Please Don’t Come Here If You Don’t Want To Assimilate

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about some recent arrests in Michigan.

The article reports:

Dr. Fakhruddin Attar was arrested in the Detroit suburb of Livonia, Michigan Friday, accused, along with his wife Farida Attar, of involvement in the same female genital mutilation conspiracy that led to the landmark arrest last week of Dr. Jumana Nagarwala.

The three suspects now charged represent the first prosecution in the United States for female genital mutilation (FGM), a practice common primarily in Muslim countries, particularly those in Africa. For example, UNICEF estimates that 98% of Somali girls and 87% of Egyptians have endured the procedure.

 FGM perpetrates a range of different mutilations on its victims—mostly young girls. In its most extreme from, called infibulation, the girl is left with virtually no externally visible genitalia. The clitoris and labia are removed entirely and what is left is sown together, leaving only a small hole from which to urinate and menstruate.

Aside from being painful, the procedure creates many health problems for women as they grow older. Problems can include can include recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth, and fatal bleeding. There are no known health benefits

The article concludes:

In a statement accompanying the first arrest, Acting U.S. Attorney Daniel Lemisch said, “The practice has no place in modern society and those who perform FGM on minors will be held accountable under federal law.”

Each count of FGM could yield the co-conspirators up to five years in federal prison.

Jail terms and loss of medical licenses would be an appropriate penalty. The procedure is illegal in the United States. Unfortunately, part of Sharia Law is that in the eyes of the Muslims, Sharia Law supersedes American Law. That is part of the problem with allowing large numbers of Muslims into a country–they do not feel obligated to respect the laws of that country if the laws are not in compliance with Sharia Law.

 

Using Our Court System Against Us

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about Imam Ismail Elshikh, who leads the largest mosque in Hawaii.

The article quotes a World Net Daily article explaining the Imam’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood:

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.

One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.

Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.

…Elshikh was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah law throughout the world.

Elshikh is living in the U.S. on a green card, which gives him permanent legal status.

The proof that his mosque is affiliated with the Brotherhood is found in the court records for Honolulu County, which lists the deed holder as the North American Islamic Trust.

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist and now private consultant to law enforcement at Understanding the Threat, said all mosques under the “Muslim Association of” moniker are typically affiliated with the Brotherhood.

But the clincher in this case is that the mosque property is traced to NAIT, “confirming it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo told WND in an email.

Let that sink in a minute. A man whose goal is to implement Sharia Law throughout the world is claiming that he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order. Why would that be? How is the president’s executive order impacting him? The man is not an American citizen–he is here legally, but he is not a citizen. When did a non-citizen have the right to work with a judge to overturn a legal act of the president? What country would allow that?

 

Laws Have Consequences

On February 14, 2015, the Gatestone Institute posted the following:

  • Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.
  • Significantly, the report does not touch on the background of the rapists. One should, however, keep in mind that in statistics, second-generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.
  • In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists, and have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted to have sex with six, seven or eight men.
  • The internet radio station Granskning Sverige called the mainstream newspapers Aftonbladet and Expressen to ask why they had described the perpetrators as “Swedish men” when they actually were Somalis without Swedish citizenship. They were hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn Swedish women to stay away from certain men. One journalist asked why that should be their responsibility.

The article further reports:

In 1975, the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Forty years later the dramatic consequences of this experiment emerge: violent crime has increased by 300%.

If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.

Sweden is now number two on the global list of rape countries. According to a survey from 2010, Sweden, with 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, is surpassed only by tiny Lesotho in Southern Africa, with 91.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants.

One of the tenets of Sharia Law is that Muslim men can take infidel women as ‘sex slaves.’ Generally Sharia Law has little respect for the rights of women, but it has even less respect for the rights of infidel women. If a woman is not wearing ‘proper Muslim attire,’ she is open to sexual assault, This is part of the culture in Islamic countries. My question is simple–“How much of that are you willing to bring to America?”

What Did You Learn In School Today?

The Daily Caller posted a story today about Middle School students in a southern Indiana school who were taught that living under Sharia Law is wonderful.

The article reports:

The assignment provides a reading passage ostensibly written by a 20-year-old woman named Ahlima who resides in Saudi Arabia.

Ahlima says she feels “very fortunate” to be governed by Sharia law — the notorious Islamic penal code which, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, includes the practice of cutting off the hands of criminals who steal. She observes that she is about to become some guy’s second wife. She supports the repressive clothes women in Saudi Arabia must wear. “I understand that some foreigners see our dress as a way of keeping women from being equal,” Ahlima writes. “I find Western women’s clothing to be horribly immodest.”

The article points out that Ahlima is an imaginary character invented by Sharon Coletti, the president of InspirEd Educators, and based on someone Ms. Coletti saw interviewed on a television program.

The article states:

Coletti, the creator of the assignment, defended her work.

“If I can shape something so that kids have to decide for themselves, once I get them involved in the situation, they never forget it,” the former social studies teacher told The Courier-Journal.

Coletti, who describes herself as a practicing Christian, also said she hopes her materials help student to become “patriotic” and “problem-solvers.”

However, the fictional story of 20-year-old Ahlima who is becoming a second wife and loves to wear repressive clothing is apparently no longer for this world after the Highland Hills Middle School kerfuffle.

Coletti said she will retire the assignment and related material going forward because she doesn’t want to court bad press.

The same assignment has caused parents to be angry in the past. In 2011, parents in Smyrna, Georgia accused Coletti of “indoctrinating” middle school children with the Sharia lesson.

Where are the feminists when you need them?

We need to teach our Middle Schoolers that all cultures and legal systems are not equal. We need to stop apologizing for western civilization. Western civilization is not perfect, but it provides more freedom and opportunity for all people, including women, than Sharia Law. According to Sharia Law, a man can have more than one wife. All a man has to do to divorce his wife by declaring “I divorce you.” She has no say in the matter. The testimony of a woman in court is worth less than the testimony of a man in court under Sharia. Under Sharia Law, the murder of infidels or taking them as sex slaves is allowed. Under Sharia Law, pedophilia is acceptable. There is no religious freedom under Sharia Law.  Under Sharia Law, allegiance is to Islam–not to a country or the set of laws of that country. That is why Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are incompatible.

Teaching school children that Sharia Law is a good thing is teaching them that women have no value. Is that really the lesson we want to teach our young women?

Turning A Blind Eye Or Taking Action?

According to CBN News:

The Center for Global Christianity reports that around 90,000 Christians were killed for their faith in 2016.

Release says many of those deaths came in Islamic countries. The ministry says persecution of Christians has been increasing from Islamic militants, and from the governments in Islamic countries as well.

“Around the world Christians face an increasing array of violent persecutors. These include the brutal Islamic State in the Middle East, heavily armed militants in Nigeria and Hindu extremists in India,” warns Release Paul Robinson.

Recorded attacks from Hindu militants increased dramatically in India in 2016.

And the trends don’t look good in China either, where the communist regime has been cracking down on unregistered churches.

There is no reason to believe that persecution against Christians will decrease in 2017.

The Washington Examiner posted an article today with a few suggestions as to how various nations could make a difference:

A few actions nations are, or should be, pursuing in 2017 include:

  • Persuading countries such as Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and others who have previously voted against genocide declarations to recognize the situation of Christians in Iraq and Syria as genocide.
  • Prosecuting members of the Islamic State (especially those returning to Europe and North America) for being a member of a terrorist organization, as well as for the genocidal crimes they have participated in.
  • Prioritizing Christian and other victims of genocide in their respective refugee programs.
  • Supporting the creation of a semi-autonomous safe haven for religious and ethnic minorities in the Nineveh Plain region of Iraq. In the U.S., this idea is being supported through Congressional Resolution 152.

These are just a few meaningful ways nations can get involved in supporting the persecuted in Iraq and Syria. Opportunities exist to do the same in other areas of the world.

The article at The Washington Examiner concludes:

Ignorance of the situation faced by Christians and other religious minorities is no longer an excuse for inaction. The time for debate is over. As Nuri Kino, journalist and founder of A Demand for Action, an international organization that advocates on behalf of Assyrian Christians, asked of the Dutch Parliamentarians we testified before last month, “Will you help us or will history only record your silence?”

The United Nations has largely ignored the genocide of Christians in the Middle East. Part of the reason for this is the fact that one of the largest voting blocs in the United Nations is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). One of the goals of that organization is to implement Sharia Law worldwide (including its application in non-Muslim countries). Since part of Sharia Law includes the killing of infidels, the OIC would not have a problem with the killing of Christians. This is one of many examples of reasons why the UN has outlived its usefulness.

Peace And Harmony Isn’t Always All It Is Cracked Up To Be

On November 2nd, The Hausman Memorial Speaker Series presented a program entitled, “National Security Chaos: Are We Passing the Tipping Point?” The program was described as a sober discussion, analysis and advice from prominent experts. The experts included General Jerry Boykin, Frank Gaffney, and Tom Trento, all of whom have studied the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood and the idea of Sharia Law into the American political and legal culture. Aside from providing information Americans need, the presentation is obviously legal under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, not everyone wanted the presentation to take place.

On November 1st, The Center for Security Policy reported:

In response to a top-level national security panel presentation organized by Rabbi Jonathan Hausman at the Ahavath Torah Congregation tonight in Stoughton, Massachusetts, HAMAS-doing-business-as-CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the notorious jihad incubator at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) have joined forces to mount a last-ditch intimidation campaign.

On Wednesday, 2 November 2016, the Ahavath Torah Congregation is scheduled to host an event featuring Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Family Research Council Executive Vice President Lieutenant General (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, and The United West Founder Tom Trento. In response, ISBCC Executive Director Yusuf Vali has coopted nearly 100 interfaith leaders who represent the Christian and Jewish communities in the Boston area in an attempt to pressure the leadership board of Rabbi Hausman’s synagogue to cancel the program, which is dedicated to highlighting the national security threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood’s global Islamic Movement.

So, by whom exactly have these interfaith collaborators allowed themselves to be conned into this latest Brotherhood-led assault on free speech? It may be recalled that during the 2016 general election cycle, the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), formed in 2014, described on its website the group’s efforts to “promote peace and harmony in society.” And yet, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS dba CAIR. While CAIR tries to present itself as a civil rights organization, it has here joined forces with the ISBCC, jihad command and control center for the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

It is quite obvious why the ISBCC didn’t want this presentation to go forward–they themselves are a security threat.

The article further reports:

In early October 2016, USCMO leader CAIR (CAIR-Chicago) unsuccessfully led a campaign with a series of partners including Black Lives Matter – Chicago, Arab American Action Network, and the Center for New Community to cancel the Illinois Tactical Officers Association (ITOA)’s five day Tactical Training Conference (9 -13 October 2016) for law enforcement officers and emergency medical technicians. CAIR also mounted pressure in a botched attempt to terminate the contractual relationships between ITOA and the Cook County, IL Department of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (DHSEM), in addition to other government agencies.

Next, it was CAIR-Oklahoma Executive Director Adam Soltani’s turn to strike out on 25 October 2016, when he took aim at a national security briefing on ‘the ideological roots, nature and magnitude of the jihad threat’ provided to the Oklahoma State Legislature. Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett, a combat veteran Marine in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, called for an Oklahoma State Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee’s Interim Study on “Radical Islam, Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Radicalization Process.” During the hearings Bennet sponsored, former FBI agent John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz of Understanding the Threat provided a clear explanation about shariah as the doctrinal Islamic basis for jihad and set forth a succinct evidentiary legal framework about the subversive Brotherhood network in this country. Frank Gaffney, President and Founder of the Center for Security Policy, and Gen. Jerry Boykin also spoke at the hearing, with Gaffney explaining how zakat, the obligatory annual Muslim tax, according to Islamic Law is required to fund jihad.

Clearly, the facts of the accelerating worldwide jihad are becoming all-too obvious to all—and the only rear-guard action the MB’s U.S.-based jihadis in suits seem able to muster at this point is against the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee for free speech. Civilization Jihad and Star spangled shariah in action.

This is what CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are about–imposing Sharia Law on non-Muslims. The goal is to make any negative comments about Islam illegal. In October 2011, elements of the American Muslim Brotherhood wrote a letter to the White House demanding that any information briefings related to Islamic-based terrorism be discontinued and those officers, analysts, and special agents involved be retrained or purged. For whatever reason, the White House agreed to this. I have personally met one of the people impacted by this decision. For further details, see the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin.

We are at a tipping point. Our freedom and free speech is in danger. It is my hope that the new administration will change things. At least Donald Trump has no visible ties to the Muslim Brotherhood–Hillary Clinton does through Huma Abedin. Ms. Abedin’s family is very involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and at one time Ms. Abedin was listed on the masthead of a Muslim Brotherhood publication.

If this is new information to you or you do not understand my concern, please follow the link to the Center for Security Policy and read the Muslim Brotherhood memorandum in their own words on their plans for the United States. It is something all Americans need to be aware of.

More Puzzles From Wikileaks

Wikileaks has released thousands of emails, many of which should have been made public as the result of various FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). Some of these emails have confirmed suspicions already held, and some have raised more questions. Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about one email concerning Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State.

The article quotes a released email:

From her own experience, and information obtained through [ ] and other agents, [ ] described a “stark difference” between [Condoleezza] RICE and CLINTON with regard to obedience to security and diplomatic protocols. RICE observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols while CLINTON frequently and “blatantly” disregarded them.

For example, it is standard security and diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to ride in the armored limousine with the local U.S. ambassador when traveling in countries abroad. It is seen as diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to arrive at foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador; however, CLINTON refused to do so, instead choosing to be accompanied in the limousine by her Chief of Staff, HUMA ABEDIN. This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol. [ ] explained that CLINTON’s protocol breaches were well known throughout Diplomatic Security and were “abundant.”

[ ] explained that ABEDIN possessed “much more power” over CLINTON’s staff and schedule than other former chiefs of staff. [ ] believed that ABEDIN herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of CLINTON.

If you follow the link above to the article, you can see a copy of the actual email. There are a few obvious things to learn from this email. For whatever reason, Hillary has very little knowledge or respect for diplomatic protocol. That seems rather odd for a Secretary of State. The other disturbing information here is the role of Huma Abedin. Ms. Abedin would most likely play a major role in a Clinton Administration should Hillary Clinton be elected. The problem with that is that Ms. Abedin has a strong family connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. The problem with that is that the Muslim Brotherhood in their own words (according to government exhibit 003-0085 in the Holy Land Foundation Trial) has intentions of supplanting the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law. A vote for Hillary Clinton is vote for the end of American law as we know it. It is quite possible that Hillary Clinton would be the first woman to be President and the last President to serve under the U.S. Constitution.

The Face Of Sharia Law

The Los Angeles Times is reporting today that Waseem Azeem, brother of slain Pakistani model Qandeel Baloch, has confessed to killing his sister for the sake of the family’s honor.

The article reports:

Baloch, who had become a social media celebrity in recent months, stirred controversy by posting pictures online taken with a prominent Muslim cleric. She was found dead Saturday at her family home in the central city of Multan.

Police arrested her brother, Waseem Azeem, and presented him before the media in Multan, where he confessed to killing her. He said that people had taunted him over the photos and that he found the social embarrassment unbearable. 

“I was determined either to kill myself or kill her,” Azeem told the Associated Press as he was being led away. 

He said that even though Baloch was the main breadwinner for the family, he slipped her sedatives the night before and then strangled her in her sleep. 

According to the tenets of Islam, what he did was perfectly acceptable.

The article further reports:

Nearly 1,000 women are killed in Pakistan each year for violating conservative norms on love and marriage. The so-called “honor killings” often are carried out by family members. 

Such killings are considered murder. But Islamic law in Pakistan allows a murder victim’s family to pardon the killer, which often allows those convicted of honor killings to escape punishment. 

Islamic law is Sharia Law. This is what many Muslims want to introduce into our courts to supersede the U.S. Constitution. Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are totally incompatible–the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, neither of which are acceptable in Sharia Law. In Sharia Law, freedom of speech is defined as the right to express any opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. It is also defined as the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah. Free speech is allowed as long as it agrees with Shariah. Anything negative about Mohammad or any picture of Mohammad are not allowed. We need to make sure that anyone who comes to America is willing to live under the U.S. Constitution. If they are not, we need to send them home.

Coming To An American City Near You

Breitbart posted an article today that illustrates the impact that a large number of Muslim immigrants can have on the legal system of their host country.

The article reports:

A regional German court has recognised as valid the marriage of a 14-year-old Syrian girl to her 20-year-old cousin, despite the legal age for marriage in Germany being 16. The case represents a landmark ruling, with the Federal Court set to adjudicate on the implications for the country as a whole.

Among the hundreds of thousands of migrants arriving in European countries over the eighteen months have been a number of underage wives, some as young as eleven, others already mothers. But although most European countries stipulate that a girl must be 16 to marry, the authorities seem unsure what to do with young bride migrants.

When you consider the fact that some of the Islamic marriages can involve a forty-year-old man and his ten-year-old bride, this is somewhat disconcerting.

The article further reports:

Robin Classen of the Criticising Immigration blog has called the verdict a “scandal”, highlighting that the judge “openly and completely uncritically quoted sharia law, applying it directly to this case.

“Therefore ‘only a marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim is void,’ in the judge’s own words, because Islamic law forbids this.”

Mr. Classen argues that the case is a prime example of Germany importing a foreign culture through mass migration.

“With mass immigration has come not only the sort of terrorism seen in Paris and Brussels and the sexual offences of New Year’s Eve, but also a completely different set of social values ideas,” he says.

“Mohammed married his ‘favourite wife’ Aisha when she was just six years old. He first had intercourse with her when she was nine. This is not a minor opinion within Islam, within Sunni and Shi’ite Islam it is absolutely undisputed.

“Since Mohammed is considered in Islam as an exemplary and virtuous man, this moral assessment also applies to his marriages with several women and the child Aisha, which is why forced marriages of children are completely normal in both Shi’ite and Sunni Islam.”

This is not encouraging.

This Is Long Overdue

Happy Saint Patrick‘s Day. As we celebrate the life of Saint Patrick, our State Department, led by John Kerry, has finally acknowledged that there is a genocide going on against Christians in the Middle East.

Fox News reported the following today:

Secretary of State John Kerry declared Thursday that the Islamic State is committing genocide against Christians and other minorities in the Middle East, after facing heavy pressure from lawmakers and rights groups to make the rare designation.

“In my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in territory under its control, including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims,” Kerry said at the State Department. Daesh is another name for the Islamic State.

He accused ISIS of “crimes against humanity” and “ethnic cleansing.”

The announcement was a surprise, at least in terms of the timing. A day earlier, a State Department spokesman said they would miss a congressionally mandated March 17 deadline to make a decision. Yet as the department took heat from lawmakers for the expected delay, the department confirmed Thursday morning that Kerry had reached the decision that Christians, Yazidis and Shiite groups are victims of genocide.

This is not anything new, and it is time we admitted that it was going on. On of the tenets of Islam is conversion by the sword. Under Sharia Law, Christians have three options when their countries are taken over by Muslims–be killed, convert to Islam, or pay the jizya (a tax on Christians and Jews that can be as much as or more than half of their assets). Paying the jizya involves a submission ritual including a blow to the neck where the infidel acknowledges the mercy of the Muslims who have allowed him to live.

Note that this announcement applies to ISIS. If it were done correctly, it would apply to most of the countries in the Middle East. The only country in the Middle East where freedom of religion is allowed is Israel, and our State Department (and the United Nations) has spent years condemning them for various imaginary human rights violations. At least this move by the State Department is in the right direction.

Not All Cultures Treat Everyone Equally

The Daily Caller posted a story today stating:

A top Pakistani religious council responsible for advising the government to ensure that laws conform with Islam has ruled a new law criminalizing violence against women “un-Islamic.”

The inference of that law is that violence against women is not considered criminal in Islam.

The article continues:

Punjab, the largest province in Pakistan, passed the Women’s Protection Act last week. The law is the first of its kind and is intended to protect women from domestic, psychological and sexual abuse. The legislation will also create women’s shelters and a hotline for women to call in order to report crimes. That is, of course, if of course if the law gets by the Council of Islamic Ideology.

“The whole law is wrong,” said Muhammad Khan Sherani, head of the council, during a news conference. Sherani cited verses from the Koran to back up his claim that the law is “un-Islamic.”

According to its website, “the Council of Islamic Ideology is a constitutional body that advises the legislature whether or not a certain law is repugnant to Islam, namely to the Koran and Sunna.” The Sunna is the verbal record of the practices of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

We need to keep this in mind when allowing people to immigrate to America. I have no problem allowing refugees in if they are thoroughly vetted and want to assimilate into American culture. I see nothing to be gained by allowing a parallel culture in America that allows for the abuse of women.

A Way Of Thinking That Is Incompatible With Civilization

Breitbart.com posted an article yesterday about some recent comments by Imam Sami Abu-Yusuf, the Imam of a Salafist Cologne mosque.

The article reports:

Explaining in the view of Salafist Islam why hundreds of women found themselves groped, sexually assaulted and in some cases raped by gangs of migrant men in cities across Germany the Imam said: “the events of New Year’s Eve were the girls own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume. It is not surprising the men wanted to attack them. [Dressing like that] is like adding fuel to the fire”.

The tone of the report was telling, expressing no surprise that Muslim mass migration would result in violence and gang-rape. The narrator of the report told viewers that after the events of New Year’s Eve it was becoming difficult to tell who’s country Germany was, one belonging to Muslims or to Germans. Also expressed was the opinion that the sex attacks were no more than a dress rehearsal for something much bigger to come.

Again, according to the teaching in this sector of Islam, the groping and rapes were justified by the way the women were dressed. I would be the first to state that I don’t always agree with the way some women dress, but last time I checked, western civilization did not have a dress code.

Remember, rape of non-Muslim women is an acceptable practice in the eyes of some sects of Islam. We need to consider that when accepting refugees into America. The compromise might be to allow refugees in small numbers on the condition that they are willing to assimilate and adopt western culture. If they are not willing to do that, they need to find a country where their views on women and other matters are accepted.

The horrid conditions in the countries Middle Eastern refugees are fleeing are not due entirely to wars–they have a lot to do with the prevailing culture in these countries. We need to consider how much of that culture we are willing to tolerate in America.

If You Give A Mouse A Cookie…

If You Give A Mouse A Cookie is a children’s book published in 2013. The basic story is that if you give a mouse a cookie he will expect milk and other things to go with it. Well, a company in Wisconsin recently saw this scenario acted out in real life.

The Independent Journal Review posted an article about Ariens Manufacturing.

The article reports:

Dozens of Muslim employees at a Wisconsin manufacturing company claim that they were forced to quit this week, after the company changed its prayer-on-the-job policy to one that prevents them from participating in their daily prayers to Mecca.

WBAY-TV reported that before Thursday, Somali Muslims employed by Ariens Manufacturing were allowed to leave the producing line twice a shift in order to participate in two of the five daily prayers required by the Islamic faith.

The company offered the employees the opportunity to pray during their break time in designated prayer rooms. Note that they were willing to establish designated prayer rooms. The employees stated that praying only during their breaks goes against their religion.

The accommodation these employees were asking for would not have been granted to any other religious group–they were not singled out.

The article concludes:

Per law established by the the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission on religious tolerance in the workplace, “an employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.”

The Council for Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) is also calling on Ariens to reverse its policy, per a Tweet sent on Saturday.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Islamic people who decide to come to America need to understand that the U.S. Constitution is the basis for American law. It is not subject to Sharia Law, which would demand that the company accommodate people leaving the manufacturing assembly line several times a day. Unfortunately, those who truly practice Islam believe that Sharia Law supersedes all other law. A Democracy or Representative Republic is not a valid form of government in Islam. CAIR has gotten involved to see if they can for Americans to accept Sharia Law in this instance rather than uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Everything You Need To Know About Islamic Laws

The Daily Caller posted an article today about a law rejected in Pakistan.

The article reports:

A bid to ban child marriage in Pakistan utterly failed, after the Council of Islamic Ideology declared the legislation “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”

The bill didn’t even move past the first stage in the legislative process, The Express Tribune reports. It was almost immediately pulled Thursday by Pakistan Muslim League party’s Marvi Menon following condemnation from CII, whose job it is to advise the legislature on whether bills are compliant with Sharia law. In this case, the bill clearly violated Islamic law as tradition holds marriage as acceptable when a girl hits puberty.

The law attempted to move the age of marriage from 16 to 18 and to impose penalties for breaking the law.

The article further reports:

According to the organization Girls Not Brides, over 21 percent of the girls in Pakistan enter into marriage before the age of 18.

CII Chairman Mohammad Khan Sheerani reiterated in 2014 that girls can be married at age nine, so long as puberty is apparent, adding that attempts to revisit the issue are pointless and unnecessary.

“Parliament cannot create legislation that is against the teachings of the Holy Quran or Sunnah,” Sheerani said in 2014, according to The Express Tribune.

The idea of child brides is quite compatible with Sharia Law. Most western countries would be appalled at the idea of a nine-year-old child marrying a 40 (or more) year-old man, but that is an acceptable practice under Sharia Law.

The article further reports:

With increasing immigration, the practice of child marriage has also spread to the West, raising alarm especially in the United Kingdom. According to data from the Home Office’s Forced Marriage Unit, there were 1,485 cases of child marriage in 2012. Another government report also foundchild marriage is increasing around the world, with the rate expected to climb to 14 million child marriages a year before 2020 hits.

It’s time to ban Sharia Law in America.

Sometimes You Just Wonder

Jihad Watch posted a story today about the shooting of a policeman in Philadelphia.

I quote:

Edward Archer said he shot Philadelphia Police Officer Jesse Hartnett because “police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.” But Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney wants you to know that the shooting had “nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.” I called this earlier today, writing here at Jihad Watch: “Not to worry. Obama and the Mayor of Philadelphia will find some way to explain that this has nothing to do with Islam.” And here we are.

CBS News reports the following:

During a police press conference Friday afternoon, Mayor Jim Kenney stated that he believes the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer has “nothing to do with being a Muslim,” despite the suspect claiming he did it in the name of Islam.

Mayor Kenney said, “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen.”

Philadelphia Police Officer Jesse Hartnett was shot several times late Thursday.

Authorities say the suspect gave a full confession to the shooting.

Commissioner Richard Ross said, “According to him, police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.”

Mayor Kenney said of the shooting, “It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings.”

We have reached the level of political correctness where we do not accept the confession of a killer because his confession does not fit the political narrative. This is insane.

Just for the record, Islamic law is incompatible with American Law. Islamic Law is Sharia Law, and democracy is not part of that law. The shooter was correct when he commented that police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran. They don’t remove the hands of thieves, they don’t stone women adulterers, and they don’t arrest people for not being modestly dressed. In the shooter’s mind, the police are consistently breaking what he considers the ultimate law–Sharia Law. The shooting had everything to do with Islam. It is unfortunate that the people charged with protecting us do not see the danger.

 

Losing Our Culture And Harming Our Young Girls

As the debate about accepting Muslim refugees into America continues, there is something we need to understand–assimilation of the new Muslim population cannot be assumed. There is one statistic that illustrates that the Muslims that are already here are not interested in assimilation, but instead are carrying out a practice that is illegal in America.

The Population Reference Bureau reported the following in July:

The ABC News piece, “Underground in America: Female Genital Mutilation,” quotes PRB’s figures revealing that 500,000+  women and girls are at risk of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the United States—more than twice the number of women and girls estimated to be at risk in 2000.

Mark Mather, a co-author on the PRB article and associate vice president of U.S. Programs, told ABC News: “There haven’t been new numbers made available for more than a decade. We knew the immigrant population had grown considerably over the past 10 years, so for a population changing so rapidly, it’s important not to wait to get more updated estimates.”

FGM/C is illegal in the United States. PRB looked at immigrant families coming from countries with a high prevalence rate of FGM/C, including places where 80 percent to 90 percent of women undergo the procedure. So the rapid increase in women and girls at risk reflects an increase in immigration from these countries—or daughters with parents from those countries—to the United States, rather than an increase in the share of women and girls at risk of being cut.

Advocates warn that the risk of FGM/C can go up during summer months—”vacation cutting”—when girls often travel back to their home countries, particularly in Africa, to visit family. PBS NewsHour cited the PRB data analysis, underscoring the risk of FGM/C being a particular concern in New York, which has the largest population of African immigrants in the country. In 2013, about 97 percent of U.S. women and girls at risk were from African countries, while just 3 percent were from Asia (Iraq and Yemen).

This is not a practice that is welcome in America. We need to make it clear to immigrants that this is unacceptable. If families want to come to America, they need to refrain from breaking our laws in the name of their customs or religion.

Haven’t These People Read The U. S. Constitution?

ABC News posted an article yesterday about Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s remarks in response to the killings in San Bernardino this week. The Attorney General is prepared to take decisive action.

The article reports

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged that the Department of Justice will go after hate speech that might incite violence against the Muslim community, she told a crowd of Muslim-Americans and supporters Thursday night.

“Obviously this is a country that is based on free speech,” Lynch told the audience at the Muslim Advocates dinner in Arlington, VA. “But when that edges towards violence…we will take action.”

Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group, asked Lynch to address concerns about an uptick in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate crimes.

Since 9/11, Lynch says that the Department of Justice has investigated more than 11,000 acts of anti-Muslim rhetoric, which have led to 45 prosecutions. “I think sadly, that number is going to rise,” said Lynch.

I truly believe that these people have their priorities backwards. She is prosecuting Americans for speech. Is she prosecuting those Muslims who are terrorists for their terrorism?

As I have written before, one of the interim goals of that part of the Muslim population that espouses the idea of a world-side caliphate is to bring non-Muslims under Sharia Law. Under Islam “Defamation of Islam” is a crime which can be punished by death. Defamation is defined as any statement the hearer regards as negative. Truth has no role in this decision. Under Sharia Law even the definition of slander is not concerned with truth–it is concerned with how the statement makes the hearer feel. Sharia Law and free speech are incompatible, and any attempt to limit free speech by anyone should be looked on very suspiciously.

The article further reports:

In recent weeks, Donald Trump advocated for a national registry of Muslim Americans — which he later denied — and claimed that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated after the September 11 attacks.

“The demagoguery has to stop,” Muslim American Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN), who introduced Lynch, told ABC News. Carson said that public figures make these remarks because they “get affirmation from being provocative.”

The fist statement is an outright lie, aimed at the low-information voter (see transcript of conversation that charge is taken from), the second statement has been documented to be true by Washington Post stories and videos taken from news reports at the time.

The bottom line here is that you can defame anything you want under the First Amendment. If you slander an individual, you may wind up in court; and if you slander a race, someone may decide you are an idiot, but you do have the First Amendment right to be an idiot if you choose to do so.

The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the U.S. Constitution–not undermine it. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the country–it is his (or her) job to uphold the law and the U.S. Constitution–not make up her own law.

Smile, You Are Being Manipulated

Right now there is a lot of discussion as to whether of not American should allow Syrian refugees into America. There are a lot of aspects to this problem, but one that may not have been fully explored is the political left’s use of Saul Alinsky‘s Rules for Radicals.

Rule No. 4 states:

The left is using the refugees as a wedge issue. They are following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4, which states: RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.).

America has had problems with Muslim refugees in the past. Here are links to two articles dealing with past problems: one from The Clarion Project and one from World Net Daily. In June of this year, The Center for Security Policy posted the following:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

…Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Understand that Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible. The Muslim definition of free speech is not compatible with the American First Amendment. Under Sharia Law, the definition of slander includes saying anything negative about Islam whether or not it is true. Slander can be punishable by death.

Many of the Somali refugees in the midwest have left America to join Islamic terrorists. The Boston bombers were refugees. The refugee issue is not as simple as letting anyone into America who is fleeing violence. It is something that needs to be handled cautiously and without politics. I am not sure our present leaders are capable of either.

Ignoring The Facts To Slant The News

On Sunday, NBC News reported that Dr. Ben Carson, who is running for President, does not believe that a Muslim should be President. The news is reporting this as if it were a horrible example of prejudice. It isn’t–it’s a comment from someone who understands Islam.

The article reports:

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would not support a Muslim as President of the United States.

Responding to a question on “Meet the Press,” the retired neurosurgeon said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution.

One of the basic tenets of Islam is the support of Sharia Law. This is coupled with a belief that any legal system not based on Sharia Law is invalid and does not have to be followed. Couple this with the fact that another part of Islam is taqiyya, Taqiyya is based on Quran 3:28 which states that lying can and should be used to confuse and split the enemy.  The result of this is that often when Islamic leaders speak, they have one message for infidels and one for the Muslim audience. Therefore, it would not be unrealistic to expect a Muslim candidate for President to lie to the American people about his intentions and then move to implement Sharia Law as soon as he was sworn in. A true Muslim would have no problem lying when taking the Oath of Office. If you don’t believe Sharia Law could come here, be aware that there are already Sharia advisory boards in the United States. It was also reported in a Center For Security Policy poll that 51% of American Muslims believe that American Muslims should have the choice of being under American or Sharia Law.

I agree with Dr. Carson’s statement that a Muslim should not be President of America. It is not a politically correct statement, but it is a true statement.

It Won’t Pay To Be A Non-Muslim In Seattle

On Monday, the Christian News reported that the Mayor of Seattle, Washington, has proposed Sharia law-compliant housing loans for Muslim residents. In case you are not aware of what a Sharia law-compliant loan is, it is a loan without interest. How many of us would like to take out a mortgage without interest?

The article reports:

“For our low—and moderate—income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law—which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money—there are limited options for financing a home,” the proposed plan reads. “Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions.”

The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle,” it says.

Arsalan Bukhari, chapter executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the Puget Sound Business Journal that he believes that there are approximately two hundred Seattle residents who identify as Muslim that avoid taking out home loans because of their religion.

“[T]hey don’t want to pay interest,” he said.

Mayor Ed Murray mentioned the proposal at a recent press conference, which will go to city counsel for consideration.

“We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs,” he said.

Non-Muslim Americans will still be paying interest on the loans they take out. Aside from the fact that one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is to bring Sharia Law to America slowly, so that we won’t object to it, what about the Americans who will be paying more for their loans because of the Muslims who will not pay interest? This is stupid on many levels. Is beating your wife (legal under Sharia Law) now going to be legal in Seattle?

Thank God We Didn’t Feel That Way About The Nazis

The Daily Caller posted an article today about President Obama’s latest speech about ISIS.The President stated, “Ultimately, in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaida is gonna also require us to discredit their ideology, the twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their ranks. As I’ve said before, and I know our military leaders agree, this broader challenge of countering violent extremism. Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they are defeated by better ideas. A more attractive and more compelling vision.”

“So the United States will continue to do our part by working with partners to counter ISIL’s hateful propaganda, especially online. We’ll constantly reaffirm with words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam, we’re fighting terrorists who distort Islam and whose victims are mostly Muslims.”

First of all, when someone is chopping your head off, that may not be the time to debate their theology with them. Second of all, until you take the weapons away from ISIS, they will continue to kill people and chop their heads off. Third, it is in the basic tenets of Islam to kill infidels or those who do not believe in Islam.

The problem here is that Islam is not being distorted. What we are seeing is in accordance with the Koran. The following is a quote from the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin:

Again, the people killing us claim they do so to wage jihad in the cause of Allah, to impose Islamic law and reestablish the Caliphate.

…The intention of sharia authorities today is to limit the knowledge of non-Muslims to what they are allowed to know about Islam. If we read the books which the enemy declares are the basis of his intentions, we will better understand the nature of the threat. Because the enemy knows he lacks the kinetic ability to defeat us in battle, it is of utmost importance that he prevent us from properly defining him. The primary objective of the enemy in the War on Terror is to keep us from understanding his threat doctrine by keeping us from looking at the fact of Islamic law–“the one organizing principle”–that he, in fact, states is the driver of his threat doctrine. Once we understand his threat doctrine, the game is up. This is true even if he is wrong in his interpretation of Islam and shariah.

This is a battle for western civilization. We need to fight it. I don’t want to send troops to the Middle East, but I am willing to seriously bomb all areas ISIS controls. I am sorry for civilian casualties, but ISIS is killing the non-Muslim civilians. This is a time to use excessive force, not to discuss theology. If Muslims who do not want to establish the Caliphate want to stand with us, that is fine. Otherwise, they need to understand that we will not let them establish the Caliphate or continue to kill innocent people.

The Need To Protect Free Speech

Free speech is something most Americans take for granted. We don’t necessarily agree with what someone is saying or approve of their language, but generally speaking, we respect free speech. Free speech is under attack in America from a number of directions. Some of them are very subtle and seem almost logical, and some are totally obvious. Both need to be dealt with quickly and openly.

As I have stated in previous articles, I am reading Stephen Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure, which is about the dangers America faces at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and other related groups. The book talks about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the human rights movement in the United Nations. The book explains that the OIC definition of human rights includes the provision that these rights have to be in compliance with Sharia Law. This means that any negative statements about Islam are not considered acceptable free speech, but are punishable by law and may result in the death penalty. The goal of the OIC is to bring non-Muslim countries under Sharia Law–in America that means ending the First Amendment right of free speech. We saw the OIC in action recently when Pamela Geller was condemned for a “Draw Mohammed” contest in Texas which resulted in violence. She was blamed for the violence–not the people who committed the violence. This was an attempt to turn public opinion away from the idea that all free speech is protected. There is nothing in our Constitution that protects us from being offended. However, the First Amendment does protect our right of free speech. The press response to what happened in Texas was a very subtle attack on free speech. It needs to be exposed and countered.

A more obvious attack on free speech was initiated by the U.S. Government recently against “Reason Magazine.” Reason posted an article yesterday telling the story.

The article gives the background of the attack on free speech:

For the past two weeks, Reason, a magazine dedicated to “Free Minds and Free Markets,” has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com.

The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.

Yesterday, after preparing an extensive legal brief, Reason asked the US Attorney’s Office to join with it in asking that the gag order – now moot and clearly an unconstitutional prior restraint – be lifted. This morning, the US Attorney’s Office asked the Court to vacate the order, which it did. We are free to tell the story for the first time.

The article at Reason further reports:

Regardless of the legal details, the growing government demand for user data and our own experience with court-enforced silence on a self-evidently ridiculous investigation raise important questions about free speech and the abuse of power.

Reason’s unmoderated comment space is rare among comparable publications and has, over the years, developed into a forum that is by turns exciting, intellectually advanced, outlandish, cringe-inducing, and more foul-mouthed than any locker room this side of the Crab Nebula. It is something to be celebrated as a voluntary community that can be engaged or ignored as the spirit moves you (we say that as writers whose work and physical shortcomings rarely escape unscathed from any thread). However trollish many of our commenters can be, they have created a sphere of free speech that delivers on one of the great promises of the Internet, which is unbridled expression, dialogue, and argument.

We took risks by creating an autonomous zone in which our readers are left to their own devices. Some of the risk is reputational—how many other serious outlets allow anonymous commenters to run riot as we do? Some of the risk is legal, as in the current situation.

One further note about anonymity in our comment threads. Commenting on our site requires registration using a working email address (which is hidden from public view unless a commenter chooses to have it displayed). We also log IP addresses. We do both of these things in order to fight spammers and trolls–people who have shown enormous determination in their efforts to disrupt the discussion. 

Our commenters are generally a tech-savvy bunch. It is likely that those who have a desire for a very high degree of anonymity are taking control of that themselves, using anonymous email addresses and tools to prevent us from logging IPs connected to them.

But Reason.com is not the dark web. Many of our regular commenters voluntarily display either personal website information or their email addresses. In fact, three of the six commenters subject to this very subpoena voluntarily displayed public links to personal blogs at Blogger as part of their comments, one of which further links to a Google+ page. Raising the question: How can the government view these so-called “threats” as so nefarious when people posted them in such a non-anonymous fashion? 

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is an amazing saga of an out-of-control government trying to conceal the fact that it is out of control. Thank you, editors of Reason for standing up to this threat.

 

Not All Religious Traditions Are The Same

Last Sunday, Fox News reported on the arrest of youth counselor Ahmad Saleem, one of twenty-two people arrested in an undercover child sex sting.  Ahmad Saleem is a Muslim youth coordinator and former CAIR community organizer. He is accused by police of traveling to the home of a minor he met online to have sex.

Unfortunately, Muslim men having sex with underage girls has been a problem in Britain. It looks as if the problem may have arrived here. In November I posted an article about Birmingham, England, where political correctness and fear of being called racist prevented the exploitation of teenage girls there since the 1990’s.

The article reported:

Britain’s Birmingham Mail reported last week that Birmingham’s City Council buried a report about Muslim cab drivers exploiting non-Muslim girls back in 1990.

…“The sad part of this story,” Jesson concluded, “is not the suppression of evidence but that the relevant organisations have failed to address this problem.”

Indeed so – and that is because of its racial and religious aspects. British authorities persist in seeing this as a racial issue, when in fact these cabbies only preyed upon these girls because they were non-Muslims, and thus eligible to become “captives of the right hand” (cf. Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50) and used as sex slaves.

CAIR and similar organizations will try to put the best face on the arrest of Ahmad Saleem as they can, but remember, according to Sharia Law, he did nothing wrong. Remember also, that the U.N. Human Rights law supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is compliant with Sharia Law (see previous article on this blog). This is what America is opening itself up to when it embraces the idea of Sharia Law. Human Rights under Sharia Law are not the same as Human Rights under the U.S. Constitution. Keep that in mind when you hear Muslim organizations and American politicians saying that Sharia Law will peacefully co-exist with the U.S. Constitution–it will not.

Islam Has A Problem With Free Speech

I am currently reading the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin. In the book, the Mr. Coughlin explains the Islamic view of free speech and human rights. One of the things he makes clear in the book is that in Islam, human rights and free speech must be subject to Sharia Law. Simply stated, this means that apostasy or slander can be punishable by death. Under Sharia Law, slander is defined as anything that makes the person hearing it unhappy–truth is not relevant in the definition. A recent story posted at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog illustrates this. The headline of the story is, “UC Berkeley Student’s Article Pulled Over Fears For Her Safety.”

This is the article:

If someone had told me six years ago that I would leave Islam and end up an atheist, I would never have believed him.

I was born and raised as a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim country — Pakistan — surrounded by other Muslims who were convinced that their religion was the one true religion. My family, in particular, followed moderate Sunni Islam, which is a more liberal approach based on the “Sunnah,” or Prophet’s teachings. That was the path I set out on. But now, as a Muslim apostate and atheist, my journey couldn’t have led me any further from what I once knew to be true.

Until I was 14, I simply accepted everything I’d been told about Islam. I was taught that being born into a Muslim family is a blessing and is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon someone. I initially thought the Sunni path I followed was the one true path, just like my Shia, Bori and Ismaili friends adhered to the teachings of the sects their families followed. I noticed how everyone around me claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, which made me question who was actually right. I started to view Islam — and religion in general — as something dogmatic, irrational, unscientific and, most of all, completely sexist.

A feminist since age 10, it’s always been hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my faith. Even though the Pakistani society in which I grew up was sexist, my family has always been very progressive. As a result, I never accepted the male superiority and traditional gender roles that were part of my society. For most of my teen years, I felt torn apart by my contradictory beliefs. On one hand, I was a radical feminist who supported gay rights. But on the other hand, I was a practicing Muslim whose religion was clearly homophobic and placed men above women.

At that point, I still believed in an all-knowing God, and I felt that if I learned more about Islam, I would be able to understand why it stated the things it did. I read the Quran with translation and countless books on Islamic jurisprudence. I started taking classes at Zaynab Academy and Al-Huda, two traditional Islamic organizations. The Islam they preached was not the liberal, fluid Islam of my parents: Instead, it followed the Quran very rigidly. While the moderate Muslims I knew never encouraged hijab or gender segregation, these institutions differed in their views. I started to follow a more ritualistic Islam, going as far as giving up listening to music and wearing the hijab.

Stifled by orthodox Islam, I decided to turn to a more liberal approach. I embraced Sufism, which is the mystical side of Islam, and began to see God as an entity of love. Feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud and Leila Ahmed, gave me a glimmer of hope that Islam and feminism could be compatible, although I later found their arguments very selective. On the other extreme, I read writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another ex-Muslim atheist, whose harsh criticism of Islam was not always justified.

After trying to understand Islam through a plurality of perspectives — orthodox, feminist, Sufi and liberal approaches — I decided to leave Islam, but by that point, I had realized that I didn’t need to look at things as black and white. I could leave Islam without dismissing it or labeling it as wrong.

Going through all of these versions of Islam has enabled me to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the religion. Islam is no monolith, and with more than 1.5 billion followers, it’s impossible to refer to Islam as a single entity. There are Muslim women who cover every inch of their bodies except for their eyes, and there are also Muslim women who wear short skirts. With so much variation amongst Muslims, it’s hard to determine who really gets to speak for Islam.

Despite being one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, Islam is still extremely misrepresented and shrouded with stereotypes. I want to address these stereotypes and portray Islam in all its diversity. I’ve experienced the religion firsthand and have also viewed it as an objective bystander. I probably spend more time thinking about God than most religious people; despite my skepticism, I’ve always yearned for a spiritual connection. I want to share what I’ve learned about Islam over the years. I plan to defend it and give credit where it’s due — Islam, after all, gave women the right to work and own property back in the seventh century — and I also plan to ruthlessly point out areas that need reform (yes, Islam does allow men to have four wives and sex slaves).

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Islam, it’s that my former religion, just like any other ideology, has its flaws. Religion should not be immune to criticism. It’s important to have an honest dialogue about religion and identify what can be improved — and that’s exactly what I plan to do.

The publishing of this article put the author’s life in danger.

The American First Amendment is at risk. According to the book Catastrophic Failure, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working with the United Nations since 2005 to subtly change the definition of free speech.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the world that America would not “criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.” (Page 309) Secretary Clinton supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education,, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.

Since the Muslim community seems to be the community that reacts to free speech with violence, we can see what this resolution is actually about. It is a quiet imposition of Sharia Law on non-Muslim countries. If my speech causes violence, I do not have the right to free speech. If my speech does not cause violence, it is acceptable. Logically it follows that since Christians and Jews do not kill people in response to negative statements, criticizing them must be acceptable as free speech. Since Muslims often respond to negative statements with violence, criticizing them is no longer legal.

This is the enemy we need to be aware of in America–the enemy that attacks our Constitution and freedom. It is a subtle attack that needs to be countered with truth and education. Unfortunately, our government and our mainstream media are not familiar with either of those concepts.

 

A Very Interesting Alliance

Front Page Magazine reported yesterday that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) coordinated its response to the terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The stated purpose (although in reality this is not necessarily the case) of the ACLU is to protect the civil liberties of Americans. I would assume that those civil liberties include free speech.

The article quotes a New York Times article:

Then she took calls from those she views as allies — other Muslim advocates, a Methodist minister, an organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union — to come up with a response that would walk a fine line: clearly condemning the extremists behind the attack, while also calling to account what they see as hatred decked out in free speech finery.

I know this may come as a shock to some people, but there is no law against hatred. There is also no reason to see a draw Mohammed contest as hatred–it is simply an exercise of free speech. The exercise of free speech is part of American law. If Muslims want to speak freely, they need to extend that right to those around them. If they don’t support free speech, I suggest they live somewhere other than America.

The article at Front Page Magazine observes:

You don’t normally denounce someone after they were nearly killed in an attack by your people, but that’s exactly what was going on here. As with Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo, elements of Muslim organizations that weren’t openly shouting “Death to America” instead doubled around to destroy sympathy for the targets of the terrorists.

And Salem is now pushing the ‘incitement’ line whose goal is to criminalize criticism of Islam. The ACLU’s organizer is apparently okay with that.

The New York Times swiftly spins this into Muslims being persecuted by being denied the power to impose Sharia law. Denying the power to oppress women is not usually considered oppression by the left… but there’s a special exception in there for Muslims.

I sense a double standard.