by Nonie Darwish
…Our culture’s suppression of speech is severely detrimental to the future of this country, which is on its way to embracing Sharia as just another set of laws that must be respected, since, as we are taught, all cultures and religions are equal.
It is high time for American leftist feminists to acknowledge the truth about Islamic oppression of women. Kidnapping of girls, sexual slavery, female genital mutilation, wife beating, legal discrimination against women in the courtroom and other forms of oppression of women, must never be tolerated under the excuse of cultural relativism.
The same leftists who ignore Islamic Sharia tyranny are also the ones who support anti-Semitism also spreading on college campuses. The offensive annual Israel Apartheid Week must end, otherwise pro-Israel students must be free to invite speakers to counter the anti-Israel propaganda.
Just in the last month, I was cancelled twice after being invited to speak on college campuses due to intimidation by leftists and Islamic groups. Muslim radical groups brag about our cancellation like a badge of honor, the same way the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt brags about silencing the opposition. Suppression of speakers who expose the atrocities of Islamic law has become a shameful chronic condition on American campuses. It is true that Sharia forbids the criticism of Islam, but we should never forget that the US Constitution does not.
The situation in America today is upside down, where we see the American Left tolerating Islamic intolerance and protecting Islam’s dirty little secrets from coming to light. We are not doing Muslims and Islam a favor with this cover-up and appeasement. Blatant atrocities against women by Muslims around the world must be exposed and rejected.
It is time for the West to condemn Islamic Sharia law by name.
Death Of Truth: An imam objects to a film set to be shown at the National September 11 Memorial Museum because it might make people believe radical Islam was involved in the terrorist attacks. We’re not making this up.
It has been said that the first casualty of war is truth. And in this age of political correctness, the war on terrorism — described by this administration as either over or merely a series of overseas contingency operations in response to man-caused disasters — is a classic example.
The lone imam on an interfaith advisory group to the National September 11 Memorial Museum, set to open May 21, has quit in protest of a seven-minute documentary narrated by NBC anchor and noted right-wing extremist Brian Williams because it might give low-information viewers the impression that the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked America and killed 3,000 people were, dare we say it, Muslims.
“The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director.
“Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between al-Qaida and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”
We understand the difference and have often stated the truth that while, obviously, only a fringe few Muslims are actually terrorists, all the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims dedicated to Islamic jihad. But the words the imam would strike from the film, titled “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” would be like producing a film on Pearl Harbor and World War II without mentioning Japan and events such as the Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking.
As blogger Pamela Geller puts it, it is not we who associate Muslims with 9/11, it is the 9/11 jihadists themselves who associate their religion with what they did. The last letters left by the 19 Muslim terrorists said the attack was in the cause of Islam and cited Allah 90 times.
Those who seek to airbrush this terrorist attack — just as President Obama airbrushed the Fort Hood massacre by an Islamic jihadist, calling it “workplace violence” — include Rev. Chloe Breyer of the Interfaith Center of New York and daughter of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. She says the documentary should show Islam as a “peace-loving religion” and demonstrate that Muslims understand “jihad” as “the ability to wage the struggle to do good.”…
by ANDREW E. HARROD
Unfortunately, Pintak’s remedy to this problem, the online guide “Islam for Journalists” edited by Pintak, betrays an absurdly benign understanding of an Islam whose apparent only fault is being slandered by others.
“Across the Muslim world today,” Pintak’s introduction notes, “extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen…can be just as lethal.”
The 2012 “lewd cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” in the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, for example, receive Pintak’s censure while, like many journalists today, he uncritically applies the honorific “Prophet” to Islam’s founder. Charlie Hebdo’s editor had condemned the weapons used in violent reactions to the anti-Muhammad “Innocence of Muslims” internet movie trailer preceding his cartoons. Yet the “weapon he controlled can do far more damage,” Pintak warned in equating speech with the violent reactions of others, then “evident in the conflagration…erupting across the Muslim world.”
Screenshot of the “Innocence of Muslims” portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot)
“A commitment to press freedom is in my blood,” Pintak qualified against suspicions of censorship. Yet speaking of the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons and their violent response, Pintak showed sympathy for those who refused their publication.
“[M]any Muslim journalists,” Pintak related in denying these “Motoons” any news value, “simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right. Yet “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon” but rather “to inform, not inflame; to understand, not distort,” in contrast to “propaganda.”
The Danish cartoons exhibited “in our increasingly interconnected world,” writer Jonathan Lyons similarly relativized, “a number of central issues.” These included the “proper extent of press freedoms; minority rights; the shifting landscape of blasphemy laws and prohibitions; and the history of Muslim grievance toward the West.”
Rather than criticize Muslim rioters, Lyons complained that “almost no one reported on…the Danish media and its supporters as cynical provocateurs motivated by domestic political concerns.”
Beyond free speech controversies, “Islam for Journalists” favored Islam with numerous biased and false statements.
After discussing how Islam “roughly translates as ‘surrender’ or ‘submission’…to the will of Allah,” Pintak noted that Muhammad in Islam, “although he is not divine, he is considered ‘the Perfect Man.'”…
by Robert Spencer
Brandeis University had planned to award an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali at its commencement ceremony this year, but after a smear campaign led by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic supremacist groups, on Tuesday the university issued a statement announcing the predictable result: the honorary degree would not be given.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brandeis assured the world, “is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world.” However, as compelling as Brandeis may have considered that work, ultimately it didn’t matter: “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values. For all concerned, we regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier.”
The Brandeis statement did not mention CAIR, and probably university administrators are unaware of its Hamas ties or its record of opposing any and all counter-terror efforts. Nor did the statement specify exactly what in Hirsi Ali’s past statements was “inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” CAIR, however, did so in its press release (also issued Tuesday; Brandeis snapped into line quickly) which quoted Hirsi Ali from a 2007 interview saying: “I think that we are at war with Islam.”
Ironically, CAIR spokesmen have said the same thing: “The new perception is that the United States has entered a war with Islam itself,” said then-CAIR Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed in July 2007. The only difference is that Hirsi Ali and CAIR are on opposite sides of this war. Is it unacceptable at Brandeis, a contradiction of its core values, to oppose the global jihad? Apparently so.
In the same interview, Hirsi Ali also called for the closing of Islamic schools in the United States. While that is indeed a severe and questionable recommendation, it should be remembered that Ayaan Hirsi Ali attended Islamic schools in her native Somalia. She no doubt also has seen the reports from all over the world showing hatred and violence being taught in all too many Islamic schools. In that same interview she said: “Asking whether radical preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it’s an attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn’t allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys—I would say in order to preservecivil liberties, don’t allow such schools.”
Is calling for the schools that teach hatred and contempt of an entire group of people against the core values of Brandeis University? Apparently it is….