Brigitte Gabriel: FGM and Honor Killings Downplayed Because ‘Islamists Have Perfected the Public Relations War’

AFP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 7, 2017:

Brigitte Gabriel, president ofACT for America and author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, was a guest on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam.

Kassam asked Gabriel to expand on the article she wrote for Breitbart News on Monday, “The War on Girls.” The piece includes the harrowing account of a 16-year-old girl stabbed to death by her Palestinian father in a 1989 honor killing. A recording made of the incident captures the girl screaming and begging for her life while both father and mother order her to die quickly and quietly. The murder occurred not in the Middle East, but in Missouri; the girl was killed because her father thought she had become too “Americanized.”

“This is ‘honorable’ in Islamic societies, unfortunately, in many places around the world,” Gabriel said. “It is so sad that we in the West are starting to see such a rise in honor killings due to the rise of Islamic immigration into our countries.”

“I believe it is our duty to stand up for girls who are born in America, or England, or anywhere else in the world because they are Western girls,” she urged. “They want to adopt Western lives. They want to wear makeup. They want to get a job. They want to be able to drive a car and get out of the house with their friends to a coffee shop. But these are the sins that in some cases parents are killing their daughters for. That’s why this killed Tina, his daughter, because she got a job, she wanted to wear makeup, and he thought she was becoming too Westernized.”

Gabriel noted that in Europe, in 2004, “all European police associations held a meeting at the Hague to discuss the rise of honor killing in Europe.”

“The situation has gotten worse,” she said. “I know that in 2005, in London, in England, the British police reopened 1500 cases where originally they had thought it was just killing, just murder. 1500 cases were all reopened because they believed they were all honor killings, and the situation has just gotten worse.”

Kassam asked why the political Left seems to believe the defense of Islam takes priority over “the rights, and freedoms, and liberties, and lives of young women.”

“This is the perplexing question that we all are asking, and trying to figure out,” Gabriel replied. “I can understand why they’re not going to line up and say, ‘Oh my gosh, I don’t think we need to stop immigration, or we should be able to welcome refugees,’ et cetera. That’s fine. But when it comes to women’s rights, when it comes to genitally mutilating young girls – as young as six or seven years old – when it comes to killing women in the name of honor, you would think that the women’s movement at least would stand with us shoulder-to-shoulder to say this is not acceptable.”

“These are young girls – in the case of female genital mutilation, you are literally damaging the girl’s life for the rest of her life until the day she dies. The psychological effects, the medical effects, for years and years of misery to come. But they are not doing it,” she observed.

Gabriel suggested this was because “in order for them to admit that we’ve got to stand up for this, they’re going to have to shine the light or put the cause of this under the microscope.”

“People say well, it’s cultural. I say to them, if it is cultural – honor killing or female genital mutilation – how come we do not see Jews from North Africa or the Middle East genitally mutilating their daughters, or killing their daughter in the name of honor? How come we don’t see Christians from North Africa and the Middle East genitally mutilating their daughters or killing their daughters?” she said.

“The statistics speak for themselves. This is done almost 99 percent on Muslims by Muslims. It’s an Islamic practice, sanctioned in the Islamic code, for an Islamic religion,” she declared.

“For the lefties to basically say, ‘We need to stop this, what is causing this?’ to march against it will be literally standing up against and having to shine a light on the cause du jour for them, which is the Islamic cause, because they feel that Muslims are the underdog, and the oppressed, and we need to stand for them,” said Gabriel.

“What they call the right wing, or what they call wealthy business owners, they’re not poor. In the minds of the Left, you’ve got to be poor and downtrodden in order for you to be worthy of standing up for. This is why they are siding with the Islamic side instead of us,” she said.

Kassam suggested the Left pay attention to “the hard data that there is one case of female genital mutilation reported every hour in the United Kingdom,” and between 12 and 15 honor killings in the U.K. just last year. He said they should also be disturbed by the difficulty of obtaining solid numbers about such incidents in the United States.

Gabriel said the Left refuses to understand the problem, in part because “the Islamists in our countries, whether in Europe or whether in the United States, have perfected the public relations war.”

“They have perfected manipulating the media, which was already halfway there because, because as you know the Saudis and all the other money flowing from the Middle East into our universities has done an incredible job in brainwashing students in our political science departments and Middle East studies departments. By the time they graduate, they’re completely lock, stock, and barrel bought into the Islamic propaganda machine and ideas. They are today the news anchors, the news writers, the newsmakers, the policy shapers, the foreign policy makers. That’s why we’re seeing the attitudes and the resistance we’re seeing right now to our messages,” she said.

“However, we don’t have to stand back and wonder and watch them demonstrate, with us sitting on the sidelines talking about it and wondering why they’re doing this. We are organizing on our own. I can tell you that we in America, my organization ActForAmerica.org, this Saturday in just three days we are having rallies nationwide in the United States, in 29 major cities across the country, in 21 states,” Gabriel announced.

She said participants would “march against sharia, march for human rights, march for national security.”

“People can go to our website, ActForAmerica.org, click on ‘March Against Sharia,’ and find a rally near you,” she said. “We are the resistance movement that Europe did not have. America is not going to roll over and let the Islamists walk all over us, like what they have done in Europe. Here we are very organized, we are very passionate. We stand strongly behind our Second Amendment right, and we will defend ourselves.”

“We are applying pressure on our elected officials to do the right thing,” she added. “We have passed laws stopping sharia law from being instituted in many states in America. We have a bill called ALAC, American Love for American Courts, which has now passed in 12 states and is now introduced in another 10.”

***

On Saturday, June 10, 2017, ACT for America is having March Against Sharia events in cities across the nation.

Also see:

Anti-Shariah rallies planned for 28 U.S. cities June 10

WND, by Leo Hohmann, June 4, 017:

ACT! For America is planning a nationwide “March Against Sharia – March for Human Rights” on June 10 that so far has 28 cities signed up to participate.

Organizers say they will be taking a public stand against female genital mutilation, honor violence, the blasphemy and apostasy laws, among other elements of Shariah that are increasingly showing up in American society.

Brigitte Gabriel, the founder of ACT For America, said America is now starting to experience some of the same atrocities of Shariah that her family escaped in Lebanon decades ago.

“We want to increase awareness about certain practices that are starting to happen in our country with the rise of Islamic immigration, because we are now hearing about female genital mutilation, like the cases in Detroit recently announced by the Department of Justice,” she told WND. “Who would have thought in 21st century America, after what women did working so hard in defense of women’s rights that we’d be talking about little girls being horribly mutilated, and that 513,000 girls are at risk of this barbaric Third World procedure, according to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control].”

ACT! will also shine a light on honor killings and honor violence.

“It’s already here in America,” Gabriel said. “We’re seeing girls being killed simply for wanting to wear makeup. Under our Constitution they deserve the same rights and protections.”

She said U.S. feminists are “completely silent on this issue, and that is why we are trying to humanize this issue by putting names behind these atrocities. On our website we have faces of girls and woman who have been killed in the name of honor by their husbands in America. We want to personalize these faces so when people hear about honor killing and FGM they know it is happening here in America to American girls and women, not just in Pakistan or India or Saudi Arabia.”

Scott Presler received his ‘wake-up call’ after the Orlando attack of June 12, 2016.

Scott Presler, one of the organizers of the event, said the left will try to paint the rallies as “Islamophobic” and anti-Muslim, because that’s what the left always does in its defense of the Islamist agenda.

See an interactive map showing all 28 rally sites across the U.S.

If radical leftists want to hold counter protests in favor of female genital mutilations, honor killings and the death penalty for former Muslims who have left the faith, they are more than welcome to do so, he said.

“You cannot be pro-Shariah and call yourself a feminist – that is called fake feminism, people like Linda Sarsour are fake feminists and hypocrites,” said Presler, referring to the leader of the Women’s March on Washington after Donald Trump was elected president.

“And we’re not afraid to call them out,” he added. “We are here to protect our communities and educate them on the issues and get them to call their legislators to pass legislation that protects women and other victims of Shariah.”

Presler said his own wake-up call came one year ago on June 12, when the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was attacked by the son of an Afghan immigrant who killed 49 people in an act of jihad.

“I came out as gay after the attack on Pulse. I never intended to come out, at least not this soon, but after it happened, I felt I had to take a stand, I felt obligated, I had to fight for my community, my country,” Presler told WND.

In Muslim-majority countries where Shariah rules, there is no debate as to whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The debate is how best to punish them, and in some countries such as Saudi Arabia, how best to kill them – whether by beheading or throwing them off of tall buildings.

“We are under attack simply because of our sexuality. Just like women, just for being born a female you are already under attack, and I think that’s demonstrative of how extreme radical Islam really is,” Presler said. “I had to educate myself and now I’m trying to educate others.”

After the Orlando attack Presler said he joined ACT! For America.

“I had seen Brigitte Gabriel’s videos in the past, but after Orlando that was my wake-up call. Her wake-up call was 9/11, whereas my wake-up call was Pulse Nightclub,” said Presler, who grew up in northern Virginia and now lives in Virginia Beach.

Gabriel told WND the first national anti-Shariah rallies have the goal of humanizing the effects of Islamic law on real Americans.

Read more

***

Rita Panahi: Muslim video condones domestic violence the Left won’t touch

Reem Allouche and Atika Latifi stirred up controversy when they discussed how husbands could beat their wives in a Hizb ut-Tahrir video.

Herald Sun, by Rita Panahi, April 16, 2017:

IT’S hard to imagine anything more ludicrous than two Muslim women trying to defend their faith against claims of misogyny, by discussing the implements that husbands can use to beat their misbehaving wives and describing the abuse as “a beautiful blessing”.

Striking a blow for women’s rights everywhere, the women demonstrated the correct manner in which they should be hit and the type of tools appropriate for the job, including a small stick.

If it was a comedy skit it would bring the house down, but sadly what was posted on Facebook by the Women of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia was a serious discussion that served only to show the deep gulf that exists between devout adherents of the Koran and the Australian mainstream.

Atika Latifi was keen to dispel the notion that Islam has a women problem. She did that by advising the veiled female audience in Lakemba, and those watching the video, that wives who display “disobedience to the husband” can be hit, but only after being scolded and deprived of sex: “Advise them first; leave them alone in bed; and hit them. He is permitted, not obliged, not encouraged, but permitted to hit her. That is what everyone is talking about. It should not cause pain. Not harsh.”

Fellow panellist Reem Allouche, who disturbingly identifies herself as a primary school teacher, agreed that a husband disciplining his wife could “promote tranquillity” and that “Islam is not gender biased”.

Allouche told the audience that a husband could hit his wife if she strayed from the teachings of the Koran because “he loves his wife, he fears for his wife, it’s almost a natural consequence”.

Feeling empowered yet, ladies?

It’s easy to dismiss Hizb ut-Tahrir as extremists whose views are not shared by the wider Muslim community, but the fact remains that the discussion between Allouche and Latifi came after prominent Muslim leader Keysar Trad caused outage by saying husbands could hit their wives “as a last resort” if buying chocolates and flowers didn’t fix the problem.

It’s also worth remembering it was Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi that ABC host Yassmin Abdel-Magied sought advice from after her appearance on Q&A, where she claimed that Islam was “the most feminist religion”.

Yet there are no outraged feminists, Muslim or otherwise, aiming at the group’s meetings and lectures. The courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali — herself a victim of FGM, who campaigns for subjugated women in the Muslim world — was a target of Australian feminists but the hate preaching of Hizb ut-Tahrir doesn’t result in online video campaigns or street protests.

Trad, often presented as the moderate spokesmen for the Muslim community, is president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and a married father of nine who has spoken openly about his desire to take a second wife. Displaying incredible chutzpah, Trad was on Nine News to condemn the attitude of the women in the video. But simply attacking the women and ignoring the problematic passages in the Koran is too convenient.

If we are serious about tackling such viewpoints then we must look deeper at the belief system that not only permits but encourages this type of submission.

A statement by the Australian Muslim Collaborative claimed that “Islam categorically prohibits and denounces the abuse of women” and “any promotion of violence is against the spirit and letter of Islam”. But anyone familiar with history and the Koran would snicker at that.

Sheik Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, is one of the most influential scholars in the world and is among many Islamic theologians who are clear about how the Koran’s teachings about husbands disciplining wives should be interpreted.

“It is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas,” Al-Qaradawi explains.

“To be specific, one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behaviour and if he sees deviation only in what she must do or obey in relation to him.”

The AMC statement was signed by 30 prominent Muslims, including the president of the Australian National Imams Council, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, who in the past has expressed disturbing views about women, homosexuals and jihad, and The Project host and “terrorism expert” Waleed Aly who, despite being a lecturer at Monash University’s Global Terrorism Research Centre, speculated that the Boston bombings were the work of homegrown “American patriots” and seems bewildered about what motivates the Islamist terrorists of Boko Haram.

It’s extraordinary that Sheik Shady, who has said AIDS is a divine punishment for homosexuals, women should be “hung by their breasts in hell” and those guilty of adultery should be stoned to death, is judging the women in the video.

It’s also perverse that at a time when efforts to combat domestic violence see preschoolers exposed to contentious gender theories in the hope that they don’t one day become perpetrators or victims of violence against women, we have clear examples of ugly, problematic attitudes all but ignored by activists.

The Left’s disdain for the values that underpin Western secular democracies sees them continually give cover to Islamists. They would do well to heed Hirsi Ali’s words: “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”

Linda Sarsour’s Muslim Identity Politics Epitomize Feminism’s Hypocrisy

lindasarsour

Although she thinks a President Trump will turn back the clock 300 years, Linda Sarsour forgets that Islam never left the Middle Ages in its view of women.

The Federalist, by Shireen Qudosi, January 24, 2017:

A Frankenstein’s monster of identity politics, the Women’s March on Washington heaved through the streets of DC one day after the inauguration in a fit of depraved hypocrisy.

That hypocrisy shadows activist and National Co-Chair of the Women’s March Linda Sarsour. In the past Sarsour has railed against women spotlighting misogyny in the Muslim world. She openly advocates for including sharia law in the United States. Yet sharia law would dwarf her march’s half a million turnout to 250,000, because under sharia a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s.

Sharia law would also punish the female protestors for vulgarity in publicly displaying “pussy caps” and other brazen symbols of womanhood. It would also allow men to beat their wives and daughters for participating in the protest. Although she thinks a President Trump will turn back the clock by 300 years, Sarsour forgets that Islam never left the Middle Ages in its primeval view of women.

image1

sarsour1

Venerated by leftists, Sarsour now rides the great beast of modern feminism much like the “god-King” Xerxes in “300.” This weekend she and other heads of the Soros-connected movement protested against a democratically elected president. This is a Palestinian woman protesting about the democratic process in the freest country in the world.

Sarsour is also handsomely funded by New York taxpayers and supported by other elevated women in a nation that gives equal space to women’s voices. These rights do not exist in Islamic theocracies, where we find the real war against women—something Sarsour seems to deny—and where the democratic process is a fantasy.

Yet Sarsour, much like many in the Women’s March, continues to see a legitimate presidential election through the filter of the third world. A day after the election, she tweeted: “We can disagree & still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of humanity and right to exist.”

Read more

Liberal Support for the American Flag Hijab is an Endorsement of Slavery


By Tawfik Hamid (h/t Clare Lopez)
shepard-greaterthanfear-1-5550x7400-5690Shepard Fairey (the artist behind the 2008 “Hope” poster depicting then presidential candidate Barack Obama) produced a new set of images for President Donald Trump’s inauguration. One of his posters features  a Muslim woman wearing the American flag   as a hijab. The real irony here is that the Muslim hijab was originally designed as, and remains today, an intentional and literal symbol of discrimination and extreme disrespect and humiliation not only for women, but for all humanity. Many ideologues (be they of the liberal left or Islamophiles or whomever) are apparently blind to, or unaware of, or simply choose to ignore the fact that   traditional and unopposed Islamic teaching (which is to say, mainstream modern Islamic teaching) unambiguously states:
  1.        The Hijab is a dress code in Islam that was designed to distinguish “free” from “slave” women. According to Ibn Kathir (one of the most reputable interpretations of the Quran), and according to almost all authentic and approved Islamic theology and Sharia legal texts, the hijab exists to differentiate between free women and concubines so that free Muslim women will not be accidentally molested. Slaves and concubines (actual modern classes of human beings in Islam) enjoy no such protections.
  2.     Only “free” women are allowed to wear the hijab and cover their bodies. For example, Tafseer Ibn Kathir (again, one of the most reputable authorities in explaining the Quran) discusses the context (Asbab al-nuzil) of hijab verse Quran 33:59. According to this Tafseer and to most authoritative Islamic books men in Medina (the first capital of the Islamic Caliphate) would look at a Muslim woman, and if she was fully covered in the hijab they understood that she was a free woman and therefore refrained from sexually molesting her. On the other hand, if a woman was without a hijab, they marked her as a slave girl and [direct quote] “jumped on her to have sex.” In other words, according to traditional Islamic teaching, the command of the hijab was specifically to distinguish between slave and free women so that the early Muslims would not mistakenly rape the latter.
[Note: This religious teaching may explain the wave of sexual harassment and rape of European girls by many male Muslim immigrants].

3.     A slave woman is not allowed to imitate free women in wearing the hijab. If she dares to do so, she must be punished (“because her body is cheaper than and inferior to that of a free woman”). For example, Umar Ibn Al-khatab (one of the foremost disciples of prophet Mohamed) used to beat any slave girl who dared to cover her body as the free Muslim women did. Thus free Muslim women became distinctive from the slave girls. “When Umar Ibn Al-khatab travelled in Medina … If he saw “Ama” or a slave girl, he would beat her with his Durra [a special type of stick] until the hijab fell off and he would say: ‘How come the ‘slave girls are trying to emulate the free women by wearing the Hijab!'” Tabakat Ibn Saad.

4.     Free women must wear the Hijab when they reach puberty to decrease their sexual allure. According to Hadith of prophet Mohamed: “The Messenger of Allah turned away from his daughter Asma and said, ‘O Asma’, when a woman reaches the age of puberty (i.e. to become sexually attractive) , nothing should be seen of her except this and this’ and he pointed to his face and hands.”

5.      Free women who are supposed to wear the hijab will go to hell if they do not cover up with this dress. “Narrated by Abu Huraira that Prophet Muhammad said: women who are covered and naked at the same time [Kasiat Areat: does not cover their body completely] … will never go to paradise or even smell it.” Sahih Muslim

The above theological references are only few examples of many that illustrate the true symbolism of the hijab. It is truly hard to comprehend how the western liberal left has sunk to such a level that it can blindly accept, endorse, even promote a blatantly discriminatory dress code that supports slavery, explicitly defines women as sex objects, justifies sexual harassment and even rape, and then prescribes punishment for women who do not wear it. It is almost beyond imagining.
In brief, Liberal support for Slavery MUST Stop!

The Poisoned Veil: Are Muslim Women’s Rights Worth Fighting For?

41l0s4lrcol

I am pleased to announce that Brad O’ Leary has written this exhaustively researched book on the oppression of women under sharia using, in part, archives from the Counter  Jihad Report. This is the value of a counter jihad news aggregation site for writers and researchers.

In the introducton O’Leary states his reason for writing the book:

I am writing this book because I have six daughters, six grand-daughters, and four great-grandaughters. I don’t want them to become socially or emotionally involved, date, or go into business with people who have brought values with them that are inconsistent with the values my daughters and grand-daughters fought for and won, which is basically the quality and  the personal power as females to decide their lives based on their own views, not someone else’s views.

The book includes some interesting polling data on attitudes in the United States towards some aspects of sharia that O’Leary commissioned in conjunction with Zogby Analytics. The book views the Islamic reform movement favorably and is in favor of a Donald Trump presidency for his stance on immigration. The resource section at the end of the book is impressive. I can recommend this book for anyone looking for a comprehensive and personal analysis on Islam, sharia and Muslim immigration issues.

Press Release:

Flawed vetting process and language barriers bring immigration problems

AUSTIN, TX – 9/27/2016 (PRESS RELEASE JET) — An informative and controversial new book called The Poisoned Veil: Are Muslim Women’s Rights Worth Fighting For? is the 27th by the author, Bradley S. O’Leary.  The book points out that if immigration is indeed increased to 100-200,000, more money has to be spent for the vetting process to hire more Arabic-speaking citizens and females who speak Arabic because most Muslim families won’t allow the female member to be interviewed by a man.

Many of the families coming from the Middle East have lived under political leadership or in a society that has legalized many of the problems outlined in the book. In America, many of these practices are crimes, and Mr. O’Leary gives us suggestions on how to improve the vetting process so women coming into the United States can understand their new rights and privileges, while teaching the men how to live with equality in our democracy.

The book explores Islam and Sharia law in its oppressiveness to women and denial of equal rights with men. It looks at its approval of honor beatings and killings. The law denies women’s voices, keeps them segregated, forbids equal rights and the freedom to work, seek education or have any independent freedoms at all. They are hidden behind a veil and forced to do whatever men demand.

The book delves into the following issues, many of which are crimes under American law:
-the demand for a woman to accept a forced marriage
-the laws which allow Muslim men to have up to four wives and to marry girls as young as ten
-the interpretation of a Muslim man’s right to physically enforce his will on his wife or children
-the barbaric practice of forcing young girls to be subjected to female genital mutilation, or sexual blinding, an act that has been condemned by the United Nations and Western governments, but is allowed and supported by Muslim religious leaders
-the logic behind why a woman’s voice isn’t worth the same as a man’s in court
-the problems nations in Europe and around the world have in blindly accepting Islamic refugees
-the solutions to protect Islamic women from these atrocities

The book is published by Boru Books and is available on Amazon, Kindle and CreateSpace.

Media Contacts:

Company Name: Boru Books
Full Name: Bradley O’Leary
Phone: 3108046957
Email Address: bradoleary@aol.com
Website: www.thepoisonedveil.com

A Famous Feminist Weighs in on the Burkini Affair

Phyllis Chesler

MEF, Arutz Sheva
September 1, 2016

Originally published under the title “Q & A: Burqas and Burquinis: A Famous Feminist Weighs in on the Burquini Affair.”

Does a democratic government have the right to legislate what women wear?

Phyllis Chesler: In my view, ideally, neither a government nor a woman’s family, both of which are patriarchal entitles, should have the right to legislate what a woman can and cannot wear. It is therefore very dispiriting that so many Western “progressives,” including feminists, are rushing to uphold Sharia’ law and increasingly reactionary Islamist interpretations of the Islamic Veil, (mainly the face mask and full face and body covering), even as they remain silent about the Shari’a based persecution of Christians, homosexuals, Yazidis–and Israelis–by those Muslims who are barbaric Jihadists. Even more ironic, is their relative silence about how freedom-loving Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents, including feminists, are being severely subordinated, tortured, and murdered by Muslim Islamists.

In my opinion, as long as any woman can be beaten, death-threatened, or honor/horror murdered in the West because she refuses to wear any version of the Islamic Veil—for this reason alone, the Western democracies should consider banning it. Doing so, will not protect us from Islamic terrorist attacks nor will it necessarily help foster integration—two very essential priorities, but it may help save the lives of women living in Western-style democracies.

Aqsa ParvezSuch bans concern women’s human and civil rights; her right to sunlight, (without which she will contract all the diseases associated with a Vitamin D deficiency); her right to see, hear, and walk—or swim—easily; her right to be comfortable in the heat by wearing light-weight clothing; her right to see and be clearly identified by others in the public square or at work.

Banning the Islamic Veil is one way of refusing to collaborate with such barbaric misogyny.

There is another reason a ban on the Islamic Veil might be essential. Remember the alarmingly high rates of Muslim male gang-gropes and gang-rapes of naked-faced women all over Europe, both infidel and Muslim? Not wearing the Islamic Veil (burqa, chador, niqab, hijab) is often interpreted as: “The woman is fair game, she’s a prostitute.” Thus, wearing Islamic head, face, and body-gear targets those women who are not “covered.” And, by the way, many “covered” women have, nevertheless, been assaulted anyway.

Does a democratic, post-Enlightenment government have the right to extend the rule of law to all its citizens, including female or immigrant citizens? I’d say that it has the absolute moral and legal obligation to do so.

So what is your problem with the burquini?

On the one hand, this is a false issue. Far more important is finding Islamic terrorists before they attack in Paris, Nice, Brussels, and elsewhere in Europe. Far more important is naming, fighting, and winning the War of Ideas, the Islamic religious war against Western freedoms which has led to terrorist attacks. Far more important, is either finding ways of integrating non-hostile immigrants or of stopping “the hostiles” at the border.

burkiniMy concern with the burkini as follows: It does not seem all that comfortable to be swimming in so much yardage; it is not safe to have one’s ears blocked while swimming either. Not to be able to feel the water directly against one’s skin is equivalent to wearing a monk’s hair shirt. Women are not being permitted the simple God-given pleasures of our sensory beings. Why? What crime have women committed to be so punished?

What about haredi women’s burquini type swimsuits?

I fully support modesty as a woman’s choice. That is the difference. I believe that reasonable modesty is a woman’s choice–and a sane one given the world in which we live. I oppose unreasonable modesty that is also unsafe and uncomfortable.

Why do you think France made an issue of this when there is so much other Muslim evidence of takeover? (Maybe they are afraid of doing anything else, as Giulio Meotti has written, and this is their weak and symbolic way to ‘fight’ Islamization.)

Perhaps Giulio is right and yet, France has a long tradition of “secularism” or lacite. They have banned the hijb in certain settings (schools, government offices), and they’ve banned the burqa (or face mask) entirely. Banning the burkini is just another such challenge on the long and difficult road to integration.

The burquini and the burqa are also on a continuum of demands and challenges which face Europe and America. It is not an isolated instance in which foreign cultural norms are being injected into Western culture. Where does it stop?

Female genital mutilation, polygamy, child marriage, honor based violence and honor/horror killing have dared the West to stop such gender apartheid practices; attacks on infidels, especially Jews in Europe, are another such attempt to import religious apartheid from the Muslim world. The demand for halal food in public, secular schools, demanding that Muslim holidays be recognized as if they were national holidays, etc., are part of this continuum.

Praying, eating halal food, taking holidays, is not the problem. Acting as if such observances are sanctioned by the state which, in the West is separate from religion, is the problem.