Translate

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

TEN TRUTHS ABOUT HIJAB~"DIVERSITY" SHOULD INCLUDE MUSLIMAS WHO REBEL AGAINST THE HIJAB

TEN TRUTHS ABOUT HIJAB~"DIVERSITY" SHOULD INCLUDE MUSLIMAS WHO REBEL AGAINST THE HIJAB
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272630/ten-truths-about-hijab-danusha-v-goskarepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In a city I cannot name, on a date I cannot specify, an anonymous woman and I embarked on a risky drive to an institution whose address I cannot disclose. "Aisha" and I had eaten, gabbed, laughed, worked and dreamed together. I had met her family. They were lovely people. They planned to kill her. She had violated their Islamic expectations. Thus our drive to a remote safe house. In the United States. In the twentieth century.
In January, 2019, after Ilhan Omar [pictured above] was sworn in as a new congresswoman, my liberal Facebook friends celebrated her and Rashida Tlaib. They made three false claims: "First refugee elected to Congress! First Palestinian! We celebrate diversity!"
No, Omar was not the first refugee elected to Congress. Jewish refugees, and refugees from Communism preceded her.
No, Tlaib was not the first Palestinian. Justin Amash, a male, Christian Republican, was. Newly sworn-in Donna Shalala, like Tlaib, is an Arab. She is a Catholic who supports Israel. None of the memes celebrating Tlaib celebrated Shalala or Amash. 
The third lie is that celebrations of Omar and Tlaib were celebrations of diversity. At the same time that liberals were elevating Tlaib and Omar to meme stardom, they were maintaining complete radio silence about a story that was rocking the world. Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun is a Saudi teenager who, in early January, 2019, escaped from her family and was granted asylum in Canada. Alqunun described beatings, captivity, and the threat of death for abandoning Islam. She insisted that her case was not unique, and that women in Saudi Arabia "are treated like slaves."
Also in January, 2019, the New York Times brought attention to Loujain al-Hathloul, who has "worked relentlessly to earn Saudi women the right to drive." For her efforts, al-Hathloul has been tortured, water-boarded, and threatened with, and possibly, raped.
Narges Mohammadi and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe are imprisoned in Iran for their human rights activism. In January, Mohammadi and Zaghari-Ratcliffe began a hunger strike. Iranian women activists like Masih Alinejad may be close to ending compulsory hijab. They've been protesting for decades. My liberal friends have never, as far as I know, mentioned any of these women.
If we pull the focus back and look at Arab and Muslim-born-and-raised women liberals don't celebrate, we find Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Anni Cyrus, Sarah Haider, and Rifqa Bary. Islam's defenders have not only not celebrated these women, some have made death threats against them, and liberal allies have prevented them from speaking publicly (see here and here). Hirsi Ali's enemies prostitute otherwise honorable liberal causes to smear her and to guarantee that she will continue to require round-the-clock armed guards for the rest of her life. They accuse Hirsi Ali of being part of "patriarchy, misogyny, and white supremacy" guilty of "wars, invasion, and genocide" and associating with "white nationalists and far-right politicians" and "colonizers." Finally, she is "not progressive." Liberals have participated in the smearing of the Muslim-born-and-raised women mentioned above, and helped to ensure that these women and their allies, on university campuses and in much media, are non-persons. This is not diversity. It is totalitarian uniformity maintained by the threat of violence. Celebration of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib was no celebration of diversity. It was a selective celebration of two women who align with anti-American, anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Ilhan Omar demanded that US law be changed so that she could wear hijab in Congress. Nancy Pelosi proposed the demanded rule change, in order to "ensure religious expression." Liberals celebrated, the very same liberals who denounced Mitt Romney as a misogynist because, when asked how he would find female candidates for his cabinet, he replied, awkwardly but innocently, that he had "binders full of women." I asked my liberal friends why they celebrated Congress's first hijab. I received no answers. I thought of Aisha. I wondered if they know the following.
1.) Hateful stereotypes are deployed to prevent discussion of hijab.
It's hard to talk about hijab. Stereotypes get in the way. Not stereotypes of Muslims. Stereotypes of non-Muslims. "You bigoted, racist, intolerant Americans are not allowed to talk about hjiab because you are all Islamophobes who want to harm me."
Above a July 1, 2018 Vice article alleging that non-Muslims are violent thugs frothing at the mouth to destroy innocent Muslim lives, Vice ran an image of a sweet and lovely hijabi surrounded by evil, Islamophobic assailants. Nasty Americans and Brits ram their grocery carts into pregnant Muslim women's bellies; they push hijabis in front of oncoming trains.
All decent people condemn real hate crimes. At the same time, one must be mindful of faked hate crimes. See hereherehereherehere, and here. These crimes were faked to silence any discussion of gender apartheid. One can condemn hate crimes against Muslims and at the same time condemn crimes committed against Muslim women in the name of Islam.
Masih Alinejad, Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun, my friend Aisha, and the unknown others like her with no access to safe houses: we speak not for these Muslim women, but with them, Muslim women whom too many choose to erase in the name of political correctness.
2.) Honest discussion of hijab does not equal an attack on Muslim women.
Not all hijabis support compulsory hijab. The My Stealthy Freedom Facebook page features images of hijabis holding signs protesting compulsory hijab. On January 31, 2018, Tarek Fatah shared an incredibly poignant video. A short, stooped Iranian woman, slowed and bent by time, climbed up a small platform in a snowy landscape. Once on the platform, she removed her hijab, wrapped it around her cane, and waved it. She was imitating the image of Vida Movahed, aka "The Girl of Enghelab Street," who gained fame through a viral photo of an anti-compulsory-hijab protest. Movahed was later imprisoned. Prison guards in Iran are alleged routinely to rape imprisoned activists. Those who oppose free speech about hijab want to force this choice on us: love Muslim women or hate Muslim women. Their choice is false. The choice is between freedom and totalitarianism. We who support freedom love Muslim women. We support free speech about hijab.
3.) Islam's canonical documents define hijab as the establishment of two tiers of women, one superior, to be safe from sexual molestation, one inferior and subject to sexual molestation.
No doubt my friends who celebrated Omar see hijab as just another lifestyle choice. Their tolerant celebration of Omar's hijab, they believe, will be reciprocated by Omar's tolerance of their choices in attire – jeans and t-shirts, say.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid is an Egyptian-born, Arabic speaking, former member of an Islamist terrorist group. In his book Inside JihadDr. Hamid quotes the Koran and authoritative interpretations of it. He states that hijab's purpose "is not modesty or to encourage observers to focus on a Muslim woman's personality. Its purpose, according to the most authentic hadiths and interpretations, is to create a society where superior free Muslim women are distinguished from inferior slave women … The hijab … encourages hatred for non-Muslim women who wear modern clothing."
When Americans like Laura Bush and Nancy Pelosi wear hijab, Dr. Hamid writes, "The women seem to be operating under the false belief that the hijab is a neutral – or merely traditional – fashion statement … But the hijab is not simply a clothing accessory. It harbors deep Islamic doctrinal connections to slavery and discrimination. Western women who cover themselves are unwittingly endorsing an inhumane system."
Dr. Hamid goes on to say that when he was an Islamist, he and his fellows despised women without hijab, and cursed them to eternal hellfire. They based this belief on the hadith that says, "The denizens of Hell … [include] the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked," that is, women without hijab.
Hamid cites Koran 33:59, that is interpreted as dividing women into two classes: Muslim hijabis who are not enslaved, and who deserve respect from men, and non-Muslim women who don't wear hijab. These enslaved kufars are acceptable as sexual prey for Muslim men. "The hijab … creates a feeling of superiority among the women who wear it (and their men)." Hamid cites Tafsir ibn Kathir, that interprets Koran 33:59 thus, as Hamid puts it: a hijabi would be safe from sexual harassment, "if a woman was seen without a veil, they marked her as a slave girl and could rape her without guilt … most Islamic authorities and scholars affirm this purpose of the hijab." Hamid goes on to quote various hadiths that support the above interpretation of Koran 33:59.
The dichotomy of superior hijabis = respectable / inferior non-hijabis = sex slaves is not of the ancient past. Modern Islamic websites reinforce it with scripture and interpretation "The respectable women should not look like the slave-girls from their dress when they move out of their houses, with uncovered faces and loose hair;" "the people may know that they are not promiscuous women," non-hijabis are "women of ill repute from whom some wicked person could cherish evil hopes," reports Islamic Studies Info, quoting canonical scholars. "The hijab must not resemble the garments of the kuffar," that is, non-Muslims, counsels the University of Essex Islamic Society.
4.) Hijab covers uniquely feminine evil.
Think about two features of Muslim culture that non-Muslims find it difficult to believe, never mind understand: honor killings and female genital mutilation. All three: honor killings, FGM, and hijab are linked by the same logic.
It is difficult to obtain accurate statistics on honor killings. The UN estimates that thousands occur every year, the vast majority among Muslims. In a typical honor killing, a girl is raped and her family kills her. Daniel Akbari, an Iranian-born lawyer and expert in sharia law, writes that honor killings are not random events, and honor killers are not lone wolves, acting on passion outside of society. Rather, in his book, Honor Killing: A Professional's Guide, Akbari argues that honor killings are not just condoned, but are demanded by Islamic understandings of women.
Honor killers are often not brought to trial. If they are, sentences have often been lenient. As some courts, under international pressure, have become more strict, killers have found new approaches. One approach might be called "honor suicide." The family informs the prospective victim that she must end her life. In 2006, a 17-year-old Turkish girl received a text to her phone from her uncle. He instructed her to kill herself. Some girls are locked in rooms with rat poison, a pistol, or a rope. Another approach is to assign the task to the youngest male in the family, on the assumption that courts are less willing to sentence young boys to lengthy prison terms. Families may be reluctant to kill, but the surrounding community's "social pressure and incessant gossip" drive them to do it.
Not just families, but entire polities acting on sharia law punish women for being victims of sexual assault. In October, 2008, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, a 13-year-old Somali girl, was stoned to death for being raped by three armed men. A nineteen-year-old Saudi girl was raped fourteen times by seven men. In 2007, she was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail. "Up to 80 per cent of women in Pakistan's jails are charged under rules that penalize rape victims. But hardliners have vetoed an end to the Islamic laws," Dan McDougall wrote in 2006.
Female genital mutilation is practiced by some, but not all, Muslims in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, India, and Southeast Asia. Various Islamic scriptures support FGM. The process, which ranges from nicks to the clitoris to its complete excision, and removal of labia and sewing up of a female's external genital opening, astounds non-Muslims.
Approximately ninety percent of women in Egypt have undergone FGM. Egyptian physician Dr. Nawal El Saadawi described her own FGM in her book, The Hidden Face of Eve. She was six years old, in bed, when unknown persons broke into her room, grabbed her, threw her on a bathroom floor, spread her thighs apart, and mutilated her. The pain "was like a searing flame that went through my whole body … I saw a red pool of blood around my hips. I did not know what they had cut off from my body … I called out to my mother for help." Little Nawal tried to summon her mother to rescue her from these fiends; she was horrified to recognize her mother among them. Later, Nawal saw them mutilate her four-year-old sister. "Now we know what it is. Now we know where lies our tragedy. We were born of a special sex, the female sex. We are destined in advance to taste of misery, and to have a part of our body torn away by cold, unfeeling cruel hands."
Research shows that "religious justification is held to be the strongest argument in favor of FGM." In other words, people practice FGM because they believe that their religion, Islam, demands it. Communities support FGM by stigmatizing women who have intact genitalia. Hirsi Ali reports that in her native Somalia's madrassahs, "kinterleey," "girl with a clitoris," is a standard insult. "Severe stigmatization of girls and women who have not undergone FGM are well in place." Any effort to stamp out FGM should focus on convincing Muslims clerics that FGM damages "reproductive health." Note that this World Health Organization publication does not recommend that Muslim clerics be encouraged to consider how FGM hurts women and girls – only how it hurts potential breeders.
Non-Muslims are confused. How could a father murder his own daughter? How could a mother participate in the mutilation of her daughter?
The answer may be found in one of the justifications for hijab. The sight of women causes men to sin. Women are required to disguise themselves. In the logic of hijab, women caused the rapist to rape. She should have covered herself.
Recently, a Muslim preacher described a Muslima who went out in public in a jilbab, that is a long, loose coat, but allowed her face and her high-heeled shoes to be visible. This exposure, he insisted, "tortured" men, because the sight of her face and her shoes forced those men to think about sex – "even though he didn't want to…he has to struggle with himself not to look at this woman."  "All this would be in the book of deeds for this sister." Allah "would give her a double portion of punishment" in the fires of hell for the thoughts that the men thought when they saw her face and shoes. "She is making these men seduced." "She is purchasing a ticket for Jahannam," or hell.
Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, the Grand Mufti of Australia and New Zealand, preached in a 2006 Ramadan sermon that Australian women raped by Muslim rape gangs are responsible for the rapes. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street … and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? … The uncovered meat is the problem. … If she was in her room in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred … the responsibility falls ninety per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement."
During the New Year's celebrations of 2015/16, thousands of women and girls throughout Western Europe were sexually assaulted by Muslim men. A Cologne imam, Sami Abu-Yusuf, said that the sexually assaulted women were the guilty parties. "If they're half-naked and wearing perfume, it's not surprising that such things would happen ... It's not surprising that the men attacked them. Dressing up like that is like pouring oil into the fire."
In citing perfume, the cleric echoes Mohammed himself, who said, "She is an adulteress, as she provokes the lusts of men with her perfume and compels them and whoever else to look at her." Note the word "compel." She, the woman, is responsible for men's behavior. She forced men to sin by wearing perfume. These are not ancient ideas; they are the foundation of sharia law. Men, on the other hand, are allowed to wear strong scents.
Even little girls possess the weapon of enticement. In Iran, compulsory hijab begins at age 7. Hashim Almidini, an Iraqi-born Australian, featured a hijab tutorial created by an Australian cleric using his little daughter as a model. The silent, shamed daughter appears to be six years old. The cleric, though living in Australia, says that Western culture, lead by Satan, is "invading" Muslims. "Western norms" are Satan's tool. Hijab is the key battleground between Muslims and hell. The cleric blasts his daughter for showing her neck, her earlobes, and her sock-less ankles.
In January, 2019 news broke of a Malaysian textbook that warns nine-year-old girls to wear hijab to protect the "modesty of their genitals" lest they be sexually assaulted, rejected by their friends, and bring shame onto their families. The textbook includes an image of a young girl seated in a chair, her head in her hands as she slumps in shame. Azrul Mohd Kalib posted this image from the textbook on twitter, and commented, "Not only does this put the responsibility of preventing sexual harassment solely on the shoulders of a girl, it also implies that she had it coming!" She had it coming: that's the whole idea.
5.) In the logic of hijab, women without hijab are begging to be sexually assaulted.
If wearing hijab communicates that a woman is virtuous, godly, and chaste, lack of hijab communicates that a woman is begging to be sexually assaulted. Egyptian-born Dina Torkia is a successful Muslima fashion and beauty blogger. She lives in the UK with her Pakistani husband. In late 2018, she stopped wearing hijab. On January 1, 2019, she posted a video of herself reading social media messages she received in response to her decision. Reading the messages took forty-eight minutes. Again and again, one theme repeats: she removed hijab because she wants to be sexually assaulted. "Dina didn't get banged enough when she was young. Now she's opening up sexually." "U took the hijab off next time sure would be cock riding or a porn star," "YOU ARE A HOE," "The choice you made is welcoming you to the cock carousel, slut."
Samin, an Iranian activist, created an animation to support those resisting compulsory hijab. "Girls are forced to be liars … you censor yourself when you put it on" but, "If you don't wear hijab, they think you are a whore."
Mostly Muslim grooming gangs have been raping, torturing, and sexually enslaving British girls for several decades. One asks how grown men, husbands and fathers themselves, could commit such hideous crimes against little girls, some of whom they killed. Daniel Akbari explains. "For their entire lives these men have been taught that the women who do not wear a hijab and show skin are like whores … They also assume that only Muslim women who follow sharia rules for women’s dress and conduct, wear a hijab, lower their gaze, do not laugh or eat in public, and do not go out of the house without their unmarriageable kin men escorting them deserve respect."
Indeed, a girl who was abused by a grooming gang said that hijab was used as justification for their abuse of her. "As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over one hundred times. I was called a 'white slag' and 'white c- - -' as they beat me. They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress 'modestly', that they believed I deserved to be 'punished'."
6.) Hijab limits women's entire lives, not just what they wear.
Islam demands that "hijab of the clothes should be accompanied by hijab of the eyes, hijab of the heart, hijab of thought and hijab of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he/she behaves, etc."
Many Muslims interpret hijab as including the command that women not leave their homes. Koran 33:33 commands, "stay in your homes and do not go about displaying your allurements." Islamic Studies Info teaches, "woman’s real sphere of activity is her home … she should come out of the house only in case of a genuine need."
In her book, In the Land of the Blue Burkas, author Kate McCord describes her life lived in intimate contact with Afghan women who wear sky-blue burqas that cover them from head to foot. Afghanistan is frequently cited as one of the worst countries on earth to be a woman. The suicide rate for women is shockingly high. Some families raise their daughters as sons, until puberty forces them to assume female roles. And, of course, some desperate boys are groomed to be girls, to serve as male prostitutes.
One Afghan woman described to McCord why she would not dare to sing, even within the confines of her own home, surrounded not only by the house walls, but also courtyard walls. "'If a woman sings and a man hears her, he will think her voice is beautiful and will lust after her. Maybe he will be on the street separated by the wall or in a neighbor's aouli [courtyard]. Maybe he will never see the woman who sings, but he hears her voice. If that happens, he will want her. The sin is hers. She will be punished. That's why a woman should never sing, even in her own aouli.' The women in that gathering agreed unanimously. It's a great sin for a woman to allow a man to hear her sing."
The conviction that women's voices engender sin is not a "long ago, far away" concept. Modern Muslims living in the West discuss, online, the female voice as a source of fitna. Linda Sarsour's voice is allowed to be heard only as long as she is bashing the kufar. Were Sarsour's voice ever used to support the White Wednesday activists in Iran, or potential victims of honor killings, Sarsour would face the same death threats as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
7.) Many Muslims understand hijab's secondary function as proselytizing for Islam.
Hijab is assessed as an effective way to carry out the Allah-given mission: to spread Islam to all people until no deity is worshipped save Allah (al-Bukhari 8:387). Islam is spread through jihad, but also through "da'wah," or proselytizing. In the article aptly titled, "Hijab Activism," Shaema Imam writes that, "With Hijab, every public moment becomes Dawa." Clothing is used "to demonstrate what groups they belong to … The Ummah must cultivate a distinct identity."
In her article, "The Hijab as Da'wah," Dr. Aisha Hamdan writes, "Many scholars agree that the only reason a Muslim may live in a non-Muslim country is to conduct dawah and bring people to the true religion … In America, where Islam is the fastest growing religion (alhumdullilah), many people are coming to know what this head covering really signifies … The hijab, in effect, is an amazingly powerful tool for dawah … Once a woman begins to wear hijab she completes a large portion of her responsibility for dawah … Each time that she goes to the grocery store, the library, to work, to school, or to any other public place, she is spreading the magnificent message of Islam." One must do this because non-Muslims "are being deluded by Satan and following paths to destruction."
A recent convert to Islam wrote that hijabis "are a walking billboard for your religion … You could be helping open someone's mind to submitting."
In a March 8, 2018 post asking, "Why do Muslim Women Actually Wear the Hijab?" Saulat Pervez wrote, "Conspicuous in their head-coverings, these women have become ambassadors of the Islamic faith."
Misbah Awan wrote in the Huffington Post that "wearing the hijab is a form of dawah … They are targeting … especially youth … It helps to avoid linking Muslims with 9/11 and terrorism. It provides a way of bringing light and warm-hearted thoughts into young minds."
8.) Hijab is kept in place with violence, terror, and intimidation.
Many hijabis insist, stridently, that they don't need to be liberated by anyone, and that hijab is their personal choice. This is no doubt true. What is also true is that hijab is kept in place through violence, terror, and intimidation. No one can ever know if any given hijabi is a hijabi because of her own choice.
Hijab is mandated by law in Saudi Arabia and Iran. In other countries, hijab is kept in place with varying degrees of social pressure, always culminating in death. In Egypt, street harassment of women is routine. In Iran, there have been numerous acid attacks in the midst of calls for punishment of "badly veiled" women.
Aqsa Parvez's father killed her over hijab in Canada in 2007. She was sixteen. Bina, a 21-year-old wife, mother, and Iranian immigrant to Sweden, was killed in 2016 by her husband because she stopped wearing hijab. "'He thought that other people were making fun of him – it was a matter of honor,' said a close friend … a family member said, 'We came here far from oppression, but some people have difficulty living freely.' After he murdered her, Bina’s husband put a hijab on her face and neck." In 2017, a fifteen-year-old Iraqi victim of an honor killing was beheaded. A hijab was wrapped around her decapitated head, which had been thrown into a garbage can.  
Turkish-born, 23-year-old Hatun Surucu, the mother of a little boy, once in Berlin, Germany, "discarded her Islamic head scarf." To her family, "such behavior represented the ultimate shame – the embrace of 'corrupt' Western ways." Hatun was murdered by family members who conspired in her murder, and who said of her, "The whore lived like a German." Her youngest brother, 18, bragged of the murder.
In 2009, in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Mohammad Shafia murdered his three daughters Zainab, Sahar, Geeti – all teens – and Rona, one of his wives. As Michael Friscolanti put it, "the Shafia sisters were caught in the ultimate culture clash, living in Canada but not allowed to be Canadian. They were expected to behave like good Muslim daughters, to wear the hijab and marry a fellow Afghan. And when they rebelled against their father’s 'traditions' and 'customs' – covertly at first, then for all the community to see – the shame became too much to bear. Only a mass execution … could wash away the stain of their secret boyfriends and revealing clothes."
All of these murders, and thousands of others like them, are part of a cultural pattern: honor killings justified with reference to a woman's refusal to wear hijab. For every such honor killing that occurs, there are millions that never happen, but that are hinted at to rebellious daughters, sisters, and wives. You don't want to end up like so-and-so.
9.) Hijab is not intended to, nor does it, create a worldview where women's individuality is valued apart from their physical attractiveness, or where women are seen as anything other than wives, mothers, and whores, all designed to please men, but capable of damning men.
In a January 7, 2016 Daily Show appearance, Muslim activist Dalia Moghed insisted that hijab teaches Muslim women to focus on their own individuality beyond their ability sexually to attract men. That is not the purpose for hijab stated in foundational scriptures. Koran 24:31 advises women wearing hijab not to allow their ornaments to make noise as they walk. That is, it is assumed that a woman in hijab is fully bejeweled underneath her cover. Anyone who has spent any time with hijabis knows that they enter the gender-mixed rooms of parties cloaked in shapeless black from head to foot, but once they are in the area reserved for women, they remove their hijabs to reveal that underneath they are dressed in fashions worthy of the hottest runway. At such parties, women dance competitively with and for other women. The dances are undeniably erotic. YouTube features endless tutorials for hijabis on how to look hot even in hijab. These videos have millions of eager fans who lavish praise on hot hijabi YouTube stars. See for example hereherehere, and here. Linda Sarsour, America's most famous hijabi, is never seen without a full face of makeup.
Hijab manufacturers do not market their products as promoting women's gender-free individuality, but rather as beautiful complements to their physical appearance. One hijab manufacturer says, "In order to build a world where women have beautiful options for every occasion, we’ve designed the standard of luxury for hijab. Crafted from the finest pure silk, tulle and lace opulently adorned with bespoke embellishments, this collection channels timeless elegance." Hijab customers praise their hijabs based on how attractive they are. "Navy is a color I always need with my floral dresses and patterned shirts," and "Beautiful color - Perfect for Fall/Winter!! It goes wonderfully with my dark skin tone and adds elegance to any outfit," and "Such a chic sophisticated color."
Too, Muslim men are quite capable of objectifying women in complete hijab. Dancers at Arab parties may be covered from head to foot, but still required to perform what some call "Arab twerking," a dance that involves highly suggestive movements with the hips and buttocks. Women in full, state-mandated cover have been sexually harassed in Saudi Arabia, including by men who follow them on the street and grab their breasts, buttocks, and groin. Videos of this harassment has been posted to YouTube and sparked public discussion. The Mosque Me Too movement has generated hundreds of accounts of Muslimas being groped, fondled, and violated in the most sacred of spaces, including during the haj. One survivor wrote, "When I visited the Jama Masjid in Delhi, the man lending modest robes to women touched my breasts." Another, "I was ten years old and I thought my sister was gripping my hips as not to lose me in the huge crowd after jumaa prayer. But my sister was next to me and those turned out not to be my sister's hands." Another, "It's a terrible situation when you are in a mosque, in front of the kaaba, where you should feel the closest to God, and the worst thing happens."
Hijab has not solved the problem of the sexual objectification and exploitation of women. It was not designed to.
10.) Hijab's defenders deploy cultural relativism selectively and inaccurately to shield hijab from critique.
"It's just like a nun's habit," they say. No, it's not. Any given nun, from any era, violates several of the criteria for hijab. One can see her face and her hands, one can discern the outline of her form, and one can not only hear her voice, but her voice steers her church. Hildegard von Bingen, Teresa of Avila, Mothers Teresa and Angelica, and Wendy Beckett clearly did not obey hijab's dictates about remaining silently at home, submissive to their earthly spouse. Too, there is no Catholic analog to acid attacks to force women to become nuns.
"It's just a piece of cloth," they say. The Confederate flag is also just a piece of cloth. We must bring the same awareness, honesty, and courage to discussion of hijab that we bring to discussion of the Confederate flag. This discussion is not Islamophobic, any more than discussion of the Confederate flag is "Confederacy-phobic." I speak not for, but with, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, and my beloved friend Aisha, who, in spite of the safe house that gave her temporary shelter, in the end, ended up losing so very much that she has never redeemed. The heartbreak – and love – I feel for this rebellious Muslima informs every word of this article. To my liberal friends I say, please expand your concept of "diversity" to include invisible, silenced women you will never meet –  the nameless fifteen-year-old Iraqi girl whose head, wrapped in a hijab, was tossed in a garbage can, Hatun Surucu, the Turkish mother whose relatives called her a whore, and my beloved friend Aisha.
* * *
Danusha Goska is the author of God through Binoculars
Danusha Goska is the author of Save Send DeleteBieganski, and God through Binoculars.

DAVID WOOD: NEW ZEALAND MOSQUE LEADER BLAMES JEWS FOR CHRISTCHURCH TERROR ATTACK~EX-MUSLIMS SILENCED


DAVID WOOD: NEW ZEALAND MOSQUE LEADER BLAMES JEWS FOR CHRISTCHURCH TERROR ATTACK 
Following the New Zealand mosque attacks in Christchurch, mosque leader Ahmed Bhamji claimed at the "Love Aotearoa, Hate Racism" rally that Mossad (Israel's national intelligence agency) was behind the NZ shooting, and that local Jewish businesses were funding terrorist Brenton Tarrant. Since Ahmed Bhamji is a prominent Muslim leader, and even hosted Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at his Masjid e Umar, shouldn't New Zealand Muslims and especially Prime Minister Ardern be publicly condemning Bhamji's statements?
David Wood discusses the issue.
PRIME MINISTER THANKS HIM

Ex-Muslims Silenced after New Zealand Mosque Attack 

(David Wood)

Following the New Zealand mosque attacks in Christchurch, critics of Islam are being blocked, banned, and de-platformed. For instance, ex-Muslim Armin Navabi, founder of Atheist Republic, recently had his talk at Mount Royal University in Calgary canceled due to complaints after the NZ shootings. Should universities be silencing critics of Islam? David Wood discusses the issue.
SEE ALSO:

THE INCREASING PRESENCE OF ISLAM IN THE WEST BRINGS MORE TERROR FROM BOTH MUSLIMS & NON-MUSLIMS

THE INCREASING PRESENCE OF ISLAM IN THE WEST BRINGS MORE TERROR FROM BOTH MUSLIMS 
& NON-MUSLIMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/the-increasing-presence-of-islam-in-the-west-brings-more-terror-from-both-muslims-and-non-muslimsrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
British authorities are still following leads to track down the source of the cluster of four or five London and Glasgow package bombs that were discovered in the first week of March 2019. A mysterious group calling itself the “New IRA” is reportedly claiming responsibility. That internationally-designated terrorist group has used that “NIRA” name since 2012, and has roots dating back to a split in 1997. The splinter group had rejected the IRA’s declared ceasefire.
But for what purpose were the bombs sent? What could anybody possibly be trying to achieve by this horrible tactic, other than to create terror among random, innocent people? Terror seems to be an irrational act. But it works. And so it continues to be be used as a tactic, precisely because it causes group behavioral modification within the society that it targets. And so then the more that we accommodate the ideology behind the terror, in our hopes to pacify it, the more the terror tactic becomes validated as an effective tool for the terrorist.
Random acts of terror like this are also a model by which Islam gains power. Sahih al-Bukhari (52:220) plainly declares that terror was used by Muhammad, precisely because he recognized it as a winning strategy: “ Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’. ” A daily glance at the Islamic world shows random bombings and killings, with no apparent purpose. Victims of such Islamic attacks tend to be random and are often dehumanized by the killers as “non-Muslim.” But whether random or targeted, the attacks only prove that killings and terror become part of the Islamic society package, wherever Muslims form a large presence.
In a way, it does not matter precisely that this new group of London attackers, or some others we have had to endure in recent years, are not Muslims. Attackers who use terror as a tool are now often anarchic Leftists, fringe separatists, or kooks. But what we can see is that the tactic of terror used by these groups is like an Islamic attack. And the Islamic attack model has been validated by Muslims for fourteen centuries, because Muhammad used it, and Quranic Allah approved it.
Adherents of any ideology that calls for destruction of the West, or for any minor political cause, will now terrorize and kill crowds of innocents, largely because Muslims before them have terrorized and killed in this random way. Muslims acting in jihad have set the bar of violence expectation lower in the West, for all kinds of sociopathic kooks to copy their methods.
Systemic violence in the Islamic world should warn us on face value that, the more Muslims we bring in from those places, the more jihadis and teachers of Islamic terror we will get among them. And at the same time, the more we accommodate Islam to try to pacify it, the more we validate its tool of terror as effective. And then also, the more copycat kooks we will get, who will more readily adopt the Islamic methods of setting off random, indiscriminate terror bombs and acts of slaughter.
The mass slaughter in Las Vegas was somewhat like that. The purpose, motive, influence and training have never been officially determined, even though Islamic State claimed credit for the operation as its own. But even if Stephen Paddock is never to be clearly linked to ISIS, the prior Islamic State and al Qaeda terror attacks established the concept for such a terrible attack, in its wanton randomness.
So Islam is a wide threat, because each one of its attacks serves as a model for any twisted people who want to do mass damage to our society, for any reason, or for no reason at all. The horrors that we have seen performed by Islamic State will be coming to America, by one group of evil killers or another.
Such random acts of terror may seem inexplicable. But in fact, there are two main ideologies that use such terror, with intent to destroy our society. Their shared goal, after they cause destruction of our society, is to bring conquest.
The first and oldest of those organized forces of destruction is Islam. It is a supremacist ideology of conquest that seeks to bring every person on Earth under its control, based on Quran commands and the “excellent example” that it claims in the life of Muhammad, a conquering warlord.
The second ideology of societal mass destruction is Marxism. That is a pseudo-religious doctrine of Leftist collectivism, whose counterpart to Muhammad is Karl Marx. His bizarre envisioning was of “New Man” communists who would run the means of production by an absence of profitable self-interest, to serve all people in a “final” form of future society. Those mythical humans would be satisfied to subordinate themselves to the needs of the collective. They would somehow come into being after the removal of concentrated private capital from power over control of production.
And to prepare the path for that “New Man” to emerge, Marx viciously attacked humanity’s religions, just as Muhammad had done to build his own ancient cult. Both men clearly recognized that popular faiths were competitive forces of spiritual defense against submission to the cult’s conquest. As total collectives by design, the cults demand submission from all people. But “non-believers” stand in the way. They must be terrorized into submission.
Marx first imagined that the emerging mass industrialization would simply sweep away the capitalists, and then would naturally leave production in the hands of his imaginary new kind of benevolent people. But history soon proved that nothing would sweep away capitalists, except by violent revolution. And so then, ever since mass slaughter was carried out by the Russian Revolution to create the first Communist state, the anarchist agents of Marxist collectivism have wielded terror as a tool.
These twin, pseudo-utopian ideologies share a key premise, which is their need to first take down the existing order of our society. They presume an ability to build their utopia on the wreckage, either bit by bit, or by total revolution. And so, agents of Islam and Marxism will keep trying to intimidate and terrify us. They need to make us feel fear and despair, so that we will cave into their control demands. They can also achieve much of that control without violence, whenever we become simply too passive.
From the Islamic Movement in this century, we have seen Muslims commit unspeakable horrors that were not previously well-known in modern history. In building terror armies, observant Muslims have been massively recruited and easily taught and led into slave-taking, torture and killing, by authoritative imams who have risen to power as respected scholars, with doctorate degrees in Islamic Studies, as graduates of the hundreds of Islamic universities.
In contemporary America and Europe, horrific mass attacks and stealth invasion in the cause of Islam have become standard tactics by the Islamic Movement in our recent decades. If left unchecked, in time, the enlarged and empowered Islamic presence in the West will bring yet higher levels of wreckage, that will begin to rival the atrocities that occur daily within the Islamic Middle East. The doctrine embedded as verses in Quran demands it.
Similarly, from the Marxist Collectivist Movement in the modern era, mass slaughters of tens of millions of subjugated people in far-away lands have been staggering.  But here at home, we have only begun to endure such terrors on a small scale, brought to us by the revolutionary Left. But they are persistent.
In the 1960s, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) plotted the revolutionary overthrow of America. David Horowitz was once a leading member of communist groups like that. Other terror groups like The Weathermen and The Weather Underground (led by later Obama-enablers, Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn) set off bombs in America.
In the 1970s, The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), a Marxist revolutionary movement, kidnapped billionaire heiress Patty Hearst, and robbed banks to fund their warfare against the system. The Black Panther Party openly carried weapons and engaged in open warfare with police.
In 2011 under Obama, Occupy Wall Street, later expanded as Occupy, caused street chaos which morphed into blocked freeways. In 2014, the Ferguson, Missouri riots set the model for Marxists to organize street chaos by the Left. They have since been followed by the emergence of Antifa, the New Black Panthers, and Black Lives Matter. Other kooks inspired by the Leftist revolutionary cause have assassinated police officers and used other violence to express their own societal hate.
If we fail to maintain vigilance to preserve our Judeo-Christian values and republican foundations, to preserve ethics of individual freedom and responsibility, and our right to earn profit and to skillfully employ our own capital wealth under fair rule by law, then these invasive ideological cancers will replace them.
It is critical that we expose these ideology movements as a dual menace. Otherwise, self-appointed terror agents of the control collectives will become more destructive in our society. Through pressure, force and terror, Islamic jihadis and collectivist Marxists will try to make us desire security above liberty, and to turn to them for control.

PENNSYLVANIA: MUSLIM LAWMAKER SAYS PRAYER IN THE NAME OF JESUS "REPRESENTED ISLAMOPHOBIA"

They Want to BAN Jesus From the Capitol
MUSLIM OFFENDED BY CHRISTIAN PRAYER IN HARRISBURG, PA
THE PRAYER:
PENNSYLVANIA: MUSLIM LAWMAKER SAYS PRAYER IN THE NAME OF JESUS "REPRESENTED ISLAMOPHOBIA" 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Rep. Stephanie Borowicz’s prayer may have been inappropriate in a setting in which not everyone present was Christian. We have, however, seen many imams say prayers at various legislative bodies that are not non-sectarian, but manifestly Islamic and even condemning of Jews and Christians, while the non-Muslim lawmakers stand with oblivious heads bowed. But “Islamophobic”? This illustrates how absurd charges of “Islamophobia” are, and how any manifestation of faith other than Islam is sometimes seen as offensive to Muslims, as we saw in Uganda in December. All these Democrats who are proclaiming their Christian faith but deploring Rep. Borowicz’s prayer should thus calm Movita Johnson-Harrell’s rage by converting to Islam and thus removing the source of her feelings of offense.
“Muslim Lawmaker Says Prayer in Name of Jesus is Islamophobic,” Todd Starnes, March 26, 2019:
Pennsylvania’s first female Muslim lawmaker in the General Assembly accused a Republican colleague of Islamophobia after she opened a legislative session with a prayer that invoked the name of Jesus Christ.
“Jesus, you are our only hope,” Rep. Stephanie Borowicz prayed. “At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus, that you are Lord.”
Movita Johnson-Harrell, who was sworn into office after the prayer, said the prayer was “highly offensive to me, my guests, and other members of the House.”
Borowicz delivered the prayer shortly before Movita Johnson-Harrell — the first Muslim woman elected to the General Assembly — was sworn in.
“It blatantly represented the Islamophobia that exists among some leaders — leaders that are supposed to represent the people,” Johnson-Harrell said in a statement published by the Pennsylvania Capital Star. “I came to the Capitol to help build bipartisanship and collaborations regardless of race or religion to enhance the quality of life for everyone in the Commonwealth.”
A number of Democrats, including House Minority Whip Jordan Harris, accused the freshman lawmaker of weaponizing her religion to “intimidate, demean and degrade” Johnson-Harrell.
“Let me be clear. I am a Christian. I spend my Sunday mornings in church worshiping and being thankful for all that I have,” Harris told PennLive.com. “But in no way does that mean I would flaunt my religion at those who worship differently than I do. There is no room in our Capitol building for actions such as this, and it’s incredibly disappointing that today’s opening prayer was so divisive.”
So this is the prayer that the Democrats considered to be demeaning, degrading and Islamophobic:
“Jesus, I thank you for this privilege Lord of letting me pray God. That, I, Jesus am your ambassador today. Standing here representing you – the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Great I Am, the One who is coming back again, the one who came, died and rose again on the third day. I’m so privileged to stand here today. So thank you for this honor, Jesus.
“God, for those that came before us like George Washington in Valley Forge and Abraham Lincoln who sought after you in Gettysburg and the Founding Fathers in Independence Hall – Jesus – that sought after you and fasted and prayed for this nation to be founded on your principles and your words and your truths.
“God forgive us. Jesus we’ve lost sight of you. We’ve forgotten you, God, in our country. And we are asking you to forgive us, Jesus. Your promise in your word says if my people who are called by name will humble themselves and pray and seek your face and turn from their wicked ways that you’ll heal our land. Jesus, you are our only hope.
“God , I pray for our leaders – Speaker Turzi, Leader Culter, Governor Wolf, President Trump. Lord, thank you that he stands beside Israel unequivocally Lord. Thank you that – Jesus – that we are blessed because we stand by Israel and we ask for the peace of Jerusalem as your word says God.
“We ask that we not be overcome by evil and that we overcome evil with good in this land once again. I claim all these things in the powerful, mighty name of Jesus, at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that you Jesus are lord. In Jesus name Amen.”
In other words, Borowicz prayed the way the Bible commands us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, for our elected leaders and in the name of Jesus.
But Pennsylvania Democrats were clearly triggered by the name of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Democrat Rep. Margo Davidson shouted “objection” near the end of the lawmaker’s prayer….
_____________________________________________________________ SEE ALSO: https://conservativepost.com/they-want-to-ban-jesus-from-the-capitol/  EXCERPT: House Minority Whip Jordan Harris, who insisted that he is a devout Christian, went so far as to suggest that “there is no room in our Capitol building” for so explicitly thanking and dedicating oneself to Jesus.

AND:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/pennsylvania-state-dems-call-christian-prayer-bigoted-applaud-quran-reading-at-state-house-session
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/04/pennsylvania-muslim-lawmaker-says-christian-prayer-was-meant-to-intentionally-harm-her

CANADA REJECTS ISRAEL'S NEEDS TO DEFEND ITSELF; DOES NOT RECOGNIZE ITS CONTROL OVER GOLAN HEIGHTS

CANADA REJECTS ISRAEL'S NEEDS TO DEFEND ITSELF; DOES NOT RECOGNIZE ITS CONTROL 
OVER GOLAN HEIGHTS 
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/canada-rejects-israels-needs-to-defend-itself-does-not-recognize-its-control-over-golan-heightsrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his visit to the White House witnessed President Trump sign a proclamation that the U.S. officially recognizes the Golan Heights as Israeli territory.
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed it in 1981. This was no different from the situation of many lands that were conquered in war. Israel must keep control over the Golan Heights for its survival.
As President Trump stated:
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability.
The Golan Heights is Syria’s “only land border with Israel” and has “occasionally been struck by missiles and other forms of fire from Syria in recent years, with Israel retaliating against Syrian and Iranian targets.” Ongoing threats from Syria, Iran and its proxy Hizballah also make it urgent that Israel maintains control over the Golan Heights.
Yet despite these facts, Canada issued a statement that it “does not recognize permanent Israeli control over the Golan Heights,” thus siding with the anti-Israel U.N. and abandoning Israel. In so doing, it is tacitly supporting jihadi interests while hiding behind its self-proclaimed adherence to “international law” as its justification for doing so.
In trying to appease supporters of Israel, Global Affairs added that Canada remains “a steadfast friend” of Israel, saying: “We stand with Israel and support Israel’s right to live in peace and security with its neighbors.” These words give the illusion of support, but standing with Israel means supporting it in its ability to defend itself from obliteration.
Government of Canada, “Statement on the Golan Heights,” Global Affairs Canada, March 25, 2019:
“In accordance with international law, Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over the Golan Heights. Canada’s long-standing position remains unchanged.
“Annexation of territory by force is prohibited under international law. Any declaration of a unilateral border change goes against the foundation of the rules-based international order.
“Canada is a steadfast friend of Israel. We stand with Israel and support Israel’s right to live in peace and security with its neighbours.”
______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:

TRUMP’S RECOGNITION OF ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY 

OVER GOLAN HEIGHTS