Brandeis, Female Mutilation and the Falsehoods of a Faculty Petition

But this woman is a black, feminist atheist from Somalia. And so what we’re learning here, which is fascinating, in the hierarchy of progressive-politics identity-group victimhood, Islam trumps everything. Islam trumps gender. The fact that she’s a woman doesn’t matter. It trumps race. The fact that she’s black doesn’t matter. It trumps secularism. The fact that she’s an atheist doesn’t matter. They wouldn’t do this if it was a Christian group complaining about her, if it was a Jewish group complaining about her. But when the Islamic lobby group says oh, no, we’re not putting up with this, as I said, these jelly-spined nothings at Brandeis just roll over for them. – Mark Steyn


fgm (2)By 
Jamie Glazov:

Last Tuesday, on April 8, Brandeis University rescinded its invitation to human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree from the institution. Brandeis caved in the face of intimidation from CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, as well as a student petition on Change.org and a faculty petition – the contents of which have now become known.

The faculty petition is a textbook case of leftist pathology and of how “progressives” demonize true heroic freedom fighters and push millions of victims of totalitarian regimes and ideologies into invisibility for the sake of their own egotistical and destructive agendas.

A case in point in this ugly leftist narrative is how the signatories of the Brandeis petition have succeeded in banning a woman from their university who is the victim of female genital mutilation (FGM), suffered under an Islamic knife because of Islamic doctrine. She represents millions of Muslim females — mutilated and mutilated-to-be. And yet the signatories of the petition are callously indifferent, because they have their progressive program to attend to and fulfill.

The Brandeis faculty petition, written on April 6 and addressed to President Lawrence, stresses “the horrible message” that inviting Ali to the university “sends to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities at Brandeis and beyond” because of Ali’s “virulently anti-Muslim public statements.” Aside from complaining about Ali’s truth-telling about Islam, the petition also issues a dire warning about the “unnecessary controversy” that the human rights activist’s presence would bring to the campus.

To be sure, who needs nightmarish scenarios like debate and intellectual diversity when the Marxist Left has already lovingly bestowed the peaceful the Party Line?

The petition then references the major issues with which Ali is concerned: female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and honor killings. “These phenomena,” the petition flippantly notes, are not “exclusive to Islam.” This is a standard and perpetual tactic of obfuscation and equivocation employed by the Left whenever a monstrous evil is labelled in a totalitarian enemy. It serves as an excuse for inaction by presupposing that if a crime is committed by someone else, somewhere else, that it somehow justifies doing and saying nothing in the face of a crime being perpetrated on a mass scale right before our eyes – and one that we can do something about.

In other words, the logic implies that if a sin or an injustice exist somewhere else on the planet, that one must never fight for — or defend the victims of — any one ideology or system (unless it is of the western variety, of course).

Thus, if one dares to show concern for the millions of Muslim girls who are victims of female genital mutilation, the leftist will reflexively retort: “Muslims are not the only group that practice FGM.”

But so what? The bottom line is that Muslims are the principle religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. And if a young girl is a victim of FGM, the chances are that she lives in a Muslim household and in a Muslim culture. And this barbarity is kept alive and legitimized by Islamic theology.

The faculty petition to President Lawrence also expresses a deep concern about the fact that Ali has suggested “that violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam or the Two-Thirds World.” This is intolerable (even though completely true) because, according to the petition, it obscures “such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus.”

This is another consistent tactic that the Left engages in to insert its falsehoods into dialogues about oppressed people under monstrous tyrannies. The plain fact staring everyone in the face is that while violence may exist among non-Muslims, their laws and institutions delegitimize and illegalize such conduct. For instance, if a non-Muslim anywhere in the United States, including on a university campus, engages in violence against a woman and the police are called, he will be charged. In Islam, violence against women is inspired and sanctioned by the institutions themselves, precisely because misogyny, including wife beating, is embedded in the Qur’an.

In other words, non-Muslims who are violent toward women operate despite and against the laws of their lands; Muslims, on the other hand, are violent toward women because of their laws, and that is why they are, in turn, protected by those laws.

Thus, in terms of female genital mutilation, millions of Muslim girls are victims of this horrifying crime which is rooted in Islam and is integral to Islam’s misogynist structures. The road to saving millions of Muslim girls from this crime is to do what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is bravely doing, and what the signatories of the Brandeis faculty petition are trying to stop her from doing: to isolate and pinpoint Islam as the main culprit in this context.

The point cannot be stressed enough: female genital mutilation is fundamentally Islamic and it is rooted in Islamic texts such as Umdat al-Salik:

“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris.” Sacred Islamic Reliance: page 59, Umdat al-Salik  (“Reliance of the Traveler”), a manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, endorsed by Egypt’s very own Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world.

This explains why one of Sunni Islam’s “Four Great Imams,” Ahmad ibn Hanbal, quotes Muhammed as saying: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women?” It is no shock, therefore, that Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University has called circumcision “a laudable practice that did honor to women.”

Read more at Front Page (with video)

From ACT! For America:

According to the World Health Organization, more than 125 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

The African Women’s Health Center of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, report that approximately 228,000 women and girls in the U.S. have either suffered the procedure or are at risk of having it done to them. Many of these young girls are subjected to FGM when they vacation in a country that sanctions the practice. In other cases, circumcisers are brought into the U.S. – even though FGM is illegal in this country.

ACT! for America has been working diligently at the state level to see legislation passed so that no girl ever suffers the horrors of FGM – either on U.S. soil or elsewhere.

Also see:

Video: Glick, Spencer & Ibrahim on the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

hj1-450x250This week’s special episode of The Glazov Gang was filmed at David Horowitz’s West Coast Retreat held at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California, from March 21-23, 2014.

The panel, titled The Mideast Test, was joined by:

Caroline Glick, the senior contributing editor to the Jerusalem Post who is the author of the new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch who is the author of an upcoming book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In.

and

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center who is the author of his recent book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, published by Regnery.

The panelists discussed their books and how to best confront the threats emanating from the Islamic Middle East:

Jew Hatred and the Art of Political Warfare — On The Glazov Gang

jhFront Page:

This week’s special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Ben Shapiro, the Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.orgElisha Krauss, Morning Co-Host at KRLA AM 870 The Answer and a staff writer at TruthRevolt.org, and Jeremy Boreing, the Managing Editor of TruthRevolt.org.

The Gang gathered to discuss Jew Hatred and the Art of Political Warfare. The dialogue occurred within the context of  Ben’s recent successful appearance at the UCLA Divestment from Israel Hearing, in which he blasted both the student sponsors and those considering the anti-Semitic measure. The panel also discussed How Conservatives Can Best Fight Political WarPierce Morgan’s Ratings Tanked After Being Eviscerated By ShapiroUN Ambassador Samantha Power’s Jew-Hatred, and much, much more. Watch the two-part series below:

Part I

 

Part II

Ben Shapiro, “We’re not conservative. There’s nothing left to conserve. We’re on offense, ok? Our territory is gone. The only thing we can do now is break out, right? This is our break out point. And the only way to break out of a box is to be unbelievably aggressive and to never stop fighting. And that means we can’t get tired, and we can’t get bored and it means we can’t get distracted. We have to be as single minded as the left has been for the last 80 to 100 years in order to reverse the sort of massive changes that has occurred in this country. And when we put our kids to bed and we tell them what we did during this crucial time during really what is the breaking point for the United States , we can’t sit there and tell them anything other than that we did everything we possibly could every single day to affect the future of country and change it into the freedom and liberty country that it once was and can be again”

bs-90w

New e-book by Ben Shapiro of Truth Revolt: “How to debate leftists and destroy them”

Hating Valentine’s

Pakistan Valentine Protestby :

Today, Friday, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending  your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.

The train is never late: every year that Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world erupts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states.

This year, the Indonesian Ulema Council in Dumai, Riau, and the Education, Youth and Sport Agency in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, issued a dire warning to people against celebrating Valentine’s Day, stating that the Day of Love “is against Islam.” This is because, as the Indonesian Ulema Council 2011 judgment explained, Valentine’s Day takes young people into a “dark world.”

Malaysia’s State mufti chief assistant Mat Jais Kamos keeps his mind focused on that dark world and so, a few days ago, he ordered young people to stay clear of Valentine’s Day: “The celebration emphasizes the relationship between two individuals rather than the love between family members or married couples,” he affirmed, and department officials backed up his command by distributing leaflets to remind Muslims of the 2006 ban on Valentine’s Day issued by the state fatwa council.

In Islamic Uzbekistan this year, several universities have seen to it that students actually sign contracts promising not to celebrate Valentine’s.

In Pakistan on Valentine’s Day last year, supporters of Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, took to the streets in Peshawar to vehemently denounce the day of love. Demonizing it as “un-Islamic,” the Muslim protestors shouted that the day has “spread immodesty in the world.” Shahzad Ahmed, the local leader of the student wing of Jamat-e-Islami, declared that the organization will not “allow” any Valentine’s Day functions, warning that if Pakistani law enforcement did not prevent Pakistanis from holding such functions, that the Jamat-e-Islami would stop them “in our own way.” Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in Jamat-e-Islami, calls Valentine’s a “shameful day.”

These Islamist forces in Pakistan cannot, of course, completely succeed in preventing couples from showing love to each other on this special day, and so many Pakistanis still cryptically celebrate Valentine’s Day and exchange presents in secret.

All these Islamic outcries against Valentine’s Day reflect myriad other efforts to suffocate the day of love throughout the Muslim War. For instance, in Aceh province in Indonesia every year, Muslim clerics issue stern warnings to Muslims against observing Valentine’s Day. Tgk Feisal, general secretary of the Aceh Ulema Association (HUDA), stated two years ago that “It is haram for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does not accord with Islamic Sharia.” He added that the government must watch out for youths participating in Valentine’s Day activities in Aceh. One can only imagine what happens to the guilty parties.

The Saudis consistently punish the slightest hint of celebrating Valentine’s Day. The Kingdom and its religious “morality” police always officially issue a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law. This is typical of the Saudis of course. As Daniel Pipes has reported, the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year, and the Saudi religious police monitor stores selling roses and other gifts. They arrest women for wearing red on that day. Every year the Saudis announce that, starting the week of Valentine’s and until a certain day in the future, it is illegal for a merchant to sell any item that is red, or that in any way hints of being connected to Valentine’s Day. As Claude Cartaginese has reported, any merchant in Saudi Arabia found selling such items as red roses, red clothing of any kind (especially dresses), toys, heart-shaped products, candy, greeting cards or any items wrapped in red, has to destroy them or face the wrath of Saudi justice.

Christian overseas workers living in Saudi Arabia from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group has commented: “We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”

The Iranian despots, meanwhile, consistently try to make sure that the Saudis don’t outdo them in annihilating Valentine’s Day. Iran’s “morality” police consistently order shops to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing on this day — and anytime around this day.

Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Community) went on a rampage in Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops, burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.

In the West, meanwhile, leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to exterminate — Valentine’s Day. Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of this day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness.

As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed,female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

Read more at Front Page

See also:

John Kerry and Saudi Women Driving

John Kerry and Prince Saud al-FaisalBy :

For the Left, all cultures are equal, but some cultures are more equal than others.

For instance, in the world of the Left, the West never has a right to say what is right or wrong — when dealing with an adversary culture and regime, that is.

If it’s Israel, you can start shooting right away.

For example, when it comes to Israelis getting out of line and engaging in monstrous behavior like building houses and apartments on their own territory, they must be denounced immediately for that — and pressured relentlessly to desist from such unconscionable activity.

When Israelis have the audacity to imprison Palestinian terrorists who have massacred Israeli innocent civilians, something has to be done fast. And that’s why, on April 24, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama administration demanded that Israel release a number of Palestinian terrorists from its prisons — to make the Palestinian Authority happy of course. (P.S.: The P.A. was not pressured to stop its mosques, schools and media outlets from teaching that Israel has no right to exist or that Jews are descended from apes and pigs.)

If Kerry were asked what he thinks of apartheid-era South Africa, which Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has compared Israel to, one just dares to presume that he would say it was a bad thing that blacks were considered second-class citizens — which of course it was. He would, in other words, apply a universal standard of human rights on South Africa and declare that a society that marginalizes and disempowers a certain group of people based on skin color is an inferior society and must civilize itself. And that would be a legitimate position.

But for a leftist, this attitude only applies, naturally, when one is dealing with cultures and regimes that are allied to the United States. If one is dealing with an adversary culture or religion, then that culture and religion automatically get a pass for all of their  monstrosities.

Read more at Front Page

Don’t miss Josh Brewster‘s video interview with Jamie Glazov about why the Left abandons victims of Islamic terror and gender apartheid in the two-part series below:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Understanding Iran’s Threat to Rape One of Obama’s Daughters Over Syria

iranA former Iranian official has threatened the rape and murder of one of Obama’s daughters if the U.S. attacks Syria. This Islamic threat is simply following traditional Islamic rules of Jihad against the infidel. It is safe to assume, however, that MSNBC, CNN and the NY Times will not any time soon explore why this former Iranian official has made such a pronouncement — and shed light on the aspects of Islamic theology that inspire and sanction owning slaves and raping “kafir” females. Frontpage has therefore decided to rerun Jamie Glazov’s interview with Bill Warner, “Islam, Slavery and Rape,” from our Nov. 23, 2007 edition, which deals directly with this issue. 

*

Islam, Slavery and Rape 

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Magazine. This is the second part in our two-part series with you on the Center’s most recent book. In the first part we discussed Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women. In this second and final part we will discuss the matter of slavery. Welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: It is a pleasure to work with Frontpage.

FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on slavery.

Warner: Islam’s stand on slavery is based on its political principles of submission and duality. The principle of submission could not be clearer. By definition a slave is the most submissive of all people. You become a slave only when you have no more choices. A slave has completely submitted to a master.

The principle of duality is shown by the fact that Islam does not enslave Muslims, only kafirs (non-Muslims). Since only kafirs are enslaved, it assures that more of the world submits to Islam.

Islamic slavery is based on the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). All three texts say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. There is not one single negative word about slavery.

Slavery is seen as a process that brings kafirs to Islam. It is a virtue to free slaves, but Mohammed only freed slaves who submitted to Islam. If the kafir slave does not submit, then their children will. So given enough time, slaves convert to Islam. That is one of the reasons that Islam sees slavery as a positive.

Of course, there is another reason that Islam sees slavery as being so “good” and that is the money. Mohammed and the other jihadists made a fortune out of enslaving kafirs. Mohammed used the money for more jihad. So slavery financed the spread of Islam and jihad from the beginning.

FP: What were the ingredients of Mohammed’s own life in terms of slavery?

Warner: Mohammed is the perfect pattern for all humanity and his life was saturated in slavery. When his mother died, it was a freed slave who nursed him. His first wife owned slaves. One of his first converts was a slave. His closest friend, Abu Bakr, traded one of his black kafir slaves for a Muslim who was enslaved by a kafir.

But all of this was small change compared to his envolvement with slavery once he turned to jihad. In his first major battle at Badr, he stood by and prayed as his henchmen beat and tortured captured slaves to get information about the enemy kafirs.

Slaves made Mohammed’s pulpit. Slaves mended his cloths, cooked his food, and did every thing that a slave does for the master. He gave away slaves as gifts and received them as gifts. He went to war to kill the males so that the remaining people would surrender to be sold as slaves. Mohammed sold slaves on both the retail and wholesale markets.

He offered captured slaves their freedom if they would first agree that he was the prophet of Allah. A kafir slave then became a slave of Allah, because all Muslims are slaves of Allah. For a slave, the religion of Mohammed started and ended with slavery.

FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?

Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.

Read more at Front Page

 

Obama and the Jihad

images (34)Front Page:

Editor’s note: Below is the video of the panel discussion “Obama and the Jihad,” featured at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2013 West Coast Retreat. The event was held February 22nd-24th at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California. A transcript of the discussion follows. Speakers: Andrew McCarthy, Robert Spencer and John Solomon

Jamie Glazov: We have a heroic truth-teller by the name of Michele Bachmann.  And one of the names that she was concerned about was Mohamed Elibiary.  An Egyptian magazine, by the way, just recently boasted that the Muslim Brotherhood is penetrating Washington.  And one of the names they mentioned was Mohamed Elibiary.

Just want to tell a very quick story about this individual, and for us to let it swirl around in our head that this is a person that today’s in the Homeland — he’s on the Advisory Council in Homeland Security.  Mohamed Elibiary in 2004 gave a speech at an evening dedicated to the Ayatollah Khomeini.  It was a tribute to the grand Islamic visionary.  This is in 2004.  This is a mass murderer — the killing fields, Ayatollah Khomeini.  Imagine one of us gives a speech at a conference praising Adolf Hitler or Stalin.

And Robert Spencer, our distinguished guest with us this evening, approached Mohamed Elibiary, if I am correct — right, Robert?

Robert Spencer: Yes.

Jamie Glazov: And he asked him — what were you doing there?  And he said — oh, I was there, but I didn’t really know what it was about.  But, you know, I was there anyway.  And we are not investigating this.

Imagine that you end up at a conference praising Adolf Hitler, and you don’t know why you’re there.  And then you’re there anyway, and your reaction is — oh, they’re praising Adolf Hitler here tonight.  Well, I’m here anyway, might as well go ahead and make the speech.  Because he did go ahead and make the speech.

This is one of the individuals in our government today.  And what I’m thinking about is — do we have a right to ask some questions?  Should there be an investigation?

Ladies and gentlemen, the future must not belong to the slanderers of the Prophet of Islam.  In Islam, “slander” is also known and interpreted to be not even slander; it could be just saying something uncomfortable.  It could be saying something that Muslims just don’t want to hear.  And my response to that is — no, Mr. President, the future must belong to the truth-tellers.

And we have three of them with us this afternoon.

Andy McCarthy: For all the awful things there are to say about the Obama Administration — and there certainly isn’t time in a panel, in a weekend, in a lifetime, to catalogue all of those — a lot of what we’re seeing today is simply Obama exploiting an atmosphere that has been created over a course of more than 20 years.

I said 20 years — Jamie mentioned the Blind Sheikh prosecution — Tuesday will be the 20th anniversary, if you can call it that, of the World Trade Center bombing.  And I thought that was pretty significant, because we just got through the testimony at the confirmation hearing of John Brennan.  And Michele catalogued a lot of Brennan’s dubious background last night.  But I think the most interesting thing I’ve come across about Brennan is his speech about jihad just a couple of years ago, and explaining his interpretation of the concept of jihad.

And the interesting thing about that is that here we are 20 years after the Trade Center bombing, 20 years of jihad in America, and we actually don’t even know what jihad is yet, even at an official level.  And I think the interesting thing — if you go back to that trial and flash forward to today, a couple of interesting things stand out.  One is the Blind Sheikh wanted his defense at the trial to be that we couldn’t hold him liable for green-lighting acts of terrorism, for issuing fatwas — or the Islamic edict, juristic edict, approving a course of conduct — any course of conduct, but in this instance, terrorist attacks.

Because in his view, he was simply performing under Sharia the customary traditional role of a jurist of his academic accomplishment, which meant that the members of the flock or the faithful would come to him, propose one course of conduct or another — you know, can I marry this person, can I blow up this building and, you know –

(Laughter)

– everything in between.  And it was the Sharia jurist’s job to say, you know, yes, that’s permissible or no, it’s not permissible.

So back in those days, we had a great — I thought, the greatest trial judge in the United States at the time, later the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, who, after hearing arguments about it, would not allow that defense to be presented to the jury, on the common-sense principle that we are in the United States, and we follow American law in the United States.  And it didn’t matter what Sharia said, or really — not just to single out Sharia — what any other religious code would say in terms of where religious law would collide with the civil law.  Because there’s a lot of Supreme Court law that says that, you know, basically if you allow chaos like that, you have every person being a law unto himself.  And that’s not an acceptable way to have a civil society.  So that defense got bounced out pretty easily.

The reason I think that’s interesting is — flash forward almost 20 years, in my own home state of New Jersey. And we had a woman, a Muslim woman, who was married to a Muslim man who she was trying to divorce, who was serially raping and beating her.  And she went into New Jersey state court to try to get a protective order.  And the court refused to give her the protective order under circumstances where there was no doubt that the attacks and the sexual abuse was actually going on.  But the court reasoned that he was simply following his religious principles, under which his own understanding of them was that she had no right to say no.

So think about that.  We go from 20 years ago — where a Sharia defense basically gets laughed out of court on a very straightforward, confident idea of American law that we follow our own law in the United States, we don’t — Sharia’s not the law of the land — to a situation we have now where — not just in New Jersey; that case happened to be reversed on appeal — but in almost every state in the Union, we’ve had Sharia principles creeping into our law.

And the reason I think we’ve had them creeping into our law is what a lot of our distinguished speakers have discussed throughout the course of the day, and that is cultural confidence.  We really lack it.  And we’ve lacked it for 20 years.  And the result of that is that the people who are now in charge of our government really have precedents that you could drive a truck through.  And that’s pretty much what they’re doing.

I mean, what we’ve done for 20 years is basically suppress any discussion of our enemies’ ideology.  I mean, I’ve said probably every bad thing that you can say about the idea of using the civilian courts as your main counterterrorism weapon, the idea of bringing our enemy combatants into court and awarding them all of the Bill of Rights protections.

Let me tell you the one really good thing about using civilian courts.  And it’s one that I don’t think has been replicated by any other part of our government.  And that is that juries won’t convict people unless you give them a rational explanation not only of what was done but why it was done.

So even though 20 years ago we were saying the same things that we’re saying today — you know, religion of peace, Islam has nothing to do with terrorism — back then, it wasn’t violent extremism, but the basic message of the government was we didn’t really have a national security problem so much as we had 20 knuckleheads in Jersey City who weren’t representative of Islam as a whole.  And if we could just reign them in, all would be well.  And they said that in the White House, they said it in the White House Pressroom, they said it on the steps of the courthouse, Janet Reno said it, everybody in the government said it.

The only place it didn’t get said was inside our courtroom.  Inside the courtroom — because we had to prove to the jury not only what was done in the way of terrorist attacks but why it was done — we were actually able to prove why the terrorist acts were committed.  And what we were able to show was that there was an unavoidable, undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine — and I’m not going to try to parse at this point, you know, Islamism or Islamist, or — we’ve had that discussion again and again.

What I’m talking about is what’s undeniably in Islamic doctrine — the nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims, and the mediating agent from one to the other, where people like the Blind Sheikh — who we wanted to paint as wanton killers but who, in fact, were authoritative figures in their own communities.

Go to Front Page for the rest of the transcript

Loving the Enemy

UNited in HateBy Janice Fiamengo 

Proclaiming himself a conciliator and a moderate with a vision of Americans “stand[ing] with each other” and “paying their fair share,” President Barack Obama is in fact one of the most partisan presidents ever to occupy the White House. Fine-sounding words notwithstanding, he is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reflex affinities such as Obama’s have a long, bloody history, and anyone wishing to understand the threat posed by the Obama administration to the fabric of America is well advised to place its policies and rhetoric in a comprehensive historical perspective. How is it that an educated person can be attracted to totalitarian ideologies and predisposed to reject the freedoms of the western world? This was, arguably, the central question of the twentieth century, and it has assumed a renewed urgency since 9/11, a time when leftists have applauded terror attacks on the United States and claimed that America’s enemies are in fact righteous victims. What is one to make of their seemingly sophisticated arguments justifying atrocity? Can such people really believe, to cite only a few examples, that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by a longing for social justice? That the Palestinian leadership is committed to peace with Israel? That people are better off in Cuba, with the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, than in the United States?

Jamie Glazov responds to such questions in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009), a brilliant investigation that not only extensively documents leftists’ support for brutal regimes, but also diagnoses their worldview as a psycho-social syndrome of pathological dimensions. Leftist hatred, Glazov demonstrates, has less to do with specific political programs or economic systems than with a deep-rooted disenchantment with democratic freedoms and a corresponding “negative identification” with violence.

The objective evidence for leftists’ love of tyrants is substantial, and Glazov presents it convincingly with a blend of facts, anecdotes, and analysis. We learn, for example, about the massive effort on the part of western Communists to repress, distort, and recast the horrors of Stalinist Russia, including the purges that killed millions and the forced famine in the Ukraine that brought the peasantry to its knees. New York Times reporter Walter Duranty turned the reality of Ukrainian starvation into a cheerful tale of abundance, lying so aggressively in favor of Stalin’s policies that when the Manchester Guardian‘s Malcolm Muggeridge tried to report the truth-that peasant were dying en masse-he was mocked and derided, ultimately losing his job.

When leftists turned their attention to other bloody Communist regimes in Cuba, North Vietnam, China, and Nicaragua, many high-profile members of the western intelligentsia were eager to travel there to report on the miraculous gains that had supposedly been achieved. Susan Sontag wrote of Castro’s Cuba with fanatical admiration, denying the dictator’s atrocities and downplaying limitations on freedom, even going so far as to claim that “No Cuban writer has been or is in jail,” and that “the great majority of Cubans feel vastly freer today than they ever did before the revolution.” Making his pilgrimage to Hanoi in 1970, Noam Chomsky accepted as gospel all the nonsense his North Vietnamese hosts told him about the regime, as did Gunter Grass after a tour of a model Nicaraguan prison, which led him to enthuse that there was no room in the new regime for revenge-this in a country that had executed 8,000 political enemies and jailed 20,000 in the first three years of the revolution. (Hollywood’s Oliver Stone, with his glorification of Stalin and denunciation of the U.S. as “an Orwellian state,” is a current exemplar of this suicidal distemper.)

After the collapse of Communism, it has been déjà vu all over again with radical Islam. Immediately following the terrorist assault of 9/11, a jubilant chorus of university professors and progressives across North America refused to express horror for the attacks; instead, they blamed America, with Ward Churchill calling those who had died “little Eichmanns” and Nation columnist Katha Pollitt lecturing patriots who wanted to fly an American flag that it stood for “jingoism and vengeance and war.” Hundreds of so-called anti-war demonstrations were organized almost immediately to express solidarity with the Taliban regime that had harbored the attackers and to paint the United States as a warmonger. Since then, droves of leftist lawyers have worked to obtain release for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and to strike down legislation intended to help the United States guard itself against future attacks. Even when Islamists testify in court that their terror quests are inspired by Koranic injunctions to kill infidels, leftists insist that they are (justly) resisting American oppression. Western feminists routinely defend Islamic misogyny-wife beating, honor killing, genital mutilation, the burqa-and will not admit that women live better lives in the western democracies. And leftist gays march in anti-Israel rallies, joining with Muslim queer-bashers to denounce the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live securely.

Read more at American Thinker

 

The Leftist / Islamic Alliance

unholy alliance

Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov Defends Michele Bachmann on ABN TV, hosted by Robert Spencer:

The Heart of the Unholy Alliance’s Darkness

dtnBy

To know everything you ever wanted to know about the Left’s Islamist odyssey, visit DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the website that describes and exposes the networks and agendas of the political Left.

As Islamic Jihad, including its “stealth” variety, is rapidly succeeding in destroying our civilization, the Left continues its shameless and bizarre denial — not only about the threat of Islamic Jihad, but also about its own complicity with our enemy and its war on our society.

The latest example of the Left’s Jihad-Denial concerns me personally: it involves an intriguing post, written by Brian Tashman in RightWingWatch.org, titled: Beware: Human-Hating Liberals and Islamic Extremists Seek to Build Shariommunism. The post ridicules my recent appearance on CBN’s “Stackelbeck on Terror” in which I discuss the Unholy Alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam, which David Horowitz has masterfully documented in his masterpiece Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left and that I have analyzed in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

Unholy Alliance book

United in Hate book

The ingredients of Right Wing Watch’s attack on me are pathological not just in how they deny blatant reality, but also in how they in and of themselves substantiate the very realities they are denying.

Below, I will demonstrate and deconstruct the pathology in these assaults. It is more crucial than ever to expose the nature of the Left’s duplicity, lies and inner contradictions, since the Unholy Alliance’s malicious and destructive war on our civilization is now making more dangerous inroads than at any previous time.

Read it all at Front Page

See also:

Stakelbeck on Terror: The Unholy Alliance between Islamists and the Left

sot1_edited-1-450x286

Stakelbeck on Terror

Erick Stakelbeck sat down with Frontpagemag.com editor Jamie Glazov, author of High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown and William “Kirk” Kilpatrick, author of Christianity, Islam and Atheism.

The show focused on the unholy alliance between radical Islamists and the radical Left and what can be done to preserve Judeo-Christian, Western civilization:

“It Is High Noon For America”

imagesCABV4RXIShoebat.com:

By Drew Zahn

His parents were dissidents in the Soviet Union who braved gulags to voice the cry for freedom in a totalitarian state.

When he was five years old, his family fled to the West.

Now Jamie Glazov, editor of FrontPageMag.com, is following his parents’ footsteps, speaking out against the biggest issues threatening the freedom he found in America. And according to Glazov, the threat has never been more real or more urgent.

“It is high noon for America,” Glazov claimed in an interview with Josh Brewster of The Glazov Gang. “There’s a jihadist enemy that’s coming at the West and at America and at Israel. There’s the threat of stealth jihad and also violent, physical jihad. And … political correctness and the leftist ideology has completely blinded the West and handcuffed us behind our back, and we’ve got a media as well as people in our White House that are sabotaging us from within.”

Glazov spoke with Brewster about his family’s struggle for freedom, their run-ins with KGB interrogators, their escape to the West, the influence of David Horowitz, founder and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and about the release of his newest book, “High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown.”

Glazov’s earlier book, “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror,” shows how the radical left, even in America, is willing to cover for and partner with radical Islam, because the two groups share common values: namely, a hatred for Western culture, capitalism and the Judeo-Christian heritage of the U.S., and a desire to establish a new world order in their own image.

In the interview, Glazov explains how his newest book, “High Noon for America,” was formed from years of symposia on the detrimental influence of communism, Islam, the Obama administration and more on the foundations of American freedom.

“This is a collection of the brightest minds and what they have to say about the threat we face,” Glazov said.

The interview, which has been divided into two parts, can be seen below:

Sharia versus Freedom

At Front Page Jamie Glazov interviews Andrew Bostom about his new book, Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism. The following is an excerpt:

FP: What is Sharia and why is it relevant to US foreign and domestic affairs?

Bostom: According to the most authoritative twentieth-century Western Islamic legal scholar, Joseph Schacht (d. 1969), the Sharia, or “clear path to be followed,” is the “canon law of Islam,” which “denotes all the individual prescriptions composing it.” Schacht traces the use of the term Sharia to Koranic verses such as 45:18, 42:13, 42:21, and 5:48, noting an “old definition” of the Sharia by the seminal Koranic commentator and early Muslim historian Tabari (d. 923), as comprising the law of inheritance, various commandments and prohibitions, and the so-called hadd punishments. These latter draconian punishments, defined by the Muslim prophet Muhammad either in the Koran or in the hadith (the canonical collections of Muhammad’s deeds and pronouncements), included: (lethal) stoning for adultery; death for apostasy; death for highway robbery when accompanied by murder of the robbery victim; for simple highway robbery, the loss of hands and feet; for simple theft, cutting off of the right hand; for “fornication,” a hundred lashes; for drinking wine, eighty lashes. As Schacht further notes, Sharia ultimately evolved to become “understood [as] the totality of Allah’s commandments relating to the activities of man.” The holistic Sharia, he continues, is nothing less than Islam’s quintessence, “the Sharia is the most characteristic phenomenon of Islamic thought and forms the nucleus of Islam itself.” Schacht then delineates additional salient characteristics of the Sharia which have created historically insurmountable obstacles to its reform, through our present era.

Allah’s law is not to be penetrated by the intelligence . . . i.e., man has to accept it without criticism…It comprises without restriction, as an infallible doctrine of duties the whole of the reli­gious, political, social, domestic and private life of those who profess Islam, and the activities of the tolerated members of other faiths so far as they may not be detrimental to Islam.

Additionally, Schacht elucidated how Sharia—via the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war—regulates the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. These regulations make explicit the sacralized vulnerability of unvanquished non-Muslims to jihad depredations, and the permanent, deliberately humiliating legal inferiority for those who survive their jihad conquest, and incorporation into an Islamic polity, governed by Sharia.

Thus Sharia, Islamic law, is not merely holistic, in the general sense of all-encompassing, but totalitarian, regulating everything from the ritual aspects of religion, to personal hygiene, to the governance of an Islamic state, bloc of states, or global Islamic order. Clearly, this latter political aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient antecedent of more familiar modern totalitarian systems. Specifically, Sharia’s liberty-crushing and dehumanizing political aspects feature: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties—including freedom of conscience and speech—enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

Following violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish “Innocence of Muslims” video, which depicted some of the less salutary aspects of Muhammad’s biography, international and domestic Islamic agendas are openly converging with vehement calls for universal application of Islamic blasphemy law. This demand to abrogate Western freedom of expression was reiterated  in a parade of speeches by Muslim leaders at the UN General Assembly. The US Muslim community echoed such admonitions, for example during a large demonstration in Dearborn, Michigan, and in a press release by the Islamic Circle of North America.

Previously, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (subsequently renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC])—the largest voting bloc in the UN, which represents all the major Muslim countries, and the Palestinian Authority—had sponsored and actually navigated to passage a compromise U.N. resolution insisting countries criminalize what it calls “defamation of religion.” Now the OIC—via its Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu—is calling for a specific ban on speech allegedly impugning the character of Islam’s prophet, which he termed “hate speech.” Ihsanoglu accompanied  his demand with a thinly veiled threat of violence should such “provocations” recur:

You have to see that there is a provocation. You should understand the psychology of people who revere their prophet and don’t want people to insult him,…If the Western world fails to understand the sensitivity of the Muslim world, then we are in trouble…[such provocations pose] a threat to international peace and security and the sanctity of life.

Though the language of the OIC “defamation of religion” resolution has been altered at times, the OIC’s goal has remained the same—to impose at the international level a Sharia-compliant conception of freedom of speech and expression that would severely limit anything it arbitrarily deemed critical of, or offensive to, Islam or Muslims. This is readily apparent by reading the OIC’s supervening “alternative” to both the US Bill of Rights and the UN’s own 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, i.e., the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110, “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men . . . you believe in Allah”); and its last arti­cles, 24 and 25, maintain [article 24], “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia”; and [article 25] “The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” The gravely negative implications of the OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims:

Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.

Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of  so-called apostates from Islam, as well as “blasphemers”:

There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.

Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.

Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.

Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

Existing mainstream Islamic institutions and their ongoing efforts in North America are facilitating this global Sharia agenda, as evidenced by the following:

  • Data (compiled here) from an April 2001 survey performed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) revealed that 69 percent of American Muslims in America affirmed that it was “absolutely fundamental” or “very important” to have Salafi (i.e., fundamentalist Islamic) teachings at their mosques, while 67 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “America is an immoral, corrupt society.” Another poll conducted in Detroit-area mosques during 2003 found that 81 percent of the respondents endorsed the application of Sharia law where Muslims comprised a majority of the population.
  • The trial involving the Texas Holy Land Foundation’s funding of terrorism revealed an internal Muslim Brotherhood statement dated May 22, 1991. Written by an acolyte of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi — the Brotherhood’s major theoretician, lionized Qatari cleric, popular al-Jazeera television personality, and head of the European Fatwa Council — the document, entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” is self-explanatory: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
  • A scholarly study by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi published in The Middle East Quarterly, “Sharia and Violence in American Mosques,” looked at 100 mosques randomly selected across the U.S. in order to test the hypothesis that Sharia adherence within mosques (including, among many other factors, gender separation, clothing, male facial hair, jewelry, strictness on shoulder-to-shoulder alignment during prayer, etc.) would correlate with incitement to jihadism. This key summary finding was highlighted by the authors: “51 percent of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari’a-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence like the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent had no violent texts at all.” Thus, 81 percent of this statistical sample representative of U.S. mosques were deemed as moderately (30 percent) to highly (51 percent) supportive of promulgating jihadist violence to impose Sharia.
  • A provisional inquiry, “Shariah Law and American State Courts,” evaluated 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involved conflicts between Sharia and American state law. There were examples of American judges accepting “input” from Sharia in rendering judgments, included an odious, widely publicized New Jersey ruling that upheld Sharia-sanctioned marital rape. Appellate court intervention was required to reverse this ruling in July 2010: Western legal norms prevailed over Sharia — with the presiding judge soberly concluding that the Muslim husband’s “conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.” Completely ignored at the time of these New Jersey proceedings was the fact that marital rape is not recognized as criminal, but rather is sanctioned by a fatwa of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. (see below) Moreover, David Yerushalmi provided another clear, didactic example of the need for American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation to block such efforts. He described in brief an appellate court decision from Maryland, cited in the Center for Security Policy Study, where:

The court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by Sharia.

Yerushalmi then summarized the salient facts of the case and appellate court ruling*, as follows:

The Maryland appellate court ruled that since the woman could not prove she’d be executed had she gone to Pakistan to litigate custody in the Pakistan Sharia Court, which is a national-state court in Pakistan, her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making the void as against public policy argument. ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to have reversed the lower court’s outrageous decision (emphasis added).

  • Investigations of textbooks widely used in the New York City area Islamic schools, as well as the Islamic Saudi Academy of Fairfax, Va., discovered the promotion of Sharia supremacism, including sacralized disparagement and hatred of non-Muslims, especially Jews. When questioned for a New York Daily News story in 2003, Yahiya Emerick, head of a Queens-based non-profit curriculum-development project for the Islamic Foundation of North America, defended the language in these books, denying they were inflammatory. Emerick opined, “Islam, like any belief system, believes its program is better than others. I don’t feel embarrassed to say that. . . . [The books] are directed to kids in a Muslim educational environment. They must learn and appreciate there are differences between what they have and what other religions teach. It’s telling kids that we have our own tradition.”
  • The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s mission statement maintains that the organization was, “founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. . . . AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities. ” It is accepted by the mainstream American Muslim community, and regularly trains imams from throughout North America. Notwithstanding this mainstream acceptance, AMJA has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates, “blasphemers,” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”), and adulterers (by stoning to death); condoned female genital mutilation, marital rape, and polygamy; and even endorsed the possibility for offensive jihad against the U.S., as soon as Muslims are strong enough to wage it.
  • Finally, as reported by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), one of the largest mainstream U.S. Muslim organizations, in its 2010 ICNA Member’s Hand Book, openly acknowledges being the American branch of a global jihadist phenomenon referred to as the “Islamic Movement.” The 2010 Hand Book observes that branches of this movement “are active in various parts of the world to achieve the same objectives. It is our obligation as Muslims to engage in the same noble cause here in North America.”These efforts will culminate in the (re-)creation of a transnational Islamic superstate, the Caliphate, under Sharia law — the united Muslim ummah (community) in a united Islamic state, governed by an elected khalifah in accordance with the laws of Sharia.

Andrew G. Bostom,the editor of the highly acclaimed The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims and of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. He has published articles and commentary on Islam in the Washington Times, National Review Online, The New York Post, The New York Daily News, Frontpagemag.com, American Thinker, Pajamas Media, The Daily Caller, Human Events, and other print and online publications. He is the author of the new book, Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism. Visit his blog at andrewbostom.org/blog/.

The Problem of Inbreeding in Islam

PJM:

[Editor’s  note: Several days ago, an interview with Nicolai Sennels  by Jamie Glazov on Muslim inbreeding was published but taken down soon  after at the request of the author, as it was decided that  several themes needed to be buffered by more evidence and research. The  final product ended up working best as an article by Nicolai Sennels  himself, which is presented below].

There is a dire phenomenon rising in Europe that is crippling entire  societies and yet the continent sleeps, refusing not only to confront  the destructive elephant in the room, but also to admit its very  existence. The troubling reality being referred to is the widespread  practice of Muslim inbreeding and the birth defects and social ills that  it spawns.

The  tragic effect of the left’s control of the boundaries of debate is that any discussion about vital issues such as these marks an individual as  an “Islamophobe” and a “racist.” A person who dares to point at the  pathology of inbreeding in the Muslim community is accused of whipping  up hatred against Muslim people. But all of this could not be further  from the truth. To fight against inbreeding anywhere is to defend  humanity and to defend innocent babies from birth defects. Fighting against this Islamic practice stems from a pro-Muslim calling, since  identifying destructive ideologies and practices in Islam enables the  protection of the Muslim people from harm.

Massive  inbreeding among Muslims has been going on since their prophet allowed  first-cousin marriages more than 50 generations (1,400 years) ago. For  many Muslims, therefore, intermarriage is regarded as being part of  their religion. In many Muslim communities, it is a source of social  status to marry one’s daughter or son to his or her cousin.  Intermarriage also ensures that wealth is kept within the family.  Islam’s strict authoritarianism plays a large role as well: keeping  daughters and sons close gives families more power to control and decide  their choices and lifestyles.

Westerners  have a historical tradition of being ready to fight and die for their  country. Muslims, on the other hand, are bound together less by patriotism, but mainly by  family relations and religion. Intermarrying to protect the family and  community from outside non-Islamic influence is much more important to  Muslims living in a Western nation than integrating into that nation and  supporting it.

Today, 70 percent of all Pakistanis are inbred and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants“). A rough estimate reveals that close to half of everybody living in the Arab world is inbred.  A large percentage of the parents that are blood related come from  families where intermarriage has been a tradition for generations.

A BBC investigation in Britain several years ago revealed that at least 55% of the Pakistani community in Britain was married to a first cousin. The Times of India affirmed that  “this is thought to be linked to the probability that a British  Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general  population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.”

The BBC’s research also discovered that  while British Pakistanis accounted for just 3.4% of all births in  Britain, they accounted for 30% of all British children with recessive  disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality. It is not a surprise,  therefore, that, in response to this evidence, a Labour Party MP has called for a ban on first-cousin marriage.

Medical evidence shows that one of the negative consequences of inbreeding is a 100 percent increase in the risk of stillbirths. One study comparing Norwegians and Pakistanis shows the risk that the child dies during labor increases by 50 percent.  The risk of death due to autosomal recessive disorders — e.g., cystic  fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy — is 18 times higher. Risk of  death due to malformations is 10 times higher. Mental health is also at  risk: the probability of depression is higher in communities where consanguine marriages are also high. The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of mental and physical retardation and schizophrenic illness.

And then there are the findings on intelligence. Research shows that if one’s parents are cousins, intelligence goes down 10-16 IQ points. The risk of having an IQ lower than 70 (criterion for being “retarded”) increases 400 percent among children from cousin marriages. An academic paper published  in the Indian National Science Academy found that “the onset of various  social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures,  oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the  new-born inbred babies.” Another study found  that Indian Muslim school boys whose parents were first cousins tested  significantly lower than boys whose parents were unrelated in a  non-verbal test on intelligence.

It is estimated that one third of all handicapped people in Copenhagen have a foreign background. Sixty four percent of school children in  Denmark with Arabic parents are illiterate after 10 years in the Danish  school system. The same study concludes that in reading ability,  mathematics, and science, the pattern is the same: “The bilingual  (largely Muslim) immigrants’ skills are exceedingly poor compared to  their Danish classmates.”

These  problems within Islam bring many detriments to Western countries.  Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim  immigrants, for instance, severely drain the budgets and resources of  our societies. Look at Denmark, for example: one third of the budget for  the country’s schools is spent on children with special needs. Muslim  children are grossly overrepresented among these children. More than half of all children in  schools for children with mental and physical handicaps in Copenhagen  are foreigners — of whom Muslims are by far the largest group. One  study concludes that “foreigners inbreeding costs our municipalities millions” because of the many handicapped children and adults.

What  must our role be as a humanitarian society to this rising crisis? We  know that the greatest concern among pregnant women and their husbands  is for their child to be healthy. It is not difficult to imagine the  sorrow and stress among interrelated couples who are forced to marry and  pressured to have children. Is it not our duty to fight for the rights  of these human beings subjected to such barbaric and inhuman  predicaments?

What is it we can do?

Read more at PJM

Dr. Nicolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who worked for several years with young criminal Muslims in a Copenhagen prison. He is the author of Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experience from the Copenhagen Municipality. The book will be out in English later this year. Contact him at nicolaisennels@gmail.com.

Related article:

The Keystone of the Islamic Milieu: Inbreeding (Ann Barnhardt-American Thinker)

Front Page Video: Obama – The Anti-Israel President

Frontpage video:

 

Jamie Glazov interviews David P. Goldman, author of “How Civilizations Die”: