Islam: Is Integration Working? Part I of III

by Denis MacEoin:

Taken together, these tenets indicate that, for Muslims who take their religion seriously, there can be no question of integration at any level.

If integration is the goal, something appears to be going remarkably wrong.

Why the issue of the Islamic veil? It rests at the center of the clash between Islam and the West.

The veil seems to be used to keep the “wrong” men — those who are not close male relatives or guardians — at a distance. Relations between the sexes, apparently, must be controlled, the more rigorously the better. There is also the assumption that women are worth less than men [Qur'an 4:3; 4:34; 4:11]. They inherit less; they often cannot travel, even to see a doctor or pick up their children at school, without the permission of a male relative or guardian, and they may be beaten or divorced without recourse. They are subject to a different set of the laws: men may, under certain circumstances, marry up to four women — not only as if they are men’s property, but property that contains one’s honor in a way that, say, one’s chair does not.

 

Muslim women wearing the niqab full-face veil. (Image source: Darrell J. Rohl/Flickr)

Men and women are kept segregated. It appears concluded that if a man and woman are left alone in a room together, there might be passionate sexual activity at some alarming point. Marriage laws are also restrictive[1]; this alone is a blow to our hopes for social integration.

Western societies, in contrast, make it possible for us to choose. In freedom to choose: to be conformist or non-conformist, to wear the clothes we prefer or read the books we select. Western democracies have come a long way since my early student days in Dublin, when a literature student could not buy novels such as Lolita, The Catcher in the Rye or Lady Chatterley’s Lover. We take for granted freedoms that many people living in Muslim states today can only dream of, or behold goggle-eyed from afar.

What kind of moral imperatives have led to the insistence that women cover their faces, or considering an interest in wine or chess or even cricket as mortal sins deserving punishment? This austerity is not unique to Islam; it has parallels in many religions. In Islam, much originates in social custom rather than in the Qur’an or the Hadithliterature [deeds and sayings of Mohammad]. Although the hijab does not appear in the Qur’an, which tellingly insists only on women’s chests being covered [Qur'an 24:31], the headscarf has now become a symbol of a woman’s identity as a Muslim. Many of these rules and regulations, however, have moved to the West and have created conflict where none was before.

Some Muslims, it seems, refuse to integrate for reasons of religion, through the communal doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara — fear of losing one’s attachment to one’s primary community. Other Muslims might refuse to integrate from the fear of challenges that life in the West entail, such as deciding whom to date or marry, what books to read, what religion to believe in or not believe in — things we do every day and probably do not even think about.

Al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ has often been translated as “loyalty and enmity,” although it is more nuanced than that. Wala’means something like “friendship” or “benevolence,” as well as “fidelity.” Bara’ should be bara’a, meaning “being free” or “disavowal” or “withdrawal.” The idea is that Muslims should stick close to those who are near, to their friends — who should be only Muslims — and to everything associated with Islam. And that they should withdraw from, and consider themselves free of, non-Muslims. As the Qur’an (Surat al-Ma’ida, 5:51) puts it:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Muslims apparently also consider themselves free from our books, our art, our democracy (made by man rather than by Allah), our open debates — in short, our civilization, which is probably perceived as tempting, but impure, dissolute — with its promise of torment in hellfire mentioned frequently in the Qur’an. [2]

A list of what is disapproved of in relations with non-believers, from the book al-Wala’ wa’l-Bara’ by Shaykh Muhammad Saeed al-Qahtani, includes:

CHAPTER SEVEN: TYPES OF ALLIANCE WITH NON-MUSLIMS

Twenty Forms of Alliance with the Disbelievers

1. Contentment with the disbelievers
2. Reliance on the disbelievers
3. Agreement with Points of Disbelief
4. Seeking the affection of the disbelievers
5. Inclining towards the disbelievers
6. Flattery of the Disbeliever’s faith
7. Taking of Disbelievers as Friends
8. Obedience to the Disbelievers
9. To Sit with Disbelievers who Ridicule the Qur’an
10. To Give the Disbelievers Authority over Muslims
11. Trusting the Disbelievers
12. To Express Pleasure with the Actions of the Disbelievers
13. To Draw Near to the Disbelievers
14. To Aid the Disbelievers in Wrongdoing
15. To Seek the Advice of Disbelievers
16. To Honour the Disbelievers
17. To Live amongst the Disbelievers
18. To Collude with the Disbelievers
19. To Revile the Muslims and Love the Disbelievers
20. To Support the Ideologies of the Disbelievers

Taken together, these tenets indicate that, for Muslims who take their religion seriously, there can be no question of integration at any level.

The rejection of Western values by strict Muslims, as opposed, say, to the Amish, is that it has often been accompanied by extremist opinions and actions. The Amish do not say they plan to bring down Western society or to impose their will on non-Amish. Extreme Muslims do.

Although political correctness will tell us to accept everything other cultures do, there comes a time — not just for Westerners but for Western Muslims, too — when, if there is no evaluation of what is accepted, our societies risk becoming hollowed out from within.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Sweden goes insane

Leading the suicidal “progressive” war on free speech.

Bill Maher: ‘Islam Is The Problem’

maherDaily Caller, By Jamie Weinstein:

Bill Maher went after Islam Friday night on his HBO show “Real Time.”

With the Nigerian Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of teenage girls to sell into slavery, the Sultan of Brunei establishing the repressive Sharia law in his country and Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree being rescinded by Brandeis University, Bill Maher pointed his finger at Islam as a major problem in the world today.

“Islam is the problem, correct. All religions are the problem, but especially this one,” the ardent atheist Maher told some of his liberal guests who were offended by his attacks on the faith.

Earlier in the discussion of Islam, conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza argued that “there’s a civil war in the mind of the liberal.”

“On the one hand you’re a defender of individual rights and minorities and if this were the Catholic Church, you’d be all on it,” he explained. “But on the other hand you’re committed to multiculturalism and Islam is a victim and we don’t want to make the Muslims feel bad. And so these two impulses have got to be brokered, one against the other. And that’s why there is a protection of Islam. The problem isn’t the Muslims. The problem is all the multiculturalists on campus who protect and defend them.”

The Glazov Gang-Dr. Phyllis Chesler on “An American Bride in Kabul.”

Frontpage:

Dr. Chesler joined the program to discuss her memoir and all of its ingredients, including being trapped in Afghanistan as a young bride, her terrifying experiences under Islamic Gender Apartheid, her views on the burqa and on how the feminist Left has betrayed Muslim women, her main message, and much, much more:

American Bride in KabulPhyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at City University of New York, best-selling author, legendary feminist leader, Fellow at the Middle East Forum and the author of 15 books. She is the author of her new memoir, An American Bride in Kabul.

The ‘Brave German Woman’ and Europe’s Islam Question

CBN-Heidi-Mund-700-Club-450x280by :

Several are the important lessons learned from last year’s “Brave German Woman” incident.

Context: On November 10, 2013, a Muslim imam was invited to give the Islamic call to prayer inside the Memorial Church of the Reformation in the city of Speyer, Germany—a church dedicated to honoring Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

“When the brave German woman, whose real name is Heidi Mund, heard about the event, she prayed,” reports CBN News.  Not sure what she would do upon arrival, she grabbed her German flag emblazoned with the words “Jesus Christ is Lord” and headed for the concert:

“Until the imam started with his shouting [“Allahu Akbar!”], I did not really know what to do. I was just prepared for what God wants me to do,” she told CBN News.

Then the Muslim call to prayer began, and Heidi said she felt something rising up inside her.

“I would call it a holy anger,” she recounted. “And then I rose with my flag and I was calling and proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord over Germany”…

And she repeated the words of Martin Luther in 1521 after he refused to recant his faith in scripture alone: “Here I stand. I can do no other” and “Save the church of Martin Luther!”

Video shows another concert-goer trying to calm her by saying, “This is a concert for peace.”

Mund can be heard responding in German, “No it’s not! Allahu Akbar is what Muslims scream while murdering people! Don’t be fooled! Don’t be fooled! This is a lie!”

She was thrown out of the church.

“They should have thrown the imam out and not me because I am a believer in Jesus Christ, but he serves another god. This Allah is not the same god. And this is not the truth.”

“This ‘allahu akbar,’ they use it when they kill people,” she argued. “This is, for me, worship to an idol, to their god. And when a Muslim calls ‘allahu akbar’ in a church, that means this church is not a church anymore, it’s a mosque.”

For more details on this story, check out CBN News’ various interviews and videos of and with Mund.

Now for some lessons concerning the significance of this anecdote:

Mund’s observations about the phrase “Allahu Akbar” are spot-on.  Islam’s war cry, signifying the superiority of Muhammad’s religion over all things, thetakbir (“Allahu Akbar”), is habitually proclaimed in violent contexts, specifically attacking and slaughtering non-Muslims, whether beheading “infidels” or bombing churches.

Muhammad himself used to cry it aloud prior to attacking non-Muslim tribes that refused to submit to his authority and religion.

Accordingly, Mund’s outrage at hearing an Islamic imam hollering out Islamic supremacist slogans is justified.   Proclaimed in a church, “Allahu Akbar”—which in translation literally means “Allah is greater [than X]”—means “Allahu is greater than the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and Father of Christ.”

And assuming the imam proclaimed Islam’s credo or shehada as is standard in the Muslim call to prayer (that “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”) that too is tantamount to declaring that the biblical God is false, and the message (or Koran) delivered by Muhammad—which includes a denunciation of Christ’s divinity, death, and resurrection—is true (see for examples Koran 4:157, 4:171, 5:17, 5:116, 9:30-31, 19:35).

This is precisely what the vandal who earlier painted in Arabic the phrase “Allahu Akbar” across the door of another German church likely had in mind.

Yet despite all this, despite the fact that only two or three generations ago, almost every Christian would have been incensed to hear a Muslim shouting Islamic slogans that by nature contradict Christianity inside a church, Mund was chastised by fellow Christians for her stand and kicked out.

Read more at Front Page

UK: Multiculturalism vs. Islamism

In the West, the Arabization of Muslim communities has occurred with government assistance, which, through imposed policies of multiculturalism in the name of diversity, has effected the destruction of South Asian culture.

by Samuel Westrop:

Britain’s multiculturalism policies have imposed Islamist leadership upon Britain’s Muslim communities and brought about the destruction of South Asian culture.

British suicide bomber and jihadist, Abdul Waheed Majeed, in his last moments before ramming a truck laden with explosives into a Syrian prison, posed in a white Islamic tunic and black scarf for the cameras. Asked by the cameraman to say a few words in Arabic before his “martyrdom,” Majeed replied: “Sorry? I can’t speak. Everyone asks me that and … I’m not a very good speaker.”

 

Abdul Waheed Majeed (left), of Crawley, England, poses for photographs moments before driving a truck-bomb into a prison in Aleppo, Syria. (Image source: Jabhat al-Nusra video)

Majeed, like a large number of British Muslims, was not an Arabic speaker. He was of Pakistani heritage. About 70% of British Muslims are, in fact, South Asian. A mere 6.6% are believed to be of Arab descent. And very few British Muslims can actually speak Arabic.

Nevertheless, British Islam is firmly focussed on the Middle East. The poet Hamza Beg, writing in the journal of a taxpayer-funded organization, Asfarnoted: “Since 1999, Pakistan, for example, has had a military coup, a purported return to democracy, and the assassination of the leader of the opposition, Benazir Bhutto. However, an entire generation of British-born Pakistanis have been more interested in Israeli incursions into Lebanon, the occupation of Palestine, and the war on Iraq. How has this occurred and what does it mean?”

British Muslims, Beg continued, have rejected “their parents’ cultural understanding of Islam as a religion. British-Pakistani Muslims have become Muslims first, and are losing patience with the Pakistani practice of the religion embedded in Sufi traditions.”

“In rejecting a culturally conditioned Islam,” Beg concludes, “Muslims in Britain have given up their equal footing and fallen prey to Arab imperialism.” Indonesian scholar Azyumardi Azra refers to this process as “Arabization.”

In a similar story, one South Asian blogger in the United States writes, “Why hasn’t South Asian poetry, art and dress impacted any of the large American Islamic organizations of today? Why are nearly all Muslim converts distinctly Arabic in appearance, style, and culture? … This idea of Arabization of tongue and culture, of course, has been devastatingly successful, and fed right into the weaknesses of the colonized South-Asian inferiority complex. Hence South Asia began marginalizing their own culture only a few decades after the Saudi’s [sic] began the propaganda machine. The rich colors of the South Asian woman have been discarded…”

Over the past century, Arab-focussed Islamists have attempted to homogenize Islamic cultures outside the Middle East. This process initially occurred in South Asia – Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of India.

The Indian academic Baladas Ghoshal blames the “Wahhabi creed” of Saudi Arabia, which, he claims, has attempted to purge South Asian Islam of its cultural practises and emblems, and has instead imposed a “pure and ideal form of Islam to be followed by Muslims all over the world.”

Wahhabis, Ghoshal writes, believe that the “adaptation of other customs, traditions and cultures in its path toward the expansion of the religion had only led to aberration and corruption of original and pristine ideas of Islam. It is only through the practice of mediaeval [sic] Arab traditions and way of life that the evil eyes of other religions can be kept at bay.”

Islamist movements in South Asia also adopted these efforts at Arabization. In the 1930s, ideologues such as Abul Hasan Nadwi – part of the radical Islamic Deobandi sect, which later gave birth to the Taliban – attempted to establish in India a single, unique Islamic identity based on “pure Islam.” According to Nadwi, this meant dressing like Arabs, speaking Arabic and reading the Arabic language press.[1] Islamic revivalism, Nadwi claimed, required “emphasizing its affinities to his Muslim confreres in the Middle East.”[2]

Islamist groups such as Jamaat-e-Islami have since adopted these ideas; they claim that culture cannot exist outside of Islam and that Pakistani Muslims were part of the “Arab nation.” The Jamaat-e-Islami ideologue, Abdul Ala Mawdudi, has said that culture destroys the “inner vitality” of Islam: it “blurs its vision, befogs its critical faculties, breeds inferiority complexes, and gradually but assuredly saps all the springs of culture and sounds its death-knell.”[3]

Over the past decades, since Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have distributed vast amounts of money to non-profit groups and schools run by South Asian Islamist movements, Jamaat-e-Islami, for example, set about purging Pakistani and Bengali Muslims of their cultural ideas. The Muslim writer Sazzad Hussainobserved the consequences of Islamist-led homogenization of his culture in the Indian state of Assam:

“The Islamist fundamentalist has one very distinctive characteristic—the denial of modern nation-state identity of Muslims to form a uniformed ‘Islamic’ identity at the cost of local tradition and cultural practices. … These days the Muslims of Assam are not identified as Assamese Muslims or Muslim of East Bengali descent. Instead they are merely homogenized as ‘Muslims’ … The use of Burqa and Hijab are alarmingly rising among the Muslim women in Assam. The ankle length Thaub, a Bedouin male dress and the red and white chequered headgear Kaffaiah are now in fashion for many Mollahs and Maulvis [clerics] and Madrassa students in Assam. It has reached to such an extent that this red-white or green-white chequered Kaffaiah is now replacing the Phoolam Gamocha, the symbol of Assamese culture…”

“Arabization and Islamization,” Ghosal writes, “are inseparable parts of a single cultural ideal.” In the West, and particularly in Britain, the loss of South Asian identity to the pervasively unifying label of “Islam” is readily apparent. The change of Muslim dress, some British Muslims believe, is a telling sign of this Islamization. Muslim cultures in the West, some claim, became Arabized before parts of the Muslim world itself. Pakistani writer Bina Shah has written:

“Growing up in Pakistan, I’d never seen anyone wear a hijab …. It was only in the late 1980s that I saw my first hijab, worn by the mother of a Pakistani-American girl from Peoria, Illinois. Saudi-Wahabi social influence filtered to Pakistan and much of the rest of the non-Arab world throughout the next two decades, thanks to a campaign that attempted to export the kingdom’s religio-social values to its would-be satellite states. Slowly, more and more women started to wear the black burqa and the tight hijab.”

The Islamization of Western Muslim communities has occurred with government assistance, which, through imposed policies of multiculturalism in the name of diversity, has effected the destruction of South Asian culture.

British multiculturalism has encouraged British society to exist as a federation of communities in which each minority community was not required to adopt the values of the majority. This inverse segregation only served to chain particular communities to their self-appointed community groups. Among Britain’s South Asian community, these groups were Islamist-run. Consequently, multiculturalist polices served to homogenize a community whose very diversity it had promised to preserve.

Read more

Brandeis Feminists Fail the Historical Moment

by Phyllis CheslerPhyllis Chesler

April 16, 2014

The Brandeis professors who demanded that Ayaan Hirsi Ali be “immediately” dis-invited wrote that “we are filled with shame at the suggestion that (Hirsi Ali’s) above-quoted sentiments express Brandeis’s values.” The professors also castigated Hirsi Ali for her “core belief of the cultural backwardness of non-western peoples” and for her suggestion that “violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam.” The professors note that such a view “obscure(s) such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus.”

This is exactly what these professors are teaching the more than four thousand Brandeis students who signed a petition to rescind Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s award. (Read it here.)

Are eight year-old girls being genitally mutilated at Brandeis or forced into polygamous marriages with men old enough to be their grandfathers? Are they being forcibly face-veiled or honor murdered for refusing to marry their first cousins? Perhaps they are being executed because they have been raped, for leaving an abusive marriage, or for daring to express an independent opinion?

Eighty seven professors or 29% of the Brandeis faculty signed this letter. These professors teach Physics, Anthropology, Near Eastern and Jewish Studies, English, Economics, Music, Film, Computer Science, Math, Sociology, Education—and Women and Gender Studies. Four percent of the signatories teach Anthropology, 6% teach Near Eastern and Jewish Studies, 9% teach Physics—and 21% teach Women and Gender Studies.

In my 2005 book, The Death of Feminism, this is precisely what I was talking about, namely, the feminist departure from universal human rights, a greater focus on anti-racism than on anti-sexism, and a deadly multi-cultural relativism. These Brandeis feminists, both male and female, are defending Islamist supremacism, (which is not a race), and attacking an African Somali women, who happens to be a feminist hero.

Feminists have called Hirsi Ali an “Islamophobe” and a “racist” many times for defending Western values such as women’s rights, gay rights, human rights, freedom of religion, the importance of intellectual diversity, etc.

The 1960s-early 1970s feminism I once championed — and still do — was first taken over by Marxists and ideologically “Stalinized.” It was then conquered again by Islamists and ideologically “Palestinianized.” I and a handful of others maintained honorable minority positions on a host of issues. In time, women no longer mattered as much to many feminists — at least, not as much as Edward Said’s Arab men of color did. The Arab men were more fashionable victims who had not only been formerly “colonized” but who, to this day are, allegedly, still being “occupied.”

Feminists became multi-cultural relativists and as such, refused to criticize other cultures including misogyny within those other cultures.

Feminists have been attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali for years as a “racist” and an “Islamophobe.” They are guided by the same false moral equivalents which the above Brandeis professors share. It is similar to the kind of false moral equivalence that author Deborah Scroggins made when she compared Hirsi Ali to one Aafiya Siddiqui in her 2012 book: Wanted Women. Faith, Lies, and the War on Terror: The Lives of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Aafia Siddiqui., Scroggins is far more sympathetic to the Pakistani-born, American-educated Aafia Siddiqui, who became an Islamist terrorist and a rabid Jew hater (she is known as Lady Al Qaeda), than she is towards the Somali-Dutch feminist and apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who eloquently opposes Islamic jihad, Islamic gender and religious apartheid. Hirsi Ali also supports the Jewish state.

Siddiqui married the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), one of the masterminds of 9/11. She disappeared into Pakistan for many years. Then she was found wandering in Afghanistan, in Ghazni, where she was arrested by American soldiers after they found her carrying bomb-making and chemical warfare instructions. In captivity, she picked up one of the soldiers’ guns and shot at him.

Guess what? Siddiqui received a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Brandeis University. The university is certainly not to blame for her actions. However, according to Scroggins, as a student in America, Siddiqui joined the infamous Muslim Students Association and fell under the spell of one of bin Laden’s own mentors who ran a Muslim charity in Brooklyn, New York. This is the same Muslim Student Association (a Muslim Brotherhood- and Hamas-related enterprise in America) that has just played such a prominent role in the Brandeis campaign to dis-invite Hirsi Ali.

Scroggins still views Siddiqui as a victim. Siddiqui is a religious Muslim, veiled to the eyeballs, and has been sentenced to 86 years in prison. Many Muslims view her as a freedom fighter and, therefore, as innocent and as unjustly imprisoned.

Scroggins—and the “dis-invite her” Brandeis professors–represent your typical left point of view. The West has caused jihad due to its allegedly imperialist, colonialist, racist, and capitalist policies. Anyone who does not blame the West, especially America and Israel, is politically suspect. Scroggins, like so many left feminists, has absolutely no idea about the long and barbaric history of Islamic imperialism, colonialism, racism, slavery, and its practice of gender and religious apartheid.

Hirsi Ali championed the West, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, religious tolerance, etc. over and above the Islam that she had been exposed to in the Middle East. She became an apostate, a member of the Dutch Parliament, and ultimately, a woman who needed round-the-clock security against all the Islamist death threats against her.

Nevertheless, throughout the book, Scroggins shares Aafiya’s political analysis and condemns and challenges Ayaan’s views. Only on the very last page of her book, does Scroggins admit that the entire premise of her “morally equivalent” comparison is flawed. She writes:

“That is not to say they are equivalent figures, morally or otherwise. They are not. Ayaan…fights only with words whereas the evidence leads me to conclude that Aafiya was almost certainly plotting murder during her missing years and perhaps prepared to further a biological or chemical attack on the United States on a scale to rival 9/11.”

I wonder if the above Brandeis professors would also sympathize with Aafiya Siddiqui. I mourn the loss of an activist, vibrant, intellectually independent, and politically incorrect feminist Academy.

Multiculturalism: “Cult of Ignorance”

By Dymphna:

Mark Steyn is always funny. But behind the wit is a dark truth: on the slippery slope where multiculturalists live and move and have their being, your facts are merely opinions. Theiropinions — the multiculturalists’ ruling dogmas — are incontrovertible facts, they are the credos which every thinking sensitive, feeling person accepts as gospel truths and can recite by heart. They include the enthronement of worthy victims and the promulgation of chronic aggrievement as a constitutional right.

The Counterjihad is a subset within the larger pushback against the damage multiculturalism inflicts on the West in particular, though the damage proceeds apace in Third World primitive societies that buy into the ruling dogma for their own benefit. Especially do the despots who rule these places buy the benefits. Their unfree citizens? Not so much.

Thus we will continue to report on the depredations inflicted by the politically correct, multicultural fallacies that wreak such harm. These restrictions through which the Political Class attempts to eradicate our “ancient liberties” are impoverishing us all.

Let me amend that: our liberties aren’t ancient so much as they are inherent in the human condition, but all too often honored in the breach rather than the reality. The damage to the West’s cultural fabric by the Marxist/Islamic juggernaut has been grievous and unjust; no surer proof of that destruction is the ongoing disappearance of the middle class. Watch this amazing graphic to see the middle class vanish over decades in just one city (Chicago), which is now deeply in debt and floundering on the path to Detroit’s fate. Is it happening in Europe, too? I don’t know, but in America the pace of the ruination is increasing; that destruction is aided and abetted by Islam’s weapons of discord, divisiveness, and the push for an aggrieved victim class.

In the video, Mr. Steyn points out what one “tiny, miserable grey island in the North Atlantic” managed to accomplish. The great horror is the ways in which that hard-won knowledge is being buried beneath the strew and slander of the deliberate ignorance of those who want only its subjugation under a theocratic supremacy. Those currently in power chant a mantra about the ways “poverty breeds ignorance”, etc., while their own educated ignorance reduces all facts to mere opinion.

The latest strong-arming of those who dissent from their gospel? Numerous pronouncements are being issued by multiculturalists in the Anglosphere that climate “dissenters/deniers” should be jailed or otherwise silenced for their refusal to bow to the politically correct Truths proving that it is the dastardly behavior of human beings which is surely causing the earth to heat up to irrevocably dangerous levels.

Here’s a post noting the increasingly alarmist nature of the despotic desire to close the climate argument since ‘the consensus is decided’. More likely, ‘the fix is in’. Too much money — not to mention science reputations — has been shoveled into projects of dubious value for the investors to be able to let go easily.

That post is just one observation of the frantic chorus of “Silence Them” which is proliferating throughout the multicultural press and purported science departments in academia. You can do a search using a string similar to this: climate change deniers punishment. You’ll find a surprising number of countries ready to pounce.

Read more at Gates of Vienna

When Democracy and Multi-Culturalism Collide

The Pentagon’s Bow to Islamic Extremism

by :

“Caving to pressure from Muslim groups, the Pentagon has relaxed uniform rules to allow Islamic beards, turbans and hijabs. It’s a major win for political correctness and a big loss for military unit cohesion,” said a recent report.

This new relaxation of rules for Muslims comes at a time when the FBI is tracking more than 100 suspected jihadi-infiltrators of the U.S. military.  Just last month, Craig Benedict Baxam, a former Army soldier and convert to Islam, was sentenced to seven years in prison due to his al-Qaeda/jihadi activities.   Also last month, Mozaffar Khazaee, an Iranian-American working for the Defense Department, was arrested for sending secret documents to America’s enemy, Iran.

According to a Pentagon spokesperson, the new religious accommodations—to allow Islamic beards, turbans, and hijabs—which took effect very recently, would “reduce both the instances and perception of discrimination among those whose religious expressions are less familiar to the command.”

The report concludes that, “Making special accommodations for Islam will only attract more Muslims into the military at a time when two recent terror cases highlight the ongoing danger of Muslims in uniform.”

But it’s worse than that; for not only will it attract “more Muslims,” it will attract precisely the wrong kinds of Muslims, AKA, “Islamists,” “radicals,” etc.

This is easily demonstrated by connecting the dots and understanding that Muslims who adhere to visible, non-problematic aspects of Islam—growing beards and donning hijabs—often indicate their adherence to non-visible, problematic aspects of Islam.

Consider it this way: Why do some Muslim men wear the prescribed beard and why do some Muslim women wear the prescribed hijab? Most Muslims would say they do so because Islam’s prophet Muhammad commanded them to (whether via the Koran or Hadith).

Regarding the Muslim beard, Muhammad wanted his followers to look different from “infidels,” namely Christians and Jews, so he ordered his followers to “trim closely the moustache and grow the beard.” Accordingly, all Sunni schools of law maintain that it is forbidden—a “major sin”—for men to shave their beards (unless, of course, it is part of a stratagem against the infidel, in which case it is permissible).

The question begs itself: If such Muslims meticulously follow the minor, “outer” things of Islam simply because their prophet made some utterances concerning them in the Hadith, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major, “inner” themes Muhammad constantly emphasized in both the Koran and Hadith—such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and, when capable, perpetual jihad?

Even in the Islamic world this connection between visible indicators of Islamic piety and jihadi tendencies are well known.  Back in 2011, when Islamists were dominating Egypt’s politics, secularist talk show host Amr Adib of Cairo Today mocked the then calls for a “million man beard” march with his trademark sarcasm: “This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire, can never fight and quarrel, can never steal, and can never be dishonest!”

His sarcasm was not missed on his Egyptian viewership which knew quite well that it is precisely those Muslims who most closely follow the minutia of Muhammad—for example, by growing a beard—that are most prone to violence, deceit, and anti-infidel sentiments, all of which were also advocated by Islam’s prophet.

Speaking more seriously, Adib had added that this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather, “once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam.”

Read more

How the West Is Committing Financial Suicide

Muslims_benefits-300x150By Y.K. Cherson:

“There are about 50 million Muslims in Europe, and 80% are beggars living on Western welfare.” The author of this stunning quote is not Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen; it is Swedish/Algerian journalist Yahya Abu Zakariya who revealed this fact during a talk show on Lebanon TV on October 12, 2012. And Zakariya can be called anything but pro-Western. He also stated in the broadcast, “Let’s bring down America, but first, let’s stop slaughtering one another, and then we can attack America.”

Some three years ago, ex-Great Britain recognized Islamic polygamous marriages; “Oh, how tolerant we in Great Britain are!” After having admired their own generosity, tolerance and devotion to democracy, the British started to calculate the costs. The results were disastrous: Muslim immigrants’ wish to enjoy a happy marital life with four wives cost British taxpayers £5 million every year. And that is not all; the figure was calculated on 2007 statistics; keeping in mind the dramatic increase of the number of Muslim immigrants to Great Britain in the last 6 years, when over 500,000 of only “legal” Muslim immigrants arrived to this unfortunate immigration- hit country every year, the costs now are much higher.

In general the top five immigrant groups ranked by benefits dependency in ex-Great Britain are Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Turks, Somalis and Persians: all Muslims. And of the total number of Muslim immigrants living in Britain, more than 50% are economically inactive. Recent 2012 reports claim this number to have escalated to almost 85%. In 2012 75% of all Muslim women and 50% of all Muslim men were unemployed. And that is not the entire picture.

Muslims claim disability more than any other group including British natives: 24% of female and 21% of male Muslim immigrants in Britain claim a disability. In monetary terms, it means that out of five million Muslims living in Britain (according to 2012 statistics), 4.25 million Muslims, or 85% are living off taxpayers.

A minimum benefit payment in Britain is £67 a week, which multiplied by 4.25 million will give us an astronomic figure of £284,750,000 per weekor £1.1 billion per month, which are paid from the pockets of British taxpayers who by the opinion of their government must feed, care, teach and kiss Muslims and their numerous children goodnight.

But even this is not the end of the story, because this exorbitant sum does not include housing benefits, medical care and other rights utilized by the population. If we include them, then with housing, child subsidies and healthcare, Muslims cost the British taxpayers at least £18 billion a year. Instead of informing the native Brits about how they must tighten their belts, all the British government has to do to lighten the burden on the public budget is to reduce the 85% inactive Muslim population.

Muslims constitute only five percent of the population in Denmark, but they consume 40% of the Danish welfare budget.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Muslim Rape Culture

islamrby :

No one knows the real name of the Port Hills Groper, the Muslim refugee who stalked and attacked over a dozen women jogging in Port Hills, even though he was arrested, tried and sentenced. Instead the New Zealand court gave him “permanent name suppression” to protect his status in his Muslim community.

Judge Jane Farish, who had told a Maori rapist who had lured an Australian tourist into a dark street and beat her while trying to tear off her clothing “If I had my way I would release you today,” let the groper off with community service because his actions were caused by “cultural ambiguities.”

The Muslim groper had blamed his serial assaults on “a misunderstanding of cultural differences” claiming that he had just been trying to be friendly. In his Middle Eastern Muslim culture, friendliness apparently consisted of forcibly groping female joggers while telling them “Happy New Year.”

In neighboring Australia, Muslim cultural misunderstandings have become a big problem for women.

Esmatullah Sharifi, an Afghan refugee, offered an Australian woman a ride home and then put his right hand around her neck and his left hand over her mouth and raped her. Sharifi’s lawyers claimed that due to cultural differences he was confused about the nature of consent.

This wasn’t Sharifi’s first misunderstanding of the difference between rape and sex. He had already been sentenced to 7 years in jail for raping an Australian teenager on Christmas Day in 2008.

The sentencing judge rejected Sharifi’s excuse, but a court of appeals judge found that claiming cultural differences was a valid basis for an appeal.

This wasn’t the first case of Muslim cultural misunderstanding assault in Australia.

Last year, an Egyptian Muslim cleric was arrested for groping women on a beach. The spokesman for the Dee Why Mosque said that by groping a grandmother pushing a stroller and an underage girl, Ahmed Alkahly had been “showing love and compassion but had misunderstood the cultural differences between Australia and Egypt.”

In Muslim Egypt, 99.3% of women and girls have been sexually harassed. What is ordinary behavior in Egyptian Muslim culture is a criminal act in Australia where women are considered to be human beings.

****************

That is the cultural difference between the Muslim world and the Western world.

There are no “free women” in Islam. There are women who belong to one man and there are women who belong to all men. There are wives and daughters or women who can be enslaved by any man.

Women can be covered meat or uncovered meat, but they cannot be considered people. When they are raped, the deciding question is whether they were at home or outside, whether they were covered meat or uncovered meat, whether they were acting like good Pakistani girls or bad Western women.

The Taliban aren’t just in Afghanistan and Pakistan anymore, they are everywhere in the West that Pakistani, Afghani and other Muslim migrants settle. Expecting them to respect the rights of Western women is asking them to turn their backs on their culture and religion and that is as likely to happen in Muslim settlements in the UK, France and Australia… as it is in Afghanistan.

The Taliban and their views on women have come to the West. And Western judges are choosing to respect Muslim rape culture over the rights of women.

Read more at Front Page

Related articles

Muslim ‘Enrichment’ in Britain: One Week Snapshot

By Paul Wilkinson:

The celebrants of multiculturalism constantly remind us of never-ending invigorating cultural enrichment, so just for fun, I thought I would make a note of some stories involving Islam or Muslims in Britain over a one week period.

The week I happened to choose was between Thursday 23rd January and Wednesday 29th January 2014. There was nothing significant about those dates, and it was selected entirely at random.

To set the scene, just before the week in question commenced, the Home Office announced that high-risk terrorists will be released from prison and will not be monitored properly, to protect their human rights; a Muslima redefined British legal history as she stood trial in a full face veil; there were reports of a serial flasher (urinating) in the Blackburn/Accrington area; an Islamic teacher guilty of groping pupils; and reports of murders and rapes going unreported in no-go zones for police as minority communities (AKA ‘Muslim’) launch their own justice systems.

So what could happen in the week I chose? Having followed the exhilarating enrichment that Muslims bring to the rich tapestry of modern Britain for a few years now, I was certainly not counting anything either in or out, so here goes! It really was like having a blank canvas!

Thursday 23rd January

Friday 24th January

  • DittaSentencing of Lee Rigby’s killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, was expected today but was delayed due to an appeal over whether whole life sentences can be given.
  • Blackburn: ‘You’ve messed with the wrong Muslims!’ CCTV images show three women trying to kidnap and rob their sister’s lesbian lover during a row over arranged marriage. Seamless integration is awarded with a combined 30 years in prison for the six siblings (Pictured here).

Saturday 25th January

  • (Video) London: Islamists demonstrate in support of Al-Qaeda in Syria, against FSA. No sign of ‘anti-fascist’ protestors either. Of course that would be ‘Islamophobic’ of them!
  • ‘Brits’ returning to the UK from Syria will be ‘stopped at the border and face arrest’, with 16 arrests made so far this month.

Sunday 26th January

  • Mo_bday_parade-300x200Sunday is no longer a day of rest in today’s vibrant Britain as residents of Nelson discovered when an intimidating group of 5,000 Muslims stormed through the town to celebrate Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Pictured here is another show of force in Blackburn. I cannot see any females in the photo. Who knows, maybe the women are at the back?

Monday 27th January

  • Rochdale Councillor and Council Finance Chief, Farooq Ahmed, quizzed by police over ‘homophobic’ insult made at a fellow councillor in public.
  • News of child exploitation/grooming gang in Newcastle-upon-Tyne emerges today and by Wednesday a total of 25 arrests had been made. No news on the identity of the perpetrators at the time of writing, but this type of crime is dominated by Muslim men, and the focus of the investigation is in the west end of Newcastle, which is home to a large Muslim population.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

The “Good” Muslim Immigrants

Tsarnaev_brosBy Rachel Molschky:

The cliché that there is only a “small fringe” of Islamic “extremists” is really getting old. Blame it on a supposed naiveté of the liberal media and politicians like Secretary of State John Kerry, who recently told Catholic Church officials that poverty,“in many cases is the root cause of terrorism or even the root cause of the disenfranchisement of millions of people on this planet.” Poverty, as Michelle Malkin points out in her article, “John Kerry, Jihad Coddler,” has nothing to do with terrorism. Many terrorists are at least middle class while others are affluent and highly educated. Can liberals really be so naive, or is something else going on?Why can’t anyone in the mainstream media be honest and simply explain that the Islamic doctrine itself is to blame? If the answer is political correctness, or fear, why is it that our ancestors did not have this fear and had no trouble at all telling the truth about the violent nature of Islam? (See my article “Islam Hasn’t Changed: We Have” for quotes from dignitaries from the past and present.)

We have various articles with examples of violent Quranic verses calling for the rape, subjugation and murder of non-Muslims and apostates, but to get an overview, The Religion of Peace website has many summaries like “Ten Obvious Reasons Why Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace” and categories like Women’s Rights, Human Rights, Islamic Terror, etc. for anyone in the dark about the violent teachings of a political system ironically named the “religion of peace.” Instead of condemning websites like these as “hate speech”, it would be highly beneficial for these politicians and journalists to actually read them. They might learn something.

Y.K. Cherson’s article, “The Goal of Muslim Immigration According to Muhammad’s Teachings,” is another eye-opener, as well as “Islam: Against All Mankind.” If anyone is still hanging onto the idea that Islam is just another religion, believing that everyone should have the right to freedom of religion, it would serve them well to read the truth instead of buying the politically correct sound bites brainwashing our society today.

“Oh, but it’s not right to stereotype, and there are many good people everywhere.” Well, this is true, but it brings me to something that recently happened in November 2013, when a terrible tragedy occurred in Afghanistan. Trusted Afghan policemen posed for pictures with British soldiers, who were there to help, before gunning them down in cold blood. The British soldiers were there to train them, so after getting trained, the Afghans turned the guns around on their trainers. The very same thing kept happening to American soldiers. There was a program in place to train police officers in Afghanistan, but the US was forced to temporarily shut down that program in 2012, after too many insurgent attacks left American and other soldiers dead. In fact, there were 34 insider attacks throughout that year, which killed a total of 45 international troops.

One serious problem in our society today is the unrealistic belief among many Westerners that Muslims behave one way in their own countries but are different once they come over here. That could possibly be true if only Islam were not so central to these people’s lives and if assimilation were a part of Muslim immigration. It is not. Muslim imams actually preach that they are not to assimilate and should live in their own communities, following their own laws in order to not be “corrupted” by the infidel natives who have been compared to cattle, pigs, apes, and so on. They in turn create their own little world, their own Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc., in our countries, bringing the same culture they “supposedly” wanted to escape with them. And they do not abandon their “religion” which calls for our demise.

The West has been bringing over many refugees from these war-torn nations, which are often pitting Muslim against Muslim, Sunni against Shia, or are tribal conflicts, rather than any liberal delusion that it is a fight for a Western-style democracy. Now these refugees arrive with a mentality no different than what it was back home.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

The Islamization of France in 2013

Marseille-450x270by Soeren Kern:

“Who has the right to say that France in thirty or forty years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?” — Marwan Muhammed, spokesman, Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), Paris.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said he was “shocked” by an RTL Radio report which estimated that more than 40,000 cars are burned in France every year.

The Muslim population of France reached an estimated 6.5 million in 2013. Although France is prohibited by law from collecting official statistics about the race or religion of its citizens, this estimate is based on the average of several recent studies that attempt to calculate the number of people in France whose origins are from Muslim majority countries.

This estimate would imply that the Muslim population of France is now approximately 10% of the country’s total population of around 66 million. In real terms, France has the largest Muslim population in the European Union.

Not surprisingly, Islam and the question of Muslim immigration were an ever-present topic in newspaper headlines during 2013. In practical terms, the debate over Islam in France centered mainly on questions about French identity, secularism and security-related issues.

What follows is a chronological review of some of the main stories about the rise of Islam in France during 2013:

On January 1, 2013, Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced that a total of 1,193 cars and trucks were torched across France on New Year’s Eve. He also said he was “shocked” by an RTL Radio report which estimated that more than 40,000 cars are burned in France every year.

Valls broke with recent tradition by publicly announcing the number of car burnings because “the French people should know the truth.” His predecessor, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux, decided in 2010 to stop making public the number of car burnings because doing so had the effect of encouraging competition between rival gangs of Muslim youths, determined to see which of them could cause the most destruction.

Car burnings are increasingly commonplace in all French cities and are often attributed to shiftless young Muslims who reside in suburban slums known as banlieues. French authorities are especially eager to avoid a repetition of the riots in 2005, when the deaths of two Muslim teenagers in the banlieue of Clichy-sous-Bois near Paris sparked weeks of looting and car-burning, and led to the imposition of a state of emergency.

Meanwhile, jihadists in France and elsewhere debated how to respond to a comic book biography of the Prophet Mohammed published on January 2 by the French satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo.

According to the inestimable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which translated the Arabic twitter posts of several jihadists, the suggestions included: “killing France’s ambassadors, just as the ‘manly’ Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi; carrying out operations similar to 9/11, London’s July 7, 2005 bombings, and Madrid’s March 11, 2004 bombings, because only attacks of this kind would deter and defeat the ‘crusaders'; carrying out assassinations; conducting suicide bombings outside the French Information Ministry building; and holding demonstrations outside French embassies, especially in Egypt, because it has [allegedly] been proven that the Egyptian public can sway the entire Arab public.”

It was also suggested that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) kill the hostages it is holding, and that anyone who can kill a French national do so without hesitation.

The Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo were destroyed in an arson attack in November 2011 after the magazine featured a cartoon of Mohammed on its cover. The attack marked a serious escalation of a long-running Islamic war on free speech and expression in Europe.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see: