hereticscrusadethumb

“All Muslims are potential terrorists”, “Islam is a religion of peace”, “the Religious Right is as bad as any terrorist”, “Islam is evil”, “Christian violence is worse than Islamic violence”. All of these statements can be seen, quite validly, by some people as blatant lies. On the other hand, depending on context, the opposite is true; all of these statements can be seen as arguably true. Put aside partisan reflexes and “certainty” for a moment and just ‘Imagine’ how such a paradox would be explained.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. That is not seen as too great of a tragedy by most of the people who make statements like these; the words are slogans or arrows aimed at an enemy, rarely are they sincere efforts to express actual thoughts, feelings or intents. In the light of this sad truth is becomes easier to see how pundits on all sides routinely conflate many effects, motives, natures and “reasons” in anything as dark and subtlety tangled as humanity’s tendency/habit/nature for killing other people “in the name of God”.

The two major elements in conflict in the statements in the first paragraph are:

  1. The nature of humans
  2. The nature of doctrinal scriptures in any particular human religion

“All Muslims are potential terrorists” – Actually, all humans with deep convictions are potential “terrorists”; it comes down to what moral choices a too rigid code of behavior “ordained by God” can put before a person. Anyone with a sincere understanding of the inescapable reality of “I COULD be wrong” is incapable of committing any great harm for their faith.

“Islam is a religion of peace” – Before I get hanged, drowned, burnt at the stake or pressed to death let me explain. The religious/semantic concepts here are familiar to both fundamentalist preacher and Soviet Commissar. In this case ‘peace’ is a word like ‘true’, (Pravda) that has one meaning to the speaker and another to un-indoctrinated listeners. The concept of “peace” in Islam comes down to everyone in reach being happily Muslim or inoffensively and impotently submissive to Muslims. It should also be pointed out that while the it’s scriptures consistently extol individual efforts toward peace, harmony and justice Christian doctrine, also based in scripture, does not even admit the concept of “peace” on Earth until after an apocalyptic Armageddon.

“The religious right are as bad as any terrorist” – O. K., but you have to ignore the massive social, cultural and scriptural differences that make the actual EXPRESSION of the “Our scripture says we are good and just to do (fill in the blank with the heinous crime of your choice), and there is NOTHING you can say or do to change that reality” attitude that many dogmatic religions share a difference between being a ‘pain in the neck’ and cutting someone poor f***’s head off.

“Islam is evil” – It certainly can be; so can total honesty, cheesecake and any given PTA. The one thing that pundits and apologists on all sides seem to selectively mis-remember is that even religions we do not like are protected by the 1st Amendment. Our dilemma, the problem that civil society OUGHT to be trying desperately to solve is how to dispassionately apply the Constitution so as to both preserve the 1st Amendment and rein in Islamic fundamentalists’ ability to “act out” in ways that “break someone’s leg or pick their pocket”. One part of any solution is that any and all laws and rules must be equally applicable and enforceable on any and all religious offenders of secular law who followed their faith into committing positive harm on another person.

“Christian violence is worse than Islamic violence” – That depends on where you are sitting. To the victims over the last 3 hundred years this statement is insultingly false. At the same time, when viewed through the lens of the expected attitudes, actions and reactions for someone desiring to be any accepted form of good Christian the statement is valid; any violence committed is a falling away from the strict path. The core texts of Christianity contain little to no material to stoke the fires of self-righteous human violence in the name of God; that even Christianity and Buddhism have violent pasts says more about human nature than about doctrines that seeks to transcend the darker parts of that nature. Islamic doctrine on the other hand is practically designed to be aggressively self-promoting in an earthly and social as well as religious sense giving freer rein to those who seek justification for their most evil tendencies.

Was that so bad? If anyone’s head exploded I either missed it or they fled to the lobby in time before their PC self-destruct countdown reached zero.

We have a problem people. Let’s stop pretending that we can only operate in the box, or out of the box; THERE IS NO BOX. There is reality, life and hope; patterns to perceive and problems to be solved.

America is not a zero-sum equation!

 

  1. S. Dear reader, did anyone notice that the terms conservative, liberal, progressive, democrat, republican, Obama, Palin, Sharpton, Limbaugh, MSM, Fox, tea bagger, left-wing and right-wing are missing from this piece?

It is almost as if, now tell me if I am wrong, as if those terms, those ‘boxes’, are useless in such a conversation. Who knows, they might even get in the way of first understanding actual problems and then solving those issues to the general satisfaction of reality, the Constitution and the public, (or republic if you are finicky) for which it stands.

Declare Your Allegiance – Heretics Crusade Gear in Time for Christmas

Forget Honor Killing and Wife Beating the Real Problem for a Muslimah is Not Giggling

radical

Some days it is just too easy.  I only believe in hanging people with the ropes they have made willingly themselves, from trees they have planted and nurtured with care. This happens a lot more often than you might think, but, it is not often that I get to watch someone hang themselves, and have it be funny as well!

Today on MuslimMatters.org I saw a headline that grabbed my attention immediately. No, it was not about an honor killing, nor was it about wife beating or raging mobs being needed to assuage the honor of a teddy bear; this time it was about beards.

Yes, Virginia, I said beards.  It seems that not all Muslim women go for a tangle of food-encrusted weeds on the face of their lover; you just can’t figure women’s taste I guess. 

The author of the following poem… well, I will just let him explain for himself; I certainly could not twist him a finer rope:

Beauty in the Beard

by Tushar Imdad-ul-Haque Bhuiya (12th March 2001)

I came to eat dinner in my halls of residence one day last year when two sisters started laughing at me; I had some food stuck in my beard. They went on to innocently and honestly mock my beard saying it was messy, unnatural and unhygienic. Little did they know the rage that I felt as a result of this and I channeled this rage by unleashing my
anger through my pen and out came this poem.

Well, I am glad he channeled his rage; I do question his being so thin skinned that "rage" is what he considers a proper response; the burdens of devoutness are many,  guess hair-trigger rage is just the price you pay.

I performed this poem in the Leicester University/DMU Islamic Societies and Eid Celebration and it was received with much laughter and acclaim – Alhamdulillah. Due to popular demand and many requests I have decided to type my poem up and email it to my friends in Islam.

From the men, the women, both?

Glorified be He who beautifies women with long locks of hair
And Men with long beards
There is beauty in the beard
Aye, there is beauty in the beard!

When the lion roars all the animals submit
For the lion is the king of the jungle
The lion with its glorious mane
And a Muslim man grows his mane in pride
Showing the rest of humanity that he is to be respected
Can one imagine a lion without its mane?
Nay, thou canst not!
Then imagine a man without his beard

Frankly I find the idea of a man who needs a "mane" to feel "manly" or have "pride" as sad and silly as a woman who needs to hide behind seventeen different cosmetics to feel "female"!

Woe to worldly women who mock the beards so!
Desiring husbands with clean shaven faces
Woe to women who mock the Prophet’s Sunnah
In the name of hygiene, neatness and smooth texture
Indeed the women of this world cannot like the beard
But she who wants Paradise adores the beard!

I could not write better satire of the fundamentalist Muslim mind if I wanted!  Allah forbid that hygiene be significant; oh, right, He already has.

A beard is a gift given to man
Something only he can grow; a woman never can!

Women do not grow facial hair? Not entirely true. Clinging to this as a sign of your manliness? Entirely sad.

When he ponders, he gently strokes it;

Don’t the psychologists have things to say about people who constantly stroke/touch their face for comfort/reassurance?

When he eats, it stores food;
When he is with kids, they play with it adoringly;
When he is with his wife, she fondles it lovingly;
When the enemy see it, fear is struck in their hearts!
Ah! there is indeed beauty in the beard!

Sarcasm overload; I have nothing to add!

All the Prophets had beards – yes they did!
Muhammad had a beard – so big! so big!
All the companions had beards – o yes! o yes!
All the sages had beards – I know! I know!
All the wise have beards – tis true! tis true!
All the pious have beards – you see! you see!
All the Muslims have beards?! – if only! if only!

My public giggling safeties tripped out three stanzas ago! Now, excuse me for a moment, I have to explain to the household the source of my semi-hysterics…

Who did not have beards? The kafirun!
Who had clean shaven faces? The kafirun!
Who grew their moustaches? The kafirun!
“And what did our Prophet order?” I hear you ask
He ordered us to lengthen the beard and trim the moustache!
Lengthen the beard and trim the moustache!

The source of a beard’s "holiness" is merely that it is "not what the Kafirun" (us, that is) do? OOOOkay, fine! Moving on…

What greater reason that this can there be
The fact that our Prophet told us to see
That we make ourselves appear to the world
As full bearded men with honour untold

Muslims Gone Wild

O Muslim brother! Why do you desire to look like a woman
When your blessed facial hair is the difference between you and the opposite gender?

Try telling that to a Japanese martial artist, then run…

O poor Muslim brother! Why do you imitate the kafir
Instead of following the Prophet of Islam?

What were the words again; "hygiene, neatness and smooth texture"?

O silly Muslim sister! Why are you so blind?
Infatuated with Bollywood actors who have no mind!

Umm, my guess is they find them attractive

images imagesCABZNIYJ imagesq

Go figure!

muslimmens PD*29113987 page5_1

O wretched sister! Are you not scared of your choice?
You would rather have a feminine monkey instead of an exalted manly ape!

Given the Qur’an’s words about Jews I will bet that this line produced some double takes in the audience!

So indeed I love my beard
And adore the curls and tangles
Which no oil, gel or superglue can ever straighten
My glorious long, curly, messy, fluffy beard!
The playhouse for kids;
And the beloved of Allah!

Beloved of Allah because it is not like the Kafirun!

I may be rejected by worldly women because of this hair on my face
But who cares! For my Mum loves it and she puts all such sisters to disgrace!

Kinky!

Be patient Muslim brothers, who shun the trendy look for a Prophetic pose
Paradise with the wide eyed Houris is our final abode!!!!!

The final joke: With no "kafirun" in paradise I expect the Houris will demand that the scruffy shave upon arrival!

True Sincerity and How to Fake It

Hussam Ayloush CAIR moderate muslim 

Sincerity, what is it and how do we identify it from bald-faced lies and zealous ignorance? In two ways Virginia, in two ways; analyze what they say and compare it to all available facts; and judge them by their fruits, one of the most useful concepts to come out of Judeo/Christianity.

It is never more important to identify real sincerity than when the speaker claims a religious moral high-ground. Most religious traditions cherish a core principal of truth and honesty; a self-serving lie perverts the most noble cause at its very core – *Living* this belief distinguishes the true clergy of God, no matter their faith.

Unfortunately the extremes of the religious/partisan/tribal spectrum believe the opposite; so sure are they of the holiness of their cause that eventually any lie will come to be seen as sanctifying, instead of perverting, when applied in any fashion that can be rationalized as in service to “The Cause.”

To be sure, this trait is not confined to religious bigots, there are political movements on the Left, and Right, who share this same “holy” zeal for their vision of “how things must be.”

Here is a piece from the Great Falls Tribune in Montana that straddles both the religious and the political art of faking complete sincerity.

Part of Islamic teachings is mutual respect and acceptance, according to Hussam Ayloush, a speaker at the Islam in America symposium in Bozeman in February and a Muslim-American from Anaheim, Calif.

Why would anyone hold a symposium on Islam in America in Bozeman, Montana (pop < 30,000)? Maybe so no-one undesired is likely to show up and attend to what is actually said?

With that said, “part of Islamic teachings is…”? That is about as vague as you can get. A part? A large part? A powerful part? How about a dominant part? We will let that one go for now…

“Some Muslims disagree with American policies, Ayloush said, but that doesn’t mean they hate Americans.”

Disingenuous, thy name is partisan! “Some” can be read as most according to virtually all polls I have seen, whether by US-based, Judeo/Christian religious, or Muslim news agencies!

As to the “hate American policies[sins]” bit, sorry, the Christians use that one too; what they hate is America’s Un-Muslimness, and that means hating non-Muslim Americans; just as a radical Christian who hates homosexuality hates the gays, not just “their sin.”

“There are lines by the thousands in Muslim countries for visas to come to America,” he said. “People are proud to visit here. There’s no shame — it’s the opposite.”

MSU Adjunct Professor Thomas Goltz has spent years traveling in Muslim countries. “I have never, not once, felt uncomfortable going around the Muslim world because they were Muslim,” he said.

This is probably because Goltz is known for uncritically pro-Muslim, and anti non-Muslim, statements and articles:

Goltz’ remarks were in response a question from the audience on how to convince Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh to stay within the “current boundaries of Azerbaijan.” Goltz, who teaches at the Montana State University, replied: “By building a forward-looking democracy you will be able to let the garlic-growing Armenians beg to join you (Azerbaijan).”

… Goltz accused Armenians of perpetrating “ethnic cleansing” in Khojaly and said the Armenia argument that the Khojaly operation was a necessary pre-emptive and defensive measure to relieve Nagorno-Karabagh’s capital Stepanakerd from relentless shelling from Khojaly was “nonsense”.

The most dramatic moment of the lectures occurred when Aris Babikian from the Armenian National Committee of Canada (ANCC) successfully refuted two controversial statements by Goltz.

At the Newsmaker Breakfast lecture, Aris Babikian, executive director of the ANCC, confronted Goltz and mocked him for his “command performance of misrepresentation and revisionism.” Babikian exposed Goltz’ hypocrisy by pointing out that the American journalist had “conveniently forgotten to mention the Sumgait, Baku and Maragh massacres of Armenians by Azeris… and that had it not been for the Russian Navy 230,000 Armenian inhabitants of Baku would have not survived.”

Ayloush explained that al-Qaida is so unwanted in Muslim countries the terrorist organization must hide. “Eight out of 10 victims (of al-Qaida) are Muslim,” he said. “Every political leader has spoken out against (them).”

Of course, to be fair he would have mentioned that BEFORE most of their victims were Muslims support for al-Qaida in the Muslim world was much, much higher… but that has nothing to do with anything, right?

This next bit is so outrageous that I am going to take it piece by piece:

“Jihad” is a term used to describe “inner struggle” and striving for the sake of God, according to Ayloush. It is “not holy war,” Ayloush stresses.

The inner struggle means controlling one’s passions and avoiding vices.

Here Ayloush is being at best sloppy and rash, and at worst a completely disingenuous dispenser of bovine produced fertilizer.  Doesn’t he understand that to tell such easily refutable lies helps his cause in the uncommitted hearts NOT ONE BIT? Here is a piece that brings together some interesting quotes from the Quran:

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them):

thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom. (47:4)This one states the goal of the fighting in terms that also make clear that the war is religious:And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:39)And this one establishes that he warfare is against the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

Back to the article…

Arabic has no word for “holy war,” and the phrase was developed as a way to translate the word “crusade,” a Latin word and Christian idea.

Stunningly untrue: the Crusades began only after 300 years of ISLAMIC military aggression against Byzantium and the Holy Land (mostly Christian at the time), including the attacking and enslaving of pilgrims as a “religious right and duty.”  Only a mind that thinks that when Muslims murder it is sanctified by God can think that the Crusades taught MUSLIMS how to fight a holy war!

The Quran surfaced about 1,400 years ago, Kia said, and there are no verses about the United States because the country did not yet exist.

The United States has gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq because of those countries’ policies, not religion. They just happen to have a majority Muslim population, according to Kia.

And? So? What does that have to do with anything?  The Koran, Hadith, and especially the Sharia’a, clearly deny the right of humans to create their own laws and institutions; this puts traditional Islam squarely AGAINST everything that Western societies, including America, are based on.

The Sept. 11 attacks were committed by a minority group of extremist Muslims affiliated with the terrorist organization al-Qaida, which has small networks all over the world.

And Muslims danced the world over, wherever they were more than a tiny percentage of the population! Can anyone tell me of any event involving the murder of over three thousand people that would bring out huge numbers of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Shinto, Buddhists or Neo-Pagans out to dance in joy? Such compassion! Such a peaceful outpouring of warmth and sympathy!

Christians have committed acts of terror both present-day and throughout history.

That is nice Professor, but we live NOW; tell us about the thousands murdered every day by Christians – shows us the yearly toll of thousands of Fellow Christians (but not Christian enough), and non-Christians who offend by merely BEING non-Christian. Show us where they live closer than your great-great-great-grand mother’s lifetime! You remind me of a Mafia Don excusing 30 murders committed in a year to consolidate his power because thuggish cops killed two people randomly over ten years.

In defense of a political movement that attitude is sad; in defense of a religion is it disgusting.

“The irony is that Christianity fought its holy war against Islam in the middle ages,” Kia said. “There was a Christian ‘holy war,’ there was a Christian ‘jihad.'”

You keep beating that horse, but it will never get up and run… how is it ironic that only after 300 years of murder, raid and military assault culminating in closure of access (at peril of life and freedom) to pilgrims the Christians FINALLY took up arms, and came and kicked some butt to take that formerly CHRISTIAN land back? Jihad is only bad if it is Christians? (note that I have not addressed, and certainly not defended, any excesses of the Christians involved; we are just addressing motives for now)

There are terrorist organizations throughout the world. A full list of designated groups can be viewed at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/list/, and a list by country at http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm.

I am not going to spend a huge amount of time breaking down the numbers of dead by the religion of the murderers; go here and look for yourself at how utterly stupid this argument is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009

The country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia.

And also the country with one of the fastest growing Islamist problems!!!

And that concludes our lesson in how to be truly sincere at *appearing* to be Morally Superior to your opponent.

Less than 20 percent of the 1.6 billion Muslims (according to a Pew study in 2009) in the world are Arab, Ayloush said. “It’s a religion,” he said. “Not an ethnicity.”

And let us not forget it; I don’t expect to hear Ayloush calling anti-Islamist groups racists!

Tribute to Anti-Islmist Songwriter “Patrick Henry”

In dishonor of the dishonesty of the Iranian President and in honor of his honesty about his anti-Semitism I post three songs by “Patrick Henry” of http://www.patrickhenry.com/. Or at least two years ago this person existed. Since then he seems to have dropped out of the blogsphere entirely.

From the eyes of a Muslimah; what a real patriarchy looks like


(HH here: It seems that it is not the leers and stares of Western men that Muslim women are hiding from in their veils. It is from MUSLIM men that they hide. This is a very interesting look through the eyes of a Muslim woman at the inequities of her society. Take note how she holds the West up as the sin qua non of RESPECTFUL behaviour toward women.)

by Hamida Ghafour

Hey, woman, wash my clothes!”

“How much do you cost?”

When I heard men shout these insults on two separate occasions as I walked down the street in Kabul and Abu Dhabi, respectively, I was stung.

Being stared or yelled at is just part of the experience of working and living in this region. But I never get used to it. Indeed women all over Asia and the Middle East are harassed constantly.

” The Abu Dhabi beach was quickly divided into two sections last year after women expressed their discomfort at gangs of laborers roaming about and leering. “Western women are targets, but so are our Arab, Indian, Nepali, Bangladeshi and Pakistani sisters. We are stared at, called names and sometimes assaulted by men. Which is why part of me cheered when al-Bawadi Mall in al-Ain announced earlier this week that laborers had been banned on weekday evenings and weekends following a litany of complaints about harassment.

The Emirates is the most female-friendly country in the Middle East. The Government’s efforts to encourage women to use public spaces is admirable. The Abu Dhabi beach was quickly divided into two sections last year after women expressed their discomfort at gangs of laborers roaming about and leering. Emirati men are courteous. They never stare.
By contrast, sexual harassment levels in Egypt are endemic. In the Punjab and Karachi, images of women on billboards are defaced or just banned.

(HH here: remember, in Egypt something like 70% of all adult women have been “circumcised”.)

When I lived in Kabul, cars with men at the wheel occasionally raced in my direction and swerved out of the way just before hitting me. A British-Asian friend of mine was once pushed into a ditch of raw sewage on her way home from a press conference in the Afghan capital. The Taliban used to say a woman’s place was in the home or the graveyard.

Across the region this message is given in many variations, but the gist is aggressive and clear: respectable women do not belong in the public sphere. And those who venture outside the home are objects of scorn or fascination. There is certainly an element of racism and snobbery in al-Bawadi Mall’s decision. The laborers are poor South Asians and Arabs. Although it may be offensive to westerners, in some Asian cultures staring is normal behavior. It is a popular pastime in India and Pakistan, where people stare at others to see what they are buying or wearing.

Many of the laborers in the Emirates have also had little exposure to the outside world because they are from small towns. When they move here, it is often their first contact with the rich and developed world. They have a natural curiosity about the way westerners live because they have snatched glimpses of it in films. European and North American expatriates have a lifestyle laborers can never hope to attain, and wandering around a mall on a hot Friday afternoon is an opportunity to experience that which embodies all the wealth, glamour and power of the West: the mobile phones, the high-definition televisions, men in clean, pressed suits, women in skimpy clothes.

I can’t blame them for that

(HH here: It is interesting how Middle Easterners often fail to see that the point of the West is not skimpy clothing but being free to wear what we want, skimpy or conservative without the intervention of controlling neighbors or thought police.)

” Men who have no shame at leering at women make clear distinctions between those who deserve respect and those who do not. “But the way many of them look at women is not the glance stolen by the man sitting across from you on the train in London, New York or Rome. In the West a stony look is enough to put an end to that. Instead it is a penetrating gaze that goes right to your core, combining lecherousness, intense curiosity or just hatred. It is sometimes accompanied by clicking noises meant to get a woman’s attention. It is humiliating.

(HH again: Note that it is not the gaze of the lecherous kafir that hurts and offends. It is the intense, over the top Muslim man who causes his sister pain.)

The images of the riches of the developed world beamed from satellite TV also send a second message: western women are easy. This is the fault of Hollywood films featuring bimbos and the proliferation of pornography on the internet. Yet western women are also fascinating because they are considered a third gender. They look like females but have the independence of men. Men who have no shame at leering at women make clear distinctions between those who deserve respect and those who do not.

(HH: Men who leer at women in this way are adept at blaming the women for their lack of control and politeness.)

This view reveals itself in small ways. When I wear long, loose tunics and trousers it is much easier to flag a taxi in Abu Dhabi. Drivers will invariably stop for women in abayas or, even better, the niqab, because they are perceived as modest and good. But the drivers sometimes breeze past a woman in a dress with spaghetti straps because they assume she has no self-respect.

(HH: I feel sure that is what the taxi drivers SAY, but knowing men as well as I do I would say that it has more to do with “good” being equal to “submissive and easy to dominate” and “she has no self respect” translating as “she had the nerve to not allow me to take advantage of her or disrespect her. Plus she looked me right in the eye!!!”.)

I have two wardrobes: one I wear in places like Egypt, Afghanistan and India; the other I reserve for parts of Dubai and Europe.

Many women wear a hijab to prevent unwanted attention but it doesn’t always work. In Egypt, harassment is part of daily life. In 2006, women in Cairo organized a demonstration with the slogan “the street is ours” to protest about the groping and taunting. In the 1990s, Moroccan women went on strike for the same reason.

Afghan women wear a burqa for safety: it is a barrier between them and the abuse. (HH: this means that unless a woman is in a burkha she is harassed and taunted and even offered violence until she “Chooses” to “embrace the freedom” of the mobile tent.) I sometimes wished I had one to slip over my head.
The concept of respect and the presence of a woman in public are linked. In most parts of South and West Asia and the Middle East, there are few opportunities for women to work outside the home, and education is partly to blame.

In Afghanistan, when I stopped at villages to talk to people, word would get out that a single woman was on the street and I soon found myself being followed by dozens of men pointing and whispering. They would often point at my pen: the image of a lone woman writing in an illiterate society was alluring.

If they are allowed an education, in many Muslim societies children are segregated from an early age. Girls are covered from head to toe and they are taught that any interaction between the sexes before marriage is forbidden. Marriages are arranged in their late teens and there are no opportunities for the sexes to mix.

As they grow older, boys fetishise the female body so even a glimpse of an ankle or a wrist is tantalizing. As adults, living in labor camps in the Emirates, they have no contact with wives back home, but there are plenty of Bollywood films for distraction with scenes of pouting girls in clinging wet saris dancing in the rain to heighten the excitement. By the time they encounter a blonde woman in jeans buying chicken at Carrefour … well, it all becomes too much.

In Kuwait, women have been trying to resist efforts at segregating men and women in schools to prevent this fetishisation. It would be easy to blame the lechery on the rise of political Islam, which emphasizes a traditional role for women and the need to protect women’s honor by limiting their mobility and access to the public sphere. But a colleague in Cairo once told me that she enjoyed going to Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations because the crowds of men always respectfully parted to allow her through. (HH: here we have the obligatory white wash of any responsibility belonging to Islam. I notice though that the author does not say how her friend dresses at these meetings. Can she walk through in jeans and a blouse? Or only in hajib or niqab?)

Most of the men here who leer at women know it is wrong. They are from cultures where they are taught to avert their eyes when they see a girl, out of respect for her father and brothers.

I recently moved house and hired a moving company, staffed by Indian and Bangladeshi workers. The foreman in charge was more interested in watching my movements than doing his own job. I finally snapped.

“Why don’t you get on with your work? What if someone stared at your sister like that?”

When it becomes too much I create a mental buffer zone to tune out the calls and stares. If that doesn’t work I try the shoe trick. When the offender shouts an insult, I stop, point at his shoes and laugh.

It subtly shifts the balance of power. And I won’t get arrested.

(HH: This woman has a game attitude but ultimately it is the attitude of a slave or prisoner. All the power is in hands other than hers and subtle ridicule is her only weapon.)

*Published by the UAE-based the NATIONAL on July 11.

The American Fight for Free Speech by Geert Wilders

30 Apr, 2009

Why (am I) in America Fighting for Free Speech?

Freedom of expression is under attack. This is a theme I am addressing here in America this week as part of the Free Speech Summit being held in Florida under the sponsorship of the Florida Security Council. And it is clear that a serious discussion of the threats to our freedoms in the West cannot come too soon.

For example, my friend Rep. Adam Hasner, the majority leader of the Florida House of Representatives was attacked in a press release issued by the national office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Monday for daring to appear at a private event with me this past weekend. Because of that appearance, CAIR is demanding that Rep. Hasner step down or be removed from his position.
This attack on a friend and fellow legislator is of grave concern to me. CAIR’s assault on Rep. Hasner strikes at the very heart of our most basic freedoms. In fact, it is but the latest episode in that organization’s long-running and determined effort to silence its critics. Indeed, CAIR seeks to suppress all those who dare to challenge the theo-political-legal program that authoritative Islam calls “Shariah.” In so doing, they are seeking to impose what amount to Shariah blasphemy codes.

It is especially important to note that Adam Hasner is not only being attacked for comments he made that are deemed offensive by those who seek to impose Shariah in America. His career is now being threatened for comments made by others in his presence – in this case, by me. Thus the Islamists are infringing not only on this country’s constitutionally protected freedom of expression but also freedom of association.

If a high-ranking public official – elected by the people and appointed to his leadership position by his peers – cannot speak honestly and openly about his concerns, and do so in places and the company of his choosing, without fear of suppression or other retribution, who among us is safe?

I know these threats firsthand. Even before the international release last year of my short documentary film, Fitna, I have faced constant death threats and protests. My name has appeared on assassination lists. I have been subject of an Al-Qaeda death fatwa. I will be charged with blasphemy and contempt of Muslims by Jordanian prosecutors. I face prosecutions in my own country and elsewhere. I was recently banned from the United Kingdom because the Home Secretary believed my mere presence in the country constituted a national security threat.

In this trying time let us recall that in the darkest hours of World War II, when the world faced a global threat from German Nazism, Italian Fascism and Japanese Imperialism, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill challenged his people to rise to the occasion and fight. He told them, “Never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

This is why I am in America this week talking about the fight we now must wage in the West to defend our liberties. Freedom of association is one of the basic liberties guaranteed not only by the US Constitution but by the European Convention of Human Rights. And yet CAIR wants to silence and punish Rep. Hasner for associating with me. If America needs a poster child for the threat to our freedoms from Islamic extremism, no better example than CAIR could be found.

This episode underscores that the threat to freedom posed by creeping Shariah imposed by CAIR’s type of stealthy jihad is not just a problem in the Middle East, or Europe. It is also a problem in America.

I will not be bullied by Islamic thugs who want to use our freedoms to destroy those very same freedoms. And I will not stand by as they seek to do it to others.

Founded and directed by members of the international network of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR has an explicit agenda to subvert our freedoms and impose Islamic Shariah law on non-Muslims. This is not speculation on my part. This is the testimony of one of CAIR’s founders and chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmed, who told a California audience in 1998 that this was their agenda. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” he said. “The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” When CAIR officials say that this is their ultimate objective, we should believe them.

In just the past few weeks, the Council on American Islamic Relations has sought to silence another courageous lawmaker, Rep. Peter King, the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee in the US House of Representatives. His “offense”? Rep. King correctly observed that CAIR and other Muslims were not providing enough assistance to the law enforcement authorities in combating terrorism-related activities in American mosques.

CAIR has attempted to silence other critics, as well. They have sued bloggers; they have defamed journalists who have asked too many questions about their terrorist ties; and they have tried to intimidate publications that have published articles challenging their putative “civil rights mission.” If they get away with it, CAIR will seek to threaten the careers of more politicians with the courage to say things and associate with those of challenge Shariah and the effort to impose it in this country.

It is utterly hypocritical that, on the one hand, CAIR claims to be defending freedom of religion in attacking Rep. Hasner when, on the other, they actively seek support from Islamic regimes that are among the worst of the worst human rights abusers on the planet – and notorious for suppressing religious freedoms.

I have been told that in an Arabic News article that CAIR officials have solicited and received financial support from Saudi Prince Al-Walid Bin Talal, whose country outlaws any religious expression except its own Wahhabi strain of Islam. You can’t even own a Bible or wear a cross in the country run by their patrons, and yet CAIR wants to lecture us about religious freedom?

The land for CAIR’s Capitol Hill office in Washington D.C. was purchased with a $250,000 donation from the Saudi-backed Islamic Development Bank and the deed to their headquarters is held by the foundation of United Arab Emirates Defense Minister Gen. Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum. Sheik al-Maktoum’s country prohibits any non-Islamic religious proselytizing and threatens anyone caught with distribution of non-Muslim religious literature with imprisonment.

Whether it is in America or back home in my own country, we are under attack by groups like CAIR who aim to silence their critics. This is why I am here in America. I aim to continue to fight regardless of the threats and intimidation and I am asking Americans to join with us. And when they attack good men like Rep. Adam Hasner, we must realize that they are attacking each and every one of us and the freedoms that we hold dear.

Read it all by clicking on the title

Female Genital Mutilation: If you are a woman and NOT up in arm about this then you might as well get a sex change!

Female Genital Mutilation on British Turf
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, March 20, 2009

Latest reports indicate that approximately 500 girls a year have their genitals mutilated in Britain.

It may come as no surprise to the knowledgeable political and cultural observer that the poor victims of these crimes are not from Christian or Jewish families, nor from Hindu or Buddhist ones. They are to be found predominantly in Muslim households. And being Muslim is a status that gives the victims, and all future victims, the unfortunate distinction of being part of a group that society can’t help, because the lib-Left has made sure that the Muslim culture can never be criticized and, therefore, that its sufferers can never be protected or saved.

Fact: female circumcision is illegal in Britain. But this doesn’t mean that British law enforcement is doing anything about this crime that Muslim communities are perpetrating against their little girls.

The reality: five hundred girls’ genitals are mutilated every year in Britain. Not one arrest. Not one incarceration.

You think protecting little girls’ genitals is more important nowadays than protecting oneself from the charge of being Islamophobic? Think again.

Islamic women haters, therefore, are reigning free in Britain. Enraged at even the thought of female sexuality, the self-appointed guardians of Islamic purity make sure to obliterate the clitorises of little girls before the girls begin to get the concept of their own human agency and the magic of love. In a fascistic effort to deny women even the possibility of personal happiness, individuality and sexual satisfaction, these mutilators start cutting girls at the age of seven or eight—before their menstrual periods begin—so that their sexuality will be amputated forever.

Despite its gruesome terror, this crime is widely practised throughout world, for it is a crucial ingredient of Islamic gender apartheid and is known as female genital mutilation (FGM). Its ideological premise has been carefully constructed: a girl’s genital area is dirty and unacceptable. How much is amputated varies among cultures. In Egypt only the clitoris is amputated; in countries like Sudan the woman-haters are not so kind. In a savagery called infibulation, the girl’s external genital organs are completely removed: the clitoris, the two major outer lips (labia majora) and the two minor inner lips (labia minora). In Sudan, the term used for this is tahur—which means “cleansing” or “purification.”

(HH: Call me what you will but it seems to me that this ALONE is grounds for the U.N. to basically invade and take over Sudan and put it right. Imagine the institutionalized HORROR female children are subjected to daily in Sudan and Egypt etc.Of course it is not going to happen that way. Currently the U.N. would probably DEFEND the practice. The OIC certainly would.)

More than 130 million women living today have been subjected to this horrifying practice, and more than two million girls are assaulted by it each year. That is more than five thousand girls every day. Many girls lose their lives during FGM, which is often done with broken glass. Most victims suffer from chronic infection and pain for the rest of their lives. The mutilation robs women of their ability to enjoy the fullness of their sexuality and, therefore, the fullness of their lives. Approximately 75 percent of women cannot achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation; thus, the possibility of sexual satisfaction has been obliterated for millions of women in the Muslim world.

(HH: The loss of sexuality is horrific, but it is the absolutely inhuman torture of the procedure and the Attitude the girls are subjected to. You are a thing a dirty dirty thing but can be made “useful” if we mutilate what God gave you. I shudder and want to scream, cry and hurt someone at the same time. These are little girls!!!!!! )

The Muslim communities who practise FGM will not easily abandon their barbarity. The Egyptian government, for example, banned FGM in 1996, but an Egyptian court overturned the ban in July 1997. The problem is that the clitoris mutilators point to traditional teachings that sanction FGM. Islamic tradition, for instance, records the Prophet Muhammad emphasizing that circumcising girls is “a preservation of honor for women.” A legal manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, ‘Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world — states that circumcision is obligatory for both boys and girls.

(HH: Here we have the exposure of a lie by the hard Left. It is NOT mainly Pagan Africans that do this. The vast majority of these mutilations, by numbers, are committed by Muslims.)

Underlying this brutality is the obvious belief that the sexual mutilation of women will help keep the structure of Islamic gender apartheid in place. Keeping FGM legitimized and institutionalized is one of the most effective means to keep women subjugated and caged. The assumption is that amputating the clitoris will kill the woman’s sexual desire and thereby reduce the chances that she will ever toy with the notion of self-determination.

(HH: The funny bit is that the Islamic apologists will tell you the same thing but in different words. Those poor darling girls must be cherished and kept clean and since they can’t be chained up or watched all the time the HUMANE Islamic solution is to make them incapable of following their natural evil tendencies. THAT is the party line from the Imams.)

Thanks to the Left’s policy of multiculturalism, where no value can be said to be worse or better than any other (except, of course, if American society and culture is the subject of discussion), (HH: That is a very succinct way of describing the philosophy of the Far Left.) FGM is now being widely practised on Western territory. A study estimates that 66,000 women living in England and Wales have suffered FGM, most of them before emigrating from their home country. More than 7,000 girls in Britain alone, meanwhile, are at a high risk of being victims of the crime. At present, we know that more than 500 girls in Britain are being mutilated every year.

(HH: If your response to THAT number is not outrage and a feeling of THIS MUST NOT CONTINUE then turn in your humanitarian badge and accept your demonic hypocrite I.D.!)

This horror show demands a certain question: Where are the leftist feminists in the West crying out in opposition to this crime against their sisters being carried out on their own shores? In what pages, in what demonstrations, are they denouncing the theology that serves as an inspiration to this crime and calling it to account? Where are the Women’s Studies Departments on Western campuses demanding that Islam be confronted on these grotesque elements of misogyny? Where are the columnists of the Nation Magazine, the supposed leader of the humanitarian Left, repudiating this practise and the texts on which is based?

The Left’s cries of indignation are not to be heard because admitting the inferiority of an adversarial culture might very well legitimize Western civilization, a recognition that no leftist can allow if he hopes to retain his identity and social belonging. (HH: Again VERY succinctly put!)That’s why the leftist forces in our society do their best to excuse FGM with the tired old mantra: it’s not only Muslims that do it – as if inaction to save human beings from evil is somehow justified because a sin might exist somewhere else.

Hypothetical question: if we could have saved the Jewish inmates from Auschwitz before they were gassed, would it have been right to abort the rescue operation upon discovering that someone, somewhere, in some other place, said or did something anti-Semitic?

Yes, there are non-Islamic parts of Africa whose cultural traditions also dehumanize women and practice FGM. But Muslims are the principal religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. In Egypt, 97 percent of girls are circumcised. And there is no greater revolting image than the smug leftist turning his back on these victims because a non-Muslim somewhere sliced the genitals off of a little girl. How does this self-satisfied inhumanity save the Muslim girls who will be mutilated in the future?

We know that it doesn’t. But alas, this is only another chapter of a long dark story – the story of the Left, with its hands drenched with complicity in human blood, sacrificing human beings on the altar of utopian ideals.

[Editors’ note: Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, provides an analysis of the Left’s silence about Islamic gender apartheid. To order a copy, click here.]

Islamic States: Religious Freedom Report Does Not Sufficiently Attack Israel

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Ah yes, Islam, the Fred Phelps of World Religions!

UN Watch – March 12, 2009
During a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council today, Islamic countries complained that a report on religious freedom did not adequately attack Israel, while daring to criticize Islamic countries. The report was presented by U.N. expert on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir of Pakistan.

Palestine was the first to protest the report’s lack of focus on Israel. Referring to Israel as “the occupier,” Palestine exclaimed, “We reject the policy of promoting religious hatred, and we call on Israel to review its policies.” Denying that school books issued by the Palestinian Authority preach hatred, it pointed the finger at the purported bigotry of Israeli school curricula.

Yemen, speaking for the Arab Group, asked why the report did not address “the restrictions on freedom of movement and access to places of worship” for the Palestinian people. It accused Ms. Jahangir of “obvious bias” and “espousing of the Israeli viewpoint in this report.”

Iran and Algeria also spoke vociferously about purported Israeli assaults on Arab Muslim and Christian holy places, including during the recent attack on Gaza. Iran condemned “Israeli discriminatory practices and incitement to hatred.”

Egypt complained that Ms. Jahangir was not responding in a satisfactory manner to these complaints. It aggressively accused her of coming to the session with pre-written speeches that do not address the concerns raised regarding Israel, telling her that if this is the case, it is a waste of time to attend the council. It would be better, Egypt told her, “that you just e-mail us your statement and we will e-mail our reply.”

The debate became especially heated when certain Western countries highlighted the abuses of religious freedom in Muslim countries—some of which were alluded to in Ms. Jahangir’s report.

Canada called upon Iran to release several Baha’i political leaders. The Czech Republic, speaking for the European Union, also noted the plight of the Bahai’s in Iran.

In its “right to reply,” Iran called these allegations “baseless” and a “distortion of reality.”

The United Kingdom inquired about Ms. Jahangir’s pending requests for country visits to Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Burma, and “particularly Iran.” Ms. Jahangir had repeatedly been denied her requests to investigate rights abuses in Iran.

Canada also urged the Egyptian government to issue identification cards to all its citizens.

Members of certain faiths had been denied this right. Without an official identification card, these Egyptians are unable to have a driver’s license, open a bank account, register children for schools, or be admitted to a government hospital.

Egypt interrupted Canada at this point, arguing that this issue is not mentioned in the report, is thus not a legitimate statement, and should be deleted from the meeting record. Canada rightfully responded that its statement was made in the context of paragraphs 58 and 59 of the reports among others, and continued speaking.

Aside from raising issues surrounding religious freedom for specific groups, Ms. Jahangir has also expressed concern about the attempt by Islamic countries to criminalize “defamation of religions,” i.e. impose Islamic anti-blasphemy laws on the international community. In this context, the United States stated its concern about the “undue limitations” of freedoms of expression and belief posed by such provisions.