Muslim father deeply offended by Easter egg hunt flyer depicting bunnies

Majed Moughni holds the offending article (photo: Ryan  Garza/Detroit Free Press)

Majed Moughni holds the offending article (photo: Ryan Garza/Detroit Free Press)

by Allen West:

And here’s yet another reminder of how stupid that “coexist” bumper sticker truly is. Hat tip to Gateway Pundit for reporting that a Muslim father is upset because his children were traumatized by a… well, a flier for an Easter egg hunt. Oh, the horror of getting an invitation to join other American children in a time-honored tradition of hunting for colored Easter eggs. Really scary huh? As reported in the Detroit Free Press, some Muslim parents are concerned about public schools in Dearborn handing out flyers to all students advertising an Easter egg hunt, saying it violates the principle of church and state separation.

A flyer with the highly inflammatory “Eggstravaganza!” was given to students this week at three elementary schools in the Dearborn Public Schools district, which has a substantial number of Muslim students. The flyer described an April 12 event at Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church in Dearborn featuring an egg hunt, relay race, and egg toss, and included images of eggs and a bunny.

“It really bothered my two kids,” said parent Majed Moughni, who is Muslim and has two children, ages 7 and 9, in Dearborn elementary schools. “My son was like, ‘Dad, I really don’t feel comfortable getting these flyers, telling me to go to church. I thought churches are not supposed to mix with schools.’ ” Moughni said he’s concerned about “using school teachers paid by public funds … to pass out these flyers that are being distributed by a church. I think that’s a serious violation of separation of church and state.”

First of all, the flyer was approved by the school district. Second, it was an invitation to an event that was not religious or church-related, only took place at churchs ground. Thirdly, I believe Mr. Moughni fails to realize that his religion, Islam, is a totalitarian ideology which has no separation between mosque and state. Islamic Sharia law dictates every aspect of a Muslim’s life and decrees the most heinous of punishments, such as stoning for women — and not with chocolate or marshmallow peep stones, but real ones.

It seems this burgeoning Muslim community in “Dearbornistan” actually believes it can coerce the remaining non-Muslims there to live in fear and cower to their intolerance. Sorry, sir. Ain’t happenin’.

Maybe Mr. Moughni can explain why the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) — an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding case and subsidiary organization of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood — is suppressing the first amendment right of free speech and free expression in the showing of the documentary “Honor Diaries” which we have featured here.

This is how it happens America. There are those who enact the Islamic principle of the hijra — “migration” — in order not to assimilate but infiltrate and eventually dominate the host country culture. We see it happening across the Atlantic Ocean in Europe. It becomes a spreading cancer that uses the host country’s freedoms and principles to turn it upon itself — as Mr. Moughni attempts to use “separation of church and state” as an argument.

Read more 

Jacksonville City Council Could “Kill the Human Rights Controversy”

City_council_meeting_pic-630x286by Randy McDaniels:

Mayor Alvin Brown’s nomination of Parvez Ahmed, former National Chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for a second term on the Human Rights Commission has the City Council and its citizens divided on the issue.

Parvez Ahmed

Parvez Ahmed

The 2010 Jacksonville City Council had an opportunity to “Kill the Controversy” surrounding Parvez Ahmed dead in its tracks.  That Council received Information from Former Muslims United, which if properly acted upon would have answered any question about the suitability of Parvez Ahmed to sit on a Human Rights body and done so in a manner which would have reasonably appealed to the sensibilities of those on both sides of this nomination.

In 2009, Former Muslims United (FMU) sent a “Pledge for Religious Freedom” to approximately (46) Florida Mosques, Islamic Centers, and other recognized Islamic leaders to include Parvez Ahmed.  The letter cites authoritative Islamic Law or SHARIA from (8) renowned sources to include (3) Islamic legal bodies within North America, and all call for capital punishment for those who commit apostasy or treason by leaving the nation of Islam.

Note:  Since Sharia governs all aspects of the nation of Islam, it is not really a religious legal code, but in fact a political system.  Political Islam or Sharia, governs not only religion, but all aspects of Islamic life to include social, economic, political, military, and legal matters…many of which address those outside the faith of Islam irrespective of their personal rights or beliefs.

The full “Pledge for Religious Freedom” which can be viewed at the bottom of this article, finishes with a request for leaders in the Islamic community to sign a pledge in affirmation of basic Human Rights:

To support the civil rights of former Muslims, also known as apostates from Islam, I sign “The Muslim Pledge for Religious Freedom and Safety from Harm for Former Muslims”:

I renounce, repudiate and oppose any physical intimidation, or worldly and corporal punishment, of apostates from Islam, in whatever way that punishment may be determined or carried out by myself or any other Muslim including the family of the apostate, community, Mosque leaders, Shariah court or judge, and Muslim government or regime.

 _______________________________

Signed By

 The authoritative Islamic laws (Sharia) cited, not only violate the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cherished by all Americans who recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, but they also violate the right to Freedom of Religion guaranteed under 1st  Amendment.

More problematic than his refusal to sign the “Pledge of Religious Freedom” is the fact CAIR members whom Parvez Ahmed worked with for years, held and currently hold leadership positions on leading Islamic legal bodies in North America, such as the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which have placed their seal of approval on the “Reliance of the Traveller”, the only official English/Arabic Translation of SHARIA, which sanctions the killing of apostates and is sourced in the Pledge.

Additionally, CAIR’s Co-founder Nihad Awad, and CAIR National Board Members Muzzamil Siddiqi and Jamal Badawi sit on the Shura Council of North America, which is tasked with overseeing the implementation of Sharia law and guiding the work of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the United States.  CAIR boldly honored the founder of (IIIT) Jamal Barzinji with a lifetime achievement award in September of 2012, which suggest CAIR continues to support Sharia and Muslim Brotherhood.

The Shura concept of democracy is quite different than western concepts of democracy in that a literal translation of “rule of the people” cannot occur within Islam, because all sovereignty belongs to ALLAH, meaning Sharia not the U.S. Constitution shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.

This view is also supported by leading 20th century Muslim thinkers like Sayyid Qutb (Shepard 1996:110, Hoffmann 2007:297) and Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi (1969:215). They base their argument on Quranic verses 6:57, 12:40, and 12:67, all of which contain the phrase “in al-hukm illā li-llāh” meaning that the decision or power is God’s alone (Fatwa no. 98134 (n.d.) at IslamQA.com).

An example, which goes to the heart of why it is paramount to determine the mindset of Parvez Ahmed is (Fatwa no. 22239 (n.d.) at IslamQA.com.), which states that legislative systems which rule on matters already decided by divine intervention – such as abolishing polygamy or outlawing capital punishment – “go against the laws of the Creator” and this “constitutes disbelief (kufr)”.  Those who issue Fatwa’s, look to authoritative Islamic legal text such as the “Reliance of the Traveller” in order to support their legal opinions.

By signing a document which directly renounces Sharia or “Goes against the laws of the Creator” a Sharia Adherent Muslim would render himself an enemy of the Islamic State (Apostate) unless he was under threat of death or extreme duress, at such times it is permissible deceive and/or lie even about such grave matters as religous belief, which is normally forbidden.

Holy Deception (Taqiyya) and Permissible lying are basic tenants of the Islamic legal and religious code, which make lying and deception obligatory on all Muslims if the action is obligatory.  The Hijrah (migration) to settle enemy lands for eventual Islamic conquest and Jihad – Islamic warfare against non-Muslim to establish the religion are obligatory actions.  Jihad can take many forms to include information warfare (propaganda, dawah/outreach, as well as financial warfare (Sharia Compliant Finance (SCF)), however Jihad Qital or violent Jihad is the most revered.

Note:  CAIR advertises they are Zakat eligible on their website.  Meaning, CAIR can collect money for the (8) categories of Islamic giving which includes JIHAD.  However, CAIR boast all of their giving goes for Zakat Fi-Sabilillah or entirely for the purpose of Jihad and has since Parvez Ahmed held the position of National Chairman.

The specific language crafted in the “Pledge for Religious Freedom” strips the ability a political Islamist to wordsmith in order to give a misleading impression of tolerance and moderation where such moderation may not truly exist.

For example:  Under Islamic Legal definitions, non-Muslims are sub-human and guilty of sin (not Innocent) since they are not Muslim.  Terrorism is understood as the UNJUST killing of a Muslim only (The killing of an apostate, homosexual, and Kufr are all justified).

In light of these Islamic Understandings, consider the following statement:

“In my religion we are forbidden from killing any innocent human being and I unequivocally denounce terrorism in any form it may take.”

If this statement was made by a Sharia adherent Muslim, did it violate any tenants of Islamic law?  Understanding Sharia, does this statement in anyway condemn the killing of non-Muslims, homosexuals, or apostates which are contrary to western notions of basic Human Rights?  The answer to both of these questions is no and this statment is in no way moderate.

The vast majority of Jacksonville residents have never heard an honest discussion regarding the numerous concerns surrounding this appointment.  Unfortunately, what they have seen is members of the Council, the Florida Times Union, NAACP, ACLU and even the local Democrat Party jump on the race bait bandwagon with accusations of fear mongering, Islamophobia and outright Racism.

Those opposed to this appointment have cited the fact CAIR was labeled a Co-conspirator in the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism finance trial in U.S. history (US vs. HLF, 2008), as well as evidence which clearly demonstrates the organization which Parvez Ahmed held a leadership position in for over (10) years was created to support HAMAS with funds, media and manpower.

In addition, Parvez Ahmed has gone on record, making direct statements in support of convicted terrorist, terrorist groups HAMAS and Hezbollah, as well as writing numerous articles which appear to support the stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in furtherance of their “Civilization Jihad” inside America to include a recent article which suggested criminalizing free speech if it offends Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, or Muslims in accordance with Sharia Slander Law which are being pushed by the OIC at the U.N. via resolution 16/18.

In a rational world, these facts would be more than enough to disqualify this nomination and those courageous councilmen and women who changed their position based on the facts should not have been crucified in the media but commended.

With “Honor Killings” on the rise and a segment of the American population living in fear of persecution and threat death for nothing more than trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, the City Council would be derelict in their duty if they did not utilize ever tool available to ensure the Constitutional freedoms of every citizen are protected.

The “Pledge for Religious Freedom” provides an excellent tool to “KILL the Controversy” surrounding Parvez Ahmed’s suitability to hold a seat on a Human Rights Commission and ensue the rights of former Muslims are protected. 

The real question is will City Council take advantage of this Freedom Document?

Read more at The Watchdog Wire

 

Freedom from Islam

By Daniel Greenfield:

In 1941, FDR proposed his famous Four Freedoms. Some seventy years later it may be time to add a fifth freedom to that list. Freedom from Islam.

Freedom from Islam would have seemed like an unlikely candidate back in 1941 when the worry was over secular ideologies, but as the West and its ideologies have fallen into a soporific state of decline, the fascism that concerns us no longer wears a military uniform or any of the trappings of nationalism, but instead wraps itself in the turban of religion.

Of those four freedoms, three are directly endangered by Islam. We have seen Freedom of Speech being burned in effigy across the Muslim world, and even in the urban centers of Western nations. The Muslim bomb plots aimed at synagogues and the specter of America’s first, albeit unofficial, blasphemy trial, warns us that our Freedom of Worship is also under threat.

Coptic Christians, who for many centuries were forced to live in an atmosphere of terror, subject, like all Christians in the Muslim world, to blasphemy trials as tools of persecution, have found that their land of refuge here is not so different a place from their old homeland after all. As Coptic Christian churches are patrolled against the threat of Muslim violence and one of their own is on trial for offending Muslims, they cannot help but wonder what happened to the vaunted freedoms to worship and believe, to speak and be free, that first drew them to this country.

And third, Freedom from Fear, not a right but the outcome of a well-managed system of government, has been under attack by decades of Muslim terrorism whose purpose is to terrorize the non-Muslim into surrendering to its demands. Instead of freeing us from Muslim terror, government authorities have universalized it, spreading it about as much as possible to avoid offending Muslims by drawing attention to the motives and religion of their terrorists.

Finally, there is Freedom from Want, which like Freedom from Fear, was an example of positive rights being snuck into a national compact based on the negative rights of minimal government, and yet it is interesting to note how the liberal mega-state has failed to uphold even its own four freedoms.

Domestic drilling is banned, while the oil wells of Saudi Arabia and the other backward monarchies, that fund terrorists with one hand while slipping bribes to our officials with the other, go on pumping day and night. Gas prices in America keep climbing and the terrorists draw out those record profits to expand their sphere of terror.

Despite all this wealth, created by non-Muslims for Muslims, where Islam goes then poverty soon follows. Even with wealth, the Muslim world remains a place of great poverty where powerful families and organizations control access to the economy and women are kept out of the workplace. Muslim economic failure has been chronicled elsewhere and yet it is worth noting that Muslim immigration fills up not only the prisons of the West, but also its social service centers.

When Islam has the freedom to undermine freedom of speech and freedom of religion then no freedom is safe. And when Muslim immigration is unleashed on the free world, then freedom from fear and even freedom from want also become distant memories.

Why discuss the Four Freedoms at all? Perhaps because they remind us that the freedoms inscribed into the Bill of Rights are meant to protect us against the abuses of government authority. And yet there is a more primal form of freedom that must first be defended if those freedoms are to have any meaning at all.

Before the American colonies were free of British rule, the Bill of Rights could have no function. The first freedom, before all freedoms from domestic government authority, is the freedom from rule by external oppressive forces. Only when a people are free of foreign dominance and alien rule and are able to lift their heads and make their own laws without fear of their oppressors, can there be true freedom.

Read more at Front Page

 

International Religious Freedom Report: Time to Back Up Tough Talk with Tough Actions

By John G. Malcolm:

Yesterday, the State Department issued its 2011 International Religious Freedom Report, which represents the culmination of an annual review the State Department must undertake pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). However, other than exhorting countries that are egregious violators of religious liberties (as defined in IRFA) to stop doing bad things, the report appears to be short on specific recommendations designed to improve the situations in those countries.

IRFA affirmed America’s commitment to religious freedom as enshrined in our Constitution and in various international instruments, such as Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which provides:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

At the release of the report, Suzan Johnson Cook, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, stated:

Freedom of religion is not just an American right but the right of all people. It goes hand in hand with freedom of expression, freedom of speech and assembly, and when religious freedom is restricted, all these rights are at risk. And for this reason, religious freedom is often the bellwether for other human rights. It’s the canary in the coal mine.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a serious and sobering speech later in the day at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in which she noted that “[m]ore than a billion people live under governments that systematically suppress religious freedom.” She stated that the report “sends a signal to the worst offenders that the world is watching.” Unfortunately, if “what’s past is prologue,” to quote Shakespeare, there is reason to believe that insufficient action will be taken by President Obama to undergird the Secretary’s inspiring words.

IRFA requires the President, who has delegated this authority to the Secretary of State, to designate as “countries of particular concern” (CPCs) those countries whose governments have engaged in or tolerated “particularly severe violations of religious freedom,” which are defined in Section 3(11) of the Act as ones that are systematic, ongoing, and egregious, including acts such as torture, prolonged detention without charges, disappearances, or other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons. After a country is designated a CPC, the President is required by law to conduct an annual review, no later than September 1 of each year, and to take one or more of the actions specified in the IRFA.

Section 405 of the IRFA provides the President with an array of options to consider including demarches; private or public condemnation; the denial, delay or cancellation of scientific or cultural exchanges; the cancellation of a state visit; the withdrawal or limitation of humanitarian or security assistance; the restriction of credit or loans from United States and multilateral organizations; the denial of licenses to export goods or technologies; a prohibition against the U.S. government entering into any agreement to procure goods or services from that country; or “any other action authorized by law” so long as it “is commensurate in effect to the action substituted.”

Although IRFA provides that the “President shall seek to take all appropriate and feasible actions authorized by law to obtain the cessation of violations,” the President retains the authority to invoke a waiver of sanctions against a CPC if, in his judgment, circumstances warrant it.

Unfortunately, although IRFA envisions an annual review by the President of the State Department’s CPC recommendations, yesterday’s report did not contain any, citing instead CPC recommendations that were made by the State Department in August 2011. The eight countries that were designated as CPCs by the State Department in August 2011 were Burma, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Eritrea, Iran, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. These are the same eight countries that have been designated as CPCs since January 2009, and many have been on the list for far longer than that.

Although the IRFA is ambiguous as to whether a new designation is required, it is seems strange that, as part of an annual review, the State Department did not proffer an updated list. Equally strange is that the State Department did not offer any explanations as to why it rejected many of the recommendations of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan federal government commission, that recommended CPC designation for several other countries in its 2012 Annual Report.

Specifically, USCIRF, where I used to serve as General Counsel, recommended that Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam be designated as CPCs and provided detailed information to support those recommendations, along with specific policy recommendations to remediate the problems in those and other countries. IRFA provides that the Secretary of State must take “into consideration the recommendations of the Commission.” While this does not mean, of course, that the Secretary must or even should adopt all of the Commission’s recommendations, it is somewhat surprising that the International Religious Freedom Report doesn’t address—even in passing—these seeming discrepancies in views toward the appropriate designation of these additional eight countries.

And what actions have been taken against the eight countries that the State Department did designate as CPCs? Well, in the case of Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, the answer is none, since the President has waived the imposition of sanctions supposedly to further the purposes of the IRFA, although it is hard to see how. With respect to the other countries, sanctions have been imposed, some of them quite severe. However, unfortunately, even with respect to these countries, the sanctions that have been imposed have been under other statutes for other violations of law. While this practice of “double-hatting” is permissible under the IRFA, it sends the wrong signal that our government cares more about other violations of law than it does about egregious violations of religious liberty, and it also provides little incentive for CPCs to ameliorate those violations and improve the human rights of people living within their borders.

Religious freedom has often been given short shrift at Foggy Bottom. Indeed, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom is one of the few Ambassadors who does not report directly to the Secretary of State, reporting instead to the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Let us hope that the President will take sufficient action under the IRFA to attempt to address the suffering that many people of faith endure at the hands of egregious violators of religious liberties abroad.

Read more at Heritage

View Hillary Clinton’s 57 minute speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on C-Span and here is the Transcript

Clinton praises GOPers for denouncing Islamophobic attacks on top aide

State Department Purges Section on Religious Freedom from Its Human Rights Reports

By Pete Winn:

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. State Department removed the sections covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on Human Rights that it released on  May 24, three months past the statutory deadline Congress set for the release of these reports.

The new human rights reports–purged of the sections that discuss the status of religious freedom in each of the countries covered–are also the human rights reports that cover the period that covered the Arab Spring and its aftermath.

Thus, the reports do not provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist forces played an instrumental role.

For the first time ever, the State Department simply eliminated the section of religious freedom in its reports covering 2011 and instead referred  the public to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report – a full  two years behind the times – or to the annual report of the U.S.  Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which was released last September and covers events in 2010 but not 2011.

Leonard Leo, who recently completed a term as chairman of the USCIRF,  says that removing the sections on religious freedom from the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Roghts is  a bad idea.

Since 1998, when Congress created USCIRF, the State Department has  been required to issue a separate yearly report specifically on International Religious  Freedom.

But a section reporting on religious freedom has also always been included in the State Department’s legally required annual country-by-country reports on human rights–that is, until now.

And this is the first year the State Department would have needed to report on the effect the Arab Spring has had on religious freedom in the Middle East–had its reports, as always before, included a section on religious freedom.

“The commission that I served on has some real concerns about that  bifurcation, because the human rights reports receive a lot of  attention, and to have pulled religious freedom out of it means that  fewer people will obtain information about what’s going on with that  particular freedom or right. So you don’t have the whole picture because  they split it up now,” Leo told CNSNews.com.

Former U.S. diplomat Thomas Farr says it’s possible that the move to totally  separate religious freedom from the human rights reports could simply be a bureaucratic maneuver.

But another possibility is much more likely.

“The other possibility is the Obama administration is downplaying international religious freedom,” Farr said.

Farr, who served in the State Department under both Presidents Clinton  and George W. Bush, was the first director of the Office of  International Religious Freedom.

“I mean, it is important to note here that I do not know–I have no  personal knowledge of the logic that went into removing religious  freedom from the broader human rights report; but I also have observed  during the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration that the  issue of religious freedom has been distinctly downplayed,” Farr said

Currently a visiting associate professor of religion and world  affairs in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown  University, Farr directs the program on Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy  and the Project on Religious Freedom at the Berkley Center for  Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown.

He told CNSNews.com that far more resources have been allocated by  the Obama administration to other human rights issues than have been  directed toward religious freedom.

“(T)he ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, for  example, who is the official charged by the law to lead U.S. religious  freedom policy, did not even step foot into her office until  two-and-a-half years were gone of a four-year administration,” he said.

“Whereas other human rights priorities of the administration, such as  the ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, were in place within  months. So that tells you something.

“It tells me that this has never been a priority for the Obama administration, and it’s not now,” he said.

“So it seems to me plausible to at least question the removal of  religious freedom from the human rights report, although, as I say,  there could be other explanations, less insidious, if you will.”

Missing: Murdered Christians and the Aftermath of the Arab Spring

The 2010 International Religious Freedom  Report is notably missing some important information–the two-year old report contains no mention of the violence,  murder and mayhem directed at Christians and other minorities in Muslim  nations in Africa and the Middle East since the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011.

However, the less well-known 2012 report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom does take note of the Arab Spring.

– In 2011, in Egypt, Coptic Christians were among 25 people  massacred during a demonstration over an Islamist attack on a church.

– In the month of January 2012 alone, the Islamist group Boko Haram  was responsible for 54 deaths in Nigeria – 42 of them Catholics killed  at church on Christmas Day. In 2011, it killed more than 500 people and  burned down or destroyed more than 350 churches in 10 northern states of  Nigeria.

Former USCIRF Chairman Leo says the fact is the administration no longer makes the proper  distinction between freedom of religion and freedom of worship.

Read more at CNS NEWS

Related articles:

Muslim adviser ‘blocks Obama meeting with Christian leader’ (WND 10/29/11)

Barton Calls Obama ‘America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President’ (The Blaze 3/8/12)

 

Jihad in the West: Ongoing Threat Within

Diana West at FSM:

On page 330 of the 2002 book Islam and Dhimmitude, the great historian Bat Ye’or writes:
It was in the early 1970s, with the outbreak of Arab Palestinian terrorism worldwide that dhimmitude erupted on European soil through violence and death deliberately inflicted on one category: the Jews, who were singled out as in the Nazi period by their religion. Security precutions and instructions posted on synagogues and Jewish community buildings implied that being Jewish and practicing the Jewish religion in Europe might again incur the risk of death, and that the freedom of religion and freedom of thought had been restricted.
For me, reading this was an epiphany. Let me borrow from my book to explain:
So that’s how it started. When I first read that passage a few months after 9/11, something clicked. I remembered a visit to Brussels in December 1990, during which I saw armed guards posted outside a city synagogue. Such security precautions in Europe, as Bat Ye’or writes, were by then routine, but it was the first time I had witnessed them.
And it was only after 9/11 that I realized what they really meant: It wasn’t that government authorities were preparing to target a specific, limited threat of violence to battle and eliminate it; on the contrary, the authorities were responding to an ongoing threat that reflected the permanent fact that Jewish citizens in Belgium (and elsewhere) were no longer able to exercise their religion freely.
And why weren’t they able to exercise their religion freely? As in the 1970s, the reason in 1990 was Arab Palestinian terrorists. In retrospect — namely, post- 9/11 — it seems odd that these terrorists have always been called “Arab terrorists,” or “Arab Palestinian terrorists,” and have never been labeled according to the animating inspiration of their religion as “Muslim” terrorists. Such coyness has buried a relevant part of the story: the Islamic context.
Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, it was Muslim terrorism that had come to Europe, and, as a result, Jews were worshipping, if they dared, at their own fearsome risk.
And not just Jews. By now, the same fearsome risk extends to whole populations, in houses of worship and the public square alike.
After reading Bat Ye’or, I realized that the now-familiar strategies of fearsome risk management — guns around the synagogue, for example –represents a significant capitulation. The security ring around the synagogue —  or the airport ticket counter, the house of parliament, the Winter Olympics — is a line of siege, not a line of counterattack. The threat of violence has become the status quo, and, as such, is incapable of speaking outrage, and is certainly not a causus belli.
Guns at the synagogue door — or St. Peter’s Basilica, or the Louvre — symbolize a cultural acquiescence to the infringement of freedom caused by the introduction — better, the incursion — of Islam into Western society. Thus, dhimmitude — institutional concessions on the part of non-Muslim populations to Islam — arrived in the West.
This video (below) of French Jewish life, circa 2012 — 20 years after my unforgettable vision of what I came to understand 10 years ago as dhimmitude in the West — further illustrates what have I described.
Must-viewing from the must-read Vlad Tepes blog: