Islamofascists

6 imams, American jihad, CAIR, Islamofascists, Political wind

Air ‘Islam vs. Islamists’; let people decide

by  • 

As we mentioned Wednesday, the critically acclaimed producer of Islam vs. Islamists says PBS cancelled it’s airing for political reasons, in what seems like an attempt to silence Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an outspoken critic of CAIR, the ‘Flying Imams,’ and the politicalization of America’s mosques. What is really behind the pulling of Islam vs. Islamists is it strikes too close to home. The radicals are right here in America and there is a growing Muslim voice of those who oppose them. That larger majority had to be silenced while CAIR and the radical imams seek their hidden agenda: the imposition of sharia law.

The Washington Times weighed in heavily, yesterday:

The stories speak for themselves when allowed to, but since the documentary is not yet available publicly, here’s a preview. Naser Khader in some respects is the heart of the film’s several threads. This Syrian-born Danish lawmaker’s life has been threatened for recommending (among other things) that would-be Islamists who want to establish Shariah in Denmark should move to Saudi Arabia. At issue is the alarming number of Muslims in Islamic communities in Western Europe and North America who expect to be governed by Islamic law in lieu of the established civil and criminal law in their new country. For simply asking the question, Mr. Khader’s life is imperiled. He is filmed travelling with heavy security.

There’s Mohamed Sifaoui. This Paris-based journalist risked his life filming an undercover expose on terrorists and extremists, including the covert filming of terrorists who vow to murder Mr. Khader if he ever reaches high office in Denmark. Mr. Sifaoui himself knows terrorist violence well. The Algerian newspaper he worked for years ago was bombed by militant terrorists moments after he left the building.

Or Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, the head of the Arizona Medical Association who condemns terrorist violence in a forum for democratic ideas, which he founded. He is depicted in the local newspaper, the Muslim Voice, as a rabid dog devouring innocent Muslims. There are others.

What distinguishes “Islam vs. Islamists,” beyond these stories of the embattled, is its access to and portrayals of critics, including violent ones, and the critics of like-minded moderates elsewhere. We are shown, inter alia, Abu Laban, the imam and late critic of Mr. Khader who toured the Middle East with cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed depicted as a pig to whip up resentment over the Danish cartoon controversy. Mr. Laban, who died of cancer in February, admits on camera that the cartoons he flourished for the maddened Islamist crowds never appeared in the newspaper Jyllands Posten. He is quoted denying that the terrorists filmed by Mr. Sifaoui vowing to kill Mr. Khader — his own associates — meant it is seriously. The threat “was a joke.” Some joke.

We see two men at intellectual and literal war with the West, the imprisoned Said Mansour, a Moroccan-born Dane, sentenced to three and a half years in prison on charges of propagandizing for terrorism, and Slimane Abderrahmane, the Algerian-born Dane held at Guantanamo for two years, who trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Abderrahmane tells his interviewer that the moment a Muslim enters the Danish parliament he ceases to be Muslim, since only Allah can make law.
…
There will be legitimate criticism of this film. The haunting music which overlays the words and images of terrorist sympathizers is at times a bit overpowering. The lines are often less than clear distinguishing Muslims who may be sympathetic to Islamists and those who are not. Many Muslims themselves are not clear on this. This is one of the chief unresolved issues of Islam in the West today. Rather than bottle up this subject, we should let it loose.

“Islam vs. Islamists” is hard-hitting. Some will consider it biased. We don’t. The American people are grown up. They can handle it.

Who cannot ‘handle it’ are the radical leadership at the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), their allies in Congress, and the latter’s political puppets at PBS who decided to pull Islam vs. Islamists. They want both Muslims and non-Muslims to maintain the ignorant belief that CAIR, after receiving millions of dollars from foreign sources and provided the lawyers for the “Flying Imams,’ is the moderate voice of America’s Muslims.

They cannot tolerate a comparison of what the American Islamic Forum for Democracy professes and the intimidation tactics used against them, right here in America. PBS is federally funded to provide the public with information and in furtherance of free speech yet apparently it does not want the public to know that 5 of the 6 ‘Flying Imams’ promote political action while leading the faithful in prayer in mosques near to Dr. Jasser.

Islamofascists, Political wind

Sharia law makes wife beating okay: German judge

by  • 

The National Review Online’s editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, mentioned this commentary yesterday. It is a must read by a Muslim, Mona Eltahawy, about wife beating and a German judge’s ruling that sharia law takes precedent over her nation’s law on the subject*:

To appreciate the absurdity of what it can mean to be a Muslim woman today you need a few fools.

Enter stage right: German judge Christa Datz-Winter, whose claim to infamy was her refusal to grant a fast-track divorce to a German Muslim woman who had complained that her husband beat her. The judge said both partners came from a “Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife,” and she cited passages in the Qu’ran that she said sanction physical abuse.

How cruelly ironic for the unfortunate wife who tried to make the most of western laws that are always waved in the face of Muslims as the pinnacle of civilized behaviour if only we would learn from them. Here was a Muslim woman who really did need to be saved from an abusive husband – not the ‘Evil Muslim Man’ imagined as lurking in all our closets, but the real thing – a brutal man who beat his wife. Right at the moment when she pushed to take advantage of those laws, the Muslim woman who really did need to be saved was kicked back – by a woman no less – into the arms of the very misogyny that the West is always trying to save us from.

So we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Judge Datz-Winter might be the most maligned multiculturalist du jour, but in time we will celebrate her for so bluntly – if unintentionally – setting on fire the house of cards that so many of my fellow Muslims struggle to keep up around women’s rights.

One need only type ‘Islam + wife + beating’ as a search item on YouTube to learn that Judge Datz-Winter’s idiocy finds plenty of ugly echo in the chorus of fools otherwise known as our zealous imams and scholars trying to decide exactly how much harm to a woman their God allows. These unfortunately all-too real and evil men point to the very same passages in the Qu’ran that the judge used to turn down the fast-track divorce.

But here’s the difference – Judge Datz-Winter was removed from the case and could face disciplinary action. By contrast, who is disciplining our imams and scholars? Unless we – Muslims – push and clamour for the removal of the men who advocate wife beating in the name of the Qu’ran then to remain a Muslim woman today would require nothing short of mental gymnastics.

READ THE REST

* Editor’s note: corrected introduction.