Greece bans Islamic law

August 25, 2011

Greece and the Greeks have come in for some well-deserved criticism in recent years, first for their insane profligate borrowing and then for throwing a national tantrum and rioting when their creditors demanded they take steps to fix their fiscal mess.

But, give the cradle of democracy, liberty, and Western civilization some credit, too. When given a chance to strike a blow for human freedom, they did it, banning Sharia law:

This Muslim law establishes among others the right of polygamy and gives only to men the right to divorce their wives which constitutes a problem for the women in Thraki, Northern Greece. Even in Turkey, this law was abolished in 1926.

In addition, this law does not comply with the Greek constitution which establishes the equality of Greeks regarding the application of the laws and the equality of men and women. The National Committee on the Human Rights considers that the Shariah does not protect minorities but abuses the rights and values of all the Greek Muslims.

It is also announced that the family and hereditary relations of all Greek citizens will be regulated by Greek Laws. Thus, the Mufti will only be religious leader of Greek Muslims and will no longer have judicial authorities.

Good. Sharia is a barbaric, misogynistic legal code that enshrines inequality under the law and by its nature as (supposedly) divine law stands foursquare against every principle this country was founded on.

As they might say in Athens, Συγχαρητήρια η Ελλάδα! Congratulations, Greece!

Perhaps ironically, this puts Greece ahead of our more immediate democratic forebears in Britain, where Sharia courts have started to operate apparently with official sanction, though not without controversy, and where even the Anglican Archbishop has said that some accommodation to Sharia will have to be made.

Several states in the US have made moves to ban Sharia by forbidding the courts to consider any law not based on the US and state constitutions (1) This  movement has gained steam since a (thankfully overturned) ruling by a district court in New Jersey that refused to grant a woman a restraining order against her husband because Islamic law does not recognize marital rape (2).

In this case, let’s hope the United States emulates Greece, not Great Britain.

via Big Peace

Footnotes:
(1) You would think this would be a given, but even the Supreme Court has a problem with this.
(2) Naturally, the Justice Department has threatened to oppose such laws. No, not because Obama is a “secret Muslim,” but because the Leftist lawyers there have a contempt for state legislatures and can’t resist pandering to identity politics.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Religion of Peace watch: “Kill every Israeli in Egypt!”

August 23, 2011

The Sinai peninsula has been in almost a state of anarchy since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak (1). Jihadist groups, including al Qaeda (2), have begun to operate openly as Egyptian sovereignty crumbles in an area crucial to Israel’s security. Late last week, Muslims waging jihad fi sabil Allah struck from Sinai in a series of terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel struck back hard, killing not only the instigators of the attack, but also, unfortunately, some Egyptian soldiers (3).

So, what is the logical response of the average Egyptian Islamic scholar to these events? Demand that the transitional government reassert national sovereignty and the rule of law over Egyptian territory and suppress these groups that are endangering the treaty of peace with Israel? Denounce these hijackers of Islam who clearly misunderstand Muhammad’s message of peace? Does he…

Never mind. We all know what the answer is: Kill every Zionist in Egypt.

Islamic scholar Dr. Salah Sultan issued a religious decree according to which it is permissible to kill “any Israeli on Egyptian land, in response to the killing of Egyptian soldiers near the border with Israel,” Egyptian Al-Shuruq newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Thus Israeli businessmen in Alexandria to make a deal are fair game, even though they had nothing to do with the fighting, because, well… they’re Jews and therefore the enemies of all mankind! And, you see, the brave jihadis wouldn’t have done what they did (in Allah’s name) if those nasty Jews hadn’t been occupying Muslim lands (that is, the whole state of Israel) and those Egyptian soldiers wouldn’t have died in the criminal Zionist attack, so all Israelis (and therefore Jews) are to blame!

Yes, that really is what passes for logic there. And yet some people wonder why Arab Islamic society is screwed up.

I don’t.

Footnotes:
(1) Helped along by our Smart Power Administration. Heckuva job, Barry!
(2) See also the announcement from the Kavkaz Center, the propaganda arm of the Chechen jihadi terrorists.
(3) If you don’t want this to happen, Cairo, maybe you should try suppressing these medieval loons before the Israelis have to do it for you. Just a thought.

UPDATE: Barry Rubin with some interesting background on Sultan Salah.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Sharia has come to America: resistance is futile

June 17, 2011

Give up now, kuffar; as Shariah for America shows, we’ve already lost:

As you might guess, my answer involves the word “nuts” and a single finger.

via Big Peace


Iranian official: “Retaliation and punishment are beautiful”

June 8, 2011

Call it the Shiite bookend to the earlier post about a Sunni cleric who argued that mutilating prisoners is an act of compassion. In this case, as PJM’s Reza Kahlili reports, there’s an extra-special Orwellian touch, as the “gentleman” in question is Mohammad-Javad Larijani, head of the Iranian judiciary’s Human Rights Council.

Have these guys got a sense of humor, or what?

Larijani, who had previously claimed that the sentence of stoning is much lighter than actual execution because the “defendant can actually survive,” also said:

  • “Retaliation and punishment are beautiful and necessary things. It’s a form of protection for the individual and civil rights of the people in a society. The executioner or the person carrying out the sentence is in fact very much a defender of human rights. One can say that there is humanity in the act of retaliation.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei also criticized the West last week for demeaning the value of women in their societies. He claimed that the Islamic regime of Iran has upheld the status of women, and that under Islam much attention is given to the role of women in society.

Call me crazy, but I get the sneaky feeling that most Iranian women would be grateful for less “attention:”

These two Iranian officials failed to mention that women in Iran are constantly attacked for not adhering to the Islamic hijab, or that thousands are in prison suffering torture, rape, and execution for seeking their rights. Just days ago, Iranian humanitarian and democracy activist Haleh Sahabi died after being severely beaten by Iranian security forces during her father’s funeral. Her body was immediately seized by Iranian authorities and her family forced to watch as they buried her that same night. No autopsy was allowed. Her father, also an activist, had been arrested several times in the past.

In spite of these atrocities, Iran was recently allowed to join the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Like I said, they’re regular jokers. But keep in mind, per Mr. Larijani, it’s all in defense of human rights.

Whether it’s Sunni or Shiite, these examples from Iran and Egypt are just the latest illustrations of Islam as a totalitarian religious-political system that subordinates the individual to the group as a fate-bound slave. It demands absolute control over the lives of its followers down to the minutest detail and ordains punishment for all deviation. Not just for those things we would regard as real crimes –robbery, murder, rape, etc.– but for all aspects of behavior, even for daring to drive a car when it is forbidden. Especially victimized are women, who are regarded as inferior beings, less intelligent (1), and therefore in need of control and, yes, punishment.

But remember, these are beautiful acts of compassion.

It’s for their own good.

(1) Muhammad said so. So there.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Chopping off hands is true compassion!

June 8, 2011

I don’t know what we benighted kuffar are afraid of. You see, under the enlightened rule of Sharia law, cutting off the hand of a thief or whipping a fornicator 100 times is an act of mercy; you’re both protecting society from the sinner and protecting the sinner form himself! Trust me, he or she will thank you for it.

But don’t take my word for it. Just ask respected Egyptian Islamic scholar Mas’oud Anwar. As a bonus, he even demonstrates the proper Islamic way to whip someone (1):

Of course, what the honored cleric (2) failed to mention was that “fornicators” subject to whipping apparently also includes women who are the victims of gang-rapes. “Compassion” must have a different meaning under Sharia than it does in English.

But that’s just details. It’s the thought that counts.

(1) Anthony Weiner should be very grateful he lives in New York…

(2) Did you notice how enthusiastic and happy he was during his demonstration? Creepy…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Leading Iranian cleric: “Hey, it’s okay to kill Jewish babies”

May 31, 2011

Hey, Mesbah-Yazdi said we could!

That’s the takeaway regarding this fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi in response to a questioner asking whether a suicide bomber was, well, committing suicide:

Q: “Now, about [the] targeting [of] civilians in the Zionist state. Some say that according to the teaching[s] of [Ahl Al-Bayt, i.e. the Prophet Muhammad’s household] and the Koran, it is haram to target civilians in any case. They also say that Israelis are civilians like any other people, while others believe they are settlers and usurpers [rather than] civilians.

“Are the operations [carried out] by Hamas and [Islamic] Jihad against [Israeli] ‘civilians’ haram? Why or why not? How about the Israeli children killed in such attacks? If it is not haram, what is the answer to those who quote the Hadith [which forbids targeting] non-combatants.”

A: “Muslims should not attack those civilians of the occupied territories who have announced their opposition to their government’s vicious crimes, except [in] situations in which they are used as human shields and [when] fighting the aggressors depends on attacking those [same] civilians.”

Note that the learned Shiite scholar, though specifically asked about killing children, never says “don’t do it.” Not a word of forbiddance. You shouldn’t target those who denounced their own government, but if they’re being used as human shields… Well, hey. Stuff happens, you know?

I guess it was the fault of the Fogel children that they didn’t publicly oppose Israeli policy.

Note also that the questioner asked about the religious propriety of suicide bombing. You may be surprised to know that this is a controversial issue in Islam, because suicide is a sin. Islamic scholars have argued with al Qaeda leaders about this, and they in turn have had to engage in stretched-to-the-breaking-point arguments to say it isn’t technically suicide. (Read all about it.) Mesbah-Yazdi apparently comes down on the al Qaeda side of the argument, telling the questioner that it is not only permitted, but it is a religious obligation on all Muslims to conduct “martyrdom operations.”

Funny, but the learned Ayatollah himself has yet to strap on a bomb belt and blast his way to glory as a martyr. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time until he gets around to it.

Just as soon as the right Jewish child comes along.

RELATED: In case you find yourself wondering if Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi is some kind of …er… fanatic, you’re right. How much of a fanatic, you ask? How about, “so bad that even Ayatollah Khomeini banned his movement?” Mesbah-Yazdi is a spiritual adviser to President Gilligan Ahmadinejad; he’s appeared in this blog before.

via The Jawa Report and Ynet News.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Death to What’s-His-Name!

May 10, 2011

Yeah, I’d say it kind of spoils your big moment on TV when you pronounce death on the President of the United States … and can’t remember his name:

More seriously, while this is the usual (and not all that well done) condemnation of the Great Satan for killing a noble mujahideen (and sociopathic mass-murderer), note Sheikh Sa’id’s justification: that Obama is a Muslim who has left the faith and therefore, as an apostate, must die:

“Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.” —Bukhari 9:83:37

This just goes to show that the “Obama is a Muslim” myth(1) has spread far and wide, even to faraway Sudan, and will probably never die. But I can see where Sa’id is coming from: Obama’s father was a (non-practicing) Muslim and, under Islamic law, if you are born to a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. (Daniel Pipes has a good discussion of this.) Practicing Islam doesn’t make a difference, so, in Sa’id’s view, it’s not unreasonable(2) to accuse Obama of being a murtadd — an apostate. That modern Christianity largely sees membership as a matter of some form of baptism and active profession of faith doesn’t matter; after all, as it says in the Qur’an, Christians are the ones who have “gone astray.”(3)

So… Death to What’s-his-name!

(1) For what it’s worth, I’ve never bought into that; it’s just a variant on the “Manchurian Candidate” meme. If Obama is drawn to any religion, its the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, which meshes well with Obama’s Socialist politics.

(2) To a totalitarian mind straight out of the Middle Ages, that is.

(3) That passage is generally interpreted to mean the Jews (“…those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down…”) and the Christians (“…those who go astray.”)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Lara Logan’s rape as a symbol of Islam’s “silent scandal”

February 23, 2011

“Silent scandal.” Those are the words former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy uses to describe the miserable condition of women under Islam, in which inferiority to men is theologically sanctioned and non-Islamic women — or a Muslim woman who doesn’t behave as she should — are open targets for beatings, rape, and even death.

While horrific crimes against women occur in all parts of the world, it is only under Islam that these receive religious sanction. As McCarthy relates in “Who Attacked Lara Logan, and Why?

Tahrir Square is also the place where, in the frenzy after Hosni Mubarak’s fall, CBS news correspondent Lara Logan was seized and subjected to a savage sexual assault by an Egyptian gang. Coverage of the attack has been muted. There have been testimonials to Ms. Logan’s courage, and one anti-American leftist lost his comfortable fellowship at NYU Law School for failing to conceal his glee over the atrocity. We have heard much about the attack, but have heard next to nothing about the attackers. You are just supposed to assume it was a “mob” — the sort of thing that could have happened in any setting where raw emotion erupts, say, Wisconsin’s capitol.

Except it doesn’t happen in Madison. It happens in Egypt. It happened in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, in the riots that led to Suharto’s fall — as Sharon Lapkin recounts, human-rights groups interviewed more than 100 women who had been captured and gang raped, including many Chinese women, who were told this was their fate as non-Muslims. It happens in Muslim countries and in the Muslim enclaves of Europe and Australia, perpetrated by Islamic supremacists acting on a sense of entitlement derived from their scriptures, fueled by the rage of their jihad, and enabled by the deafening silence of the media.

As Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer has detailed, al-Azhar University endorses a sharia manual called Umdat al-Salik. It is quite clear on the subject of women who become captives of Muslim forces: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” This is so the woman can then be made a concubine of her captor.

This arrangement is encouraged by the Koran. Sura 4:23–24, for example, forbids Muslim men from consorting with the wives of other Muslims but declares sexual open season on any women these men have enslaved. (“Forbidden to you are . . . married women, except those whom you own as slaves.”) Moreover, Mohammed — whose life Muslims are exhorted by scripture to emulate — rewarded his fighters by distributing as slaves the women of the Jewish Qurazyzah tribe after Muslim forces had beheaded their husbands, fathers, and sons. The prophet himself also took one of the captured women, Rayhanna, as his concubine. And, as Spencer further notes, Mohammed directed his jihadists that they should not practice coitus interruptus with their slaves — they were encouraged to ravish them, but only in a manner that might produce Muslim offspring.

Emphases added. Be sure to read the whole thing, because McCarthy is one of the few willing to speak bluntly about this problem, rather than turn a multicultural blind eye. The sum, as he and other writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have noted, is that Islamic law reduces women to a less-than-human status, encouraging such abuse, and the silence of Western liberals and leftists only abets it.

via Patrick Poole, who notes that the Umdat al-Salik, mentioned above, received a disturbing endorsement from an American imam.

LINKS: Phyllis Chesler on jihad by rape and liberal blindness. Power Line on “no-go zones” in France and the catastrophic failure of European multiculturalism. Jamie Glazov on Muslim rape and feminist silence (Disturbing photo warning). Bruce Bawer on the challenge posed by fundamentalist Islam in Europe and tolerating intolerance .

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Saudi Arabia: rape victim to be whipped

January 8, 2011

In civilized countries, such as the United States or any other Western liberal democracy, a woman who was gang-raped would be given medical care and whatever therapy she needed to recover. If her attackers were captured, she’d have the right to testify against them in open court and see them punished.

Remember, we’re talking about civilized countries.

In the Islamic police state of Saudi Arabia, however, which is governed by the totalitarian Sharia code of religious law and which treats women as little better than a man’s property, that same rape victim gets sent to jail and given 100 lashes:

A 23-year-old unmarried woman was awarded one-year prison term and 100 lashes for committing adultery and trying to abort the resultant fetus.

The District Court in Jeddah pronounced the verdict on Saturday after the girl confessed that she had a forced sexual intercourse with a man who had offered her a ride. The man, the girl confessed, took her to a rest house, east of Jeddah, where he and four of friends assaulted her all night long.

But, let’s not be too harsh. The court did, after all, postpone her whipping until after the baby was born. See? They really do have a heart! And, hey, she confessed!

It says a lot about a society in which the victim is the one who “confesses.”

Bear in mind that this same religious legal code is what al Qaeda and other jihadist groups want to impose on us by force, and that Muslim Brotherhood front-groups such as CAIR, ICNA, and ISNA want to bring to the West through a cultural jihad — with Saudi support.

Women in the West have much to look forward to.

RELATED: Other posts on the Religion of Misogyny.

via Jihad Watch

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The United Nations: a sick joke

November 12, 2010

Would you like (yet another) example of why the United Nations is worthless? Well, here ya go, pal. Saudi Arabia has joined the executive board of the new United Nations organization on the rights of women. No, I’m serious. It seems Iran was beyond the pale, but Saudi Arabia was a-okay by the UN’s high standards. I guess the difference must be that, in Iran, they still stone women to death, but, in the enlightened heart of Islam, they’re merely whipped and sent to jail for the crime of being victims of a gang-rape. That obviously qualifies the Saudis to oversee the rights of women around the world

At least, to anyone who understands George Orwell.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


In Islam, marital rape isn’t rape-rape

October 15, 2010

A few weeks ago, I presented a video clip featuring a distinguished Egyptian cleric who told a rapt interviewer that Allah had created the punishment of beating a wife for refusing her husband sex and that this was a way of honoring her.

But this left open the question, what to do if she won’t help her husband get his freak on, even after a good beating?

Simple! He can just force her to have sex, since, according to the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, forcing your wife to have sex against her will really isn’t rape:

In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed:

For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.

Notice that? Even though the husband is committing an act that “destroys love and mercy,” it isn’t rape and the sin is hers. Again, Islam makes the woman the one responsible for the sexual behavior of the man.

Be sure to read the whole thing, because Dr. Bostom opens with a discussion of a similar organization in the UK that also argues there is no rape within a marriage. I can understand their logic, since these sharia law experts define rape as “adultery by force,” making the marital state a prerequisite condition and meaning rape can only occur outside of marriage.

But understanding is not the same as approving. It is, in fact, utterly barbaric and disgusting, again turning the woman in a marriage into little more than the man’s property and justifying, or at least excusing, unspeakable atrocities against her.

And they call this civilized?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


If a beating is an honor, what is a stoning?

September 26, 2010

Yesterday I wrote about an Egyptian Muslim cleric who told us that the beating of women was instituted by Allah to honor women.

If that’s “honoring,” then stoning must be the equivalent of a gold medal:

Rare Video Shows Taliban Allegedly Stoning Woman to Death in Pakistan

A rare video reportedly smuggled out of northwest Pakistan allegedly shows a woman being stoned to death by Taliban militants in the upper region of Orakzai.

Al Aan, a Dubai-based pan-Arab television channel that focuses on women’s issues, said it had obtained cellphone footage that it says shows a woman being executed because she was seen out with a man. The killing reportedly took place two months ago and was smuggled out by a Taliban member who attended the stoning, according to Al Aan. ABC News could not independently confirm the cellphone video’s authenticity.

The video, which seems to show a woman tethered to the ground as a group of men throw stones at her, is so graphic that ABC News cannot show it in its entirety. Parts of it air today on the 25th episode of “Brian Ross Investigates.”

“It’s difficult to know where and when it was shot,” says Gayle Lemmon, deputy director of the Women and Foreign Policy Program at the Council of Foreign Relations, in an interview with Ross, “It is consistent with videos that have been coming from Taliban-controlled areas since the ’90s.”

Lemmon says that when women “stray outside the line” in Taliban-controlled areas, they may “face severe punishment.”

“Women are respected as carriers of the family honor,” says Lemmon, “but they also pay the price.”

If that’s respect…

Lemmon’s last statement is nonsense, of course, as I pointed out yesterday. They aren’t respected, except perhaps in the perverse sense of “if you dress a certain way and accept a man as your keeper, you won’t get raped.” Otherwise, according to Sheikh al-Hilali, she can expect to be treated like meat left out for the cat. Some respect.

Rather, what happens to the woman in the video is a consequence of women being made to bear the burden of the man’s sexual behavior. The victim in the video was seen walking with a man, presumably not of her family. Doesn’t she know what might have happened, since a man cannot control himself? That made her a whore and dishonored her family, and so she had to die by being pelted with rocks.

Respect. Honor.

Like Hell.

LINKS: Jihad Watch has the full video (Fair warning, it’s very graphic) and also provides links that debunk apologists who claim stoning is not a canonical part of Islam.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Declaration of Independence vs. Sharia law

July 4, 2010

On the day we celebrate our independence from Great Britain*, Marisol of Jihad Watch quotes our nation’s founding vision and highlights its utter incompatibility with Islamic law:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

Each one of those highlighted statements are antithetical to Islam: all men not created equal, for the Qur’an places Muslims above all the rest; Government is not instituted among men, but by Allah in the form of sharia law; and power does not derive from the consent of the governed, for Allah is the sole law-giver and it is a sin to assign him any partners, which is what democracy does. At its root, strict Islam as Muhammad preached is not compatible with American democracy.

People on the Left mocked George W. Bush for saying jihadists hate us “for who we are,” but, if you bear in mind the fundamental, irreconcilable differences between what we and they believe and their willingness to kill thousands of us to assure the supremacy of their beliefs, you’ll see he was right.

*(And maybe the day they celebrate getting rid of us. )

RELATED: At Big Peace, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser calls on Jeffersonian Muslims to stand up to theocratic jihadists. I have my doubts that Islam can be reformed without being utterly gutted, but I hope he’s right and I’m wrong.


Islamic scholar: Beat your wife, but only lightly

June 26, 2010

Another entry for the Islamic Misogyny Watch: Muslim Indian “scholar” Zakir Naik instructs his listeners about why they should beat their wives. But, it’s okay, since he tells them to do it lightly and not leave a mark:

I’m sure Muslim wives will be comforted by that.

The invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute has a profile of Dr. Naik. Did you know this charming fellow has been banned from Britain and Canada for glorifying terrorism?

This week it was announced that Indian cleric Dr. Zakir Naik, a popular Salafi television preacher, was banned from entering both the U.K. and Canada.

On June 18, 2010, British Home Secretary Theresa May stated that Dr. Naik, who heads the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), was barred from entering the U.K. under laws that can exclude anyone who “foments, justifies, or glorifies terrorist violence,”and that upcoming events with him, planned for the week of June 25 at stadiums in Wembley, Birmingham and Sheffield, were cancelled. Secretary May explained, “Numerous comments made by Dr. Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behavior,” and added, “I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the U.K.”

Within a week of the U.K. government ban, Canada announced that it too was barring Naik from entering its territory. Naik had planned to be keynote speaker at a conference in Toronto, chaired by Saed Rageah. Regeah is imam of the Toronto mosque that made news last fall when a group of its young members joined the Al-Qaeda-affiliated militant Somali group Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen.

Do read it all. MEMRI has more of Dr. Naik’s greatest hits on video. Be sure to watch as he asserts that it was really George W. Bush who carried out the September 11th attacks. (Free registration required.) Such a charming fellow. Always smiling.

Even while he’s beating his wife, I’m sure.


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.


If this guy’s a moderate Muslim, there’s no hope

May 7, 2010

For some reason, many in the West hold up Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi as the model of a moderate Muslim with whom we can get along. (Meaning, “appease.”) Why he’s considered a moderate, I don’t know; his record gives the lie to that legend.

But, why not let the man speak for himself and let the vast readership ( Rolling on the floor ) of Public Secrets make up their own minds? Thanks to MEMRI here are two clips of Qaradawi speaking and preaching over the years.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Note toward the end of the first clip where he says “Religion must lead to war.” Qaradawi is referring to the Islamic supremacist and jihadist imperatives that are an inseparable part of Islam. There is nothing “moderate,” “peaceful,” or “tolerant” about this.

Proof that words are relative, I guess.


A tremendous insult to women

April 29, 2010

I know it shouldn’t, but this just leaves me flabbergasted: the UN has elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women:

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,” according to its website.

Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of “vacancies in subsidiary bodies,” was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was “elected by acclamation,” meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states — including the United States.

No state that implements sharia law should be anywhere near anything resembling a human rights body, especially one concerned with women. Iran is one of the worst. Women are brutally repressed in Iran: they face death by stoning; their political and legal rights are severely restricted; they face rape in prison by government officials; and they are even gunned down in the streets.

And almost as appalling is that the United States didn’t speak out against this travesty. Yet another glorious moment in the history of Smart Power.

LINKS: More at Hot Air. And thanks to Liberty Pundits for the link!

UPDATE: Allahpundit quotes this at the Hot Air link, but it’s worth posting here, too. Jennifer Rubin on Obama’s pusillanimous diplomacy:

The U.S. couldn’t muster a word of opposition — not even call for a vote. That would be because . . . why? Because our policy is not to confront and challenge the brutal regime for which rape and discrimination are institutionalized policies. No, rather, we are in the business of trying to ingratiate ourselves, and making the U.S. as inoffensive as possible to the world’s thugocracies.


Suntans cause earthquakes, too?

April 28, 2010

Well, the connection hasn’t been drawn directly, but it can’t be far off; Iran has announced it will begin arresting women for being suntanned:

Suntanned women to be arrested under Islamic dress code


Iran has warned suntanned women and girls who looked like “walking mannequins” will be arrested as part of a new drive to enforce the Islamic dress code.

Brig Hossien Sajedinia, Tehran’s police chief, said a national crackdown on opposition sympathisers would be extended to women who have been deemed to be violating the spirit of Islamic laws. He said: “The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehaviour by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values. In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins.

“We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them.”

Just think: tanning salons in Iran could be their version of Prohibition-era speakeasies: “Psst! Hey, bud! You know where a girl can get a good tan in this town?”

All kidding aside, this is another, albeit small, example of Islamic misogyny and how the woman is made responsible for the man’s sexual behavior.

LINKS: Don Surber looks at the politics of tanning in the US; The Jawa Report.


Marital rape against Islamic law

April 17, 2010

Having written time and again about how Islam represses and justifies violence against women, it’s nice to be able to cite a scholar of Islam who says “No, it doesn’t, and knock it off:”

There is no law in Yemeni legislation that defines a minimum age for marriage. However, there are Islamic legislations that prevent men from forcing their wives into intercourse.

Renowned religious scholar Mohammed Hassan said that the Islamic Jurisprudence prohibits forced intercourse between the husband and wife.

“If a woman is forced to bed by her husband, she should know that he is committing a sin and should be punished according the jurisprudence. She should not think that Islam discriminates against women, it is the sole act of this man,” he said.

He emphasized that, in Islam, marriage is a relationship based on kindness and empathy as read in the Roman’s Chapter in the Quran verse 21: “And among His signs is that He created spouses for you from yourselves for you to gain rest from them, and kept love and mercy between yourselves; indeed in this are signs for the people who ponder.”

Sadly, Mr. Hassan’s opinions are in a distinct minority. One can only hope that this someday changes.

(via The Jawa Report)


Religion of misogyny and child-abuse

April 10, 2010

Two items in the news: In Australia, a Muslim man strangled his Muslim wife to death for being too Australian:

A man who killed his wife by using her veil to strangle her in their Melbourne home did so in the belief he was entitled to dominate her, a Supreme Court judge has found.

Soltan Azizi was today sentenced to 22 years’ jail by Justice Betty King, who said the Afghani refugee had been physically abusive towards Marzieh Rahimi throughout their 14-year marriage.

Justice King said Ms Rahimi had sought help from social workers and was intending to leave Azizi, despite him warning that he would kill her if she tried.

She said Azizi had complained to Ms Rahimi’s sister in the days prior to her killing that his wife was becoming “too Australian”, meaning “she was not a docile and good wife in the terms you expected her to be”.

“It is clear you were unable to accept that your wife had rights, which rights included the ability to leave you if that was what she desired,” Justice King said.

“… Her death clearly resulted because of your belief that you were entitled to dominate and dictate to your wife what she could and could not do.”

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch points out that honor killings like the above keep happening because Islamic teachings excuse and even encourage them.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, police stopped a ten-year old boy before he could turn himself into a suicide bomber:

A 10-year-old Iraqi boy allegedly recruited by al-Qaeda was about to blow himself in a suicide attack on Wednesday just east of Fallujah when police spotted and arrested him, a senior officer said.

The incident occurred near a police checkpoint in Amariyat Al-Fallujah, a village 15km east of the former Sunni rebel bastion of Fallujah and due west of Baghdad, said Captain Anas al-Issawi.

“The 10-year-old boy had been used by al-Qaeda in the past to place bombs,” Issawi said, adding that the child disappeared from his family home in Amariyat Al-Fallujah four days ago.

“Three men aboard a van drove him to the isolated village of Shitsher (75km west of Baghdad) to prepare him for the suicide operation,” the officer said, quoting the boy’s own testimony.

On Wednesday morning the men helped the boy don an explosives-rigged vest under the traditional dishdasha (long robe) and drove him at dawn to the outskirts of Amariyat Al-Fallujah.

They instructed him to blow himself up as soon as the place began milling with people, the officer said, quoting the boy’s testimony.

Congratulations to the IP for rescuing the boy. This disgusting manipulation of children by these brave, brave mujaheddin is all too common. (via The Jawa Report)