A Jihad Watch reader recently wrote: "My favorite example of Muslim ‘attitude’ was that of a young woman who had converted and started wearing appropriate hide-all clothing. She complained that people on the street related differently to her, in a less friendly manner."
But her new clothes were a sign. Those clothes said: I am not merely a Muslim, but a true-blue Believer. As a true-blue Believer, you may hold me to knowledge of, and submission to, the dictates of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. When, for example, the Qur'an tells me, as it tells all Believers, "do not take Christians and Jews as friends, for they are friends only with each other," I must obey, and not take them as friends. When I am told, as a Believer, that I must not to greet non-Muslims before they greet me (as a sign of their inferiority), I obey.
And my dress semaphores to the world that I obey. It further semaphores, that somber head-to-toe dress in which I now go about, that I willingly submit to Allah and his dictates, as expressed in the Qur'an and glossed by the Hadith and the Sira (for Muhammad is the central figure in Islam, far more present as an exemplary model than distant and whimsical Allah). That means that I agree to regard the key division in the world, the only one that really matters, as between Believers and Infidels, and am ready to participate, as my duty as a Muslim, in the struggle or Jihad to remove all barriers to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. I am ready to do that even if it means I must work to change beyond recognition the political and legal institutions of the Infidel nation-state in which I now happen to be living, and of which I now happen to be a citizen -- it hardly matters to a true Believer, for whom all Infidel nation-states are virtually fungible.
That is why you might, if you dress in a way that says I Am A Believer in a Total System that does not wish Infidels well, garner a few stares from Infidels. Would that the expressions of hostility went beyond that, to make it very difficult for those who wish to change for all time our legal and political institutions, so that they could be refused citizenship, or not allowed into the country in the first place -- or if natives, could be stripped of their citizenship if they swear allegiance not to a "foreign power" but to an ideology that, if it were to be believed and followed, would mean an end to the Constitution, an end to this young, bumptious, sometimes hopelessly naive and sentimental Republic.
The West is no place to raise a decent Muslim family. May it remain so forever: no place to raise a decent Muslim family, given what that, in the largest sense, implies or means. Those who in the West, free from constraints, societal and family (the Muslim family, backed up by the Muslim society and the Muslim state), shed Islam, and become apostates, or at least Muslims-for-identification-purposes Muslims, will find the West something to be embraced, its freedoms supported. However, those who remain real Muslims will not embrace the Infidels among whom, and the Infidel nation-state within which, they have managed to settle. They will work to chip away at those Infidel freedoms, even while exploiting some of them, in order to remove every barrier to the spread, and then hoped-for dominance, of Islam.
Muslims should be told not, as Karen Hughes naively did, that Muslim life in America is thriving, and isn't it all so wonderful, but rather that it is difficult to live islamically, and still fit in, in America and the rest of the West. And as Infidels learn more and more about Islam, become more and more wary and disturbed, it will only become -- as from our point of view it should -- more difficult.
Instead of doing everything to accommodate Islam by changing our legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, Western societies should be reinforcing the barriers to such change, with volunteers supplementing the work of the government, in piling high those sandbags. Some may be discouraged from coming to those places where their numbers are not large and the Infidels are now, too early, wary. Others may decide to leave, whether to participate in the oil bonanza if they came from oil-states (or can obtain work in the Gulf), others to participate in Jihad (Iraq, Somalia), others simply to remain among fellow Muslims, in a Muslim state, where Islam rules.
Otherwise there will be more such incidents such as we saw in Mississauga, where a young woman has been murdered by her father for refusing to wear the hijab. This incident is telling but entirely comprehensible to those who know what Islam is all about. It is a source of wonderment to those who do not (and may think it is just a particular father, behaving inexplicably). And it could just as easily have been a Muslim family in Mississippi, or anywhere else in the Western world.
Wonderful
Daily dose from CTV:
United Muslim Women of Canada's Anisa Ali said the public shouldn't assume that honour killings only happen in the Muslim community.
"It's not an Islamic practice," Ali told CTV's Canada AM on Wednesday. "There's nowhere in the Quran where it talks about honour killings. It's more of a cultural phenomenon."
She said honour killings are not limited to Islamic countries like Pakistan, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan.
"There's Latin American countries, it has taken place in Germany, in Britain," she said. "A lot of it is under the guise of family honour or religious values."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071211/muslim_dad_071212/20071212?hub=TopStories
"it has taken place in Germany, in Britain," she said"
Correct. By Muslims living in Germany and Britain.
Any questions?
As for Latin America, please provide examples.
Great article, Hugh!
ISSA and CAIR-CAN condemn the girls killing, but you see it's due to the 'domestic violence' problem!
"There should be zero tolerance for violence of any kind against women or girls," said ISSA President Shahina Siddiqui. "The strangulation death of Ms. Parvez was the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian society and is blind to color or creed."
"Muslims and Canadians of all faiths need to reflect on the realities of domestic abuse and take concrete steps to eliminate violence against women," said CAIR-CAN representative Selma Djukic.
"We call for the strongest possible prosecution of Ms. Parvez's alleged attacker," said CAIR-CAN Legal Counsel Faisal Kutty.
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2007-12-11-0025/
I have never heard of (but perhaps because I don't get out much) a domestic violence incident involving an article of clothing. Unless it involves Muslim parents and their children.
I also have not heard of many incidences where parents and family members have have killed a daughter because she was raped. Unless it involves Muslim parents and their children.
I have never read about a culture that systematically repressed its young women in almost every situation. Unless it involves Muslims.
We cannot allow our principles regarding child abuse to be sacrificed at the altar of multi-culturalism.
Darcy is exactly right.
Ali probably also says jihad is a peaceful inner struggle to become a better person.
Honor killings are not a 'phenomenon', like hula-hoops in Peoria or Elvis-worship in Nashville.
Honor killings are conscious acts of cruel barbarism committed by beasts with no souls, in the name of one religion, for one pleasure of one god.
Those who commit these acts should be bound alive to the carcasses of swine, to be eaten to death by the maggots.
"We call for the strongest possible prosecution of Ms. Parvez's alleged attacker," said CAIR-CAN Legal Counsel Faisal Kutty.
Posted by: sounder
Prosecution in one of the Sharia courts the Moslems in Canada want to set up to handle family matters, no doubt. Where Papa would get a sentence of maybe 6 months, and be welcomed as a hero at the local mosque when he was released.
Exactly.
Time got the best of me at the mall yesterday, as I hadn't changed the clock in my car yet, thinking I had more time to leisurely enjoy the holiday displays. Realizing my mistake, I left in a hurry and passed a tented believer standing by her stroller in the vestibule of Target.
How curious it was that this pious individual was compelled to cover so fully, while the approximately 5 month old infant confined to the stroller was without shoes or socks fully exposed to the 30 degree winter mist billowing into the vestibule each time the doors swung open. But, clearly she was pious.
I have a visceral reaction to islamic dress. I feel the same way when I see some jerk sporting a swastika or the SS runes. I know that they hate me, and that I should stand by for trouble.
/Just sayin'.
This weekend (8th/9th December 2007) I saw, on the streets of London, a young (native British) man wearing an improvised face-mask which revealed only his eyes, nose and lips. The rest of his face was entirely covered by a 'Balaclava Helmet' turned back-to-front. He gave every appearance of being an IRA terrorist, although he was quietly sitting on a street bench and not attempting to threaten anyone.
The Sunday Times reports a new fashion trend for young men: 'Burkas for Boys'. This is a jacket with a face-mask attached so that the wearer might not be identified by passers-by.
Brian Paddick, a former senior officer in the Metropolitan Police (and a candidate for the position of Mayor of London) is reported as saying: 'The trouble in society is not just crime but the fear of crime and this new jacket is enough to give anyone a shiver down their spine'.
But should we be surprised at this development with the example set by Muslim women?
"Would that the expressions of hostility went beyond that, to make it very difficult for those who wish to change for all time our legal and political institutions, so that they could be refused citizenship, or not allowed into the country in the first place -- or if natives, could be stripped of their citizenship if they swear allegiance not to a "foreign power" but to an ideology that, if it were to be believed and followed, would mean an end to the Constitution, an end to this young, bumptious, sometimes hopelessly naive and sentimental Republic."
You know, we could put up all kinds of walls against those who want to subvert our democratic system, IF WE WERE ENERGY-INDEPENDENT!!!
We have got to get away from our dependence on the Islamic Mafia for our oil. Until we do, they will always have a knife at our back.
Those who commit these acts should be bound alive to the carcasses of swine, to be eaten to death by the maggots. -- Posted by: undaunted at December 12, 2007 10:47 AM
I think that we should simply hang them. And do it in the public square.
Hanging gets the point across, without us stooping to the level of the Islamic Mafia (my apologies to the Mafia for associating them with Islam).
I can predict that we will not hear a peep about this from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, or any of the other multiculti lunatics on the politcal left.
A young Muslim girl's life is worth something to these people only when she has the good fortune to be murdered by a non-Muslim.
Mark Steyn:
In a culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" -- the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."