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!

Why the UK’s Sharia Courts Should Be Banned

sharia-courts2by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
December 20, 2016

They are married off at 15 to men they’ve never met, men who may beat and rape them, or who do not permit them to leave the house. Or they marry out of love, only to learn their new husband has another wife, or plans to take one.  And so they seek counsel – and escape – not through lawyers and the traditional courts, but through sharia councils, and not in Kabul or Islamabad, but in Manchester and London.

Now officials in the United Kingdom are questioning whether such councils violate secular laws and discriminate against the women who come to them for help.  While still Home Secretary last March, before she became Prime Minister, Theresa May initiated the first of an ongoing series of investigations into Britain’s so-called “sharia courts.”

Subsequent hearings have brought the issues into the public eye, but so far they have failed to provide any real resolution. Some sharia court opponents contend that they force women to remain in abusive marriages, or deprive them of their legal rights regarding division of property and other matters. In contrast, some proponents insist that too many Muslim women would be forced to stay in abusive relationships if these tribunals were shut down.

“If I went to an English court, [my ex-husband] would say ‘where is their right to decide about my life?'” one Muslim woman told the BBC. “Now he can’t say anything because the decision has been made using sharia law, and we all believe in that.”

Moreover, an estimated 30 to 40 percent of British Muslim marriages are religious, not civil – a fact which in itself deprives these wives of many of their legal marital rights. Such marriages can be dissolved only through the tribunals.

But opponents, such as Iranian-born activist Maryam Namazie, argue that the tribunals, “are linked to the rise of the Islamist movement.” Others echo her views, such as Women and Sharia Law author and Zurich University Professor Elham Manea, who claims that the first such councils were established by Islamist groups.

There is some validity to this claim: the first British sharia council was established in 1982 by the Islamic Sharia Council, a Luton-based organization currently led by controversial imam Suhaib Hasan. Among Hasan’s many claims to fame are his lectures, available on YouTube, which he says “expose” the Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christians.

Moreover, while the official count of the councils in the UK is set at 32, think tank Civitas has estimated the real number at 85, suggesting that many operate in the shadows. How conservative or how westernized they may be in their mediations is impossible to know. Of the councils that are officially recognized, most are affiliated with mosques. Others hold connections to the Islamic Sharia Council, which also offers counseling “in accordance with the Holy Qur’an and authentic sunnah,” and “anger management” sessions that teach clients to “deal with the situation in a way that is most pleasing to Allah.”

According to France 24, 90 percent of the cases before Britain’s sharia tribunals involve divorce. But Algerian activist Marieme Hellie Lucas told Namazie in an interview, “The ‘laws’ used by so called ‘sharia courts’ are not [even] religiously inspired. They are just the choice that fundamentalists implement between contradictory (even antagonistic) customs, mores, and conservative religious interpretations.”

In fact, Lucas says, “”fundamentalists are the ones who create, sometimes ex-nihilo [from nothing], the dilemma ‘faith vs. women’s rights,’ while many progressive theologians state that they see no contradiction.” Hence, Lucas maintains, allowing such tribunals comes down to favoring “the Muslim fundamentalist extreme-right agenda to the detriment of universal rights.”

Additionally, UK sharia expert Denis MacEoin has found many of the tribunals’ rulings “advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.”

Women who have had experience with UK sharia tribunals echo concerns raised by MacEoin and Lucas.

For example, one widow told the Independent that subsequent to her husband’s death, her sons had insisted she sell her home and give the money to them. A sharia tribunal had evidently told them that “in English law, I own the house I live in, but this is not the way in Islam.” Despairing, she added, “what is this new Islam that can threaten to take the roof from the head of an old woman like me?”

And in a four-year investigation of British sharia councils, human rights activist Elham Manea “found clerics that ignored marital rape, condoned wife beating, and believed girls of 12 or 13 were old enough to marry,” the Independent reports.  No wonder, then, that MEP Baroness Sheela Flather, in written testimony to a Parliamentary panel investigating the tribunals, argued that laws that apply “to white people [should] apply to everyone. “It is racism,” she declared, if they do not.

Despite these facts, many continue to maintain that banning these tribunals could do as much harm as good. Rather, they advocate oversight and reform of the existing councils to ensure that they reflect and administer equal rights under secular laws. “Though some scholars argue that a civil divorce should count as an Islamic one, this hasn’t been widely accepted yet within the Muslim communities,” Muslim Women’s Network UK director Shaista Gohir told VICE news recently.

But herein lies the core of the problem. Indulging those who do not accept the authority of civil over religious law does nothing to help integrate those who espouse such beliefs. Instead, this approach extends a kind of exceptionalism to Muslims, especially fundamentalist Muslims, permitting them to exist outside of civil law, while lending support to radical beliefs that the laws of the land do not apply to them: only sharia does.

True, as Namazie has observed, “Abolishing Sharia courts and parallel legal systems will not solve all the problems at hand; criminalising FGM or domestic violence has not ended them either. It will however make very clear what is acceptable and what is not and will underline a commitment to gender equality.”

Which is why allowing the oppression of Muslim women in our communities to continue is not protecting Muslim rights, or even Muslim identity. Therefore, banning these sharia “courts” is necessary. If we do not demand equality for women and the respect for one secular, civil law in our society for all, who will?

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

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

Taliban Activist Who Met With Clinton in Pakistan Promotes Hatred of Jews

orya-n-hillary
Sometimes hatred looks a lot like envy.
CounterJihad, by Shireen Qudosi, Sept. 20, 2016:
In a little-known diplomatic mission to Pakistan, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with a vocal Taliban supporter Orya Maqbool Jan, who has been caught on video bashing Jews and calling for the death penalty against those who blaspheme Islam.
Jan was part of an exclusive party that accompanied Clinton on a tour of Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan, during her three day Pakistan trip as secretary of state in 2009.  Though his radical statements are largely unknown in the West, his positions are well-known in his part of the world. 
Clinton’s appearance with him both endorsed his radical Islamism, which is linked to this last weekend’s attacks in New York and New Jersey, and also undercut her own message of female empowerment.  Jan is an outspoken opponent of Western-style rights for women, and has been harshly critical of Western women and those Pakistani women who seem to endorse their views.

In an uncut short documentary produced by Hoggard Films covering Clinton in Pakistan shows Orya and Clinton side-by-side as Clinton talks to the world about fighting extremism. She’s also seen here with Jan (at 38 seconds):

In newly-discovered video (available below with full translation) recorded at a mosque in Norway, the Pakistani Deobandi cleric can be heard spinning conspiracy theories about Jews and calling for the death penalty against those who blaspheme against Islam. The vocal Taliban supporter told his listeners that Jews, “control the world’s wealth and media.” Going even farther, Jan claimed the Jews are Gog and Magog. In Islamic tradition, Gog and Magog (called Yajuj and Majuj) are tribes of apocalyptic chaos and destruction.

The Clinton Connection

Jan met with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on one of her trips to Pakistan in 2009. While there, she promised the audience U.S. taxpayer funds, saying, “we want to help you with jobs, economic development, infrastructure, access to education, providing support to healthcare and improving energy supply.”

Stateside, the trip was hailed as a success by a scripted media. TIME Magazine ran a Clinton-approved piece, originally titled “Hillary’s Moment: Clinton Faces the World.” The piece painted Hillary as “allowing herself to be hammered by tough questions,” in landscapeperpetually skeptical of American interests. It was an iconic moment for Clinton who questioned Pakistani intelligence’s quagmire on the location of Osama bin Laden. At least, it was aniconic moment for Americans. The rest of the world would see it differently.

Standing outside of Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Hillary Clinton gave a public statement on American resolve in the fight against radical Islam – while flanked by Orya Maqbool Jan, a notorious fundamentalist, a Taliban supporter, and a well-known oppressor of women’s rights. Jan believes:

According to Wikileaks release of Clinton emails, Jan’s presence alongside Clinton was organized by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Huma Abedin, a top aide of Clinton’s who travelled to Pakistan earlier to arrange details and welcome Clinton to her home country.

Clinton’s Credibility Problem

American taxpayers shelled out hard-earned money for a State Department-sanctioned trip halfway around the world.  Hillary Clinton used it to stand next to one of the most notorious supporters of Islamism in Pakistan – to then talk about combating extremism.

America has a credibility problem because it has a leadership problem. That leadership, under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was incompetent in screening for Islamists. The State Department could not be reached for a comment requesting clarification on why a known Taliban supporter would be allowed to stand by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while as she discusses taking a hard stance against extremists. Multiple requests for answers were ignored.

Also ignored are the minority voices in Pakistan that stand up to extremism – the very minority voices Clinton attempted to reach through the 2009 delegation to Pakistan and the launch oftechnology initiatives to boost intra-communication. Seeing Clinton speak about extremism while seeing Orya striding next to her – one of the most recognizable faces of oppression – is as clear signal to Pakistani critical thinkers that America (1) doesn’t understand the face of extremism and/or (2) America is disingenuous in their efforts to combat extremists. That is the real message Clinton got across.

And that is the message Americans at home are beginning to understand as well.

What is that mindset immigrants who do not assimilate bring with them when they cross the threshold to America?  Will it not be the same unrelenting Islamic supremacist culture?  The same is true for foreign dignitaries, media personalities, and refugees.  Clinton hasproven she does not understand the dangers of allowing this world view to pass into the West.

New York Bomb Suspect Radicalized Next Door to Orya Maqbool Jan

On Sunday, September 18th, 2016, 28-year-old U.S. citizen of Afghan origin, Ahmad Khan Rahami launched a jihadi attack in New Jersey and New York at injured 29 people. Rahami acted independently under the global insurgency instructions of former ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. However, Rahami is part of a greater mindset that stands in staunch opposition to Western values. Investigators are speculating Rahami was radicalized in Quetta, Pakistan, a known stronghold for Pakistani Taliban – and the same small territory where Orya Maqbool Jan is from.

Among the issues of immigration and assimilation, the most recent attack on U.S. soil raises a greater question of Clinton’s capability in leading the greatest war of the 21st century.

How can Hillary Clinton lead this war while giving press conferences attacking the immigrant connection when the last three attacks on U.S. soil have been directly immigrant related: San Bernardino, Orlando, and now New York?

How can Hillary Clinton advocate American values, American interests, or champion women’s rights when she’s standing along one of the most vehement advocates of Islamic extremism – Orya Maqbool Jan?

Orya Maqbool Jan’s Inciteful Rhetoric the Real Hate Speech

Despite Clinton’s claim to champion freedom, she’s in knee-deep affiliation with extremists and Islamists. Her campaign’s attempt to slander truth has hate speech is in vile opposition to hard facts. The truth is that real hate speech is what community leaders and media personalities like Orya Maqbool Jan freely spew at home and abroad, telling us that immigration isn’t just about refugees but about the immigration of foreign and hostile ideas through visiting visas and digital spheres.

“No law or belief – not even universal human rights – is higher than the principles of our Holy Book,” Orya Maqbool Jan tells his audience in his native Urdu. “The only constitution Muslims should have is the Quran.”

Even in Norway, Jan’s Pakistani audience is conditioned to accept outlandish and unfounded conclusions because they’ve already found themselves agreeing wholeheartedly with a very familiar lament in the Muslim world, Pan-Islamism. After the failures of Arab nationalism and the Middle East’s flirtations with Marxism-Leninism, Pakistani thinkers like Mohammed Iqbal championed a return to identity based on the shared consciousness and history of Islam. This identity would be trans-national; its most common recurring theme is that, without Islam as a unifying force, Muslims are divided and selfish, unable to work together to achieve the ummah’s goals successfully.

The tones of victimization Orya takes are very similar to post WWI Germany, which produced a population ripe for attaching itself to anything that will help give it an insulated identity. That attachment and division was a necessary precursor to what happens next: hatred, exclusion and extermination.

There’s just no way to take what is being said for face value, especially if reading the translation alone. Urdu is a very poetic and emotive language that a translation alone cannot fully deliver. These emotions carry the listener from empathy for the Jews; to grievances of how Muslims were robbed by events of the 20th century; to contempt for current world leaders; to, finally, a climate where the world is stacked against Muslims, and the only inevitable path for true believers is to fight. The supremacist undertones that are ripe throughout don’t come from nationalism, but from religious dedication to the infallibility of the Quran.

Religious scholars like Orya Maqbook Jan rely on the West’s ignorance in understanding Islamic ideology. They also trust that sermons like this won’t be spread with a facilitated understanding of how problematic and hateful they are. Yet there are Pakistanis like myself and LUBPAK editor Ali Abbas Taj (who shared this video) who are pulling back the curtain. So while Pakistan continues its grievances against America and exploits visits with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an opportunity to ‘tell the world,’ behind the curtain there is a very dark picture of a rising threat that is ready to go to war against the world.

The threat isn’t limited to Pakistan, where Jan is given enough of a platform to stand side by side with Hillary Clinton during a State Department visit. He’s also given a green light to travel to the West and fill mosques with sermons designed to activate Muslims living abroad. As crafted in his speech, he uses history and religious verses to shame Muslims who possess national and foreign identities, who have built lives overseas. And without directly saying so, he tells them to give up that identity and embrace a ‘purist’ interpretation of Islam in preparation for the coming war that will rage against the world and its Jews.

Also see:

“Violent extremists” do not target women for special subjugation. Islamist groups do.

9iz4db4ie

The UN’s insistence on treating “violent extremism” as if it were a unified problem leads to all manner of absurd results, especially when it tries to talk about the threat such groups pose to women’s rights.

CounterJihad, Sept. 12, 2016:

A UN panel meeting in Brazil argued that “violent extremist groups” worldwide are eroding women’s rights especially:

Militant groups from Boko Haram in Nigeria to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria target women in their attacks on human rights, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the head of the United Nations’ women’s advocacy agency, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an interview.

“Fundamentalists have an issue with women. They are most cruel against women,” she said. “Fundamentalism is a major burden for women, and it takes away the security of women more than anything else.”…  She cited the example of the Yazidi people of northern Iraq, where women and girls have been brutalized at the hands of the Islamic State. The jihadist group has targeted women with particular cruelty including rape and sex slavery, she said.

She also cited the case of women and girls at the hands of Boko Haram… In the group’s most high-profile attack of April 2014, Boko Haram kidnapped 276 girls from a secondary school in Chibok in northeast Borno state.

Her examples go to show just why the UN’s approach to “Countering Violent Extremism” is unwise and unworkable.  Running all these groups together means eliding essential differences that prevent us from getting at the real causes of the violence.

It is simply not true that “violent extremist” groups per se have an issue with women.  Consider the Philippines, which hosts a number of violent extremist groups.  Some of them are Islamists, such as Abu Sayyaf, which has pledged fealty to the Islamic State (ISIS).  Others are Communists, especially Maoists.  Not all Maoists in the Philippines are violent extremists, but those that are have bled the country white at times.  Nevertheless, gender equality is formally one of the Maoist issues.  This is not unique:  Communist movements throughout the history of the ideology have thought of ‘patriarchy’ as another form of structural oppression almost exactly analogous to the worker/owner relationship.  Yet the Maoists are  not immune to violent extremism, and in fact are some of the most violent extremists of all.  (Especially Mao himself, who may have killed sixty million people in his lifetime, ten times as many as Hitler.)

What is the sense of running Communist terrorists in with Islamist ones?  What do they have in common?

One of the frequent talking points of the left in America is that not all terrorists are Muslims.  This is perfectly correct as a matter of evidence:  the FBI’s numbers suggest that from 1980-2005, 42% of terrorist attacks in America were carried out by Hispanic/Latino organizations such as drug cartels.  Radical left wing groups including Communists carried out another thirty percent of terrorist attacks in that period.  In Europe, meanwhile, the vast majority of terrorist attacks are ethnic separatist groups desiring independence from some central government.*

Are these groups especially hostile to women?  No, again.  Ethnic separatist groups are likely to revere their women as essential to the survival of their nation.  Communists, as noted, treat gender equality as a core issue.  It is only the Islamists who justify sex-slavery of women taken in battle, forced marriages, and in Africa, forced genital mutilation.

The CVE standard is senseless.  Running all of these organizations together leads to weak thinking and bad conclusions about how to address the various threats that they represent.  You cannot solve the drug cartel terror problem while treating them as if they were exactly the same as some Communist organization.  Neither of them are like ISIS.  Why are they fighting, and what are they fighting for?  In the case of a recent study on ISIS volunteers, the answers were clear:

“All, with some consistency, calmly reiterate their desire to achieve martyrdom, and celebrate the martyrdom of others. But they scrupulously asserted that their fate is in the hands of Allah.”

“…most of the fighters we interviewed provided justifications for being a foreign fighter that were largely moral and religious in character, more than explicitly political.”

“…the interactions we recorded are laced with comments about the need to be strict in observing the differences between true Muslims and others.”

These things may look similar, but they are not alike.  Any solution to the problems Islamist groups pose toward the rights of women needs to take into account the treatment of women under this Islamist vision.  That starts with sharia and its structures of oppression, whether you like it or not.

*Note that what is being counted here are number of incidents only.  If we adopted instead “number of casualties” as the standard, Muslim terrorism in America would be by far the worst kind because of the 9/11 murders alone.  Likewise, we might want to be more interested in terrorist attacks on innocents — again, like 9/11 — rather than terrorist attacks targeting a cartel’s rivals in the drug trade.  On either picture, Islamist violence looks worse than the raw number of attacks indicates.  It is only if we take each incidence of terrorism as equally bad that we get this particular picture of the threat.

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.

Huma Abedin’s mom linked to shocking anti-women book

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a "town hall" meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin's mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is second from right, standing next to Clinton. Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is second from right, standing next to Clinton. Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 28, 2016:

As secretary of state, women’s-rights champ Hillary Clinton not only spoke at a Saudi girls school run by her top aide Huma Abedin’s ­anti-feminist mother, but Clinton invited the elder Abedin to participate in a State Department event for “leading thinkers” on women’s issues.

This happened despite ­evidence at the time that Saleha M. Abedin had explored the religious merits of sexual submissiveness, child marriage, lashings and stonings for adulterous women, and even the ­circumcision of girls.

The elder Abedin, whose daughter helps run Clinton’s presidential campaign, did take a pro-gender-equality stance on at least one issue: Muslim women’s right to participate in violent jihad alongside men.

As The Post first reported, Huma’s mom edits the Journal of Muslim Minority ­Affairs, which has suggested that America had 9/11 coming to it, because of “sanctions” and “injustices” the US allegedly imposed on the Muslim world.

The journal also opposed women’s rights as un-Islamic, arguing that “ ‘empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit.”

But that’s not all.

In 1999, Saleha translated and edited a book titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations,”  published by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Written by her Saudi colleague Fatima Naseef, the book explains that the stoning and lashing of adulterers, the killing of apostates, sexual submissiveness and even female genital mutilation are all permissible practices ­under Sharia law.

“The wife should satisfy her husband’s desire for sexual intercourse,” the book states on Page 202, even if she is not in the mood. “She has no right to abstain except for a reasonable cause or legal prohibition.”

But getting in the mood may be difficult. The book says female genital mutilation is permissible: ­“Cir­cumcision for women is ­allowed.”

Laws promoting feminist equality, moreover, are ineffectual, since “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

And forget about working in a position of authority: “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam,” the book says.

Huma Abedin on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton.Photo: Getty Images

Huma Abedin on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton.Photo: Getty Images

“Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations,” it explained. “Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

There is one exception to the sexual division of roles: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad ­becomes an individual duty.”

On the back cover, Saleha says she is “pleased to launch” the book as part of a series on the study of women’s rights in Islam sponsored by the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), for which she is listed as chairperson.

Founded by Huma’s mom, the Cairo-based IICWC has advocated for the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era laws in favor of implementing Sharia law, which could allow female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape.

Saleha is paid by the Saudi government to advocate and spread Sharia in non-Muslim countries like America.

In 1995, less than three weeks before Clinton gave her famous women’s-rights speech in Beijing, Saleha headlined an unusual Washington conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to lobby against the UN platform drafted by Clinton and other feminists. Visibly angry, she argued it runs counter to Islam and was a “conspiracy” against Muslims.

Specifically, she called into question provisions in the platform that condemned domestic battery of women, apparently expressing sympathy for men who commit abuse.

Pakistan-born Saleha main­tained that men who serially beat women tend to be unemployed, making their abuse somehow more understandable. “They are victims of a different kind,” she claimed. “And they are simply taking [their frustrations] out on women.”

Despite all this, Huma Abedin in 2010 arranged for Clinton, then the secretary of state, to travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to meet with her mother and speak at a girls school she founded and helps run as dean. Speaking to a roomful of girls, Clinton said Americans have to stop stereotyping Saudi women as oppressed, before assuring the audience that not all American women go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

While there, Clinton formed a partnership with Saleha’s Dar al-Hekma college called the US-Saudi Women’s Forum on Social Entrepreneurship, and prom­ised to reverse post-9/11 curbs on Saudi student visas to America.

The next year, Clinton invited Saleha and the president of the Saudi school to Washington to participate in a State Department colloquium on women, as revealed by internal emails released in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told the Post that while Huma Abedin was in fact listed as an editorial staffer of her mother’s radical journal from 1996 to 2008, she didn’t really do anything for the publication in her long tenure there.

Asked if Clinton regrets honoring the Islamist mother and bestowing ­legitimacy on her extreme views, Merrill had no comment.

Paul Sperry is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.

‘Gender Apartheid’: NYT Op-Ed Calls Obama Mosque Visit a Setback for Muslim Women’s Rights

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, Feb. 3, 2016:

A New York Times op-ed argues that Obama’s visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore mosque “demonstrates tacit acceptance of a form of gender apartheid.”

From the New York Times:

As President and Michelle Obama argued decades ago in the context of the U.S. civil rights movement, separate is indeed unequal. To Muslim women’s rights activists fighting for equal access to mosques as part of a broader campaign for reform — from equal education for women and girls to freedom from so-called “honor killings” — the president’s visit to a mosque that practices such blatant inequity represents a step backwards. While it may be meant to convey a message of religious inclusiveness to American Muslims,  the visit demonstrates tacit acceptance of a form of discrimination that amounts to gender apartheid. For that reason, we will be standing outside the mosque on Johnnycake Road, as close as the Secret Service allows, to protest the separate and unequal standards inside and advocate for equal rights.

We believe it is the role of government to protect women’s rights within religion, if a place of worship gets federal nonprofit benefits, just as it protects civil rights in the secular space. Places of worship in the U.S. would not be allowed tax-exempt status if, for example, they were to seat African Americans in segregated spaces. To condone the mosque’s gender segregation is particularly ironic coming days after the White House announced efforts to win equal pay for women and increased workplace benefits for women in the military.

President Obama should be aware that on any given day a woman or girl worshiping in the mosque would be dispatched away from the musallah where he will stand to speak out against “Islamophobia,” to the “prayer room for females,” as one worshipper described it. In much the same way that he wants to mitigate Americans seeing Muslims as the “other,” we have to challenge the Muslim systems that segregate women as the “other.” He should know that promoting women’s rights in mosques is a key part of fighting the ideology of extremism — a fight that he asked American Muslims to help wage in an address to the nation in December. A theology of Islamic feminism is our best answer to the extremism of ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim militant groups. Even the most conservative of Islamic scholars acknowledge that, in the 7thcentury, the sunnah, or tradition of the prophet Muhammad, was to allow women to pray in the main hall of his mosque in Medina without any barrier in front of them.

“While the free world awaits a Muslim reformation, the leader of the free world shows blatant disregard for gender equality by visiting a mosque that treats females like second-class citizens,” says Raheel Raza, a Pakistani-Canadian activist, author and cofounder of the Muslim Reform Movement, a new initiative that we support, advocating for peace, women’s rights and secular governance.  “This makes our work as activists extremely difficult because equality is one of the main tenets of our reform movement.”

The president has an opportunity to shine light in a place once associated with the darkest extremes of Islam. His motorcade will re-trace the path of al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki: FBI surveillance notes document that al-Awlaki, then a local imam, drove down Johnnycake Road to enter the Islamic Society of Baltimore at 5:56 p.m. on the evening of November 11, 2001. (A copy of the notes was released under the Freedom of Information Act).

Today, in an estimated two-thirds of mosques around the United States, women and girls are segregated in dark basements, sparse balconies, separate rooms and even behind shower curtains in the “sisters’ section,” listening to Friday sermons piped in through shaky sound systems and watching them, if we are lucky, via TV screens. It’s too often only on “interfaith” occasions like the president’s visit that women and girls get to step forward into the “brothers’ section.”

Read the rest of the story here.

***

‘Not Who We Are’: At Mosque, Obama Laments ‘Inexcusable’ Anti-Muslim Rhetoric (insider.foxnews.com)

Also see:

ISIS’s Nazi-Style ‘Jihad Bride’ Propaganda an Alluring Trap for Western Girls

Veiled-Women-Reuters-640x384

Breitbart, by Phyllis Chesler, April 8, 2015:

Foreign girls who are lured via the internet to join ISIS are being misled by a glamorized vision of women posing with AK-47s and in martial arts positions—in essence, a vision of women performing forbidden, male-only holy mission tasks.

ISIS propaganda is capitalizing on the allure of such adventure coupled with a girlish desire for love, marriage, and children. Quilliam Foundation think tank researcher Charlie Winter notes that “this is a false image based on targeted obfuscation and exaggeration.” He quotes Glasgow runaway, Aqsa Mahmood, who writes that “the women you may have seen online are all part of propaganda.”

The reality for ISIS “brides” is dull, domestic, and dangerous. Food and electricity are minimal, there are no schools, but there are constant air strikes and gun fights. Women police and punish other women. They do not engage in battle.

The all-female Al-Khanssaa Brigade holds an anti-feminist ideology in which women’s rights are seen as part of a corrupt and material West and as having led to the emasculation of men.

According to ISIS internet recruiter and former Australian Dullel Kassab, “Reality hits  propyou when u celebrate a walimah (marriage banquet) and console a widow on the same day.”

Then, there is the scarcity of medical care. The wife of an ISIS fighter was totally ignored as her blood pooled on the hospital floor during a painful miscarriage. According to Kassab: “She wasn’t offered a chair or a bed and nobody even returned to check on her… The muhajireen (migrants) are also subjected to mistreatment and discrimination by the locals.”

The Syrians do not want to live under Sharia law. They are, in fact, “angered by… the imposition of an extreme form of sharia on their daily lives.”

In February of 2015, ISIS released a Manifesto which states that girls can marry at nine; their education, which must consist mainly of Koranic Studies and home economics, must end when they turn fifteen; they must be fully face-, head-, and body-veiled; and motherhood is the sole purpose of female existence.

This is reminiscent of Hitler’s Nazi “Bride Schools” in which office workers and career women were taught how to be wives. Propaganda photos consisted of smiling group of women in a hayfield, carrying baskets of flowers, “chopping vegetables in a kitchen, and singing along to another woman’s accordion playing.”

This country idyll promoted a six-week course in which women learned household skills such as cooking, ironing, gardening, child care, and interior design. They were taught how to clean a husband’s uniform, to pledge their loyalty to Hitler “until death,” and to raise their children “in accordance with Nazi belief.” This meant they would “promote racial values in the family.”

Traditional domesticity: confinement to the home, child care, and to a political religion (“Kinder, Küche, Kirche”) was presented as a warrior’s task.

ISIS may have taken a page from Hitler’s playbook—but they are also following the harshest and most traditional interpretation of the Koran: “A woman’s highest achievement is motherhood;” “Women must be veiled;” “The majority of inhabitants in Hell are women;” “Women are less intelligent and spiritually inferior to men;” “Women are an affliction to men.”

Most telling, “Women are not to be involved in Jihad”: “When Aisha requested of Mohammed that she be allowed to participate in a jihad, he said that a woman’s jihad is the performance of the Hajj pilgrimage. It is even important for a husband to forsake a jihad campaign to accompany his wife on a Hajj.”

A concerted effort must be made to reveal this reality to young Western girls who actually have choices. The problem is that girls in the West also want adventure through romance, love through bondage. Think of the popularity of Fifty Shades of Gray. Western girls have also been brought up on fairy tales and believe in Happy Endings. They do not understand that they are walking into a very tragic kind of danger from which there may be No Exit.

Lisa Daftari: The Real War on Women: A Look Into Global Human Rights Abuses and the Americans Who Ignore Them

Published on Feb 20, 2015 by The Heritage Foundation 

***

Iranian American: ‘Sharia Law Is Here in the U.S.’  by By Penny Starr at CNS News, February 25, 2015

Investigative reporter and Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Feb. 20, 2015. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Investigative reporter and Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Feb. 20, 2015. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Iranian American Lisa Daftari, an investigative journalist and contributor to Fox News, said on Friday that Sharia law is being followed by practitioners of radical Islam right here in the United States, even if many Americans think of the human rights abuses towards women by these practitioners as something that only takes place in the Middle East and Africa.

“And some might ask why should Americans care about what goes on in those countries?” asked Daftar, whose family fled Iran during the 1979 revolution that overthrew Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and established an Islamic state in the country. “How about tolerance for other practices; respect for Sharia law – the cultural and religious differences?

“Well the answer is it’s not just contained to that part of the world,” Daftari said. “It’s here.

(see excerpted video at CNS News)

“It’s in Europe. It’s in our cities. It’s in our places of work. It’s in our schools,” Daftari said. “Yes, Sharia law is here in the U.S., and this too is a war on women.”

Daftari, who spoke at the Conservative Women’s Network at the Heritage Foundation, focused her remarks on what she said is “the real war on women,” including “honor killings” that have taken place in the United States.

“Every year, about 26 women are killed in the U.S. by a relative in the name of family honor,” Daftari said.

She cited two such killings. On Jan. 1, 2008, a man shot his two teenage daughters, Amina and Sarah Said.

“It later came to light that these murders were premeditated as honor killings as retribution for [Amina] rejecting an arranged marriage to a man in Egypt,” Daftari said.

In an essay written in September 2014, Amina’s boyfriend, Joseph Moreno, said the couple hoped to marry and that the father has never been arrested and his whereabouts are unknown.

“In 2011 an Arizona judge sentenced an Iraqi man to more than 34 years in prison, Daftari said. “He ran over his 20-year-old daughter because he claimed she’d become too westernized.”

Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki was found guilty in the killing of his daughter Noor, according to an article posted on AZCentral.com.

Daftari said radical Islam is also being promoted by Muslim groups on college campuses in the U.S., based on her investigative reporting on the phenomenon.

Daftari cited other examples of human rights abuses against women around the globe that she said represent “the real war on women.”

“The real war on women is about the millions of women throughout the Middle East and the continent of Africa who are forced to undergo genital mutilation,” she said. “In 2013, 3.6 million were mutilated in these parts of the world. In Somalia, FGM (female genital mutilations) is at 99 percent.

“That means nearly every single woman,” Daftari said.

“The real war on women is about the many religious minorities who stand firmly behind their faith and beliefs in Muslim-dominated countries – Christians, Jews, Bahi’s and others facing minority taxes, imprisonment, persecution,” she said.

“The real war on women is about the women of Iran who cannot dress as they want, dance as they want, attend the schools or obtain the jobs that they want,” Daftari said.  “They cannot file for divorce, even from a violent spouse, and even if they do, custody of all their children will go to the husband.”

Daftari also cited the case of a 26-year-old Iranian woman who was jailed and eventually executed because she fought back against the man who raped her.

Also see:

Women in Saudi Arabia – Is There Real Reform?

Andrew Harrod examines Katherine Zoepf’s “Shopgirls” presentation exclusively for the Religious Freedom Coalition.

 

A Women’s Storefront Window on Rights, Religion, and Reform in Saudi Arabia

(Washington, DC) “You cannot assume the same starting point” for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia as Western countries, journalist Katherine Zoepf obviously understated in a September 17 presentation of her research in the doctrinaire Muslim kingdom.  Zoepf’s discussion of the “not just window dressing” reform in the kingdom’s strict “gender segregation” allowing women retail jobs, though, raises important questions about Islamic “extremism” in Saudi Arabia and beyond.

Zoepf’s Washington, DC, Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting (Pulitzer Center) address centered on her December 2013 New Yorkerarticle “Shopgirls.”  Zoepf described therein how Saudi King Abdullah decreed in June 2011 a ban on male lingerie and cosmetic shop workers, leading the way towards other women retail positions.  Though “not…immediately evident,” Zoepf wrote, a “women’s revolution has begun in Saudi Arabia.”

A “male guardian—usually a father or husband” controlling “permission to study, to travel, and to marry” makes Saudi women “effectively…legal minors.”  A Saudi female doctor mentioned by Zoepf at Pulitzer Center, for example, enjoyed travel to places like Paris for medical conferences with her liberal husband’s generous permission, but after his death came under a conservative son’s strictures.  Another woman under the guardianship of her brother was raising her son as a liberal future replacement.

A Saudi female in a Supermarket check-out counter. the sign says “families only” because a male customer may not directly speak to her. A UK Citizen was beaten by religious police this year for speaking to a female clerk at a store.

A Saudi female in a Supermarket check-out counter. the sign says “families only” because a male customer may not directly speak to her. A UK Citizen was beaten by religious police this year for speaking to a female clerk at a store.

A “devout Saudi man avoids even mentioning the names of his wife and daughters in public” and they never met the man’s friends at home in one of the world’s “most patriarchal societies,” Zoepf wrote.  “You wouldn’t imagine that they live in the same homes,” Zoepf at Pulitzer Center said of husbands and wives’ segregated lives.  Separating as adolescents after childhood, male cousins might never see their female cousins’ faces again unless they are among the some 50% of first and second cousins who marry.  The kingdom meanwhile expends “vast resources” creating what Zoepf described at Pulitzer Center as an “entire second set of everything” such as female-only shopping malls and travel agencies.

Saudi women lack a “public identity,” Zoepf argued at Pulitzer Center, as they must wear in public the abaya body and head covering, although the niqab face covering is optional.  Saleswomen, though, often wear niqabs to avoid harassment from conservative customers or the “Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice” religious police (Hai’a or “committee” for short).  In lingerie stores, “Shopgirls” noted, “most customers remain fully covered even while being fitted.”

A public service advertisement with four Saudi girls covered in black abayas shown by Zoepf emphasized this covering.  Three of the girls had red “X”s under their images, as their abayas revealed slight protrusions caused by hair tied with ribbons underneath.  They “will not see heaven, nor will they smell its perfume,” Zoepf translated the advertisement’s Arabic caption.  Only the fourth without any such ornamentation had a green check mark.

An unveiled, stylishly-dressed Saudi woman in the Pulitzer Center  audience indicated Saudi progressivism’s limits.  This law student in America came from Jeddah, described by “Shopgirls” as “Saudi Arabia’s most liberal city.”  Moderating influences, Zoepf explained at Pulitzer Center, came to the port city throughout history in the form of annual pilgrims on hajj to Mecca from outside of Islam’s orthodox heartland.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

New Prophet of Islam Jimmy Carter Says Mohammed’s Sexism was Wrong


muslim-feminismFrontpage, By Daniel Greenfield:

Jimmy Carter, the Preacherman of Malaise, moving his bankrupt creed of big government and big beheadings down to ISNA began Muslimsplaining Islam to his Muslim audience.

“I hope all of you will use the principles of Allah to bring peace and justice to all.” Carter told a crowd of about 1,000 who had paid $200 a plate to attend the fundraiser luncheon.

“One thing that all men can do is to be sure that you treat your wife as you would like to be treated yourself,” Carter said, amid cheers. “My hope is all Christians, all Muslims, all people of other faiths, even those who don’t have one, will join in this crusade to end the plight of our wives, our sisters, our daughters.”

He spoke at length about prostitution, rape on college campuses, female genital mutilation and parents in some countries strangling their daughters because they want to have sons.

Christians really need to stop strangling their daughters and cut out the genital mutilation. This is the 21st century after all. Jimmy Carter didn’t strangle Amy and we can all take an example from that.

“Men and women are created equally from one soul,” Carter said. “If you were taught by your parents or you believe you’re superior to your wife just because you’re a man, Allah says your wrong.”

Is Jimmy Carter announcing that he’s the final prophet of Islam? Because he’s contradicting Mohammed, the official final prophet of Islam.

Mohammed asked some women, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half that of a man?” The women said, “yes,” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of the woman’s mind. ” Vol. 3:826

Mohammed to women: “I have not seen any one more deficient in intelligence and religion than you.” Vol. 2:541

Mohammed said, “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women. ” Vol. 1:28, 301; Vol. 2:161; Vol. 7:124

Mohammed said, ” Bad omen is in the woman, the house and the horse.” Vol. 7:30

This is what you get when you follow the “Principles of Allah”. I’m not even going to mention Mohammed’s rape of a little girl.

*********

Published on Sep 1, 2014 by Acts17Apologetics

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, recently spoke at the national convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), where he encouraged his listeners to donate to ISNA and to use the “principles of Allah” to bring justice to oppressed people. Of course, ISNA has ties to both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, so we can only wonder where the funds will go. And since Muhammad commanded his followers to oppress women and non-muslims, it isn’t clear how the “principles of Allah” will help anyone except groups like the Islamic State.

Islam: Is Integration Working? Part II of III

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, June 18, 2014:

Some motives of the members of the British Law Society might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

What seems unpardonable is that our Western governments and institutions, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are reinforcing these abuses.

Pressure to incorporate Shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

Another apparent obstacle to integration seems to be the simple act, within circumscribed communities, of questioning. Questioning — as well as free speech and free thought — often seems to appear disrespectful and discouraged. A new effort to criminalize free speech internationally has in the past few years been promoted by, of all countries, the United States — led by then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in three closed-door conferences between 2010 and 2012. Clinton not only dusted off — but co-sponsored and actively promoted — the all-but-dead Pakistani resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 16/18, misleadingly named “Defamation of Religion.” The resolution is, bluntly, an attempt legally to internationalize Islam’s repressive “blasphemy laws.” Anyone who might wish to question or discuss Islam can be accused of “blasphemy” and possibly sentenced to death. Since the beginning of Islam, anyone who might take steps to leave Islam can be accused of “apostasy,” and sentenced to death. As Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said at the end of January 2013, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

What seems unpardonable is that it is our Western governments and institutions that are reinforcing these abuses.

 

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)

Moreover, in March 2014, the British Law Society set out guidelines for solicitors (roughly, U.S. lawyers) to help draw up “Shari’a compliant” wills, in defiance of the fact that Islamic rules on inheritance are deeply discriminatory. Muslim women will not be given an equal share of an inheritance. Non-Muslims, illegitimate children, divorced spouses, people who have not had Muslim marriages, and anyone outside the kinship-based set of recognized heirs, may not inherit. The ruling tells solicitors (and from them, the courts) to make exclusions from an 1837 law, which allows gifts to pass to the offspring of an heir who has died. This has been done to provide Muslims with separate laws that do not apply to other British citizens. These separate laws also relegate British law to an inferior position in such matters. The ruling has been done knowingly and for poorly thought-out motives by people who should know better. Some motives might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, giving them rights that others do not have, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

If this ruling is followed by others affecting marriage, divorce, the custody of children and much else, Britain will become a two-tier society in which Muslim men may marry four wives, keep concubines or, for the Shi’a, contract temporary (mut’a) marriages, while non-Muslim polygamists will be sent to jail. Needless to say, protests are already underway.

Pressure to incorporate shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

In the U.S., in 2011, President Obama appointed Professor Azizah al-Hibri to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Hibri, a professor at Richmond University, has a record of involvement in matters concerning the rights of Muslim women and human rights in Islam. But she is on record as saying that Islamic Law “is deeper and better than Western codes of law,” that the Qur’an inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Hibri has also argued that Islam is fully compatible with women’s rights, human rights, and democracy, something many in the West would strongly contest. Moreover, to appoint an Islamist to a post as commissioner on a body dedicated to religious freedom, a body that spends much of its time protesting the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries seems at the very least indecent. The very idea of religious freedom does not exist in the Qur’an, the hadith literature, or in any book of Islamic law. It is not enough to cite the famous line from the Qur’an 2:256, “la ikraha fi’l-din” [there is no compulsion in religion]. It has to be modified by the laws that enforce belief by threatening death to apostates, or by the conditions imposed on Jews, Christians, Hindus, pagans and other non-Muslims. They are given a choice to convert, die, or live as dhimmis: lower-class, “tolerated” persons, who pay a tribute, or tax, called a jizya, or “reward,” for not being killed. The Qur’an itself is explicit: “Fight those who believe not in Allah… [even] people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).