I’ve never believed the “Obama is a secret Muslim” nonsense, but…

August 11, 2011

He is either appallingly naive about the religion or is doing his usual “say anything they need to hear to like me” act. Regardless, the kind of meaningless pabulum he served at the White House Iftar dinner last night is just jaw-dropping:

Welcoming guests at the annual White House Iftaar party, US President Barack Obama said, Islam has always been part of the American family and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country in all walks of life.

Attended by some 100 special invited guests including ambassadors of mostly Muslim countries and eminent Muslim academicians and community leaders, Akram Syed of the National Association of Indian Muslims was among the few Indian-Americans to attend the high-profile annual event at the White House.

Other special guests included families of Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks, as well as Muslim members of the US Armed Services.

Obama said the annual Ramadan dinner, a tradition that President Clinton began and President George W Bush continued, is quintessentially American.

“No matter who we are or how we pray, we’re all children of a loving God,” he said.

Tell that to the Copts in Egypt, Mr. President. And that’s just one example of the nearly 1,400-year legacy of Islam’s jihad against everyone else.

That quote is just the start. For more, and for a detailed deconstruction of the President’s blather, visit Jihad Watch.

PS: To clarify, I am not questioning the loyalty of Americans who practice Islam but who don’t seek to impose Sharia law here or wage jihad against the United States, and I especially do not question the loyalty and honor of the many Muslims who have served and do serve in the military. It is with Islam itself and its doctrines of (to name a few) jihad, Jew-hatred, female inferiority, enmity toward the outsider, and the supremacy of Sharia that I have deep problems.

PPS: Regarding Obama’s religious beliefs, if he has any, in my opinion he is most attracted to the Black Liberation Theology preached by James Cone, Cornel West, and Jeremiah Wright. (Although I’m not above believing that his time in Wright’s church was wholly cynical, and that Obama’s only real “religion” is himself.)

via Weasel Zippers, which has video.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I think I’m OD’ing on the irony

August 18, 2010

For years –years!– the moonbat Left (which includes the Democrat leadership) railed at George W. Bush for destroying our image in the Muslim World, in spite of all the blood and treasure we spent liberating 60,000,000 Muslims from two of the worst tyrannies in the world, not to mention genuinely effective disaster relief in Muslim Indonesia after the Boxing Day tsunami, while their beloved UN did squat-all. Barack Obama campaigned to restore our good name and even went to Cairo to kowtow as a good dhimmi to make a speech apologizing for our supposed sins.

Yet now, with Obama making a complete fool of himself over the jihadist victory monument Ground Zero mosque, to whom does the Left turn to save their multicultural golden calf? George W. Bush. Byron York has the story:

“It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

These people are asking for –nay, demanding!– BushChimpHitler’s help to make up for Obama? Pardon me while I laugh.  Rolling on the floor

There’s plenty to say at another time about their multicultural blindness toward the two faces of Islam; for now, I just want to lean back and savor the moment.

LINKS: More from Hot Air. Roger Kimball thinks this moment is delicious.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Ground Zero Mosque: should CBS have rejected this ad?

July 7, 2010

CBS has refused to air the following ad from the National Republican Trust, which I assume is a  Republican Party-affiliated group, opposing the construction of a large mosque just yards from Ground Zero, the site of the most devastating of the September 11th attacks. Before commenting further, I’ll let you watch it. Tito, roll tape!

It’s powerful and intense, no doubt. And anyone who’s followed this blog knows my feelings about Islam and the jihad against the West. And I do oppose building that mosque. But two questions remain.

Does this ad cross the line into religious prejudice and smear Muslims in general? No, I think it stays just this side of that. The message it conveys is true: there is a religiously-inspired war against us, that war is being fought in the name of Islam’s god and for the supremacy of Islam, and the massacre of 3,000 of us was launched by a Muslim group and carried out by Muslims for Allah’s sake:

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

(Qur’an sura 9, verse 111)

It’s also true that a mosque is a symbol of conquest and the supremacy of Islam. To place one at Ground Zero would be interpreted inevitably in the Islamic world as a victory marker. So the ad is right to object for this reason, too.

The other question revolves around CBS’s right to refuse to carry it. Recalling what’s happened in the last few years when someone has “offended Islam” (riots against cartoons, the murder of a filmmaker, a professor getting his hands cut off for asking the wrong question), one can understand if the managers there are afraid of the reaction to this ad. And they are a publicly-traded private company and can freely choose which commercials to accept and which to reject. So I think Big Peace is wrong to characterize this as a “ban,” which implies censorship. The ad is free to run elsewhere, such as YouTube.

But I still wish they had accepted it, because this ad raises important issues for both New York City and the nation that should be freely discussed. I suspect its rejection was born largely of fear, and it is the resulting surrender of the right of free speech and the tacit acceptance of dhimmitude that makes CBS’ rejection wrong. The corporation has both a moral duty and a self-interest in the defense of that right, and it should change its mind and run the ad.


Sharia comes to the UK, your dog is not welcome

June 26, 2010

The growing submission of British society to Islam and Islamic law continues apace, as a passenger was forbidden from bringing her dog onto a public bus for fear of offending Muslims:

On two occasions last week my dog was barred from London buses, not because she’s particularly fierce or big, but on religious grounds. A friend and I had taken her to the park, and as I went across to the grocer, my friend took Daisy, a Manchester terrier, to the bus stop.

When a second bus arrived, she again made to embark, but was stopped again – this time because the driver said he was Muslim. I know that Muslims consider dogs to be unclean, but last time I looked this wasn’t a Muslim country and London Transport was a non-denominational organisation.

As they tried to board the bus, the driver stopped her and told her that there was a Muslim lady on the bus who “might be upset by the dog”. As she attempted to remonstrate, the doors closed and the bus drew away.

Well, the UK may not be a Muslim country ( yet), but the Archibishop of Canterbury has said it may be time to admit some aspects of sharia law into British jurisprudence, so Fido’s banning may just be a taste of the future.

And note the first driver’s dhimmi reaction: colored as tolerance and respect, I’ve no doubt it was born of fear of Muslim anger and a de facto deference to Islamic supremacy. You don’t hear of people acting like this in submission to “Christians on board” or for not wanting to offend the Jews on the bus.

It’s another small victory for the cultural jihad.

(via Creeping Sharia)

LINKS: At Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer cites the Islamic justification for Muslim disdain for dogs. In an earlier incident, I made it clear what I think of Islam vs. dogs.

UPDATE: Something I forgot to mention – I’ve no sure idea what the rules are in Britain regarding animals on public transportation. In the US, they’re generally banned, unless it’s a service animal. However, I’ve seen plenty of exceptions for well-behaved pets. In the case discussed above, it seems clear to me that the woman and her friend were accustomed to taking their dogs aboard the bus, making these two instances unusual. Equally, the drivers made it clear they weren’t enforcing civil rules, but religious law.


Cultural Jihad: the Massachusetts mega-mosque

June 15, 2010

PJTV’s Bill Whittle interviews Charles Jacobs of Boston over the controversial mosque built in the Boston suburb of Roxbury:

Jacob’s brings up a good point that I’ve seen elsewhere, such as in the writings of Robert Spencer: the mosque isn’t just a place of worship, but a symbol of conquest.

RELATED: Pat Condell with words of advice for us about the Ground Zero mega-mosque.


A dark hour for Holland

January 29, 2009

The great Pat Condell on the Netherlands’ persecution of Geert Wilders and its submission to Islam:

One of his best. Go, Pat! Not worthy

 


Freedom of speech death watch

January 21, 2009

A Dutch court has ordered the prosecution of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders for his film Fitna, in which he criticized Islam and compared it to totalitarian ideologies and accused it of fostering violence. The court justified this persecution thusly:

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders’s "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.

"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.

"The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.

Several months ago, the Dutch prosecutor’s office had decided not to persecute prosecute, having determined he had not broken the law. Some dhimmi-Dutchmen pressed the matter in the courts, however, leading today’s decision to force the prosecutor’s office to open an investigation. Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) issued the following statement:

Court decision an all-out assault on freedom of speech

woensdag 21 januari 2009

The Freedom Party (PVV) is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech.

Geert Wilders: “Apparently this is The Netherlands today. If you speak out you might be prosecuted. To participate in public debate has become a dangerous activity.”

“If I have to appear in court, not only I will be prosecuted, but also hundreds of thousands of Dutch citizens who reject the Islamisation of the West. In Dutch Parliament only the Party for Freedom is willing to speak up for the preservation of our culture and our many freedoms.”

The Freedom Party leader now faces legal proceedings that will probably take years to conclude and will also involve enormous legal fees.

“We depend on small donations. The Freedom Party is the only party in Parliament that does not accept any government funding. This court decision jeopardizes the very existence of the Freedom Party. We simply cannot afford the enormous legal expenses.”

“This is a black day for freedom.”

No kidding.

As a free human being Mr. Wilders has the inalienable, natural right to speak his mind on political matters. I don’t care what one thinks of him, the PVV, Fitna, or Islam and the cultural jihad against the West. My own writings here should make it clear that I largely agree with the opinions expressed in Fitna and that I am very concerned about the renewed jihad and the dangers posed to liberal democratic society by the spread of sharia law. On the other hand, you may think Wilders’ an ass and the whole hullabaloo over Islam nothing more than a fear-mongering fantasy.

But that is immaterial. Whether you agree with Wilders or not, he has the right to free speech, to present his views and have them challenged and judged in the marketplace of ideas. What the Dutch court has done is to sacrifice that right at the altar of communal tranquility, to grant Islam a special, superior place in which it is immune from criticism, from the normal give and take of Western society.

In other words, the Dutch Court of Appeal has submitted to Islam and become dhimmi.

Make no mistake, the Court has done Islam and Dutch Muslims no favor. To effectively ban criticism of Islam is to leave the intellectual field to the advocates of jihad and Islamic supremacy. By acting out of a kneejerk multiculturalism and a fear of Muslim violence –and that’s the root of this decision– the Court undercuts the arguments of any moderate, peaceful Muslims looking to reform their faith and find a place in the liberal, democratic societies of the West. It strengthens those who seek to recreate a seventh-century society by imposing sharia law, first on other Muslims, then the non-Muslims around them. It strengthens them because the Court’s decision shows fear and a lack of faith in the foundational principles of democratic society and can be used by jihadist imams as an argument for the natural superiority of Islam and its law.

And, after this, how could any moderate Muslim argue against them?

LINKS: Exercise your freedoms and watch Fitna for yourself. More from Fausta, Gateway Pundit, Samizdata, Islam in Action, Sweetness and Light, Jihad Watch, Ed Morrissey, Richard Fernandez, Michelle Malkin, and The Jawa Report. Mark Steyn as usual, is glorious: Dutch Courage.

 


Now that’s embarrassing

January 2, 2009

Or, it should be. Swedish police in the city of Malmo are so impotent against Islamic vandals that they had to hire a security service to guard the police station.

Just turn in your badges, guys. That's pathetic. Doh


What part of "One law for all" doesn’t he get?

July 6, 2008

First it was the Archbishop of Canterbury, and now the Lord Chief Justice of Great Britain has said UK law should make room for Islamic sharia law:

The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: ‘Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments – and divorce rulings – complied with the law of the land.

But his remarks, which back the informal sharia courts operated by numerous mosques, provoked a barrage of criticism.

I’m not surprised. Lord Phillips shows an almost complete ignorance of the terrible disadvantages faced by women under sharia, for example. And even in the situation the Chief Justice describes, no one under contract law can sign away their rights under the law, as they would surely have to do if they agreed to be bound by sharia. I’m sure that rule holds as true in England as it does here.

This is just another very stupid step away from the principle of one law for all and toward a multiculturalist patchwork that looks away from the worst abuses in the name of “tolerance.” The prospect appalled moderate Muslims in Britain:

Muslim and Christian politicians expressed fears that at a time of heightened tensions, encouraging Muslims to live by their own distinct rules could make it harder for different communities to integrate.

Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar and a practising Muslim, said that allowing sharia in parts of the UK would be divisive.

He said: “This would create a two-tier society. It is highly retrograde. It will segregate and alienate the Muslim community from the rest of British society.

“The majority of British Muslims want to live only under British law and they would reject anything that means they are treated differently.

“What Lord Phillips and the archbishop are discussing is something that is completely outside their area of understanding.”

LINKS: Hot Air and Melanie Phillips, who makes the following acerbic observation on the Lord Chief Justice’s choice of venue for his speech:

One final point about Lord Phillips’s craven naivety. At the beginning of his talk, he disclosed for the very first time that he has Jewish ancestry in that his maternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants to Britain. He presumably vouchsafed this information, which he has never before made known in public, in order to ingratiate himself with his Muslim audience on the presumed grounds that they would warm to his identifying a common experience with them of being in some sense an outsider to the culture.

However, he delivered his address at the London Muslim Centre. This centre shares the ideology of Jamaat e Islami, an extremist Islamist organisation which aims to Islamise the state and follows the teachings of Maulana al Maududi, who believed that the Jews worshipped Satan. The dignatory who opened the Centre a few years ago was one Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, who has in the past called the Jews ‘calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers… the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs.. these are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, licentiousness, evil and corruption’.

This is where Lord Phillips chose to use his Jewish background to grovel to those who would destroy the very values which afforded his maternal grandparents sanctuary. How can England’s most important judge be quite so clueless?

It’s simple, Melanie: he’s a well-meaning idiot, a perfect candidate for dhimmitude.


Yet another reason I could never be Muslim

July 2, 2008

How on Earth could anyone ever expect me to submit to a religion that considers puppies unclean?

Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman’s hat

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman’s hat advertising a Scottish police force’s new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.

Tayside Police’s new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.

The choice of image on the Tayside Police cards – a black dog sitting in a police officer’s hat – has now been raised with Chief Constable John Vine.

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: ‘My concern was that it’s not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.

‘It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities.

‘They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they’d seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn’t have done it.’

Councillor Asif, who is a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board, said that the force had a diversity adviser and was generally very aware of such issues.

He raised the matter with Mr Vine at a meeting of the board.

I bet the Chief Constable was just thrilled to death. I mean, come on, who can think this is unclean?

Naturally, the Tayside police have bent over backwards and kissed their own arses to apologize to the horribly offended (by puppies) Muslim community:

A police force has apologised to Islamic leaders for the “offensive” postcard advertising a new non-emergency telephone number, which shows a six-month-old trainee police dog named Rebel.

The German shepherd puppy has proved hugely popular with the public, hundreds of who have logged on to the force’s website to read his online training diary.

But some Muslims in the Dundee area have reportedly been upset by the image because they consider dogs to be “ritually unclean”, while shopkeepers have refused to display the advert.

Tayside Police have admitted they should have consulted their ‘diversity’ officers before issuing the cards, but critics argued their apology was unnecessary.

Damn straight it was unnecessary. Here’s a little lesson for Mr. Asif and his brethren in the umma: We in the West like our dogs. They have been a part of our civilization for thousands of years. They are our friends. They are playmates for our children, companions for our elderly, guardians and members of our families. Time and again, dogs have risked and even lost their lives for their people. They are an integral, beloved part of our culture, and the disdain shown for them in Islamic society is testimony to its cultural bankruptcy.

You live in the West, now, Mr. Asif. Spare us the cultural jihad. We are not your dhimmis. You don’t want a dog in your house, fine. You don’t want to live in a society that likes dogs, I’m sure there’s a seat on the next flight back to where you came from. But quit playing the whiny victim to impose your benighted societal mores on us. We don’t want them. We don’t like them.

We like our dogs a lot better.

LINKS: LGF, Tigerhawk, Hot Air.


Tuesday Link-fest

May 13, 2008

It’s a busy day at work today and a busy night tonight, and there’s not much time for blogging, so I thought I’d leave you with some interesting links to follow.

Terrorists strike in India, over 25 dead. Is there a connection to a Bangladeshi jihadist organization? This is a reminder that the jihad targets not just the Judeo-Christian West, but the polytheists and “pagans” of India. Jihad has a brutal history in India.

Cultural jihad-watch: A student teacher in Minnesota is driven to quit his job when a Muslim student threatens his service dog, which he needs to protect him during epileptic seizures. (Dogs are considered unclean in Islam.) The school’s reaction?

Steffens said it is important to respect different cultures and the rights of disabled students.

“I think this is part of the growth process when we become more diverse,” Steffens said.

Steffens called Hurd a good student and committed young man.

Gary Loch, who is the diversity coordinator for the district, said the situation was an unfortunate case of miscommunication.

“I’m not quite sure where the breakdown comes into play here,” Loch said.

Ummm….How about “cultural imperialism,” “dhimmitude,” “Islamic supremacism,” and “violation of the ADA?” (More at Hot Air)

Domestically, the Democrats and the Obama campaign are seeking the future in the past, by boldly planning to recreate the New Deal of the 1930s and the windfall profits tax fiasco of the 1970s. Now there’s a vision for the 21st century.

Pity Lebanon, which showed the promise of renewed democracy in 2005, but is now tearing itself apart. Correction: Lebanon is being torn apart by Hizbullah, the Shiite-terrorist stooges and cats-paws of Syria and Iran. Michael Totten is one of the best journalists working in the Middle East, one of my regular points of reference when I want a balanced perspective on what’s happening there. His latest article, Lebanon’s Third Civil War, is well worth your time.

At Red State, the ever-controversial Lance Thompson discourses on Barack Obama, the affirmative-action candidate.

Finally, Rich Lowry discusses the Obama Rules, which Instapundit compares to Calvinball.

Have a fine Tuesday. martini

 


What’s in a name?

April 22, 2008

First it was the British Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, announcing that acts of Islamic terrorism would no longer be referred to as "Islamic terrorism," but as "anti-Islamic acts."  Now, via Jihad Watch, we learn that our Secretary of State –who is in charge of our foreign relations at a time when we are at war with Islamic jihadists– may be set to ban the use of the words "jihad" and "jihadist" at State:

The argument, of course, is the old Streusand/Guirard claim that by using the word jihad, we’re validating the jihadist claim to be waging jihad. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think that the U.S. State Department carries any validating authority within the Islamic world to determine what is Islam and what isn’t. This would be the first time that unbelievers have set the meaning of Islamic theology for Muslims.

Also, the claim is that by using the word "jihad," we are insulting the peaceful Muslims who are waging the daily jihad of the struggle against sin, the struggle against the dirty dishes, etc. And that’s great, if that’s what any Muslim actually believes is the sum and substance of jihad, but it is an understanding of jihad that is at odds with the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Will Muslims be insulted by a reference to other Muslims using the traditional primary meaning of jihad? Answer: probably. But that doesn’t negate the traditional status of that meaning, or the influence of that traditional view in the Islamic world.

This is the "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" approach: if we don’t mention the problem, it won’t be as threatening. Maybe it will even go away.

If I wanted Fantasyland, I know where I can go. But wishing on a star isn’t going to make the threat of jihadist Islam go away, nor will refusing to bluntly name it defuse it. We are at war with people –not an abstract "terror," but people– who take to heart the Qur’anic injunctions to make war on the unbelievers (us) until they either convert or submit:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do. (Qur’an 8:39)

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). (Qur’an 47:4)

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Qur’an 9:5)

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. (Qur’an 9:29)

That last is the famous "Verse of the Sword," which is widely held by mainstream Muslim authorities to abrogate all the peaceful verses that come before it in the Qur’an. It is even taught thus in children’s books. And these four are but a few of dozens of examples of verses in the Qur’an and tales in the Hadith that command offensive jihad against non-believers. Again, us.

It does us no good to pretend that the acts of terrorism committed against us are not rooted in mainstream Islamic theology; the terrorists themselves are well-versed in Islamic theology and law. The see themselves as holy warriors  –jihadis* or mujahideen– waging jihad** in the name of Allah and as the latest executors of a religious duty stretching back more than 1,300 years to Muhammad himself. For our leaders to pretend otherwise is an act of ideological appeasement and intellectual self-disarmament.

How are we supposed to fight, let alone win, if we lack the intellectual clarity and fortitude to name the enemy?

*(Sorry, Condi.)

**(Oops. Did it again.)

 


The clueless journalist of the week award goes to…

March 26, 2008

Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post for her multiculturalist fluff passed off as a serious column: Hijabs at a Harvard Gym. The whole piece is awash with moral equivalence and tolerance for the intolerant, but she saves her dumbest opinion for the end:

Muslim women who enroll at Harvard and turn up in hijabs at its gyms reflect a strand of Islam that society ought to encourage, the better to compete with its more odious cousins.

Ruth, what have you been drinking? The hijab is a symbol of women’s oppression and subjugation under Islam. I agree that it is a mark of piety, but the woman is pious for accepting her inferiority to men and their rule over her: her testimony is worth half that of a man’s; a daughter inherits only half what a son gets, a widow one-eighth; her husband can divorce her at will, but, if she remarries, she loses custody of her children; and her husband can beat her if she is disobedient. (For more, see here.)

All this is symbolized by the hijab. It is a tool of her oppressors and a symbol of her submission. Harvard isn’t encouraging a better version of Islam, Ruth, it is facilitating the "odious cousins" and scattering rose petals in their path.

For pity’s sake, women are killed because they won’t submit — it’s called honor killing. In Canada, Aqsa Parvez was strangled by her father because she wouldn’t wear the hijab. Amina and Sarah Said were gunned down by their father in Texas for wanting to lead the lives of normal American teenagers. And you want to encourage the wearing of this leash?

I just don’t get the so-called feminist Left in this country. The very things they should be railing against, the segregation of women and their acceptance of subservience and servitude, they instead ignore or even celebrate in the name of a muddleheaded, "nonjudgmental tolerance" that sees all cultures as equally worthy, no matter how heinous their practices. What’s happened at Harvard is just one example of the cultural jihad being waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi Wahhabis to spread the totalitarian rule of sharia law in the West. It is a slap in the face against the universal principals of equality and individual liberty we hold dear. It is a demand to abandon those principals and submit.

To tolerate it is to tolerate nothing less than a gender-based Jim Crow.

Think I’m overreacting, Ruth? Take my advice: read The Caged Virgin and Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and see what a woman’s life behind the veil is like. Read Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept and learn how the importation of sharia threatens liberal democracy. Read Irshad Manji to understand how Islam treats those who dare to dissent, question, and criticize. Or just watch this chilling Palestinian video of a children’s program that calls on women around the world to submit to the hijab.

If the West loses this struggle with jihadist Islam, it won’t be because armies fighting under green and black flags conquer Iowa or Queensland or Kent. It will be because of post-modern cultural elites like Ruth Marcus who in their dhimmitude refuse to see what’s right in front of their eyes.

Until the veil covers them.

(hat tip: LGF)

LINKS: Roger L. Simon and Annie Jacobsen notice the new Jim Crow, too.


The dhimmi ex-President

February 26, 2008

No, not Jimmy Carter this time.

Bill Clinton.

 


Sheer genius

February 14, 2008

Iowahawk contemplates Archbishop Williams’ welcoming of sharia law to Britain and channels Geoffrey Chaucer: Heere Bigynneth the Tale of the Asse-Hatte.

 

2259965546_6fc7384f4b_m

If you’ve ever suffered through a Chaucer course in college, you must read this. thumbs_up


Winning the broader war

February 14, 2008

Victor Davis Hanson on the war beyond Iraq:

For those who thought that the level of European appeasement could not be surpassed following the Dutch murderers, the opera and cartoon fiascos, the pope’s remarks, or the Iranian kidnapping of British sailors, we now are to listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s admission that the implementation of sharia law in Britain is “unavoidable” and probably useful as well. Never was so much surrendered by so few to so many.

The new multicultural and relativist British elite in just a decade or so has managed to make in comparison the 12th-century England of Thomas Becket seem humane. In the last analysis, the real worries about the survival of the West in this war are not with America and its courageous twenty-something suburban kids in Anbar trying to offer something better than the sharia morality of the seventh century, but with the likes of sanctimonious and cowardly churchmen in England trying to spread it.

Read the whole thing.


The Archbishop of Canterbury is a fool

February 10, 2008

With all respect to Anglicans and Episcopalians reading this, but Archbishop Rowan Williams is a danger to the West in its struggle with jihadist Islam: Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’

Where do I begin? His interview is chock-full of appalling multiculturalist nonsense and amounts not only to an abandonment of thousands of years of Western legal and political tradition, but in all but name hastens the balkanization of society and is a large step further down the road to intellectual dhimmitude. Let’s take just one example:

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts – I think that’s a bit of a danger".

Say what? One law for all is a danger? Pardon me, Your Grace, but the concept of one law for all in society –rulers and ruled, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or economic circumstance– is one of the signal accomplishments of Western civilization, born of the marriage of our Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritages. Sure, it has been and still is imperfectly applied, but to say it represents any sort of "danger" is supremely fatuous. And it’s downright offensive to say it should in any circumstance accommodate Sharia law, the barbarities of which include stoning, whipping for the rape victim, and the punishment of free speech.

The Archbishop goes on to equate Sharia courts with the Jewish Beth Din courts, which is tripe. Beth din courts always recognize the primacy of national laws in a democracy; Sharia demands to supplant those laws. For Dr. Williams to make such a comparison shows either a profound ignorance or intellectual laziness — or both.

The French Center-Right philosopher Jean-François Revel once wrote:

"A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

And Archbishop Williams is the poster boy of that self-loathing guilt.

(hat tip: Reader John in Shikoku)

LINKS: Lots of people have chimed in on this. Melanie Phillips dismantles him here and here. Little Green Footballs takes note of the Archbishop’s co-useful idiots in the news media. Blue Crab Boulevard reports on calls for Dr. Williams’ resignation, including from Muslim politicians, and of his attempts to back away from what he clearly said. Captain’s Quarters comments on the Archbishop’s "resistance is futile" attitude. Finally, Roger Kimball asks the inevitable question.


Worth reading

February 3, 2008

It’s been a busy weekend with little time for blogging, so I’ll limit myself to a few things I think you should read. Yes, including you over there in the corner, hiding behind the comic book! Pay attention to the world around you!

At Pajamas Media, Bruce Bawer looks at the increase in violence against gays in Europe and sees the creeping influence of sharia law and aggressive Islam. First they came for the gays:

It’s very clear what’s going on here – and where it’s all headed. Europe is on its way down the road of Islamization, and it’s reached a point along that road at which gay people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being directly challenged, both by knife-wielding bullies on the street and by taxpayer-funded thugs whose organizations already enjoy quasi-governmental authority. Sharia law may still be an alien concept to some Westerners, but it’s staring gay Europeans right in the face – and pointing toward a chilling future for all free people. Pim Fortuyn saw all this coming years ago; most of today’s European leaders still refuse to see it even though it’s right before their eyes.

Also at PJM, one of my blogging heroes, Australia’s Arthur Chrenkoff, returns from his exile in Australian politics to note how the mainstream media’s reporting on Iraq has changed since 2005:

What does it all tells us? There has clearly been a very significant decline in reporting from Iraq. For some it will be an indication of the news exhaustion: after five years, people are simply tired of Iraq and the decrease in reporting merely reflects that fact that everyone has moved on to other issues. For others, it will be further evidence of the media bias: once the situation in Iraq has shown signs of unequivocal improvement, the media has stopped reporting, because the news simply stopped fitting into their favourite anti-war narrative. As for the changing ration of bad to good news, has the situation improved so drastically, or has the good news finally become too conspicuous to ignore? I will leave that to others to decide.

I hope this means Arthur will be reopening his blog. It’s been sorely missed.

Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez’s nemesis, Fausta, reports on evidence of European connections to the coke-head’s drug dealing, as well as ties to Colombia’s major rebel group.

Finally, Lance Thompson asks potential McCain voters, "Are you sure," and points out some things they might like to think about.

UPDATE: Forgot one. Via Blue Crab Boulevard, read all about the Navy’s test of a shipborne rail-gun. I want one. We have all the best toys.


Preemptive appeasement

January 31, 2008

I wrote last week about the valiant efforts of UK educational authorities to carry out a forward strategy of submission by refusing to publish an award-winning digital version of the Three Little Pigs because it might be culturally offensive to Muslims, even though no one had complained about it.

Yesterday at Pajamas Media, Pam Meister took that same story and expanded it through other examples into a general essay on why appeasement never gets you peace: This Little Piggy Was Banned from Market

Taking the high road to sensitivity may make these culture judges feel good about themselves. But when the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of Western civilization bow and scrape to keep from “offending” every Johnny-come-lately who makes demands of the native population regarding tradition and values – and even when they don’t – what exactly is there to recommend said Western culture? Banks in Britain have already stopped handing out piggy banks to children who open savings accounts, and some British schools are not teaching students about the Holocaust because some in their Muslim population are taking the line from Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and claiming the Holocaust never happened.

Better to ignore history than to offend a handful of Holocaust deniers.

As Meister points out later, appeasing these groups once is never enough: what to us is an attempt at conciliation and compromise is taken by them as a sign of weakness, something to be exploited with further demands. And it always starts with seemingly trivial things, such as a Muslim cabby refusing a fare because the passenger is carrying alcohol, or a checker at a store refusing to scan a customer’s pork chops because pork is against the checker’s religion. In the end, you become so accustomed to appeasing and accommodating that you might not even notice when you give away the big things, such as equality before the law — or democracy itself.

This is how cultural jihad works: demanding special privileges and exceptions as a right because one is Muslim, and therefore superior. (Sura 3:110) It’s a difficult enough threat to face as it is; we shouldn’t make things worse by falling all over ourselves to surrender.


Holland grows a spine. Britain misplaces theirs.

January 23, 2008

Two items today from the cultural jihad front, both courtesy of Little Green Footballs.

In the Netherlands, government officials have decided not to participate in or legitimize misogyny: Dutch to ban burqas in schools and government offices

The Dutch government is set to impose a ban on the Muslim burqa in schools and government offices, media reported on Wednesday, in a retreat from the previous cabinet’s plan for a general ban.

The cabinet has decided against a broad ban on burqas in public as that would violate the principle of freedom of religion, news agency ANP said, citing unnamed cabinet sources.

The Muslim community says only about 50 women wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes. They said a general ban would heighten alienation among the country’s about 1 million Muslims.

An interior ministry spokesman said there was no final decision on the subject yet and the issue is expected to be discussed at the weekly cabinet meeting on Friday next week.

This doesn’t begin to address the plight of women trapped by Sharia law in the Netherlands, and it could be reversed if the government loses its nerve, but it’s a welcome start.

Meanwhile, desperately seeking new groups to apologize to, educational authorities in Britain turned down a digital book that retold the story of the Three Little Pigs because it might offend Muslims and builders:

A story based on the Three Little Pigs has been turned down from a government agency’s annual awards because the subject matter could offend Muslims.

The digital book, re-telling the classic fairy tale, was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

Becta, the government’s educational technology agency, is a leading partner in the annual schools award.

The judges also attacked Three Little Cowboy Builders for offending builders.

The book’s creative director, Anne Curtis, said that the idea that including pigs in a story could be interpreted as racism was "like a slap in the face".

‘Cultural issues’

The CD-Rom digital version of the traditional story of the three little pigs, called Three Little Cowboy Builders, is aimed at primary school children.

But judges at this year’s Bett Award said that they had "concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

The Three Little Cowboy Builders has already been a prize winner at the recent Education Resource Award – but its Newcastle-based publishers, Shoo-fly were turned down by the Bett Award panel, run the government’s technology agency.

The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-Rom highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

They also warned that the story might "alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)".

The judges criticised the stereotyping in the story of the unfortunate pigs: "Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"

Have they lost their multicultural minds over there?