| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
At Human Events today I discuss yet another stealth jihad initiative:
Score another victory for the stealth jihad: Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport, where the janitorial firm GCA Services recently instituted a new uniform that featured pants. But thirty Somali Muslim women who work for GCA Services protested: up to that point they had been allowed to wear skirts, and they thought that pants offended against the modesty Islam mandates for women. With help from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, this week they won permission to forgo the new uniform and wear skirts on the job.Traditional Islam enjoins modesty: Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, declared that adult women should never appear in public unless everything except their face and hands was covered. But I have seen enough Muslim women -- both in the United States and in Muslim countries -- wearing tight jeans and hijab to know that modesty can be in the eyes of the beholder in the Islamic world as much as it can be for non-Muslims.
Does Islamic law actually forbid women from wearing pants? Not as such, unless pants are considered to be men’s clothing -- women are forbidden to wear the clothes of men. But does that apply to pants? That view is not universally held among Muslim authorities.
So what is going on here? Plain and simple, it’s Islamic supremacism: the idea that Islamic mores and practices must always and everywhere prevail whenever and wherever they clash with non-Muslim ones. When non-Muslims travel in Muslim countries, they have to adapt to Islamic mores. When Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims have to adapt to Islamic mores.As happens in every instance of stealth jihad and creeping Sharia in the United States, here again people will say, what’s the big deal if they wear skirts? Are you seriously saying that Somali Muslim janitorial staff wearing skirts in Phoenix is some threat to Western civilization? No, of course I’m not.
What I am saying is this: The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy in the United States is, in their own words, “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
That’s from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” a 1991 presentation by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram.
In that memorandum, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) is listed as an allied group. From the IAP came CAIR, which is behind this decision in Phoenix.
When a group has a declared supremacist agenda, aiming step-by-step to subvert American culture and impose Islamic norms upon the society, would it really be wise not to see initiatives like this one as part of that effort? After all, it reinforces a precedent that has already been set in other contexts: when Islamic practices are at variance with American ones, it is the American ones that must give way. What will be the outcome of following that precedent over a period of years?
At a certain point, Americans are going to have to draw the line and say they have accommodated Islamic practices enough and will do so no longer. Since Islam presents a comprehensive framework for society, covering every aspect of daily life, this line must be drawn, or America will become completely Islamized. Fanciful? Sure. But our free and pluralistic society is suffering the death of a thousand cuts: bit by bit, piece by piece, American society is learning that it must adapt to Islamic law and custom. How many of our freedoms are we going to lose before enough Americans wake up to the end point of this accommodation and put a stop to it?
By the looks of things as they stand now, this will continue for a long, long time to come -- since virtually no public officials appear to be aware of what is going on in cases like this. Our nation’s politicians, if they happen to fly through Phoenix, will look at the Muslim janitors in skirts and see not the slow, steady advance of Islam in the United States, but rather another indication of our confident march toward a wonderful, multicultural future.
Posted by Robert at September 3, 2008 6:25 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I'm going to subscribe to Human Events. This is an outstanding article and nails the issue right on the head. Well done Robert.
Posted by: S Perry![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 3, 2008 7:16 AM
"By the looks of things as they stand now, this will continue for a long, long time to come -- since virtually no public officials appear to be aware of what is going on in cases like this."
They know or at least sense the truth but the real motivator behind this spineless accommodation is raw fear – pure and simple.
at September 3, 2008 7:54 AM
Connect the dots. Connect the dots.
Posted by: Sounder at September 3, 2008 9:02 AM
And where is John McCain? This is his home state.
What will he do as president? Will he stand up for the rights of Americans in their own country or will he cater to CAIR?
Does anyone know?
Posted by: PMK at September 3, 2008 9:04 AM
"How many of our freedoms are we going to lose before enough Americans wake up to the end point of this accommodation and put a stop to it?"
Remember, at Camp Delta (Guantanamo Bay), non-Muslim American military personnel (read 99.99% of American military personnel) must don clean, white gloves prior to handling a Muslim detainee's taxpayer provided Qur'an.
Reason? To accommodate the Muslim belief that 'unbelievers' are impure and as such are prohibited from touching or handling Islam's Big Book.
Sure, 'they' can get away with that in 'their' countries.
But isn't Gitmo on lease to our country?
at September 3, 2008 9:17 AM
i'll bet he'll cater to CAIR. he couldn't be called a racist at this point in the election
Posted by: theygottago at September 3, 2008 9:25 AM
The first pants you'll see on women in Western classical painting - the harem pants in 'orientalist' scenes. I guess it wouldn't serve modesty to have the female janitorial staff at the airport dress like 'I Dream of Jeannie'.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 3, 2008 9:25 AM
By the looks of things as they stand now, this will continue for a long, long time to come -- since virtually no public officials appear to be aware of what is going on in cases like this.
Starting with Bush, politicians care for nothng but votes & wealth. The one politician who cared for America, Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Co, was rejected by Americans themselves. So, Americans have themselves to blame for their politicians. As they say, "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve".
Posted by: Alert at September 3, 2008 9:28 AM
When will the public reach the tipping point on Muslim-Sharia encroachment. Some European countries are just now getting to the tipping point, but too late I'm afraid. Will the same fate be in our future?
The MSM is largely responsible, since they refuse to discuss this subject in any constructive fashion. The MSM is in fact very sympathetic to Muslims and Sharia, for a reason that I cannot comprehend. Under Sharia, they would be the first to go bye bye.
Posted by: Spot on at September 3, 2008 9:33 AM
"As they say, "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve"."
Alert,
If America were a true democracy (one man, one vote), I would agree with that old saw. However, Americans are crippled by the electoral college system. If it were otherwise, there would have been no doubt at all about the Bush/Gore election.
Tancredo dropped out of the election. If he still wanted to run for Presidential office, he could do so (provided he could afford it), on his own dime. Ross Perot did it.
And, before you ask, yes--I do think it's too expensive to keep one's name on the ballot, without the endorsement of the political party. It's downright criminal, the whole thing.
It's disgraceful that, in American Presidential elections, we are given only two "big" contenders for the office. By rights, we should have scads of choices, with no "National Commitees", and no electoral college.
The technology exists now, to make that practical, and doable. The electoral college, like the UN, has outlived its usefulness. Every man and woman should have one vote for the candidate of his choice, and actual votes should be counted. So what, if we have to wait a week or so, for the final results (though I don't think it would take so long)? Wouldn't it be worth it to see America get a real, chosen leader?
As it is, we get what we get because of the system in place--not necessarily because the best candidate has won.
at September 3, 2008 10:14 AM
poetcomic1 - I like where you're going with this.........Would they have to say "Master" all the time as well? Still, no one could wear that outfit like Barbara Eden.........
Posted by: tanstaafl at September 3, 2008 10:15 AM
I am convinced dresses for women started out as a sexual thing. Easy access and all that.
The wearing of pants does not mean a woman is trying to be a man.
at September 3, 2008 10:24 AM
Alert,
Tancredo dropped out after the early primaries. He let New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina guide his thinking. He never gave the rest of us a chance to vote.
His excuse was "he wanted to highlight the issue" but the issue went away as soon as he did. None of them talk about it. Tancredo walked away. He walked out on Americans who were looking for a leader. He's all but vanished.
at September 3, 2008 10:42 AM
"Traditional Islam enjoins modesty: Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, declared that adult women should never appear in public unless everything except their face and hands was covered."
NO! NO! NO! As a Roman Catholic woman, I reject the notion that such Islamic dress stems from true modesty. Women are covered because of a DISORDERED --- to use John Paul II's words -- "theology of the body". Woman is seen in this disordered view as the enticer whose body parts, even forearms and neck, lead men into sin. She is less than a full being made by her Creator and a non-equal to man in dignity. She is mere MEAT! This is not the notion of modest dress that Catholic theology teaches.
Posted by: bevc at September 3, 2008 11:28 AM
Tancredo walked away. He walked out on Americans who were looking for a leader. He's all but vanished.
Posted by: PMK at September 3, 2008 10:42 AM
PMK, Thanks to ill-informed Americans, myself included, Tom got critiicized for his "Someone needs to say this" ad and got only 1% support. How I wished he had carried on (I supported any way I couldm, including financially), but odds were heavily against Tom. Ofcourse, there is a dedicated following for Tom Tancredo, ( look up www.jihadchat.com ).
Anyway, even with your support and mine, Tom could not do it without financial support, is what TOm told me.. yes, congressman Tom Tancred, R-CO, called your's truly (even I could not believe my ears).
Guess we are on the same side. Now, find some more patriotic Americans who admire Tom / someone like Tom and maybe, America has a chance.
at September 3, 2008 11:59 AM
NO! NO! NO! As a Roman Catholic woman, I reject the notion that such Islamic dress stems from true modesty. Women are covered because of a DISORDERED --- to use John Paul II's words -- "theology of the body". Woman is seen in this disordered view as the enticer whose body parts, even forearms and neck, lead men into sin. She is less than a full being made by her Creator and a non-equal to man in dignity. She is mere MEAT! This is not the notion of modest dress that Catholic theology teaches
Yeah basically. In this 'disordered theology of the body' in which women are meat, her entire body is believed to be a big vagina, which is all women are in Islam anyway, both in theory and in practice. Arabic literally has no word for 'woman.' There are no 'women.' There is no 'modesty.' There aren't even 'marriage' or 'wives.' 'Women' are vaginas, 'modesty' is 'pudenda' (which she is to guard), 'marriage' is 'nikah,' which means sex slavery/rape/prostitution/child molestation/incest (more literally 'penetration,' but it's all the same to Arabs and Muslims, who have no concept of consent or decency for that matter), and 'wives' are 'those which are penetrated.' 'Muslim dress' serves to reinforce the notion that women are dirty and evil and have no place outside the home, as well as the fact that men are never accountable for their own actions, least of all rape, for which Islam doesn't have a word anyway. They have 'zina,' which means 'fornication/adultery,' so again, consent is never a factor. Islam is a cult for supremacist sociopaths.
The most shocking part of the story is really that CAIR saw fit, narcissistically of course and for the purpose of serving their agenda, to come to the aid of Somalis. CAIR is not just a Muslim supremacist group, but it's also an Arab supremacist group, hence the fact that they never shut up about the 'Palestinians,' but they have never condemned the actually-quite-bloody-and-deadly slaughter of Muslims taking place in Sudan. The Sudanese, like the Somalis, are black Africans. They want them dead. Except maybe Iman. Who on Earth would kick her out of bed?
Posted by: jdamn at September 3, 2008 12:15 PM
Robert,
To answer your question:
"Does Islamic law actually forbid women from wearing pants? Not as such, unless pants are considered to be men’s clothing -- women are forbidden to wear the clothes of men. But does that apply to pants? That view is not universally held among Muslim authorities."
Yes, the order of Hijab in Quran does preclude women from wearing clothing that shows their forms, and one cannot wear pants without showing the shape of the things a woman, in Islam, is to keep covered.
This is the rule of Hijab, but many Muslim women either don't follow it or don't understand it.
And this view is universally held by those who are correct in their understanding of the legislation of Hijab.
Hope your day is as good as mine, Robert.
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 3, 2008 12:59 PM
Abdullah Mikhail:
The good folks over at Islam Online disagree with you:
I hope your day is half as good as mine.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at September 3, 2008 4:09 PM
Abscedere: Thank God we have the electoral college. One of its advantages is it lets people in more rural, conservative areas retain some influence
Another advantage is to prevent gaining the presidency through massive fraud. Imagine major frauds in a couple of major cities like NYC or LA. In sheer numbers that would decide an election. Give me the electoral college anyday. The effects of fraud stops at the state border.
Posted by: former liberal WF at September 3, 2008 5:47 PM
The shalwar/kameez (loose trousers and roughly knee length tunic with sleeves) is practically a uniform for young Muslim women both in Pakistan and Bangladesh and among the diaspora from these two countries. To say that trousers are un-Islamic is downright perverse. The only reason that i can see that these women are not just being awkward for the sake of it, is that Somali women tend to wear robe like dresses and they are confusing their national costume with an Islamic requirement.In state girls' schools in the UK, where the school uniform required a skirt, the practice of Muslim girls refusing to turn up in anything but trousers was, again, normal and headteachers gave in, usually without a murmur.
Posted by: wallyUK at September 3, 2008 9:36 PM
Robert, (audible sigh)
I see I am going to have to make it brutally simple for you. The initial suggestion was pants for the woman, allowed or disallowed, I assumed it was pants alone, because that is the American culture. Let me look down...yup, I am wearing pants!
Ahem, on a Muslims woman pants with an outer covering are fine, as this complies with the rule of Hijab, covering the shape, not exposing it, a loose fitting garment that a woman wears well below her knees that hides everything.
The Islam On Line fatawa key item you overlooked is "...wear pants with a long tunic, "
Pakistani Sharwal Kamis, the baggy "pants" that women there wear are always worn with an outer skirt that covers to well below the knees...the hem of the Sharwal Kamis is all that is shown...the "pants" legs hanging for about a foot.
So, although you did try, you failed, Robert, (again, I must add...is this #3?)
The Muslim woman should not wear clothing that exposes her shape, and jeans alone do exactly that.
My day is now twice as good as yours! : )
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 3, 2008 10:47 PM
I'm not letting some false prophet tell ME what to wear!!
Who cares what Muhammad (blood be upon him) says or thinks about what women should wear, or what anyone should wear for that matter, because he is the Prophet of Doom, for crying out loud.
This "Perfect Man", who was anything BUT a perfect man, was actually a Perfect Pervert & Murdering Marauder, so who cares what he thinks or says.
The One True God is who we must answer to, not Muhammad the Nobody & faker-false-prophet; and there's no "peace upon him" now, because he is spending eternity in hell, so save your breath in wishing him well.
Posted by: champ at September 4, 2008 12:59 AM
Islamic laws regarding clothing are just another way of controlling every single aspect of the lives of muslims. What god in his right mind would give a damn about what people wear, or how they eat, or how they go to the bathroom? Surely any god worth his salt would have far weightier things to worry about.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at September 4, 2008 7:12 AM
Abdullah Mikhail:
The Muslim woman should not wear clothing that exposes her shape, and jeans alone do exactly that.
Do you have some information that the uniform that the janitorial service required included jeans? I didn't see any report of that anywhere.
Anyway, couldn't they have asked for baggy pants and avoided the confrontation? Certainly. But they wanted the confrontation, which was my point.
I hope that today you might possibly have a good day.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at September 4, 2008 8:20 AM
According to my experience and knowledge of the religion and culture. women can wear pants only if they were a long >tunique> over it with long sleeves.
it is out of question to wear a jean with a belt and a shirt.anything that show the body shape is not good.
at September 4, 2008 8:44 AM
Robert,
"Anyway, couldn't they have asked for baggy pants and avoided the confrontation? Certainly. But they wanted the confrontation, which was my point."
No, you misunderstand the point entirely. It isn't conflict they seek, they seek to abide by their faith.
It was an order to dress immodestly that they refused, and I support them in it.
I hope you have an excellent day.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at September 4, 2008 12:56 PM
"....and I support them in it."
You would, follower of Muhammad, you would. Fool.
at September 4, 2008 3:56 PM
uh, this whole covering up thing was becaus abu saw one of mo's wives rear(and he recognized her too 0 or something because she wasn't covering up when using the bathroom or something like that. whn he complained mo then had th thingie where they were to cover up, it wasn't for every female every where like it's morphd into tobay.
Posted by: AllahSnackbar at September 4, 2008 9:28 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)