Author Topic: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)  (Read 534229 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Ilhan Omar, Turkey, and the Muslim Brotherhood
« Reply #1101 on: April 26, 2019, 11:11:47 PM »


http://www.gopusa.com/analyst-omars-2017-meeting-ties-somalis-to-muslim-brotherhood/

Shocking. America-hating muslims connected to other America-hating muslims. Who could have imagined?




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in America, Somalis changed Minneapolis
« Reply #1106 on: October 24, 2019, 07:41:08 AM »
I thought this link came from the forum but I don't see it posted.

Unbleeping believable.  "Lutheran Social Services" and "Catholic Charities" contributed to this travesty.  How do you undo this? 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/somalis_have_changed_minneapolis.html

June 3, 2019
Somalis have Changed Minneapolis
By Sunny Lohman
Everyone not lying to themselves predicted when the federal government under Bill Clinton – aided and abetted by Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Charities and World Relief Minnesota -- plopped 30,000 Somalis down into the midst of the kind, virtue-signaling, eager-to-help Midwesterners of Minneapolis (of which I am one) that it would lead to some grave consequences for our community.

Now, due to continuing refugee placements as well as chain migration there are an estimated 80,000 Somalis living in the Twin Cities metro area, or more like 79,000 if you subtract those who’ve left the country to join terrorist organizations like ISIS.

Anyhoo, here’s a week Minneapolitans had with their Somali neighbors last month:

On Wednesday, May 15th a couple of University students were attacked on campus at the East Bank Train station by two Somali thugs. It was an attempted robbery that the guys rebuffed sustaining injuries that required a hospital visit.

On Thursday, May 16th two Somalis burned down the pavilion at Lake Calhoun
 *
[or Lake Bde Maka Ska if you’re a virtue signaler) an eating and hanging out meeting place in the heart of the city enjoyed by generations of Americans around the prettiest city lake you’ve ever seen. This is in the most expensive neighborhood in Minneapolis.

[*  This is a personal affront to me and my family history but means nothing to these people who care nothing about our unshared heritage.]

On Friday, May 17th a gang of 10-12 Somali youths attacked all the white people at that same East Bank Train station with hammers and pipes. Snopes says this is “Mostly False” because after the attack they fled, and out of the 7 who were eventually apprehended only two were still in possession of weapons, in this case pipes. So therefore, it never happened.

And now Tuesday, May 20th a woman walking her dog in a gorgeous, huge, wooded off leash dog park, complete with sandy beach on the Mississippi River, found spikes just off the path. Sharp metal objects taped to a wooden spike, presumably designed to hurt dogs running happily through the underbrush. Now, we don’t know that a Somali did that, it could be some crazed psycho Swede, but Islam abhors dogs as unclean because the prophet did.

Will this cause anything to change in Minnesota? Will the city’s leaders stop wearing the hijab in solidarity with the worst of Islam, incredibly, after they attack us!? Will Minneapolitans elect secular, assimilated Somalis rather than proudly Sharia- supporting, anti-Semitic, enshrouded Somali Muslims like Ilhan Omar? (80% of Democrats picked her in the primary.) I doubt it. They did all that after the following events:

·      In 2018 it was uncovered that Somalis had perpetrated a massive, community wide scam against the welfare state of Minnesota, stealing an incredible $100 million from a childcare handout program by fraud and shipping that money to Somalia to fund God knows what. (Incidentally, though finally proven in 2018, this was an open secret for years. I knew about this scam when I left the state in 2014.)

·      Dozens of Somalis, men and women, over the years arrested or tracked as they attempted to join terrorists overseas including ISIS. The feds are concerned it is still a rich breeding ground for Islamic supremacy and terrorist organizations.

·      In 2016 the first Somali police officer murdered a woman in her pajamas who had called in a disturbance. I guess it’s not safe to call the cops when you see something and say something. He has been found guilty of that murder.

·      In 2018 a Somali student at St Catherine University attempted to burn down the school and “hurt people,” saying, ““You guys are lucky that I don’t know how to build a bomb because I would have done that.”

·      In 2017 a Somali man stabbed a young woman 14 times for no apparent reason -- he didn’t go after her purse -- while she was walking home from her job at an Apple Store. He’s still at large. Curiously no composite sketch was ever released to the media.

·      In 2016 during Ramadan a gang of religious robed Somali men terrorized the city’s affluent Linden Hills community “for three straight days, threatening to rape a woman, beating one resident’s dog, and shouting “jihad!” as they drove vehicles over residents’ lawns and pretended to shoot people through their duffel bags. No arrests were made.” (Seriously read this account. You will find it absolutely horrifying and it’s shocking that no arrests were made with all these people trying to get license plate numbers, all the likely surveillance cameras etc. It makes one wonder if the city is protecting Somalis from being held accountable to our laws.)   [Minnesota nice??]

·      In 2012 90% of Somalis worldwide said they think they agree with Sharia Law and think it should be implemented.

But Ilhan Omar wears such pretty head scarves when she’s raising money for the Muslim Brotherhood.

I’m not sure what it would take for Minneapolitans to wake up and stop being so suicidal with their multiculturalism. Terrorism, arson, violent crime, murder, corruption, fraud, female oppression is apparently not enough.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
two stories
« Reply #1107 on: December 09, 2019, 08:31:39 AM »
when the Ft Hood shooter terrorized and murdered in 2009 . --  he had mental health problems, and Obama policy of down playing Islamic terror is protected,
 as per the MSM

when present murderer in Pensacola kills, the  MSM is able to link the fact that he is a Saudi

to the fact that Trump is aligning with Saudi Arabia against Iranian hegemony and therefore use as way to criticize the orange man.
therefore this is orange man's fault.









ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)
« Reply #1115 on: December 26, 2019, 06:04:27 AM »
" .The wounded man, described as “beaten up real bad,” was sent to Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center. He told mosque officials the attackers were wearing the known colors of the Bloods –red and black."

Obviously this is the fault of Jews who live in the vicinity !

This would never happen otherwise.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Bloods vs. Muslim Patrol-- Oh the irony
« Reply #1116 on: December 26, 2019, 11:20:43 AM »

Members of the brutal Bloods gang viciously beat a Muslim man outside the Masjid Taqwa in Brooklyn, N.Y. last Saturday evening, according to a mosque member. The beating was seen as retaliation for a Muslim Community Patrol member roughing up a teenage boy who had reportedly “disrespected” a Muslim woman several days earlier.

The wounded man, described as “beaten up real bad,” was sent to Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center.

https://christianaction.org/dont-miss-news/bloods-fulfill-promise-and-retaliate-against-n-y-c-muslim-community-patrol/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
CAIR sues to muzzle AZ prof
« Reply #1120 on: June 16, 2020, 10:30:31 AM »
CAIR Sues to Muzzle Arizona Community College Professor
by John Rossomando
IPT News
June 16, 2020
https://www.investigativeproject.org/8442/cair-sues-to-muzzle-arizona-community-college

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Sharia-Antifa patrols coming to Minneapolis?
« Reply #1122 on: July 29, 2020, 02:04:56 PM »
As we predicted  :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/minnesota-state-rep-antifa-and-muslim-groups-plan-robert-spencer/

Well, as long as Doug is willing to say the shahada, he might actually get some actual protection for himself and his properties.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
2003: Why Feminism is AWOL on Islam
« Reply #1123 on: July 29, 2020, 02:09:57 PM »
Why Feminism Is AWOL on Islam
Kay S. Hymowitz
 

U.S. feminists should be protesting the brutal oppression of Middle Eastern women. But doing so would reveal how little they have to complain about at home.

Argue all you want with many feminist policies, but few quarrel with feminism?s core moral insight, which changed the lives (and minds) of women forever: that women are due the same rights and dignity as men. So, as news of the appalling miseries of women in the Islamic world has piled up, where are the feminists? Where?s the outrage? For a brief moment after September 11, when pictures of those blue alien-creaturely shapes in Afghanistan filled the papers, it seemed as if feminists were going to have their moment. And in fact the Feminist Majority, to its credit, had been publicizing since the mid-90s how Afghan girls were barred from school, how women were stoned for adultery or beaten for showing an ankle or wearing high-heeled shoes, how they were prohibited from leaving the house unless accompanied by a male relative, how they were denied medical help because the only doctors around were male.

But the rest is feminist silence. You haven?t heard a peep from feminists as it has grown clear that the Taliban were exceptional not in their extreme views about women but in their success at embodying those views in law and practice. In the United Arab Emirates, husbands have the right to beat their wives in order to discipline them??provided that the beating is not so severe as to damage her bones or deform her body,? in the words of the Gulf News. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot vote, drive, or show their faces or talk with male non-relatives in public. (Evidently they can?t talk to men over the airwaves either; when Prince Abdullah went to President Bush?s ranch in Crawford last April, he insisted that no female air-traffic controllers handle his flight.) Yes, Saudi girls can go to school, and many even attend the university; but at the university, women must sit in segregated rooms and watch their professors on closed-circuit televisions. If they have a question, they push a button on their desk, which turns on a light at the professor?s lectern, from which he can answer the female without being in her dangerous presence. And in Saudi Arabia, education can be harmful to female health. Last spring in Mecca, members of the mutaween, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue, pushed fleeing students back into their burning school because they were not properly covered in abaya. Fifteen girls died.

You didn?t hear much from feminists when in the northern Nigerian province of Katsina a Muslim court sentenced a woman to death by stoning for having a child outside of marriage. The case might not have earned much attention?stonings are common in parts of the Muslim world?except that the young woman, who had been married off at 14 to a husband who ultimately divorced her when she lost her virginal allure, was still nursing a baby at the time of sentencing. During her trial she had no lawyer, although the court did see fit to delay her execution until she weans her infant.

You didn?t hear much from feminists as it emerged that honor killings by relatives, often either ignored or only lightly punished by authorities, are also commonplace in the Muslim world. In September, Reuters reported the story of an Iranian man, ?defending my honor, family, and dignity,? who cut off his seven-year-old daughter?s head after suspecting she had been raped by her uncle. The postmortem showed the girl to be a virgin. In another family mix-up, a Yemeni man shot his daughter to death on her wedding night when her husband claimed she was not a virgin. After a medical exam revealed that the husband was mistaken, officials concluded he was simply trying to protect himself from embarrassment about his own impotence. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, every day two women are slain by male relatives seeking to avenge the family honor.

The savagery of some of these murders is worth a moment?s pause. In 2000, two Punjabi sisters, 20 and 21 years old, had their throats slit by their brother and cousin because the girls were seen talking to two boys to whom they were not related. In one especially notorious case, an Egyptian woman named Nora Marzouk Ahmed fell in love and eloped. When she went to make amends with her father, he cut off her head and paraded it down the street. Several years back, according to the Washington Post, the husband of Zahida Perveen, a 32-year-old pregnant Pakistani, gouged out her eyes and sliced off her earlobe and nose because he suspected her of having an affair.

In a related example widely covered last summer, a teenage girl in the Punjab was sentenced by a tribal council to rape by a gang that included one of the councilmen. After the hour-and-a-half ordeal, the girl was forced to walk home naked in front of scores of onlookers. She had been punished because her 11-year-old brother had compromised another girl by being been seen alone with her. But that charge turned out to be a ruse: it seems that three men of a neighboring tribe had sodomized the boy and accused him of illicit relations?an accusation leading to his sister?s barbaric punishment?as a way of covering up their crime.

Nor is such brutality limited to backward, out-of-the-way villages. Muddassir Rizvi, a Pakistani journalist, says that, though always common in rural areas, in recent years honor killings have become more prevalent in cities ?among educated and liberal families.? In relatively modern Jordan, honor killings were all but exempt from punishment until the penal code was modified last year; unfortunately, a young Palestinian living in Jordan, who had recently stabbed his 19-year-old sister 40 times ?to cleanse the family honor,? and another man from near Amman, who ran over his 23-year-old sister with his truck because of her ?immoral behavior,? had not yet changed their ways. British psychiatrist Anthony Daniels reports that British Muslim men frequently spirit their young daughters back to their native Pakistan and force the girls to marry. Such fathers have been known to kill daughters who resist. In Sweden, in one highly publicized case, Fadima Sahindal, an assimilated 26-year-old of Kurdish origin, was murdered by her father after she began living with her Swedish boyfriend. ?The whore is dead,? the family announced.

As you look at this inventory of brutality, the question bears repeating: Where are the demonstrations, the articles, the petitions, the resolutions, the vindications of the rights of Islamic women by American feminists? The weird fact is that, even after the excesses of the Taliban did more to forge an American consensus about women?s rights than 30 years of speeches by Gloria Steinem, feminists refused to touch this subject. They have averted their eyes from the harsh, blatant oppression of millions of women, even while they have continued to stare into the Western patriarchal abyss, indignant over female executives who cannot join an exclusive golf club and college women who do not have their own lacrosse teams.

But look more deeply into the matter, and you realize that the sound of feminist silence about the savage fundamentalist Muslim oppression of women has its own perverse logic. The silence is a direct outgrowth of the way feminist theory has developed in recent years. Now mired in self-righteous sentimentalism, multicultural nonjudgmentalism, and internationalist utopianism, feminism has lost the language to make the universalist moral claims of equal dignity and individual freedom that once rendered it so compelling. No wonder that most Americans, trying to deal with the realities of a post-9/11 world, are paying feminists no mind.

To understand the current sisterly silence about the sort of tyranny that the women?s movement came into existence to attack, it is helpful to think of feminisms plural rather than singular. Though not entirely discrete philosophies, each of three different feminisms has its own distinct reasons for causing activists to ?lose their voice? in the face of women?s oppression.

The first variety?radical feminism (or gender feminism, in Christina Hoff Sommers?s term)?starts with the insight that men are, not to put too fine a point upon it, brutes. Radical feminists do not simply subscribe to the reasonable-enough notion that men are naturally more prone to aggression than women. They believe that maleness is a kind of original sin. Masculinity explains child abuse, marital strife, high defense spending, every war from Troy to Afghanistan, as well as Hitler, Franco, and Pinochet. As Gloria Steinem informed the audience at a Florida fundraiser last March: ?The cult of masculinity is the basis for every violent, fascist regime.?

Gender feminists are little interested in fine distinctions between radical Muslim men who slam commercial airliners into office buildings and soldiers who want to stop radical Muslim men from slamming commercial airliners into office buildings. They are both examples of generic male violence?and specifically, male violence against women. ?Terrorism is on a continuum that starts with violence within the family, battery against women, violence against women in the society, all the way up to organized militaries that are supported by taxpayer money,? according to Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, who teaches ?The Sexuality of Terrorism? at California State University in Hayward. Violence is so intertwined with male sexuality that, she tells us, military pilots watch porn movies before they go out on sorties. The war in Afghanistan could not possibly offer a chance to liberate women from their oppressors, since it would simply expose women to yet another set of oppressors, in the gender feminists? view. As Sharon Lerner asserted bizarrely in the Village Voice, feminists? ?discomfort? with the Afghanistan bombing was ?deepened by the knowledge that more women than men die as a result of most wars.?

If guys are brutes, girls are their opposite: peace-loving, tolerant, conciliatory, and reasonable??Antiwar and Pro-Feminist,? as the popular peace-rally sign goes. Feminists long ago banished tough-as-nails women like Margaret Thatcher and Jeanne Kirkpatrick (and these days, one would guess, even the fetching Condoleezza Rice) to the ranks of the imperfectly female. Real women, they believe, would never justify war. ?Most women, Western and Muslim, are opposed to war regardless of its reasons and objectives,? wrote the Jordanian feminist Fadia Faqir on OpenDemocracy.net. ?They are concerned with emancipation, freedom (personal and civic), human rights, power sharing, integrity, dignity, equality, autonomy, power-sharing [sic], liberation, and pluralism.?

Sara Ruddick, author of Maternal Thinking, is perhaps one of the most influential spokeswomen for the position that women are instinctually peaceful. According to Ruddick (who clearly didn?t have Joan Crawford in mind), that?s because a good deal of mothering is naturally governed by the Gandhian principles of nonviolence such as ?renunciation,? ?resistance to injustice,? and ?reconciliation.? The novelist Barbara Kingsolver was one of the first to demonstrate the subtleties of such universal maternal thinking after the United States invaded Afghanistan. ?I feel like I?m standing on a playground where the little boys are all screaming ?He started it!? and throwing rocks,? she wrote in the Los Angeles Times. ?I keep looking for somebody?s mother to come on the scene saying, ?Boys! Boys!? ?

Gender feminism?s tendency to reduce foreign affairs to a Lifetime Channel movie may make it seem too silly to bear mentioning, but its kitschy naivet? hasn?t stopped it from being widespread among elites. You see it in widely read writers like Kingsolver, Maureen Dowd, and Alice Walker. It turns up in our most elite institutions. Swanee Hunt, head of the Women in Public Policy Program at Harvard?s Kennedy School of Government wrote, with Cristina Posa in Foreign Policy: ?The key reason behind women?s marginalization may be that everyone recognizes just how good women are at forging peace.? Even female elected officials are on board. ?The women of all these countries should go on strike, they should all sit down and refuse to do anything until their men agree to talk peace,? urged Ohio representative Marcy Kaptur to the Arab News last spring, echoing an idea that Aristophanes, a dead white male, proposed as a joke 2,400 years ago. And President Clinton is an advocate of maternal thinking, too. ?If we?d had women at Camp David,? he said in July 2000, ?we?d have an agreement.?

Major foundations too seem to take gender feminism seriously enough to promote it as an answer to world problems. Last December, the Ford Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundation helped fund the Afghan Women?s Summit in Brussels to develop ideas for a new government in Afghanistan. As Vagina Monologues author Eve Ensler described it on her website, the summit was made up of ?meetings and meals, canvassing, workshops, tears, and dancing.? ?Defense was mentioned nowhere in the document,? Ensler wrote proudly of the summit?s concluding proclamation?despite the continuing threat in Afghanistan of warlords, bandits, and lingering al-Qaida operatives. ?uilding weapons or instruments of retaliation was not called for in any category,? Ensler cooed. ?Instead [the women] wanted education, health care, and the protection of refugees, culture, and human rights.?

Too busy celebrating their own virtue and contemplating their own victimhood, gender feminists cannot address the suffering of their Muslim sisters realistically, as light years worse than their own petulant grievances. They are too intent on hating war to ask if unleashing its horrors might be worth it to overturn a brutal tyranny that, among its manifold inhumanities, treats women like animals. After all, hating war and machismo is evidence of the moral superiority that comes with being born female.

Yet the gender feminist idea of superior feminine virtue is becoming an increasingly tough sell for anyone actually keeping up with world events. Kipling once wrote of the fierceness of Afghan women: ?When you?re wounded and left on the Afghan plains/And the women come out to cut up your remains/Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains.? Now it?s clearer than ever that the dream of worldwide sisterhood is no more realistic than worldwide brotherhood; culture trumps gender any day. Mothers all over the Muslim world are naming their babies Usama or praising Allah for their sons? efforts to kill crusading infidels. Last February, 28-year-old Wafa Idris became the first female Palestinian suicide bomber to strike in Israel, killing an elderly man and wounding scores of women and children. And in April, Israeli soldiers discovered under the maternity clothes of 26-year-old Shifa Adnan Kodsi a bomb rather than a baby. Maternal thinking, indeed.

The second variety of feminism, seemingly more sophisticated and especially prevalent on college campuses, is multiculturalism and its twin, postcolonialism. The postcolonial feminist has even more reason to shy away from the predicament of women under radical Islam than her maternally thinking sister. She believes that the Western world is so sullied by its legacy of imperialism that no Westerner, man or woman, can utter a word of judgment against former colonial peoples. Worse, she is not so sure that radical Islam isn?t an authentic, indigenous?and therefore appropriate?expression of Arab and Middle Eastern identity.

The postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault, one of the intellectual godfathers of multiculturalism and postcolonialism, first set the tone in 1978 when an Italian newspaper sent him to Teheran to cover the Iranian revolution. As his biographer James Miller tells it, Foucault looked in the face of Islamic fundamentalism and saw . . . an awe-inspiring revolt against ?global hegemony.? He was mesmerized by this new form of ?political spirituality? that, in a phrase whose dark prescience he could not have grasped, portended the ?transfiguration of the world.? Even after the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and reintroduced polygamy and divorce on the husband?s demand with automatic custody to fathers, reduced the official female age of marriage from 18 to 13, fired all female judges, and ordered compulsory veiling, whose transgression was to be punished by public flogging, Foucault saw no reason to temper his enthusiasm. What was a small matter like women?s basic rights, when a struggle against ?the planetary system? was at hand?

Postcolonialists, then, have their own binary system, somewhat at odds with gender feminism?not to mention with women?s rights. It is not men who are the sinners; it is the West. It is not women who are victimized innocents; it is the people who suffered under Western colonialism, or the descendants of those people, to be more exact. Caught between the rock of patriarchy and the hard place of imperialism, the postcolonial feminist scholar gingerly tiptoes her way around the subject of Islamic fundamentalism and does the only thing she can do: she focuses her ire on Western men.

To this end, the postcolonialist eagerly dips into the inkwell of gender feminism. She ties colonialist exploitation and domination to maleness; she might refer to Israel?s ?masculinist military culture??Israel being white and Western?though she would never dream of pointing out the ?masculinist military culture? of the jihadi. And she expends a good deal of energy condemning Western men for wanting to improve the lives of Eastern women. At the turn of the twentieth century Lord Cromer, the British vice consul of Egypt and a pet target of postcolonial feminists, argued that the ?degradation? of women under Islam had a harmful effect on society. Rubbish, according to the postcolonialist feminist. His words are simply part of ?the Western narrative of the quintessential otherness and inferiority of Islam,? as Harvard professor Leila Ahmed puts it in Women and Gender in Islam. The same goes for American concern about Afghan women; it is merely a ?device for ranking the ?other? men as inferior or as ?uncivilized,? ? according to Nira Yuval-Davis, professor of gender and ethnic studies at the University of Greenwich, England. These are all examples of what renowned Columbia professor Gayatri Spivak called ?white men saving brown women from brown men.?

Spivak?s phrase, a great favorite on campus, points to the postcolonial notion that brown men, having been victimized by the West, can never be oppressors in their own right. If they give the appearance of treating women badly, the oppression they have suffered at the hands of Western colonial masters is to blame. In fact, the worse they treat women, the more they are expressing their own justifiable outrage. ?When men are traumatized [by colonial rule], they tend to traumatize their own women,? Miriam Cooke, a Duke professor and head of the Association for Middle East Women?s Studies, told me. And today, Cooke asserts, brown men are subjected to a new form of imperialism. ?Now there is a return of colonialism that we saw in the nineteenth century in the context of globalization,? she says. ?What is driving Islamist men is globalization.?

It would be difficult to exaggerate the through-the-looking-glass quality of postcolonialist theory when it comes to the subject of women. Female suicide bombers are a good thing, because they are strong women demonstrating ?agency? against colonial powers. Polygamy too must be shown due consideration. ?Polygamy can be liberating and empowering,? Cooke answered sunnily when I asked her about it. ?Our norm is the Western, heterosexual, single couple. If we can imagine different forms that would allow us to be something other than a heterosexual couple, we might imagine polygamy working,? she explained murkily. Some women, she continued, are relieved when their husbands take a new wife: they won?t have to service him so often. Or they might find they now have the freedom to take a lover. But, I ask, wouldn?t that be dangerous in places where adulteresses can be stoned to death? At any rate, how common is that? ?I don?t know,? Cooke answers, ?I?m interested in discourse.? The irony couldn?t be darker: the very people protesting the imperialist exploitation of the ?Other? endorse that Other?s repressive customs as a means of promoting their own uniquely Western agenda?subverting the heterosexual patriarchy.

The final category in the feminist taxonomy, which might be called the world-government utopian strain, is in many respects closest to classical liberal feminism. Dedicated to full female dignity and equality, it generally eschews both the biological determinism of the gender feminist and the cultural relativism of the multiculti postcolonialist. Stanford political science professor Susan Moller Okin, an influential, subtle, and intelligent spokeswoman for this approach, created a stir among feminists in 1997 when she forthrightly attacked multiculturalists for valuing ?group rights for minority cultures? over the well-being of individual women. Okin admirably minced no words attacking arranged marriage, female circumcision, and polygamy, which she believed women experienced as a ?barely tolerable institution.? Some women, she went so far as to declare, ?might be better off if the culture into which they were born were either to become extinct . . . or preferably, to be encouraged to alter itself so as to reinforce the equality of women.?

But though Okin is less shy than other feminists about discussing the plight of women under Islamic fundamentalism, the typical U.N. utopian has her own reasons for keeping quiet as that plight fills Western headlines. For one thing, the utopian is also a bean-counting absolutist, seeking a pure, numerical equality between men and women in all departments of life. She greets Western, and particularly American, claims to have achieved freedom for women with skepticism. The motto of the 2002 International Women?s Day??Afghanistan Is Everywhere??was in part a reproach to the West about its superior airs. Women in Afghanistan might have to wear burqas, but don?t women in the West parade around in bikinis? ?It?s equally disrespectful and abusive to have women prancing around a stage in bathing suits for cash or walking the streets shrouded in burqas in order to survive,? columnist Jill Nelson wrote on the MSNBC website about the murderously fanatical riots that attended the Miss World pageant in Nigeria.

As Nelson?s statement hints, the utopian is less interested in freeing women to make their own choices than in engineering and imposing her own elite vision of a perfect society. Indeed, she is under no illusions that, left to their own democratic devices, women would freely choose the utopia she has in mind. She would not be surprised by recent Pakistani elections, where a number of the women who won parliamentary seats were Islamist. But it doesn?t really matter what women want. The universalist has a comprehensive vision of ?women?s human rights,? meaning not simply women?s civil and political rights but ?economic rights? and ?socioeconomic justice.? Cynical about free markets and globalization, the U.N. utopian is also unimpressed by the liberal democratic nation-state ?as an emancipatory institution,? in the dismissive words of J. Ann Tickner, director for international studies at the University of Southern California. Such nation-states are ?unresponsive to the needs of [their] most vulnerable members? and seeped in ?nationalist ideologies? as well as in patriarchal assumptions about autonomy. In fact, like the (usually) unacknowledged socialist that she is, the U.N. utopian eagerly awaits the withering of the nation-state, a political arrangement that she sees as tied to imperialism, war, and masculinity. During war, in particular, nations ?depend on ideas about masculinized dignity and feminized sacrifice to sustain the sense of autonomous nationhood,? writes Cynthia Enloe, professor of government at Clark University.

Having rejected the patriarchal liberal nation-state, with all the democratic machinery of self-government that goes along with it, the utopian concludes that there is only one way to achieve her goals: to impose them through international government. Utopian feminists fill the halls of the United Nations, where they examine everything through the lens of the ?gender perspective? in study after unreadable study. (My personal favorites: ?Gender Perspectives on Landmines? and ?Gender Perspectives on Weapons of Mass Destruction,? whose conclusion is that landmines and WMDs are bad for women.)

The 1979 U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), perhaps the first and most important document of feminist utopianism, gives the best sense of the sweeping nature of the movement?s ambitions. CEDAW demands many measures that anyone committed to democratic liberal values would applaud, including women?s right to vote and protection against honor killings and forced marriage. Would that the document stopped there. Instead it sets out to impose a utopian order that would erase all distinctions between men and women, a kind of revolution of the sexes from above, requiring nations to ?take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women? and to eliminate ?stereotyped roles? to accomplish this legislative abolition of biology. The document calls for paid maternity leave, nonsexist school curricula, and government-supported child care. The treaty?s 23-member enforcement committee hectors nations that do not adequately grasp that, as Enloe puts it, ?the personal is international.? The committee has cited Belarus for celebrating Mother?s Day, China for failing to legalize prostitution, and Libya for not interpreting the Qur?an in accordance with ?committee guidelines.?

Confusing ?women?s participation? with self-determination, and numerical equivalence with equality, CEDAW utopians try to orchestrate their perfect society through quotas and affirmative-action plans. Their bean-counting mentality cares about whether women participate equally, without asking what it is that they are participating in or whether their participation is anything more than ceremonial. Thus at the recent Women?s Summit in Jordan, Rima Khalaf suggested that governments be required to use quotas in elections ?to leapfrog women to power.? Khalaf, like so many illiberal feminist utopians, has no hesitation in forcing society to be free. As is often the case when elites decide they have discovered the route to human perfection, the utopian urge is not simply antidemocratic but verges on the totalitarian.

That this combination of sentimental victimhood, postcolonial relativism, and utopian overreaching has caused feminism to suffer so profound a loss of moral and political imagination that it cannot speak against the brutalization of Islamic women is an incalculable loss to women and to men. The great contribution of Western feminism was to expand the definition of human dignity and freedom. It insisted that all human beings were worthy of liberty. Feminists now have the opportunity to make that claim on behalf of women who in their oppression have not so much as imagined that its promise could include them, too. At its best, feminism has stood for a rich idea of personal choice in shaping a meaningful life, one that respects not only the woman who wants to crash through glass ceilings but also the one who wants to stay home with her children and bake cookies or to wear a veil and fast on Ramadan. Why shouldn?t feminists want to shout out their own profound discovery for the world to hear?

Perhaps, finally, because to do so would be to acknowledge the freedom they themselves enjoy, thanks to Western ideals and institutions. Not only would such an admission force them to give up their own simmering resentments; it would be bad for business.
The truth is that the free institutions?an independent judiciary, a free press, open elections?that protect the rights of women are the same ones that protect the rights of men. The separation of church and state that would allow women to escape the burqa would also free men from having their hands amputated for theft. The education system that would teach girls to read would also empower millions of illiterate boys. The capitalist economies that bring clean water, cheap clothes, and washing machines that change the lives of women are the same ones that lead to healthier, freer men. In other words, to address the problems of Muslim women honestly, feminists would have to recognize that free men and women need the same things?and that those are things that they themselves already have. And recognizing that would mean an end to feminism as we know it.

There are signs that, outside the academy, middlebrow literary circles, and the United Nations, feminism has indeed met its Waterloo. Most Americans seem to realize that September 11 turned self-indulgent sentimental illusions, including those about the sexes, into an unaffordable luxury. Consider, for instance, women?s attitudes toward war, a topic on which politicians have learned to take for granted a gender gap. But according to the Pew Research Center, in January 2002, 57 percent of women versus 46 percent of men cited national security as the country?s top priority. There has been a ?seismic gender shift on matters of war,? according to pollster Kellyanne Conway. In 1991, 45 percent of U.S. women supported the use of ground troops in the Gulf War, a substantially smaller number than the 67 percent of men. But as of November, a CNN survey found women were more likely than men to support the use of ground troops against Iraq, 58 percent to 56 percent. The numbers for younger women were especially dramatic. Sixty-five percent of women between 18 and 49 support ground troops, as opposed to 48 percent of women 50 and over. Women are also changing their attitudes toward military spending: before September 11, only 24 percent of women supported increased funds; after the attacks, that number climbed to 47 percent. An evolutionary psychologist might speculate that, if females tend to be less aggressively territorial than males, there?s little to compare to the ferocity of the lioness when she believes her young are threatened.

Even among some who consider themselves feminists, there is some grudging recognition that Western, and specifically American, men are sometimes a force for the good. The Feminist Majority is sending around urgent messages asking for President Bush to increase American security forces in Afghanistan. The influential left-wing British columnist Polly Toynbee, who just 18 months ago coined the phrase ?America the Horrible,? went to Afghanistan to figure out whether the war ?was worth it.? Her answer was not what she might have expected. Though she found nine out of ten women still wearing burqas, partly out of fear of lingering fundamentalist hostility, she was convinced their lives had greatly improved. Women say they can go out alone now.

As we sink more deeply into what is likely to be a protracted struggle with radical Islam, American feminists have a moral responsibility to give up their resentments and speak up for women who actually need their support. Feminists have the moral authority to say that their call for the rights of women is a universal demand?that the rights of women are the Rights of Man.

Feminism Behind the Veil

Feminists in the West may fiddle while Muslim women are burning, but in the Muslim world itself there is a burgeoning movement to address the miserable predicament of the second sex?without simply adopting a philosophy whose higher cultural products include Sex and the City, Rosie O?Donnell, and the power-suited female executive.

The most impressive signs of an indigenous female revolt against the fundamentalist order are in Iran. Over the past ten years or so, Iran has seen the publication of a slew of serious journals dedicated to the social and political predicament of Islamic women, the most well known being the Teheran-based Zonan and Zan, published by Faezah Hashemi, a well-known member of parliament and the daughter of former president Rafsanjani. Believing that Western feminism has promoted hostility between the sexes, confused sex roles, and the sexual objectification of women, a number of writers have proposed an Islamic-style feminism that would stress ?gender complementarity? rather than equality and that would pay full respect to housewifery and motherhood while also giving women access to education and jobs.

Attacking from the religious front, a number of ?Islamic feminists? are challenging the reigning fundamentalist reading of the Qur?an. These scholars insist that the founding principles of Islam, which they believe were long ago corrupted by pre-Islamic Arab, Persian, and North African customs, are if anything more egalitarian than those of Western religions; the Qur?an explicitly describes women as the moral and spiritual equals of men and allows them to inherit and pass down property. The power of misogynistic mullahs has grown in recent decades, feminists continue, because Muslim men have felt threatened by modernity?s challenge to traditional arrangements between the sexes.

What makes Islamic feminism really worth watching is that it has the potential to play a profoundly important role in the future of the Islamic world?and not just because it could improve the lot of women. By insisting that it is true to Islam?in fact, truer than the creed espoused by the entrenched religious elite?Islamic feminism can affirm the dignity of Islam while at the same time bringing it more in line with modernity. In doing this, feminists can help lay the philosophical groundwork for democracy. In the West, feminism lagged behind religious reformation and political democratization by centuries; in the East, feminism could help lead the charge.

At the same time, though, the issue of women?s rights highlights two reasons for caution about the Islamic future. For one thing, no matter how much feminists might wish otherwise, polygamy and male domination of the family are not merely a fact of local traditions; they are written into the Qur?an itself. This in and of itself would not prove to be such an impediment?the Old Testament is filled with laws antithetical to women?s equality?except for the second problem: more than other religions, Islam is unfriendly to the notion of the separation of church and state. If history is any guide, there?s the rub. The ultimate guarantor of the rights of all citizens, whether Islamic or not, can only be a fully secular state.
Modify message

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: Sharia-Antifa patrols coming to Minneapolis?
« Reply #1124 on: July 30, 2020, 05:41:10 AM »
As we predicted  :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/minnesota-state-rep-antifa-and-muslim-groups-plan-robert-spencer/

Well, as long as Doug is willing to say the shahada, he might actually get some actual protection for himself and his properties.

"Plan to 'Police Minneapolis Under Muslim Rule"

That's crazy, like saying the city council would vote to de-fund the police.

There are so many cognitive dissonance issues to work out with Left-rule and Sharia law.  Not funny but looking into their world, would they be able to stone Ilhan Omar to death for adultery quickly enough to get her replaced on the ballot?

Will the new ISIS respect the rights of the Native Americans after the white Left deeds the ill-gotten land back to them? 

Minnesota's most Jewish area, hometown of Al Franken and Thomas Friedman, NYT, is in Ilhan's Muslim-run district.   Is Sharia Law Kosher?

Minneapolis is one the the leading open gay cities in the world.  How do they fare under Sharia?

As G M suggests, my business of providing housing for the economically challenged doesn't hold up in a land of third world laws that does not recognize property rights.

I won't need a gun in this scenario.  I will need a new pair of Nikes to outrun the mob.

Seriously, Minneapolis Democrats have a contested primary (Aug 11?) to discuss the future of being represented a feminist, black, Marxist Muslim.  The main challenger is male, darker than Ilhan in skin tone,  and hates just Trump in the campaign instead of all of America.  No one speaks ill of Ilhan in the white lefty neighborhoods but I see a lot of people have yard signs supporting Antoine hyphon-last-name, the challenger.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
CA census partners with CAIR radical
« Reply #1125 on: August 06, 2020, 09:22:05 AM »
California Census Partners with CAIR Radical
by Steven Emerson
IPT News
August 5, 2020
https://www.investigativeproject.org/8495/california-census-partners-with-cair-radical

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Sharia-Antifa patrols coming to Minneapolis?
« Reply #1126 on: August 08, 2020, 02:55:30 PM »
https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/08/06/third-minneapolis-police-leave-force-end-year-no-replacements-sight/

You should have guns and your Nike running shoes ready.


As we predicted  :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/minnesota-state-rep-antifa-and-muslim-groups-plan-robert-spencer/

Well, as long as Doug is willing to say the shahada, he might actually get some actual protection for himself and his properties.

"Plan to 'Police Minneapolis Under Muslim Rule"

That's crazy, like saying the city council would vote to de-fund the police.

There are so many cognitive dissonance issues to work out with Left-rule and Sharia law.  Not funny but looking into their world, would they be able to stone Ilhan Omar to death for adultery quickly enough to get her replaced on the ballot?

Will the new ISIS respect the rights of the Native Americans after the white Left deeds the ill-gotten land back to them? 

Minnesota's most Jewish area, hometown of Al Franken and Thomas Friedman, NYT, is in Ilhan's Muslim-run district.   Is Sharia Law Kosher?

Minneapolis is one the the leading open gay cities in the world.  How do they fare under Sharia?

As G M suggests, my business of providing housing for the economically challenged doesn't hold up in a land of third world laws that does not recognize property rights.

I won't need a gun in this scenario.  I will need a new pair of Nikes to outrun the mob.

Seriously, Minneapolis Democrats have a contested primary (Aug 11?) to discuss the future of being represented a feminist, black, Marxist Muslim.  The main challenger is male, darker than Ilhan in skin tone,  and hates just Trump in the campaign instead of all of America.  No one speaks ill of Ilhan in the white lefty neighborhoods but I see a lot of people have yard signs supporting Antoine hyphon-last-name, the challenger.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Orange County Muslim leader incites more hatred
« Reply #1127 on: May 25, 2021, 08:05:46 PM »
Amid a Spate of Anti-Semitic Attacks, Orange County Muslim Leader Incites More Hatred
by Steven Emerson
IPT News
May 25, 2021

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8869/amid-a-spate-of-anti-semitic-attacks-orange



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
CAIR
« Reply #1130 on: December 27, 2021, 11:04:28 PM »
Report: CAIR to be Named Among Wiesenthal Center's Top Global Anti-Semites
IPT News
December 27, 2021

https://www.investigativeproject.org/9106/report-cair-to-be-named-among-wiesenthal-center


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Steve Emerson, CAIR, and the Pravdas
« Reply #1132 on: January 31, 2022, 12:24:24 PM »
Media Attack Investigative Reporter for Investigating and Reporting on CAIR
Hamas-linked CAIR gets a free pass from lazy media that smear Steven Emerson as an 'Islamophobe.'
by A.J.Caschetta
National Review
January 29, 2022

https://www.investigativeproject.org/9132/media-attack-investigative-reporter-for

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
CAIR doubles down on illegal surveillance charges
« Reply #1133 on: February 09, 2022, 02:48:24 PM »
CAIR Doubles Down on 'Illegal Surveillance' Charges
The Islamist group has expanded its bogus accusations and is asking the Department of Justice to investigate its critics.
by A.J. Caschetta
National Review
February 9, 2022

https://www.investigativeproject.org/9137/cair-doubles-down-on-illegal-surveillance-charges

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
"Islamophobia" existed since the 600s
« Reply #1134 on: March 31, 2022, 02:35:38 PM »
for a reason:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/islamophobia_is_as_old_as_islam.html

Christianity in practice has had its' warts too.

Jews generally do not prosetylize

perhaps that is why there are so few of us relatively speaking..........


« Last Edit: March 31, 2022, 02:37:29 PM by ccp »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: "Islamophobia" existed since the 600s
« Reply #1135 on: March 31, 2022, 09:07:38 PM »
Christianity created western civilization, a lack of it is causing it's destruction.

90% of muslims ruin it for all the rest.


for a reason:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/islamophobia_is_as_old_as_islam.html

Christianity in practice has had its' warts too.

Jews generally do not prosetylize

perhaps that is why there are so few of us relatively speaking..........

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)
« Reply #1137 on: August 30, 2023, 01:53:27 PM »
I don't know about NYC but here in NJ I live next to a church and get early morning Church bells.


That said I would not want to wake up to the Islam call early in the AM
the most beautiful sound as per Obama .

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
hear you, but....
« Reply #1138 on: October 22, 2023, 12:03:08 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/opinion-being-a-muslim-american-right-now-is-like-living-on-borrowed-time/ar-AA1iCTul?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=e3f4122403634e79bff2ca4e1baeab15&ei=23

first, we do not see in the 21st century Jews, Christians, Buddhist, Hindus (well maybe some in India who persecute Muslims) preaching convert or kill non belieivers.

second, again he/they are the victims not the other way around:

" At this moment, when the horror of mass death unfolds in Gaza and on screens we hold in our palms, our identity spells absurdity.
We see ourselves in the people of Gaza. The accosted people there share our names, our faith, our culture and our customs"

"“A Palestinian boy was killed in Illinois,” shared Abed. This sequence of foreign-to-domestic murder was a familiar one. Being American, like 6-year-old Wadea Al-Fayoume was, does not protect us from the stigma of being Palestinian or Arab, Muslim and from the “Middle East.”

Of course, this was pure evil.  That said I did not see any reports of Jews or anyone else celebrating this.

" Calling it “Islamophobia” would be a severe understatement. "

third, not hard to wonder why anyone would be suspicious of a Muslim......
Why Muslims kill their own then anyone else.
Look at the Muslim self destruction for power after the second US /Iraq war.
Remember Saddam sending children across the no man's land towards Iranian troops in 1980?

"Our names and nationalities, faces and faith brand us with the stain of collective guilt for crimes that we did not commit. "

Sadly that is is true for those peaceful Muslims.
Fourth, yet many Muslims have no problem blaming Jews .

Fifth, he gets it backwards:
"I typed those very eight words 20 years later in my book, “The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims.”

Sixth I fail to read any condemnation of Muslims who live preach believe in terror.

If true, the ~ 15% of Muslims are "radicals" then where are the voices of the other 85 % against THEM not those who are victims of the minority policies?




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)
« Reply #1139 on: October 22, 2023, 04:01:57 PM »
CCP:

Exactly so.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: November 02, 2023, 06:49:15 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: leading with his ass front
« Reply #1141 on: November 02, 2023, 07:40:19 AM »
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2023/11/02/biden-administration-announces-plan-to-combat-islamophobia-and-people-definitely-have-thoughts-n2630680

Phobia = irrational fear.

Why would irrational fear be triggered by beheading, rapes, kidnapping, torture, murder, genocide, Bragging about it on camera and promising more of it. I'm not feeling any irrational fear and I'm not even Jewish.

Can't they just say they are troubled by their 14% approval rate with Muslim Americans and initiating a pandering program?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
Muslim demographics in America from Pew
« Reply #1142 on: November 03, 2023, 08:07:42 AM »
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/muslim/

some of the interesting findings:

62% Democrat

only 17% Republican

73% want large government with services

64% are immigrants

65 % men

NJ has most at 3% (as I expected )

76% right or wrong "depends on situation"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
SERIOUS READ: AMcC: Hamas- made in the USA
« Reply #1144 on: November 25, 2023, 01:14:43 PM »
Hamas: Made in the U.S.A.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/hamas-made-in-the-u-s-a/?bypass_key=S2YxRFQ0K2dtOTFGWGRzczZkRWphUT09OjpNVE53V2xGTlRHbHBMMWh1YW5GelNHMUVMMjk1WnowOQ%3D%3D

Left: Mousa Abu Marzook in 1999. Right: Pro-Palestinian students take part in a protest at Columbia University in New York City, October 12, 2023. (Khaled Al Hariri, Jeenah Moon/Reuters)
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
November 25, 2023 6:30 AM

Antisemitic terror has deep, surprising roots in American soil.

After the jihadist barbarities of October 7, Israel responded with aerial bombardments of Hamas havens in Gaza, in preparation for the now-ongoing ground invasion. As the bombs fell, Hamas heavyweight Mousa Abu Marzook was asked about the elaborate network of tunnels that the organization has built under the territory it has governed since being popularly elected in 2006. It is a virtual underground city stretching over 300 miles, constructed with untold billions of dollars in foreign-aid money diverted for the purpose (not to be confused with the aid money diverted to make billionaires out of Marzook and his fellow Hamas emirs).

Since Hamas has built tunnels instead of bomb shelters, the friendly Russia Today TV reporter wondered, why doesn’t it just let Gazans use the tunnels to shelter from Israeli attacks?

Marzook’s answer was chillingly matter-of-fact. The tunnels were not built for so-called civilians; they were built for the jihadists:

We have built the tunnels because we have no other way of protecting ourselves from being targeted and killed. These tunnels are meant to protect us from the airplanes. We are fighting from inside the tunnels.

Of course Marzook (sometimes spelled “Mazouk” or “Marzuq”) is not fighting from inside a tunnel. He was speaking from his posh offices in Qatar. There, he and the rest of Hamas’s “politburo” are harbored and abetted by the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Doha that President Biden — building on the Obama–Biden administration’s empowerment of Qatar, despite its record of material support to jihadists — has formally denominated a “major non-NATO ally” of the United States. Hamas has been formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law since 1994, yet the Obama–Biden administration greenlit the establishment of a Hamas headquarters in Doha in 2012 — just as it similarly greenlit the establishment of a Taliban headquarters that Qatar, of course, was delighted to host.

Remember, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”? Twenty-two years ago seems like an alternative universe now.

The notion that Hamas has a strictly political operation siloed from its jihadist operations has always been as absurd as the conceit, similarly popular among transnational progressives, that anti-Zionism is just a political stance, unconnected to hateful antisemitism. Marzook has been at the center of both fictions since the 1987 establishment of Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Doha, the native of Gaza has landed softly, as ever, after bouncing from Amman to Damascus to Cairo. Following his faraway treks these last three decades, one almost forgets that it was in the United States that he helped forge Hamas — and even ran it for a time.

The Brotherhood’s Lifeblood Is the Campus

I recounted Marzook’s exploits in The Grand Jihad, my 2010 book about the partnership between the political Left and the Brotherhood — the most successful global sharia-supremacist movement in modern history. (The Brotherhood, which has numerous satellite organizations, is frequently referred to as the Ikhwan — shorthand for Jamā’at al-Ikhwān al-Mulismūn, the Society of the Muslim Brothers. It was established in Egypt after the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924.) While I’d love to take credit for as perfect a description of the Brotherhood’s sharia-supremacist project as “the grand jihad,” it is perfect because it comes directly from the Brotherhood itself. The phrase appears in an internal Brotherhood memorandum, which was central to the Justice Department’s eventual terrorism-financing prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development — the “charity” that served as Hamas’s American piggy bank.

In the memo, expounding on its mission in the United States, Marzook’s confederate, Mohamed Akram, wrote:

The Ikwhan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands [i.e., the Westerners’ own hands] and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Those words were written in 1991. By then, Marzook had been at this civilizational jihad in America for a decade.

The Brotherhood is a movement that sprang from universities and has always catalyzed campus radicalism. Its two most formative figures, founder Hassan al-Banna and his successor Sayyid Qutb, were academics. The Brotherhood’s guiding jurisprudent in the modern era, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, was a scholar at al-Azar University, the center of Sunni Islamic scholarship for over a millennium. So was another Brotherhood eminence, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (dubbed “the Emir of Jihad”), whom I prosecuted in the early-to-mid-Nineties, and whose students’ movement (Gama’at al Islamiyya, the Islamic Group) was principally responsible for murdering Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 over the peace he’d made with Israel.


Like most members, Marzook found the Brotherhood on campus, becoming active as an engineering student in Abu Dhabi during the Seventies. Ostensibly, it was to pursue an industrial-engineering doctorate at Columbia State University in Louisiana that he came to the United States in the late 1970s. That was over a decade after the Brotherhood stood up the first chapters of its most consequential building block in the West, the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

You’ve been aghast at the Dionysian exhibitions of Jew hatred on American campuses for the past seven weeks? You shouldn’t be so shocked. It’s been happening unimpeded right before our eyes for, now, 60 years.

MSA chapters indoctrinate young Muslims — and those they, in turn, influence — in sharia-supremacism, particularly the writings of Banna, Qutb, and Qaradawi. Needless to say, until his death last year, Qaradawi was harbored in Qatar, also — of course — home to the Islamist propaganda outlet Al Jazeera, which for years broadcast the sheikh’s weekly Sharia and Life program to audiences in the tens of millions. Antisemitism is a leitmotif of this oeuvre, seamlessly interwoven with progressive academia’s anti-Western, anti-Zionist, anti-white polemics against “colonialism,” “oppression,” and “systemic racism.”

Starting with just a few chapters in the Midwest (the first at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in 1963), the MSA now boasts chapters (often more than one) at hundreds of universities across the United States and Canada — such that it’s really not that tough to rustle up over 30 organizations at Harvard to blame Israel for the atrocities perpetrated on Israelis by Hamas. And if you’re wondering how you end up with 300,000 pro-Hamas demonstrators on the streets of London on the very day England reserves for the honoring of its war dead, the answer is the Brotherhood’s American model. In 1984, the Muslim Students Association of Europe was founded in Madrid. In short order, it became the plinth for the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, a hive for Brotherhood groups throughout the continent.

That’s exactly what had previously happened in the United States.

Marzook Builds the Brotherhood’s American Empire

Back in the Seventies, the Saudi government was playing the role now largely assumed by Qatar, bankrolling the Brotherhood’s proselytism. (This was four decades before the Brotherhood’s so-called Arab Spring revolts and the brutal war in Syria ruptured the Saudi–Brotherhood alliance.) In 1973, the Saudis and their Brotherhood partners at the MSA created the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which set about investing in (i.e., assuming control of) the lion’s share of American mosques and associated Islamic centers — the centers that Qutb envisioned as the “axis” of the movement to spread sharia’s dominion.

By 1981, the consolidation of influence in the mosques and on campus had proved so successful, the Brotherhood conceived of a new organization, which would serve simultaneously as an MSA graduate program and an umbrella structure “to advance the cause of Islam and service Muslims in North America so [as] to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life.” Thus was born the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

ISNA is now the largest Muslim organization in the United States, and thus efforts to airbrush its history — including, to my chagrin, in National Review — are legion. But facts are facts. ISNA emerged from the MSA like Athena from the head of Zeus. It was incorporated at the same address as the MSA and NAIT. On its website, ISNA has frequently claimed to have been created in 1963 (the year of the MSA’s establishment, 18 years before ISNA’s). And an internal Brotherhood memo relates that the MSA “was developed into the Islamic Society of North America to include all Muslim congregations of immigrants and citizens, and to be a nucleus for the Islamic movement in North America.” For its part, NAIT acknowledged that it provided “protection and safeguarding for the assets of ISNA/MSA.”

ISNA chafes at this history because it resulted in the organization’s being identified, along with NAIT and other Brotherhood satellites, as an unindicted coconspirator in the notorious scheme to back Hamas’s anti-Israeli intifada with millions of dollars. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

In 1981, the same year ISNA also debuted in the Midwest, Chicago was the locus for the Brotherhood’s establishment of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). The trailblazer for IAP was Marzook, then 30, in collaboration with another STEM student, Sami al-Arian. A budding computer engineer born in Kuwait to Palestinian refugees, al-Arian would ultimately become a top leader in Palestinian Islamic Jihad while holding down a professorship in computer engineering at the University of South Florida (having earned his doctorate at North Carolina State University). According to the Turkish-American scholar Zeyno Baran, Marzook and al-Arian worked in consultation with Khaled Mashal, a prodigy who joined the Brotherhood at 15 while (naturally) a student in Kuwait — and who, years later, would succeed Marzook as Hamas’s leader because Marzook was stuck in U.S. federal prison.

Coddled by Marzook’s American Brotherhood Network, Hamas Is Born

The IAP was an unabashed Brotherhood organ, declaring its purpose to be communicating the Ikhwan point of view and championing “Palestine” in the arenas of politics and public opinion. It also became the essential support platform for the jihad against Israel when the Brotherhood created Hamas — whose name is an acronym roughly derived from Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Isamiyya, the Islamic Resistance Movement.

For decades, even prior to Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, jihadists had savagely resisted the presence of Jews in the ancestral Jewish homeland (as Sol Stern relates in an essential Commentary essay). But by the Eighties, “the resistance” was dominated by Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Its tactical nods to radical Islam notwithstanding, the PLO had a Marxist bent (to say nothing of its notorious corruption), and thus coexisted uneasily with the Brotherhood and its sharia supremacism. Hamas would be the vehicle by which the  Brotherhood would seize control — very lucrative control — of the “struggle against occupation.”

In late December 1987, fighting broke out in Gaza when a tragic car accident, in which four Palestinians lost their lives, was distorted by agitators, who portrayed it as an intentional killing to avenge the recent murder of an Israeli. In the resulting revolt, Hamas was formally established by two longtime Brotherhood activists: Ahmed Yassin, a blind paraplegic bestowed the honorific “Sheikh” although he had not completed his studies, and Abdel Azziz al-Rantisi, a medical doctor who — need I say it? — joined the Brotherhood while at university in Alexandria, Egypt. By 1988, as the first intifada raged, Hamas had issued its infamous charter, which pledges it to Israel’s destruction by violent jihad, assertedly as an Islamic duty.

Once Hamas was established, its support became the preeminent mission of the Brotherhood globally, and especially of Marzook in America. He sprang his U.S.-based network into action, forming the “Palestine Committee” under the auspices of the IAP, as both a fundraising arm and a vehicle for imposing order and direction on the surge of pro-Hamas initiatives from various Brotherhood components.

These exertions included Marzook’s provision of $200,000 in seed money for the creation of the “Occupied Land Fund,” which in time morphed into the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The HLF operated from within ISNA and NAIT, which kept an HLF account into which were deposited checks payable to “the Palestinian Mujahideen” — a reference to Hamas’s military wing. Years later, when it became the subject of the Justice Department’s most significant federal terrorism-financing prosecution, the HLF was proved to have raised over $12 million for Hamas.

There was a vital piece missing from the Brotherhood’s U.S. infrastructure, however: a public champion wily in the ways of American law and media.

As the first intifada raged from 1987 through 1993, and Hamas emerged as the jihad’s hard edge, a new Democratic administration made its bed with Arafat in the quest for the holy grail: the “two-state solution” that Palestinians have never wanted, and the prospect of which they are reared from birth to regard as a betrayal of Allah. As “peace partner,” Arafat paid lip-service to the “renunciation of terrorism” and “Israel’s right to exist,” but never backed up his words with much meaningful action. It was enough, though, to persuade President Clinton to strengthen Arafat’s hand against his Hamas rival. New federal laws were enacted, under which Hamas was formally designated as a terrorist organization, such that material support to it was criminalized and its fundraising channels could be dammed.

Hamas’s principal supporters, under the auspices of Marzook’s IAP, were thus imperiled. They were known abettors of the jihad, and their labors could now land them in federal prison. “We are marked,” one fretted at a 1993 Brotherhood confab in Philadelphia, secretly recorded by the FBI.

The solution, they decided, was to establish a less “conspicuous” cheerleader with a clean slate, one that would combine what HLF leader Shukri Abu-Bakr called “a media twinkle” with an emotive commitment to civil rights — the better to obscure its jihadist sympathies in vaporous odes to “social justice,” “due process,” and “resistance.” Because “war is deception,” the Philadelphia conferees agreed, the organization would need to speak with a forked tongue — offering a message that would seem benign to the “American . . . who doesn’t know anything” while resonating with “the Palestinian who has a martyr brother,” as Nihad Awad, the IAP’s then-public-relations director, explained.

Thus did Marzook’s Brotherhood network birth the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, which made its first official appearance in 1994. It has since become the American media’s go-to source for sharia-supremacist apologetics. Awad, a Palestinian from Jordan, was placed in charge and is to this day CAIR’s executive director. Seed money was poured in by Marzook and HLF. CAIR would return the favor many times over, not only serving as Hamas’s “civil rights” advocate but also helping HLF raise funds.

Running Hamas . . . from Virginia

It is not enough, though, to say Hamas was bankrolled from the United States in its early days, as it sought to destroy Israel by force. Hamas was also run from the United States.

In 1989, Sheikh Yassin was arrested by Israeli authorities. At that point, Marzook was named head of the Hamas political bureau. For three years during the First Intifada, Marzook ran Hamas from his Virginia home. From that perch, he not only oversaw fundraising but coordinated forcible attacks as well as the recruitment and training of Hamas operatives on American soil. In 1992, Marzook moved closer to the action, relocating to Jordan where he remained until the Clinton administration induced King Hussein to expel him despite the resulting Palestinian unrest.

It should go without saying in this sordid story that Marzook had earned U.S. lawful-permanent-resident-alien status in the years during which he built the Brotherhood’s American network and led Hamas. With that seeming ace in the hole, Marzook calculated that the Americans could not prevent him from returning to his family in Virginia. But for once, he guessed wrong: He was arrested at Kennedy Airport in New York City in July 1995, his name flagged on a terrorism watch-list. Israel pressed its American ally to detain Marzook while it sought his extradition to face trial for a slew of terrorist atrocities. He was thus held in federal prison for 22 months.

The Peace Process Helps the Jihadist Slip the Noose

In a 1996 opinion rejecting one of Marzook’s many challenges to detention and extradition, the late judge Kevin Thomas Duffy — who had earlier tried the first World Trade Center bombing case in Manhattan federal court — summarized some of Marzook’s alleged trail of carnage:

(1) the bombing at a beach in Tel Aviv on July 28, 1990, which killed a Canadian tourist; (2) the stabbing deaths of three civilians working in a factory in Jaffa on December 14, 1990; (3) the January 1, 1992, shooting death of a civilian as he drove his car in Kfar Darom in Gaza; (4) the shooting death of a civilian as he drove his car in the Beit La’hiah region of Gaza on May 17, 1992; (5) the stabbing deaths of two civilians working at a packing plant in Sajaeya on June 25, 1992; (6) the gun-fire attack by three persons of a passenger bus in Jerusalem on July 1, 1993, in which two civilians were killed and others were injured; (7) the bombing of a passenger bus in Afula on April 6, 1994, which killed eight civilians and injured forty-six; (8) the bombing of a passenger bus in Hadera on April 13, 1994, which killed four civilians and injured twelve; (9) the machinegun attack in a pedestrian mall in Jerusalem on October 9, 1994, which killed one civilian and injured eighteen; and (10) the bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv on October 19, 1994, which killed twenty-two civilians and injured forty-six.

Marzook laughably contended both that the Hamas political bureau he led was walled off from the organization’s forcible operations, and that the latter operations were nevertheless “political” rather than criminal — a claim Judge Duffy curtly rebuffed, pointing out that terrorist crimes against humanity cannot be immunized as mere political acts.

Marzook’s legal arguments were meritless, but he has always had an exquisite sense of timing.

In autumn 1996, after an outbreak of deadly fighting and under pressure from the Clinton administration to revive the flagging Oslo “peace process,” the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, agreed to restart negotiations, mediated by Jordan’s King Hussein in conjunction with Clinton’s emissaries. Recognizing this as a sensitive moment — when, if he actually were tried for Hamas’s rampages in Israel, it could stir Palestinian outrage and disrupt the negotiations — Marzook suddenly dropped his objection to extradition. Flummoxed, Israel announced that it no longer sought to try him, despite having for a year and a half pressured the Clinton Justice Department to detain him in the teeth of protest by the Brotherhood’s array of American satellite organizations.

It is not enough to say that, at that point, there were abundant grounds for a U.S. prosecution that could, then and there, have put an end to Marzook’s jihadist career. Marzook was eventually indicted by the Bush Justice Department in 2002 — i.e., only after the 9/11 attacks had roused Americans into dull awareness that our country had for decades been fueling the jihad even as it turned its fire on us.

Alas, by then Marzook was long gone. Once Israel declined prosecution of its nemesis, Clinton washed his hands of Marzook, now pressuring Jordan to take him back less than two years after demanding that Jordan expel him. In the dead of night in May 1997, Marzook was flown from New York to Amman. He had agreed not to contest the terrorism allegations, which effectively forfeited his green-card status. While American and Israeli officials tried to spin this as a win, the Hamas emir was welcomed back to the region as a victor.

Though Hamas’s leaders have become multi-billionaires skimming off the jihad, it’s an uncertain life. But Marzook has a remarkable way of landing on his feet. Sprung from American imprisonment, safely out of U.S. jurisdiction, he evaded prosecution in the above-mentioned 2002 Texas case and, later, in the 2008 HLF prosecution — in which ISNA, NAIT, and CAIR were all named as unindicted coconspirators. They stayed unindicted. Despite convictions of several defendants and a mountain of evidence, by the next year the new, Brotherhood-friendly Obama–Biden administration was in power — with President Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, keynoting the annual ISNA convention.

Meanwhile, Marzook was booted from Jordan to Syria when the vaunted “peace process” inevitably imploded. He subsequently made his way to Cairo, but the Arab Spring proved exceptionally hot when Egyptians ousted the new Brotherhood government upon just a small taste of what it would actually be like.

So now Marzook has found safe haven in the Brotherhood’s alter ego, the sharia-supremacist regime of Qatar. There, while Doha barters savagely abducted Israeli hostages — including toddlers — for concessions to Hamas, Marzook snidely explains that the tunnels in Gaza, built by diverting billions in foreign aid, are for jihadist warfare, not civilian shelter.

Many wonder at how, after funding and harboring Hamas for years, Qatar could be rewarded by the Biden administration with “Major Non-NATO Ally” status and all its attendant perks. Mousa Abu Marzook does not wonder. Having built the Muslim Brotherhood’s American empire, which has flooded urban centers and campus quads with unabashed Hamas supporters; having launched Hamas in gusts of American fundraising; and having run the Brotherhood’s Palestinian jihad for years from his Virginia home, Marzook can only smirk.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)
« Reply #1146 on: November 26, 2023, 03:23:30 PM »
A political football for sure .

but which team will get the possession of the ball?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
WSJ: The True Face of CAIR
« Reply #1148 on: December 09, 2023, 12:06:10 PM »


The True Face of the Anti-Israel Movement
The leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations celebrated Oct. 7, in his own words.
By The WSJ Editorial Board
Updated Dec. 8, 2023 6:17 pm ET

The response in anti-Israel circles to Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre has been clarifying. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the tip of the spear on U.S. campuses, early on called the slaughter “a historic win for Palestinian resistance.”


The tune hasn’t changed, even from the leaders pressuring President Biden. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), celebrated Oct. 7 at an American Muslims for Palestine convention on Nov. 24. A damning excerpt was publicized Thursday by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

American Muslims for Palestine then took down the full video, and Mr. Awad now claims a “hate website selected remarks from my speech out of context and spliced them together to create a completely false meaning.” But we got the video before Mr. Awad’s ally hid it, and here’s what CAIR’s leader had to say:

“The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege, the walls of the concentration camp, on Oct. 7. And yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land, and walk free into their land, that they were not allowed to walk in. And yes, the people of Gaza have the right to self-defense, have the right to defend themselves. And yes, Israel, as an occupying power, does not have that right to self-defense.”

The crowd applauded, and not a word in Mr. Awad’s speech qualified his pleasure with Oct. 7, justified as “self-defense.”

Democrats and media have long treated CAIR as a primary political spokesman for Muslim Americans. In late October the White House invited Mr. Awad to convey Muslim concerns about the war to the President. In May the Biden Administration included CAIR as a partner in its Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. The White House has now removed CAIR from that document and condemned Mr. Awad’s remarks.

On stage Mr. Awad accused Israel of buying “corrupt members of Congress,” concluding, “We have to free so many people from the shackles of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and its affiliates who have sold the soul of America.” Complaining of Mr. Biden’s betrayal, Mr. Awad asked, “For how much? It is for how much AIPAC and its affiliates have been controlling the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress. . . . Unless we free Congress, we will not be able to free Palestine.”

There it is, the hoary conspiracy that justice—however defined—could be achieved if only the Jews weren’t secretly shackling and manipulating the powers that be. Maybe that’s easier for Mr. Awad to accept than the truth: The American people support Israel and oppose Palestinian terrorism.

But CAIR and its allies have influence, and Mr. Awad said the White House had begun to listen. “When we say ‘if there is no cease-fire, there will be no votes for you in 2024 elections,’” he said, “we started to see the tone changing—and the position changing.”

Mr. Awad’s co-panelist was Osama Abuirshaid, director of American Muslims for Palestine, the leading sponsor of SJP on campus and an organizer of anti-Israel protests across the country. Mr. Abuirshaid told a rally Dec. 1: “What they alleged that happened on Oct. 7 turned out to be a lie. Most of the [Israeli] civilians were killed by their own army.” Will Democrats bend on Israel to people like this?

Near the end of Mr. Awad’s speech, he said, “I ask young people: Be wise. You are not in Palestine. You are not in Gaza. The language there doesn’t work here.” You know, less on the Jews and violence, and more on human rights. He should have taken his own advice.