Muslim-American Olympian Criticizes her Country

muslimolympics_1470557862401_3289875_ver1.0_640_360

How Ibtihaj Muhammad describes life in America for Muslims.

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, Aug. 9, 2016:

A Muslim-American woman competing in the 2016 Olympics in Rio, Ibtihaj Muhammad, made history as the first American Olympic participant to wear a hijab while competing. The fencer won her first round, then lost in a second round. She is due to take part in a team competition later on during the Olympics. However, with all the media attention she has received to date for wearing the hijab and speaking out as a Muslim advocate against her country’s treatment of Muslims as well as against Donald Trump, you would think she had already won the gold.

Rather than focus on the fact that she was representing America as part of Team USA, Ms. Muhammad chose to distance herself from her fellow Americans. Before the competition even began, she complained about not feeling safe in America because she was a Muslim. She has been whining about how she feels threatened because of her faith, and has politicized the Olympic Games with derogatory comments regarding Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Considering that “anti-Semitic crimes accounted for roughly 60 percent of religious hate crimes last year,” according to a 2015 Washington Post report, and “anti-Muslim crimes now make up about 13 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes,” the Jewish-American Olympic competitors would have had more reason to speak out about not feeling safe in America. However, they are in Rio to compete for the gold on behalf of their country, not to trash it.

“I wish that, not just my life, but the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States,” Ms. Muhammad was quoted by the Associated Press as saying after arriving in Rio for the competition.  (Emphasis added.) “I’m hoping that with my first-time appearance as a member of Team USA here at the Olympics, I’m hoping that the rhetoric around the Muslim community will change.”

This is a woman who had the opportunity to meet with President Obama and even offer the First Lady a fencing lesson. Indeed, Ibtihaj Muhammad has lived the American dream. She graduated from a top school, Duke University, where she attended on a scholarship. To fund her ambitions to become a world class fencer, she worked as a substitute teacher and fencing coach. She also founded her own clothing line Louella. And she has gotten some big name corporate endorsements. She missed qualifying for the 2012 Olympics, but continued working hard to make the 2016 team, which, to her credit, she succeeded in doing.

Explaining her primary motivation for going after a spot on the 2016 team, Ibtihaj Muhammad focused on her attachment to the Muslim community, not simply on the honor to represent America. She said, “When I heard that there had never been a Muslim woman on the U.S. team to wear the hijab, that is when I made this conscious decision to go for 2016.” She added: “I am excited to represent not just myself, my family and my country – but also the greater Muslim community.”

 If Ms. Muhammad were truly interested in representing “the greater Muslim community,” she should use her celebrity status to speak out against the atrocious living conditions of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim majority countries.

Did Ms. Muhammad by chance have the opportunity to speak with any of the very few female competitors from Saudi Arabia, for example? That devout Muslim country discriminates against its own female population, all under the banner of Islam’s sharia law. It is allowing just four women athletes to compete in the Olympics this year, after having received an ultimatum from Olympic authorities in 2012. At home in Saudi Arabia, women are not even allowed to attend national team competitions as spectators, let alone participate in any tournaments or state organized sports leagues of their own. “Our society can be very conservative,” said Prince Fahad bin Jalawi al-Saud, a consultant to the Saudi Olympic Committee. “It has a hard time accepting that women can compete in sports.”

More generally, there is strict gender segregation in Saudi Arabia. And merely wearing a hijab head cover would not be enough to keep a woman out of trouble for dressing too immodestly.

In commenting on the recent spate of Islamic terrorism, Ms. Muhammad blamed it on an “unhealthy situation” caused by “(M)isunderstanding of religion, of what different societies need in order to thrive.” It would appear that Ms. Muhammad has a basic misunderstanding of the doctrines in her own religion that have fueled violent jihad around the world.

As an example of political correctness run amok, there was mounting pressure on Michael Phelps, who was elected by his teammates to serve as flag bearer in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, to decline the honor in favor of Ibtihaj Muhammad, who came in second in the voting. Various media outlets called for Phelps to yield. Perhaps the most ridiculous article was a CNN op-ed piece addressed to Phelps by W. Kamau Bell, in which the author says that “America has enough tall, successful, rich white guys hogging the spotlight” and that “Muhammad carrying the flag would be nearly a one-stop inclusion shop.”

The Olympics should be all about sports competition for the top prize based on merit. It should not be about religious faiths or domestic politics. Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time, earned the honor to carry the flag on behalf of the United States. Muhammad has not earned that honor, unless being Muslim, wearing a hijab while competing and trashing her country constitute the new standard of “excellence.”

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Also see:

Understanding the Hijab

unnamed (48)Frontpage, by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, April 27, 2016:

I spent most of my life in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria until a few years ago. Now, living in the West, I am stunned with all misconceptions and misleading information about Islam. It seems to me that this stems from a large propaganda campaign coming from various platforms ranging from the dominant liberal media to Western Muslim scholars who have never lived in an Islamic country, but only read books published in the West. Liberals are brainwashed to view the West as the victimizers and the Muslims as the victims.

While covering all the misconceptions would require hundreds of books, I am going to only address the truth about the hijab in this article and the fallacies that are taught to ordinary people in the West about veiling, Muslim women, and the idea of victimhood.

(I have covered other truths and aspects of Islam in my memoir, Allah: A God Who Hates Women.)

Two of my own sisters have gone through the phases of wearing the hijab. I believe that the repression and domination of women in the Muslim world begins with the dress code — wearing a scarf, or hijab; wearing wide garments, chador; and hiding the body. In other words, the religion of Islam provides the language for men to dominate women by Sharia law, which takes possession of a women’s body from the moment a girl is born.

On the surface, a wide garment, scarf, or hijab looks like a piece of cloth. But, in fact, the dominating power of this piece of cloth is extraordinary. The idea is that once I can control your body, and once I can confine your body, I basically own you.

I believe and personally witnessed that wearing a scarf and wearing a wide garment, do not have anything to do with divine religious rules, as some ignorant imams or Muslims attempt to promote. Hijab is the first crucial step to possess a woman and make her follower of Islam.

I argue that the process of enforcing the hijab on women and making it feel natural to them is carried out through several institutional and psychological steps.

The First Phase: Indoctrination

The first phase is indoctrinating the idea of hiding one’s hair and body in the mind of a woman. The process of indoctrination begins from the moment a baby girl is born.

One concrete example is my sisters. They were forced to wear the hijab at the age of 8 in the schools of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria. So even before girls reach the age that they can make decisions, before they know right from wrong, they are indoctrinated to hide their body.  From age 3 or 4, they are repeatedly told about the “nice” things that will happen to them when they wear their hijab, and how they will be a good girl and be treated as a mature girl when they hide their body.

The Second Phase: The Superficial Pleasure

I call the second phase the superficial pleasure. In most cases, the first phase is followed with connecting fake pleasure with the action; in other words, this is the phase of connecting a bad or painful action with superficial pleasure and happiness.

For instances, there are ceremonies for the little girl when she wears the hijab. These ceremonies are performed at schools and often at houses as well. Psychologically speaking, the ceremony for the wearing of the hijab is skillfully, institutionally, and systematically orchestrated in schools to make the girls feel that these actions of hiding one’s body and listening to men elicit happiness.

Some Muslim women get stuck in these two phases for rest of their lives. For example, If you see some Muslim women in the West or East who wear the scarf and proudly argue and brag that they are wearing it happily and based on their own decision, they are actually unaware that they were subconsciously brainwashed from birth and that they are subconsciously confined in the aforementioned two phases. But since human beings normally are not cognizant of their subconscious thoughts that were formed while they were children, most of these women think that this is what they want.

More fundamentally, it is crucial to point out that there are also those Muslim women, particularly in the West, who get a different kind of superficial pleasure from wearing a scarf, wide garment, or hijab, even in the burning hot weather. These superficial pleasures are attention, materialistic gains, public sympathy, and a sense of victimhood.  They love the attention from the liberals primarily (whether from ordinary people, authorities or media), as well as the materialist gains that follows with that.

Many Western governmental and non-governmental institutions also might prefer to hire a Muslim woman who wears a scarf over other women, or give a women wearing a hijab more bonuses because they fear being sued for discrimination.

The Third Phase: Terror

The third phase I identify as imposing terror. The moment the two phases of indoctrination and connecting superficial pleasure with the hijab and hiding the body are fulfilled, the next phase begins, which is the process of imposing terror and fear in the girl in order to fix and cement the action.

This applies to those Muslim women who wear the hijab, but don’t brag about wearing it; these women have gone through this third phase.

Suddenly, the ceremony shifts to the real depiction of Allah, Khoda (in Persian); the Muslim god created by Muslim men. Allah becomes a torturer, an oppressor and a dictator.

The society tells the girls, as they told my sisters, that if you take off your hijab, scarf, chador, etc., and if you show your hair to people, Allah or Khoda will hang you from you hair for billions of years. When you die from being hanged or when all your hair is pulled out from being hanged, Allah will make you alive again and hang you from your hair again and again. If you talk back to your husband, Allah will hang you from your tongue. Allah will repeatedly burn you if you show the shape of you body to anyone other than your husband. Allah will take everything from you in this life and afterlife. The threats go on and on. Fear of Allah’s punishment is taught to those little girls. (One of my sisters had nightmares for many years after they taught her these stories at school.)

The hijab was imposed from the beginning to show women that they are second-class citizens, that men control their bodies, that men can force them to wear whatever the men choose, that they have no freedom, that they are created by Allah only to please their men, that they can only take off their hijab in the bedroom, that they are only a sex object for their husband, that they are not allowed to communicate with other people, that they are restricted, that they are cut off from the rest of the world, etc., etc.. They become a slave of Allah and other men.

The Final Phase: Liberation, Enlightenment and Freedom.

Finally, some women pass phase three and go to the final phase by revolting. I call this phase liberation, enlightenment and freedom.

If the oppression and restrictive laws of Islam go too far, become ubiquitous and unbearable, resistance and enlightenment will occur in some women. (This scenario is more likely to happen for some women who live in a country where religion rules the state — a theocracy such as the Islamic Republic of Iran — and where the state imposes Sharia law. In secular countries, i.e. Western countries or those Muslim countries in which the government is mostly secular, Muslim women are more likely to become more “Islamic,” in fact. I discuss the reasons in my book.)

Those few women who rebel go against all the indoctrination imposed on them from the time of their birth, and sometimes they protest regardless of the repercussions.

This is the real truth behind covering the body and wearing the hijab, which liberals need to comprehend if they truly believe in values such as human rights, social justice, freedom and democracy.

First Nude Protest Against Hijab in the Islamic Republic …

kl

Frontpage, by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, April 21, 2016:

As many Iranians have told me, and as I myself experienced in Iran from 2000-2009, there is always a way to protest Sharia and Islamic law, even if one lives under a theocratic, despotic, Islamist and authoritarian regime such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Standing against the draconian laws of the Iranian regime and the ruling mullahs, a young Iranian woman has just demonstrated this in an usual way: by a nude protest.  The repercussions of such an action are very grave under the Islamic law of the Iran.

The Iranian woman in this video is marking the first nude protest in the Islamic Republic. This woman is standing against the barbarian Sharia laws present in the Islamic Republic by writing on her body “I’d Rather Be a Rebel, Not a Slave.”

Several women, whom I have interviewed, have created similar videos, but they are waiting to leave Iran to post the videos. If a women gets arrested by the Iranian police for such an act, she will be tortured, repeatedly raped, and then executed for charges such as “fessad on Ardth,” “corruption on earth,” violating Allah’s, the Quran’s, and the Islamic laws of the Islamic Republic. The crime is also referred to as “muharabeh” “ enmity against Allah.”

In my recently published book, the memoir “Allah, a God Who Hates Women,” I illustrate in detail how the religion of Islam has provided a powerful platform for men, the ruling authorities in Iran, other Muslim countries, and Western Muslim men to dehumanize women, suppress and oppress them, and treat them like slaves. This is all happening while many Muslim women believe that they should follow the rules. Having lived most of my life in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria, I came to have first-hand experience regarding the intersection of Islam, the Quran, Muhammad, Allah, Mullahs, Sheikhs, authorities, repression, and women.

The suppression, oppression, and domination of women can reach intolerable levels under Sharia and Islamic laws. Some women decide to protest, rebel and revolt, while others decide to remain silent either due to the imposed fear of Allah (the God created by Muslim men) or due to materialistic gains that they achieve by following Islamic laws.

The religion of Islam provides the language for men to dominate women by the Sharia law, which takes possession of women’s bodies. The domination begins once a girl is born.

We should also remember that Islam infiltrates a political establishment and social beliefs very meticulously and often covertly. For example, before Sharia law was imposed on the Iranian population, almost no one would have thought — and in fact people ridiculed the idea — that Islamic law might be instituted in Iran. No one would have thought that a modern secular and civilized country might, all of a sudden, go thousands of years back to an uncivilized legal system.

No one would have thought that compulsory hijab would be imposed, that the legal marriage age for girls would be dropped from 18 to 9 years old, that speaking your mind or criticizing Islam, Muhammad or Allah would lead to execution, that the weight of the testimony of women would be half of that of men.

No one would have thought that the religion of Islam would take over so fast. But that is exactly what happened repeatedly, not only in the Islamic Republic, but also in many other places. The Islamists look for the momentum, and before anyone notices, they spread their local Sharia laws to larger social, political, and economic establishments and then they establish their Islamist judicial system, an Islamist army, and Islamist executive and legislative branches to advance their ideological principles by force.

When many liberal politicians, leaders, or scholars laugh at the idea that Islam might penetrate Western society and that Sharia law might infiltrate the social and political establishments of Western democratic countries, they have to take another look at history and concrete examples.

Finally, we should remember that President Obama is releasing billions of dollars to the same Iranian regime that does not grant its citizens basic human rights, does not allow them to wear what they like, to dance, or to listen to the music they desire.  We are giving money to the same regime that is ranked number one in rate of executions. We are giving money to the same regime that will execute women for asking for their rights. But regardless of the appeasement policy of President Obama towards the ruling clerics, many people in Iran will continue to stand against and resist the despotic and barbarian Islamist laws of Iran until either the regime is overthrown or completely reformed.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist, author, business advisor and public speaker, is president of the International American Council and serves on the board of the Harvard International Review (Harvard University).  Harvard-educated, Rafizadeh grew up most of his life in Muslim countries (both Sunni and Shiites nations). He is the author of the memoir “A God Who Hates Women” and the upcoming memoir “The Renegade.” Dr. Rafizadeh can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu. Follow him at @Dr_Rafizadeh.

Also see:

The Citadel considers first-ever uniform exception: allowing a Muslim hijab

citadel2

Washington Post, by  April 14, 2016:

The Citadel is considering a request from an admitted student that she be allowed to wear a hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith, a move that would be an unprecedented exception to the school’s longstanding uniform requirements.

If the request for the traditional Muslim hair covering is granted, it apparently would be the first exception made to the Citadel’s uniform, which all cadets at the storied public military college in South Carolina are required to wear at nearly all times. (At beaches, for example, college rules stipulate that, “Cadets will change into appropriate swimwear upon arrival and change back into uniform when departing.”) A spokeswoman said that to her knowledge, in its nearly 175-year history, the school has never granted a religious, or other, accommodation that resulted in a change to the uniform.

As word spread on social media, students, alumni and others responded strongly to the idea of an exception being made at an institution where uniformity, discipline and adherence to rules are defining values, where loyalty to the corps is paramount and individual preferences are trivial.

That the first exception might be for a Muslim student was an additional provocation for some — and welcome symbolism for others —  in the midst of a national discussion about Islam in U.S. culture.

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has called for strict limits on Muslims entering the U.S. because he considers the religion one of hatred and violence, while President Obama has said the fight against extremist terrorism is not a fight against one of the world’s largest religious faiths.

Nick Pinelli, a cadet working in marketing and DJing who is expecting to graduate in May, wrote a long post about the issue on Facebook Wednesday with his objections, including:

The Citadel should be able to tell the prospective student to wear what they tell her to wear. Not because they are concerned with the religion she is trying to practice or the speech expressed by doing so, but because they are concerned with the execution of an essential part of the system the Citadel puts in place. Agree or not with the system, this institution has that system for a reason (that most maintain has worked exceptionally for almost 200 years) and the disruption of that system by exempting those who don’t wish to conform is legally pronounced a slippery slope that will lead to the further disintegration of said system. Unfortunately, after seeing what has happened in the military in similar cases, the school is being financially responsible in not fighting it.

He pointed out that he doesn’t speak for the Citadel (which he doesn’t blame for considering the request) or for the Trump campaign, for which he is an intern, and wrote:

If I valued liberal ideology, I would go to UC Berkeley. I’d wear, say, and do whatever I wanted and it wouldn’t cost the university any time or money for me to do so. If I valued conservative ideology and wanted to challenge myself in a military environment, I would go to the Citadel. It’s no secret that you can’t wear what you want when you’re at the Citadel. You’re punished even for wearing what you want when you’re not on campus. But, those who come here are signing up for that, no matter how much they hate it (we do). So it’s not unfair to those people who want to join an organization with the intentions of excluding themselves from the regulations, it’s unfair to those who practice within the realms of those regulations. It’s unfair to the school having to change rules and adjust to the individual, when the individual could’ve gone to USC without incident. Your expression of self shouldn’t place a burden of cost on others.

This girl should be welcomed to the Corps with open arms, as should any person of any religion, race, gender, or identity. That’s equality. It’s not equality to let one of those groups follow a different set of rules

Pinelli wrote about a cadet whom he admires, a young man with cerebal palsy. “As you can imagine, one with such a physical condition would face challenges meeting the standard for physical fitness. Instead of showing up seeking a different set of rules, he jumped right into a challenge that was a perpetually uphill battle. Instead of saying he shouldn’t have to pass the PT test because of his disability, he failed it time and again and suffered the ramifications of holding himself to the same standard as the rest of the Corps.” He did not give up, and ultimately passed the test.

Pinelli wrote that another cadet had called him a bigot for objecting to the idea of an accommodation for a Muslim student. But it was not her religion but her “sense of entitlement” in asking for the accommodation that bothered him, he wrote.

Someone wrote in response to his post that if the rules were not changed, “she would either have to break the rules of the Citadel or the rules of her religion.” Another wrote, “… I  hope the best for this young lady. … I applaud our school and administration.”

But many voiced strong opposition to the idea of altering the college’s traditions. One cadet responded:

It doesn’t bring harm to the school. But it is a blatant disrespect to what a military school stands for. We come here and willingly give up our individuality and become a part of a group that upholds the time honored traditions of this school. So for anyone to come, not even walk through our hallowed gates, and force the school to go to extreme lengths both financially and resourcefully, to accommodate one person, isn’t right. I can’t wear a tshirt around campus that says “I love Jesus”. Why? It’s not because of religious intolerance, it’s because it does not meet uniform requirements that all 2400 of us are held to. Am I offended that I can’t wear a religious tshirt? Nope. Why? Because I accepted the system that I have become a part of, and I’m willing to let it change me and join a long line of men and women who I will be honored to call my brothers and sisters.

The college, founded in 1842, has won praise for its academics as well as the leadership skills taught to its 2,300 or so undergraduates, about 170 of whom are women (the school began admitting women in 1996). The college has several Muslim students enrolled now, a spokeswoman said.

Female Air France Union Refuses Hijabs

Capture-2by CounterJihad, April 5, 2016:

France has a striking legal attitude against religion in the public space.  Taking pride in its Enlightenment heritage, French law requires that certain public spaces be free of “ostentatious religious symbols.”  The law effectively bars some religious sects from public office, as no one can wear such symbols in government buildings.  It also imposes a serious limitation on such sects in ordinary life, as their children may not wear such symbols to school.  In this way, the secular state in France forces all religions to acknowledge the supremacy of the state in daily life.  No religion is singled out, and the original policy dates to a 1905 law aimed at Roman Catholics, but today Muslims in France are the ones who are most obviously affected by the bans.  The full-face veils of the strictest sects of Islam are forbidden anywhere in France outside the home.

So when the sanctions against Iran lifted recently, Air France found itself with a problem.  The airline intends to begin regular flights between Paris and Tehran.  However, its flight attendants union is made up largely of French women who have lived their whole lives with legal protection against being forced to veil themselves.  They are arguing that French law forbids the airline from insisting that they don the hijab.  They are also arguing that they cannot be forced by their employer to fly into a country that would require it of them by law.

Unions are very powerful in France, so Air France appears to be caving in rather than facing a court challenge they would probably lose.  They seem prepared to offer the concession that the union asked by making the Tehran flights optional duty for volunteers only.  However, Air France does have a counterargument:  they already require female crew flying into Saudi Arabia to wear abayas.  German carrier Lufthansa also requires female staff to wear the fuller abaya when flying into Islamic countries including Iran.  Thus, it is industry standard practice to force European women to submit to sharia law when flying into these countries.

Recently, an all-female aircrew from Royal Brunei Airlines landed a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Their flight was the first into the Kingdom that was crewed entirely by women.  It made international headlines because of the fact that, on landing, the women who had flown a major long-range aircraft were suddenly forbidden from driving themselves to their hotel.

***

Air France Stewardesses Reject Wearing Hijabs in Iran…

Islamic Refugees Riot Because Woman Refuses Hijab

refugee riotCounter Jihad, Feb. 26, 2016:

A riot between Iraqi, Afghan and Syrian refugees was sparked when a female migrant from Syria refused to wear a headscarf as required by the Islamist readings of sharia law.  The mass violence led to nearly a dozen arrests as camp furniture was turned into makeshift weapons by the sudden mobs.

The Daily Mail (UK) reports:

Footage of the fight at the migrant centre showed members of the two groups using everyday items against one another during the riot.  Theo Francken, secretary of State for asylum and migration, said: ‘I find it totally unacceptable that some young Afghans find it necessary to tell them to wear a headscarf and that they should not dress against western Syrian girls.  They come here, they are guests here. We are not with them. They have to adapt to our rules.’

Unfortunately, the violence highlights the risk of refugees from the Middle East as a vector for hardline Islamist attitudes and interpretations of sharia law.  Nor are the attacks likely to end with fellow refugees from Muslim-majority nations.  Though establishing control and enforcing sharia on that community is certainly the goal of radical factions, they are unlikely to be satisfied with that.  Such control over a sharia-compliant community can be used as a base from which to expand efforts to require submission from the rest of the population.

These attacks on the freedom of women do not require any formal infrastructure.  Attitudes towards women in the host nations, especially Afghanistan and the tribal or Shi’a Islamic regions of Iraq and Syria, are sufficient to provoke violence against women who do not submit to their norms.  This was most obviously seen during the recent attacks in Cologne, and indeed across Germany, against hundreds of women engaged in ordinary Christmas celebrations.

Though recent arrivals in the West, these attackers are somehow conscious of the protections extended to them by political correctness.  It is as if they have somehow been briefed on the limits police will face in trying to restrain Muslims:

The Muslim men used a tactic… well known to those of us who’ve followed the scant reports on the rape jihad as it has proceeded from Tahrir Square to Malmö to Rotherham: A group of men encircles the targeted woman or girl, trapping her while walling off police and other would-be rescuers. Knowing they are a protected class, the Muslim men have no fear of the cops — “You can’t do anything to me,” and “Mrs. Merkel invited me here,” are just some of the reported taunts. By the time “help” reaches one victim, the assailants have moved on to the next.

The question must be asked: has the fame of the Western fear of offending Islam flown so far, or are they in fact being briefed by someone? If the latter, who is telling them that they can prey on Western women and stand up to our police without fear?

Our governments must be made to understand we insist on police who will not back down to these assaults. The handcuffs should be on those raping and assaulting women, not on the police.

Why Sensible People Are Bothered When Women Wear Hijabs

hijabs are disturbingCitizen Warrior, Feb. 18, 2016:

There are Muslim women all over the world who don’t wear a hijab, yet consider themselves Muslim. But the doctrine says a believing woman should cover herself.

So when Muslim women begin to cover themselves, it is a visible signal of increasing orthodoxy. In other words, if there are Muslims in your area, and the women start covering themselves, it is an indication that the Muslims in your area are beginning to take the written doctrine more seriously.

And it is never just that particular written doctrine only — it is all the written doctrine, which includes hatred toward non-Muslims, political action to put the reins of power in Muslim hands, increasing demands for Islamic standards of dress, behavior, Islamic limits on free speech, etc. Because of the political nature of Islamic doctrine, these Islamic standards are not to be only applied to Muslims; as Muslims gain political power, those standards are to be applied to everyone.

Already in some parts of European countries where there is a high Muslim percentage, non-Muslim women are harassed (or worse) if they don’t cover themselves.

Many of the signs of increasing devotion to Islamic ideals cannot be seen by non-Muslims. But the hijab can be seen by everyone.

This has also been published here for sharing purposes.

Islamic Groups Push ‘World Hijab Day’ To Undermine Western Opposition

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by Dr. Susan Berry. Feb. 2, 2016:

Some non-Muslim women in the United States and other countries voluntarily donned the “hijab” on Monday to show “solidarity” with Muslim women.

World Hijab Day is part of a major effort supported by radical Muslim Student Association (MSA) to foster empathy toward Muslims and Islam in America.

“People see a veil, the hijab, but people don’t understand why we wear it,” said Doha Medani, a sophomore at North Carolina State University (NCSU), reports The Technician, the school’s newspaper. “My hijab is how I represent myself to the world: as a Muslim, first and foremost,” Medani said.

“The first thing people see … is my hijab. It makes it clear to the world, or whoever else, that I’m Muslim… it tells people a lot about who you are,” she added.

The campaign, however, is spurring protests from Americans. For example, two Muslim women penned a December op-ed at the Washington Post in which they say the hijab campaign is intended to hide Islam’s sexist political agenda, and urged Americans to stand against Islam’s ideological oppression of women.

“Journalists and media outlets must stop making the mistake of defining hijab as ‘headscarf,’ furthering a sexist propaganda campaign to equate the two,” wrote Asra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa.

In the name of ‘interfaith,’ well-intentioned Americans are getting duped by the agenda of Muslims who argue that a woman’s honor lies in her ‘chastity,’ pushing a platform to put a headscarf on every woman,” the Muslim women added. “Please do this instead: Do not wear a headscarf in ‘solidarity’ with the ideology that most silences us, equating our bodies with ‘honor.’ Stand with us instead with moral courage against the ideology of Islamism that demands we cover our hair.

Hijabs are tight or loose headcloths that leave the face uncovered. They’re a less restrictive version of the face-hiding burkas imposed on Afghans women, or the eye-revealing niqabs forced on Saudi women, including Saudi journalists.

Advocates of the Hijab campaign downplay their Islamic political goals, and instead portray their campaign as a women’s solidarity event.

“It’s like a ‘Walk a day in their shoes’ type of thing, for women to wear the hijab and see what happens, how things around them change when they are viewed as a Muslim woman — to step into that and get that perspective,” said NCSU senior Hoda Abrahim. “So you can empathize in a way, or just better understand it.”

At NCSU, the school’s MSA and Women’s Center jointly allowed non-Muslim women the opportunity to wear the hijab and share their stories about their experience.

World Hijab Day was billed as “an open invitation to Muslims and non-Muslims to experience the hijab for a day.” Ads for the event were clearly aimed at attacking negativity toward Muslims and proposals to limit their immigration due to concerns about terrorism from Islamic jihadists.

“Before you judge, cover up for a day,” read one ad. “Covered by choice, not force,” another read, tying to countering the widespread view that Islam oppresses women. Yet another featured a woman in a hijab with the message, saying “Beautiful, confident, empowered.”

The Penn State Berks MSA hosted “World Hijab Day” and advertised a “free scarf for female attendees, a tutorial on how to wear the hijab, and a free lunch for all who attend.” Participants were asked to wear the hijab for the entire day and send their stories about their experiences to the school’s MSA president, reports Penn State News. A prize was awarded to the woman who submitted the most “engaging submission.”

At Texas A & M, biology junior Salam Yamak told The Battalion, “Anytime you sit down with someone and you have a conversation and you show them what your religion is all about should be casual like this,” she said about marking the day. “It creates a better environment and so we can better show the true nature of Islam.”

“Whenever you have Islamophobia or any other group that is seen as different it’s because of people not having enough knowledge or having enough experiences with Muslim people,” Yamak added.

Similarly, chemical engineering senior Danielle Gore said Islamophobia must be fought through dialogue that shows how peaceful Islam is as a religion.

“Especially for people who have only seen negative portrayals of Islam in the media and that’s what this holiday [sic] is for, to create a dialogue and to ask questions and to humanize a group of people who have been dehumanized,” he said. “Even if we do get some crazy people who yell things at us when we’re walking around campus we have definitely seen the goodness come out from our fellow Aggies by showing us support, despite the rhetoric that’s been created.”

In their anti-hijab-day op-ed, Nomani and Arafa argued that the event hides a political goal.

“Muslim special-interest groups are feeding articles about ‘Muslim women in hijab‘ under siege,” the authors say. “Staff members at the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR], which has pressed legal and PR complaints against U.S. companies including Disney World and Abercrombie & Fitch, have even called their organization ‘the hijab legal defense fund.’”

federal judge concluded in 2009 that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with Hamas” the jihad-group based in Gaza that shoots rockets in Israeli towns and communities. Since then, FBI leaders have sharply reduced any connection to the group, which has also been and has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT),

Islamic extremism is on the rise on college and university campuses across the United States. The spread of radical Islamism on campuses has proven to be an effective tool to garner support and gain legitimacy, exploiting the right of free association with academic institutions. International and domestic groups that advocate extremist or radical causes frequently host lectures and other events on campuses to shore up support and recruit members. Indeed, universities are a fertile field for radicals searching for the next generation of activists and sympathizers.

“The Muslim Students Association (MSA) of the United States and Canada was incorporated in January 1963, when members of the Muslim Brotherhood came together at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign with the goal of ‘spreading Islam as students in North America,’” states IPT.

World Hijab Day was launched in 2013 by Nazma Khan, a New York resident who hoped to change the image of the hijab as a sign of oppression of women of Islam. The day has been especially marked on college and university campuses.

Among World Hijab Day’s “endorsers” is Felixia Yeap, an ex-Playboy bunny and ex-Playboy model, who writes in support:

I support world hijab day because I have heard enough stories of why hijabi women are being bullied and mocked just because they wear a hijab. I have been and still am being sarcastically mocked and insulted just because I chose to be a full time “hijabster” despite the fact that I have not reverted yet. Thanks for coming up with this 1st Feb!

“Revert” is the Islam term for “convert,” and illustrates the orthodox Islamic claim that everybody is born a Muslim, but many are led away from the Islamic lifestyle, or “deen,” by their parents and non-Islamic societies.

***

Egypt 1958, Muslims laughed at Muslim Brotherhood idea to impose hijab on women (themuslimissue.wordpress.com)

One of our Canadian readers Canada Uber shared this evidence of Islamic devolution from Egypt in 1958. Muslims are more backward today than decades ago.

Egyptian President Nasser giving a speech in 1958 followed by the laughter from the whole crowd when he describes the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans to make all women in Egypt wear a hijab.

The subtitles are in yellow and a little hard to read.

The last line is absolutely priceless.

As we have said many times in the past, with the testimony of elderly Muslims, the hijab was introduced by terrorist organizations. Wherever you find the hijab, you find the support of terrorism. The fully covered garbage sack or “beekeeper’s costume” has nothing to do with culture or religion but is a rape shield which entitles Muslim men to beat, rape or kill women should they not comply to their orders. And as our readers have observed, the hijab (fully covered burka) is a weaponized articles of clothing designed to make an influential or intimidating political statement.

Pope’s Visit Coincides With Campaign Against Christian School

by Khaled Abu Toameh:

“It is a Christian school and if you want to put on a hijab, go to a Muslim school.” — Razan, east Jerusalem.

Some Christian families said they considered bringing the issue to the attention of the Pope and his entourage but were afraid to do so for fear of retribution.

It remains to be seen whether the Pope or the Vatican will do anything to help the school’s administration in the face of the campaign of intimidation and threats.

Pope Francis was probably unaware that during his visit to Bethlehem earlier this week, a Christian school in east Jerusalem was being attacked by Palestinian families for allegedly banning their daughters from wearing the hijab, the veil that covers the head of Muslim women.

The families claimed that the administration of Rosary Sisters’ School had prevented their daughters from attending a graduation ceremony because they were wearing the hijab.

The school decided several years ago that it would not allow Muslim girls to attend graduation ceremonies while wearing the hijab. The decision has triggered a war of words between supporters and opponents of the ban and highlighted tensions between Christians and Muslims.

On May 22, the families, in an unprecedented move, staged a demonstration against the Rosary Sisters’ School, accusing its directors of “racism” and “intolerance”.

The demonstration is seen as a sign of long-simmering tensions between Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem and the West Bank, especially Bethlehem.

Palestinians often avoid any public discussion of tensions between Muslims and Christians due to the sensitive nature of the issue. The Palestinian Authority, for its part, went to great pains to show the Pope and the rest of the world that Muslims and Christians live in harmony and mutual respect.

During Pope Francis’s visit, Palestinian Authority leaders and spokesmen blamed Israel for the plight and exodus of Palestinian Christians. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told the Pope during their meeting in Bethlehem on May 25 that Israeli actions have driven “many Christians and Muslims to emigrate.”

Of course the Palestinian Authority did not tell Pope Francis anything about the smear campaign that was being waged by Muslims against the Rosary Sisters’ School in east Jerusalem.

At the demonstration outside the girls’ school in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina, protesters shouted slogans against the administration and carried placards that read, “No To Racism,” “Hijab Is A Personal Freedom” and “Enough To Racism.”

Some of the protesters pointed out that the hijab had “triumphed in France and Europe” while it was being banned by a school in east Jerusalem.

It was the first time that Muslims had demonstrated against a Christian institution in the city. The families of the 17 girls who did not attend the graduation ceremony were joined by dozens of Palestinian Muslims who joined the campaign against the Christian school.

 

Three of the hijab-wearing students pictured at a demonstration against Rosary Sisters’ School.

Um Mohamed, the mother of one of the girls who were reportedly banned from attending the graduation ceremony, said she and other parents had reservations about their daughters being forced to appear in public without the hijab.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

The Hijab has Nothing To Do with Modesty

black-eyeFront Page, by :

Robert Spencer has replied at great length and depth to Robert P. George of First Things and Michael Potemra of the National Review here, but I just want to zero in on one issue.

George writes, “I admire Muslim women and all women who practice the virtue of modesty, whether they choose to cover their hair or not. There are many ways to honor modesty and practices vary culturally in perfectly legitimate ways.”

Unfortunately he is operating under a misapprehension. The Hijab and the Burka and variations of mandatory female coverings have nothing to do with modesty.

The Koranic verse that mandates covering states, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested” (Koran 33:59)

That’s not modesty. The covering is being worn to avoid rape.

The key words here are “distinguished and not molested”. Whom are these women being distinguished from? Women who don’t cover up and can be molested. One Koranic commentator explicitly makes that very point as I discuss in Muslim Rape Culture.

This isn’t modesty. It’s repression and fear. As Robert Spencer points out, the Hijab is accompanied by repression.

Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Amina Muse Ali was a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. Forty women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab.

There’s an endless list of similar cases. Robert P. George might want to examine the religious freedom he is really defending.

A survey conducted in France in May 2003 found that 77 percent of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups.

We can’t dismiss a number that large as the work of a handful of extremists. And this isn’t taking place in some Third World country. It’s happening in France.

More often the girls were under orders from their fathers and uncles and brothers, and even their male classmates. For the boys, transforming a bluejeaned teen-age sister into a docile and observant “Muslim” virgin was a rite de passage into authority, the fast track to becoming a man, and more important, a Muslim man…. it was also a license for violence.

Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out “Islamic justice.” Sometimes the girls were gang-raped. In 2002, an unveiled Muslim girl in the cite of Vitry-sur-Seine was burned alive by a boy she turned down.

Jane Kramer, Taking the Veil, New Yorker

This isn’t modesty. It has nothing in common with modesty in the Jewish and Christian traditions which is about individual character.

Islamist activists and settlers in the West have learned how to phrase their arguments to tap into the worldviews and moral codes of indigenous cultures, but it would be a mistake to confuse the argument with the reality.

The Hijab and the Burka are not voluntary and they have nothing to do with modesty. The various Islamic coverings are motivated by fear, shame and abuse.

See also:

How women should dress according to different Muslim countries… with the vast majority saying they should NOT cover their face

  • Survey was carried out in Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey which all have a majority Muslim population
  • The majority prefer women to cover their hair rather than their whole face
  • But a substantial proportion in Lebanon and Turkey felt it’s appropriate for women not to cover their head at all in public

By SUZANNAH HILLS:

The way Muslim women should dress in public has been a strongly debated topic in recent months.

But a new study has now revealed what the citizens of different Muslim countries believe is appropriate female dress – and how widely views differ between them.

The survey was conducted across seven countries – Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – which all have a majority Muslim population.

And the research from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research found that most residents in these countries prefer women to cover their hair with a traditional hijab, al-Amira or head scarf rather than cover their entire face with a full burqa or niqab.

Survey: Chart shows how people from seven different countries with a majority-Muslim population believe women should dress

Survey: Chart shows how people from seven different countries with a majority-Muslim population believe women should dress

Researchers asked respondents to pick their favoured style of female Muslim dress from a chart, assembled by the Pew Research Center, showing a range of clothing from the full burka (see image one on the chart above) and niqab (see image two) to types of hijabs (image four and five) to no head covering at all (image six).

The majority of those questioned – 57 per cent in Tunisia, 52 per cent in Egypt, 46 per cent in Turkey and 44 per cent in Iraq – believed the white hiqab or basic al-Amira (shown in image four) is the most appropriate dress for a Muslim woman.

But the more conservative black hijab or chador (shown in image three) was the second favourite choice of citizens in Iraq and Egypt.

And a 63 per cent-majority of those polled in Saudi Arabia chose the second most conservative form of dress, a niqab, which is depicted in image two.

Read more at Daily Mail

France: Muslim Woman Sues Over Burqa Ban

by Soeren Kern:

The law [banning the veil] also liberates women because the wearing of veils “is totally incompatible with the very idea of equality,” according to Annie Sugier, head of the International League for Women’s Rights.

“[H]er aim is not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself.” — Part of Court’s summary of the case.

The court has deemed the case to so important that it has taken the unusual step of referring it to the Grand Chamber, the Court’s highest chamber.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has opened a landmark hearing to consider the legality of France’s ban on wearing Islamic veils in public spaces.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR enforces the European Convention on Human Rights and its jurisdiction is compulsory and binding for all 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

The court’s ruling—expected to be issued sometime during the middle of 2014—will determine the fate of the debate over so-called burqa bans (herehereherehere and here) that have been raging across Europe for many years.

This is the first time the supra-national ECHR has agreed to consider the legality of the face-covering niqab or the body-covering burqa in public spaces in a European country.

 

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. The ECHR is considering the legality of France’s restrictions on wearing the Islamic veil in public. (Image source: CherryX/WikiMedia Commons)

The court has deemed the case so important that it has taken the unusual step of referring it to the Grand Chamber, the court’s highest chamber that handles the most significant and leading-edge questions affecting the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court began hearing the case—which is being brought by a 23-year-old French Muslim woman identified only by her initials S.A.S.—on November 27.

According to a summary of the case published by the court, S.A.S. sued the French State on April 11, 2011, when legislation banning people from covering their faces in public places came into force. The document states:

“In the applicant’s submission, she is a devout Muslim and she wears the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious faith, culture and personal convictions. As she has explained, the burqa is a full-body covering including a mesh over the face, and the niqab is a full-face veil leaving an opening only for the eyes. The applicant also emphasizes that neither her husband nor any other member of her family puts pressure on her to dress in this manner. She adds that she wears the niqab in public and in private, but not systematically. She is thus content not to wear the niqab in certain circumstances but wishes to be able to wear it when she chooses to do so. Lastly, her aim is not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself.”

S.A.S. argued that the French law violates six articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. These are: Article 3 (no one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion); Article 10 (freedom of expression); Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association); and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

France’s “burqa ban” entered into force on April 11, 2011. The law—which prohibits the wearing of Islamic body-covering burqas and face-covering niqabs in all public spaces in France—was enacted amid rising frustration that the country’s estimated 6.5 million Muslims are not integrating into French society.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

British Education: Creeping Sharia

by Soeren Kern:

Many Muslim groups…have been marketing themselves as “inter-faith” schools in an effort to qualify for [free school] government funding. More then 80 free schools — at least a dozen of which are catering specifically to Muslim students — are currently operating in Britain and another 200 are in the planning stage.

A taxpayer-funded Muslim school in England has inflamed public anger after it emerged that the institution is operating according to Islamic Sharia law.

Islamic fundamentalists running the Al-Madinah School in Derby, an industrial city in central England, have ordered all female teachers — including those who are not Muslim — to cover their heads and shoulders with a hijab, an Islamic scarf.

In addition to the strict dress code, pupils have been banned from singing songs, playing musical instruments, or reading fairy tales, activities deemed to be “un-Islamic,” according to non-Muslim staff members at the school.

 

The Al-Madinah School in Derby, England.

Girls as young as four are required to sit at the back of the classroom, behind the boys, regardless of whether they can properly see the chalkboard. Girls must also wait for all the boys to get their lunches before they can eat.

When teaching children the alphabet, staff are prohibited from associating the letter ‘P’ with the word “pig.” Female staff are banned from wearing jewelry and are instructed to avoid shaking hands with male teachers to prevent “insult.” Naturally, all non-halal food is outlawed at the school.

The revelations about the un-British goings-on at the Al-Madinah School — some staffers have compared the working conditions at the school to “being in Pakistan” — are fueling outrage over what some are describing as underhanded attempts to establish a parallel Islamic education system in Britain.

Critics say the school — which originally marketed itself as an “inter-faith” school in order to qualify for taxpayer monies — promised that at least 50% of its students would be non-Muslim. Now that it has obtained £1.4 million (€1.7 million; $2.25 million) in government financing, however, the administrators of Al-Madinah are switching gears by operating the school according to Islamic law, apparently to ensure that the school will be 100% Muslim.

The Al-Madinah School opened in September 2012 as a so-called free school, which is similar to a private school in that it operates beyond the control of local authorities, but is different from a private school in that its operations are paid for by British taxpayers.

Free schools were introduced by the ruling Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2011 based on the argument that such schools would create more competition for public schools and thus drive up educational standards.

The new free school policy makes it possible for parents, teachers, charities and businesses to set up their own schools, along with the freedom to decide the length of school day and term, the curriculum, teacher pay and how budgets are spent.

More than 80 free schools — at least a dozen of which are catering specifically to Muslim students — are currently operating in Britain and another 200 are in the planning stage.

British Education Secretary Michael Gove has said that Muslim fundamentalists would not be allowed to set up free schools, and the Department of Education has established guidelines to discourage Muslim separatism. As a result, many Muslim groups seeking to establish free schools have been marketing themselves as “inter-faith” schools in an effort to qualify for government funding.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

Worst Anti-Muslim Hate Crime in America was Committed by Muslim

By Daniel Greenfield at Front Page

When Shaima Alawadi was found beaten to death in her own dining room with a tire iron, CAIR and countless Muslim organizations rejoiced, and not just for the usual reason that Muslims rejoice when a woman is murdered, but because they had their own living dead proof that Islamophobia was the biggest problem in America since German Measles.

A note lying on the floor read, “Go back to your country, you terrorist;” which clearly meant that Shaima Alawadi’s murder was a hate crime, probably by someone who spent a lot of time reading Robert Spencer, joining militias and working on a Kibbutz.

There was talk of organizing a One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi march, which in Saudi Arabia is just known as another Wednesday. Muslims and useful idiots began uploading photos of themselves in Hijabs with signs reading “I Am Shaima”.  A Sojourners blog used the murder to compare Islamophobia to the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide.

The truth about the murder of Shaima Alawadi was that she wasn’t murdered by someone who hated Islam, but by a Muslim, in keeping with the teachings of Islam which permit husbands to beat their wives.  Shaima Alawadi was indeed murdered because of her Hijab, not because of prejudice against her Hijab, but because of the misogynistic culture that the Hijab represents.

Like so many Muslim women, Shaima Alawadi was murdered in an honor killing by her husband. Like so many Muslim women, she was forced into an arranged marriage at a young age, 15, and lived an unhappy life. Like so many Muslim women, she perpetuated the generational oppression of women, passing on the same misery to her unhappy daughters. And like so many Muslim women, when her desire for freedom conflicted with the Islamic patriarchy, she was murdered for it.

According to court documents revealed in the New York Times, Alawadi’s eldest daughter, Fatima, was found in a car with a 21-year-old man. After her mother picked her up, Fatima said “I love you, Mom” and jumped out of the car going 35 m.p.h., sustaining injuries. While recovering in the hospital, Fatima told authorities that she was being forced to marry a cousin in Iraq — not the man with whom she’d been in the car. Alhimidi, Alawadi’s husband, is in Iraq with his two eldest children (Fatima and her brother) for her funeral. They are expected to return the U.S. later this month.

This is the true hate crime here. Not American hatred of Muslims, but Muslim hatred of women and Muslim women participating in the oppression of other Muslim women until the dam breaks.

There ought to be a one million march of Hijabs for Shamia Alhimidi, empty Hijabs commemorating the Muslim women murdered by their husbands and their brothers, those who committed suicide, jumping out of cars, drinking acid or hanging themselves.

And it’s time for us to wake up to the meaning of the Hijab and the Koran.

One final note

Alzaidy told the newspaper her father and Alawadi’s husband had previously worked together in San Diego as private contractors for the U.S. Army, serving as cultural advisers to train soldiers who were going to be deployed to the Middle East.

A Muslim man who beat his wife to death with a tire iron and then tried to blame the crime on Americans is who we were using as a cultural adviser. And it makes sense. Because that is the culture of the Muslim world.