Sarsour on Sharia

Sarsour on Sharia

You can check out those details here: Brunei Adopts Islamic Sharia Law; Flogging, Amputation and Stoning to Death to be Brought in Gradually …and can decide if it’s reasonable and sensible yourself:

“Today… I place my faith in and am grateful to Allah the almighty to announce that tomorrow, Thursday May 1, 2014, will see the enforcement of Sharia law phase one, to be followed by the other phases,” Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah said in a speech.

In the first phase, fines and jail terms will be given for pregnancies outside marriage or failure to attend Friday prayers. During the second phase, which will come into effect later this year, whipping and amputation of limbs will be awarded for crimes such as theft and alcohol consumption.

Once the final phase is implemented, offenders will face the death penalty – most likely by stoning – if they insult Koran or Prophet Mohammad.

About 70 percent of the country’s 400,000-strong population is Muslim but most of the punishments under the sharia law are applicable to the non-Muslims as well.

Crimes such as adultery, propagation and practice of religions other than Islam and even failure to perform Friday prayers attract harsh punishments under the sharia law.

That’s “basics” in at least one jurisdiction, and since Islam is as much political as religious – the church and state cannot, by definition, be separated – there’s absolutely nothing to prevent these rules in ANY Sharia jurisdiction.

Even in a, shall we say… more lenient suzerainty, Sharia elevates the rule of man (and “man” is not used here in its “all humans” sense) over the rule of law. Universally to the detriment of females.

Linda Sarsour is a leader of The Women’s March.  It is puzzling that she is held up as a defender of women’s rights while defending a legal system which, in some places, calls for the death by stoning for any woman found in the company of a man other than a close family member. Sexual activity is assumed to have happened.

#MeToo takes on a whole new meaning.

Pussy Hats and Hijabs

This video has been “unlisted” on YouTube. Which, since you can still watch it, I take to mean you can’t find it with a search. So I post it here for a bit wider exposure than Google deems appropriate. 18:39

Barbara Kay – How to Launder a Hijab
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/dEviH0Kz5-Y
Nth-wave Feminists support a female dress code, invented in 1970 by an Iranian mullah, and now enforced by males.

The only point of agreement between Feminism and Islamism I can detect here is that men are evil, though that’s offset from the current Western feminist dogma by the fact that sharia makes females entirely responsible for controlling men’s sexual behavior. More succinctly, “If you are raped, it’s your fault.”

Not so long ago, when feminists were called upon to condemn clitorectomies, honor killings, murder of young girls for attempting to get an education, inability to be seen in public unless accompanied by a male, and other aspects of Islamic totalitarian patriarchy, they demurred that they couldn’t be expected to denounce another culture. But, American Feminists weren’t really afraid to criticize other cultures, they were afraid their own complaints would be revealed as trivial.

Tiring of squirming on the charge of hypocrisy, accurately leveled, Feminists found themselves needing defenses against the realities of Sharia Law. They enlisted Islamic, Marxist activist Linda Sarsour to carry the water. Sarsour was co-chairman of the 2017 Day Without a Woman strike and protest where, as always, she wore her hijab. While consorting with women in pussy hats.

Here’s some Linda Sarsour tweets to ponder:

Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur!” read the tweet, which featured a “#SignOfResistance, in Assata’s honor

Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard. is a convicted cop-killer living in Cuba, and is on the F.B.I.’s list of most wanted terrorists.

You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?

There’s that. Then, if you’re female, there’s ‘your educational opportunites will be entirely decided by the State Patriarchy.’

shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics

Like being hung for self-defense against a rapist. Like risking a public flogging for participating in a public demonstration (maybe wearing an odd shaped pink toque) without your male guardian.

10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.

And now, Sarsour has an even better point. Women have recently been granted the right to drive in Saudi Arabia so we don’t even need to worry about THAT anymore. This amazing privilege is somewhat tempered by the fact that they still need male permission to leave the house. But they get 10 weeks of paid maternity leave. Both of these privileges are granted by, and dependent upon, the whim of an absolute monarch. Where in the world, after all, are social conditions closest to Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tail?

Sarsour is notably silent on how many Saudi women are CEOs or on corporate boards, never mind that only about 15% of women (a tripling since 1992) in Saudi Arabia are even employed “outside the home,” and the female unemployment rate is around 30%. Saudi women don’t need to drive to get to jobs they don’t have, or to schools they can’t attend (emphasis mine):

“The Ministry of Higher Education was established in 1975 to provide higher education to all students based on Islamic laws and to supervise its process [27]. The goal of education for women was for them to be successful housewives and good mothers, with knowledge suitable to their nature such as teaching, nursing or giving medical treatment…

…it is very difficult for women to attend university since they need a male guardian [7-40][7]”

Saudi Arabia ranks 138th out of 144 on the 2017 Global Gender Gap Index published by the World Economic Forum. You may know of them from their annual meeting in Davos. The US ranks 49th, down 4 points due “to a significant decrease in gender parity in ministerial level positions,” so take it with a grain of salt. Even ranked by elite EU leftists, though, the discrepancy is notable – if incomprehensible to a desperately self-promoting Islamofeminist. It’s comical.

We can agree that as a stand up comic Linda Sarsour is in a class with Sandra Fluke. But there’s hope for Sarsour. Even the Saudis are moving away from Sharia. The cultural peeks in that link are worth reading, and are a bit chilling. Stand up comedy clubs are now permissible, if you have a license and don’t say the wrong thing. It reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld’s remark, “Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.”

That’s cultural appropriation by campus Lefties.

Diplomatic note to the shores of Tripoli:

While the United States of America thoroughly condemns images that offend your exquisite religious sensitivities, it is our official position that use of RPGs at film festivals is overzealous. We have therefore withdrawn our Ambassador.

Notwithstanding that sanction, and as a show of good faith, we have given a “two thumbs down” rating to the perpetrator of the most recent offense against The Prophet Mohammed. See attached photograph. The United States therefore expects all film related festivities in the Middle East and Africa to cease being hosted on US soil.

To further encourage a return to normal relations, the President of the United States will issue an executive order banning showings of the movie “Zero Dark Thirty.” As you may know, this film documents the death of Osama bin-Laden. The rumor that President Obama’s Administration directly co-operated in the making of that film must be stopped.

Below you will find reporting indicating that the American people fully support our initiatives.

Yours Truly,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of Statism

Alleged ‘Innocence of Muslims’ filmmaker taken in for interview

Pay No Attention to the Burning Flags, Stormed Consulates, and Dead Americans . . .
By Victor Davis Hanson

Raging crowds and Islamic wrath could not possibly be connected to the enlightened Obama administration or, more generally to a U.S. that has been “reset” on his watch — given the three years of laborious Muslim outreach and the long-ago departure of George Bush. So we are to think away all those burning flags, stormed consulates, and dead Americans, and instead remember that the violence “is a response,” a sort of cry of the heart against a couple of America-residing video makers — and has nothing much to do with any anger at well-meaning Americans per se.

The Unofficial Campaign’s Latest Disinformation Offensive
Paul A. Rahe

The American people cannot be allowed to discover that Barack Obama’s policy of appeasement has persuaded our enemies that we are weak and feckless and has elicited aggression on their part. Nor can they be allowed to learn that Hillary Clinton and our minions have been grossly negligent with regard to the security of our embassies, consulates, and other installations in the larger Muslim world. Instead, we must ignore the spirit of the First Amendment and vent our wrath on an inept Coptic Christian immigrant from Egypt.

Can’t we all just get along?

Sometimes all of us but CAIR can.

Extreme leftwing Bill Maher and rightwing Rep. Allen West agree on the seriousness of some Marines urinating on enemy bodies:

Maher, “If they were real Taliban, if they were people who burn down girls’ schools you know, and do honor rapes, threw acid in people’s faces, I’m not that upset about pissing on them, dead or alive.”

West, “The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

At least we didn’t waterboard the remains.

GZM

Let me summarize my understanding of the argument in favor of the 13 story mosque proposed to be built at ground zero: “We need to let the taqiyya vanguard build it so that we may show their barbarian confreres the beauty of a democratic republic observing freedom of religion and the rule of law. We’re BETTER than they are!”

Taken at face value, this is not a conciliatory message. Taken seriously, it is an appeasement. However they intend it, this argument is presented by American politicians like New York Mayor Bloomberg, by American publications such as the New York Times, and by many other of our President’s fellow travelers who cheered his momentary approval of the GZM.

Even so, thoughtful Americans feel conflicted about the Ground Zero Mosque. For them, there is a tension between the Founding principle: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and our knowledge that adherents of a particular religion attacked us because of their beliefs. We can be sure the 9/11 murderers died with their God’s name on their lips.

Our problem:

  1. We recognize that interference in religious matters is tyranny.
  2. We don’t want a 13 story mosque built where 3,000 people died at the hands of Muslims.

The unease I feel starts with the fact that this mosque is sufficiently ostentatious to be seen as a victory monument. And that interpretation is consistent with the practices of Islamic conquerors over the ages.

The Great Mosque of Cordoba, Spain, is a symbol of the golden age of Islam. It began as a Christian church, became a mosque upon the Muslim conquest of Spain, and is now a Catholic cathedral. The history of these conversions appears to be gradual and gentle, but that is not the point I think is being emphasized in the Manhattan naming: “The Cordoba Center.” I fear the audience for this brand is outside the United States, and that they are inimical to the United States.

My disquiet is reinforced by comments made by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the GZM promoter, that “Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common,” and by his advocacy of “plural jurisdiction” – meaning enclaves of sharia – in Great Britain.

And that brings us to this point: Islam is not merely a religion. It is a theocracy. Morality from the State clerics. Law from the State clerics. Practices of worship from the State clerics. Islam does not render unto Caesar. It IS Caesar.

It is a political and legal system driven by mysticism. Precisely the thing our First Amendment was intended to prevent.

If the mystical bit of Islam conformed to the understanding that a just government has neither the power to decree religious belief, nor the ability to enforce religious law, then I would find the GZM unobjectionable; but the melding of political imperative with religious zealotry must cause us to think again about tolerating the proposed insult. I repeat, a 13 story mosque on Ground Zero is not a reaching out.

Islam cannot be understood except as a theocratic state, with sharia as its law – given by clerics at their whim. Freely elected representatives are not part of the equation.

If Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to reach out, let him build a modest, apologetic structure – not a triumphalist one. I’m good if he names it the Atonement Center and limits it to 2 stories.  That would show Imam Rauf gets the difference between the phrases “hallowed ground” and “the 9/11 debris field.”

Alternately, he could start lobbying for a one room multi-faith prayer site in Mecca. THAT would really be reaching out.