and blindfolded. With one stroke of the sword I severed his head. It rolled metres away…People are amazed how fast [the sword] can separate the head from the body.”[5] He also said that before an execution he visits the victim’s family to seek forgiveness for the criminal, which can lead to the criminal’s life being spared.[5] Once an execution goes ahead, his only conversation with the prisoner is to tell him or her to recite the Muslim declaration of belief, the Shahada.[5] “When they get to the execution square, their strength drains away. Then I read the execution order, and at a signal I cut the prisoner’s head off,” he said.[5]
As of 2003, executions have not been announced in advance. They can take place any day of the week, and they often generate large crowds. Photography and video of the executions is also forbidden, although there have been numerous cases of photographed and videoed executions in . . . spite of the law against them.
Europe is different
In Germany, the rape victim most likely will not be stoned to death for the offense of being raped.
Sweden?
Conclusions
“Honor killings” and other Islamic infringements on women’s rights in general are becoming more common in America. It has been estimated that there are twenty-seven honor killings in America each year. That estimate is probably low, because
Honor killings and violence, which typically see men victimize wives and daughters because of behavior that has somehow insulted their faith, are among the most secretive crimes in society, say experts. [Emphasis added.]
“Cases of honor killings and/or violence in the U.S. are often unreported because of the shame it can cause to the victim and the victim’s family,” Farhana Qazi, a former U.S. government analyst and senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism, told FoxNews.com. “Also, because victims are often young women, they may feel that reporting the crime to authorities will draw too much attention to the family committing the crime.” [Emphasis added.]
Even cases that appear to be honor killings, such as the Jan. 1, 2008 murder of two Irving, Texas, sisters that landed their father on the FBI’s most wanted list, cannot always be conclusively linked to a religious motivation. Without hard evidence, critics say, ascribing a religious motivation to crimes committed by Muslims demeans Islam. Yet, federal authorities believe they must be able to identify “honor” as a motive for violence and even murder if they are to address a growing cultural problem. [Emphasis added.]
Doesn’t alleging an Islamic motivation for any crime “demean” Islam?
The report, which estimated that 23-27 honor killings per year occur in the U.S., noted that 91 percent of victims in North America are murdered for being “too Westernized,” and in incidents involving daughters 18 years or younger, a father is almost always involved. And for every honor killing, there are many more instances of physical and emotional abuse, all in the name of fundamentalist Islam, say experts. [Emphasis added.]
an aspect of human nature that denies the enormity of any disaster where death is imminent because the mantra of its impossibility was accepted and believed by all. Regarding the Titanic, it was touted as the largest and the safest ship ever built (true at that time) … it is unsinkable (false, nothing man builds is disaster free). When the mantra is believed by all, including the builders … the designers who did not provide adequate life boats … the passengers and crew whose minds denied acceptance of the reality of disaster and peril as incomprehensible. This denial continued even while the disaster was unfolding. They either would not or could not admit or acknowledge the imminence of their peril of floundering in the icy cold sea of the North Atlantic. [Emphasis added.]
It can happen in America, America is already moving in that direction and will arrive there unless we prevent it. Are American feminists working on the problems? Very few, at most.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments