Hollywood rallies around Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar despite her anti-Semitic tweets

“Hollywood celebrities concerned about bigotry in America made one big exception this week to defend Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) after she was accused of anti-Semitism for remarks she made about the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).”

Note well: these Hollywood celebrities who heavily impact culture are not concerned about anti-Semitism, but about anti-Muslim bigotry, with specific reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar, who is herself a purveyor of bigotry. It’s insane, but it is also a familiar pattern. It’s fine for Muslims to be bigoted against Jews and other infidels, apostates, and homosexuals, to deem women to be inferior, and hold black slaves.

Despite Omar’s anti-Semitic tweets claiming that “Jewish money was behind American elected officials’ support for Israel,” specifically the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bernie Sanders stated: “We will stand by our Muslim brothers and sisters.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar

“Hollywood Rallies Around Ilhan Omar: ‘I’m a Jew; She Was Right About AIPAC,’” by Justin Caruso, Breitbart, February 14, 2019:

Hollywood celebrities concerned about bigotry in America made one big exception this week to defend Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) after she was accused of anti-Semitism for remarks she made about the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Rep. Ilhan Omar said in a social media post about GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy defending Israel.

She then insinuated that AIPAC was paying American politicians to be pro-Israel.

Many political figures, even Democrats, accused her of perpetuating harmful anti-Semitic tropes.

Hollywood celebrities, however, had a different opinion.

“I’m a Jew; she was right about AIPAC,” comedian Michael Ian Black said, adding, “Also, I’m an American; I’m right about the NRA.”

“Trump’s criticism of Omar is ironic given how many times he has made anti-Semitic comments or hesitated to denounce such rhetoric,” Mia Farrow remarked.

Left-wing director Judd Apatow responded to Vice President Mike Pence’s condemnation of Omar, snarking, “Pocahontas is cool? Nazi’s are good people is cool? Mexicans are rapists is cool? Africa is a shithole is cool? Grab em by the pussy is cool? Gotcha.”

Rosie O’Donnell re-tweeted a similar criticism of Trump, simply adding, “ImpeachTrumpNow.”

Michael Moore simply posted a glowing photo of Omar….

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

After claiming AIPAC buys politicians, Rep. Ilhan Omar to speak for Hamas-linked CAIR, which has given her thousands

Consistency? Honesty? Integrity? Those are for the common folk, not for the elites.

“Money in politics? Ilhan Omar will fly to LA for fundraiser with … terror-tied CAIR,” by Jordan Schachtel, Conservative Review, February 13, 2019:

Newly elected Rep. Ilhan Omar will jet off to Los Angeles next month to keynote a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a terror-tied organization that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history.

On March 23, Omar will speak at CAIR-Los Angeles’ 4th Annual Valley Banquet, where tables will cost $500….

She will deliver her address alongside CAIR-Florida director Hassan Shibly, according to a CAIR flier promoting the event. Shibly is a dedicated Islamist and bigoted gay basher. A fan of radical clerics, he has routinely refused to categorize U.S.-designated terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, according to the Clarion Project. Moreover, Shibly regularly takes to social media to demonize the U.S. military as equivalent to the jihadi terrorists that they are fighting.

The director of CAIR-Los Angeles is Hussam Ayloush, who, like many CAIR executives, has disturbing Islamist views. Following the tragic San Bernardino terrorist attacks, Ayloush suggested that the United States was “partly responsible” for the ISIS-led attack on innocents in California. “Let’s not forget that some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West, have fueled that extremism,” he added. Ayloush has in the past described U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a campaign to instill “fear of the Muslims.”

The news comes on the heels of Rep. Omar’s controversial comments — that many on the Left and Right almost unanimously condemned as anti-Semitic tropes — about money in politics, in which she claimed that Jewish groups like AIPAC buy off politicians. Though AIPAC does not contribute to political campaigns, CAIR certainly does. Omar has received tens of thousands of dollars from CAIR and other political action committees. Additionally, CAIR held several fundraising events solely for the benefit of Omar’s congressional campaign.

CAIR’s fundraiser is just one of the controversial events lined up for Omar’s schedule. On February 23, she will speak at a fundraiser for Islamic Relief USA, the American branch of the terror-tied group Islamic Relief Worldwide. The Middle East Forum has discovered that she will be accompanied by a senior charity official who has often “expressed violently anti-Semitic ideas on his social-media accounts,” sometimes specifically calling for the murder of Jews….

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Making Islamophobia a Crime

The APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) some members of the UK Parliament who have issued a document that defines Islamophobia. Their goal is to make “Islamophobia” a crime. Islam is defined as whatever Muslims want it to be.

The APPG claims free speech will not be affected as long as the speaker in question does not cause harm. “Harm” is defined as anything that offends a Muslim, even if it is a fact.

Although the document is only a committee report, many British city councils are implementing the report as law. This is totalitarianism. This is Islam.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Former U.S. Counterintelligence Agent Charged With Espionage on Behalf of Iran

The Rushdie Fatwa Chilling Speech 30 Years Later

EDITORS NOTE: This Political Islam column with video and images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.

The Grand Sheikh Francis of al-Vatican

The Pope of Islam goes to the UAE and gets played for a fool by Muslim sharpies. My latest in FrontPage:

Pope Francis and the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, have published “A Document On Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” during the Pope’s trip to the United Arab Emirates. It’s as filled with falsehoods and wishful thinking as one would expect coming from a practiced deceiver such as el-Tayeb and someone so eager to be deceived as Pope Francis.

Here’s one of its egregiously false statements:

Terrorism is deplorable and threatens the security of people, be they in the East or the West, the North or the South, and disseminates panic, terror and pessimism, but this is not due to religion, even when terrorists instrumentalize it. It is due, rather, to an accumulation of incorrect interpretations of religious texts and to policies linked to hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression and pride. This is why it is so necessary to stop supporting terrorist movements fuelled by financing, the provision of weapons and strategy, and by attempts to justify these movements even using the media. All these must be regarded as international crimes that threaten security and world peace. Such terrorism must be condemned in all its forms and expressions…

Terrorism is due to “an accumulation of incorrect interpretations of religious texts and to policies linked to hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression and pride.”

So are the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib), all incorrect in their interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah? Here is what they say about jihad warfare against non-Muslims:

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

How did someone with incorrect interpretations of religious texts become a professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law at International Islamic University?

Anyway, as for the idea that poverty causes terrorism, it’s just a call for Western nations to write more checks to governments of Muslim countries. It’s also demonstrably false. The New York Times reported that “not long after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…Alan B. Krueger, the Princeton economist, tested the widespread assumption that poverty was a key factor in the making of a terrorist. Mr. Krueger’s analysis of economic figures, polls, and data on suicide bombers and hate groups found no link between economic distress and terrorism.”

CNS News noted in September 2013 that “according to a Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2009, ‘Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.’ One of the authors of the RAND report, Darcy Noricks, also found that according to a number of academic studies, ‘Terrorists turn out to be more rather than less educated than the general population.’”

Yet the analysis that poverty causes terrorism has been applied and reapplied and reapplied again. And now here is the Pope signing on to this falsehood.

Here is another of the statements from the Pope/Tayeb document – one that raises questions about el-Tayeb’s sincerity:

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept…

Great. But el-Tayeb said this as recently as 2016:

Contemporary apostasy presents itself in the guise of crimes, assaults, and grand treason, so we deal with it now as a crime that must be opposed and punished….Those learned in Islamic law and the imams of the four schools of jurisprudence consider apostasy a crime and agree that the apostate must either renounce his apostasy or else be killed.

Has el-Tayeb renounced this view? Doubtful, since it is standard Islam. The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law. It’s based on the Qur’an: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”

Qaradawi also once famously said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

So has el-Tayeb departed from Islamic orthodoxy, or is he deceiving Pope Francis and trying to deceive the world?

The Pope is certainly thoroughly deceived. Back in the Vatican from the UAE, he told crowds: “Despite the diversity of cultures and traditions, the Christian and Islamic worlds appreciate and protect common values: life, family, religious sense, honor for the elderly, the education of the young, and others as well.”

Life? Yes, unless you’re not Muslim. In Islamic law, Muslim lives are explicitly worth more than those of non-Muslims. The Shafi’i Sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller dictates: “The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim.” (o4.9) Sikhs rank even lower, as they are not People of the Book.

The Shafi’i madhhab is not the only school of Islamic law that teaches this. The Iranian Shi’ite Sufi Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh explains: “Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.”

Family? Sure: a husband and his wife and his wife and his wife and his wife. Polygamy dehumanizes women. The Qur’an also calls for the beating of disobedient women (4:34), and Islam devalues women in numerous other ways.

The Pope has been played for a fool by deceptive sharpies including, but not limited to, Ahmed el-Tayeb.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation goes Largely Unnoticed

Did you know that February 6th was the ninth annual United Nations day of zero tolerance for the vile practice of female genital mutilation (sometimes referred to as cutting) perpetrated on girls and women worldwide, including in the US?

ICE and the Department of Justice released a press statement recognizing the day.  Of course the UN wrote about it, as did NPR, but I was surprised the day passed otherwise unnoticed by the mainstream US media.

When diversity is ugly!

ICE, DOJ recognize International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

WASHINGTON, D.C. — February 6 marks the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the FBI, and the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section (HRSP) of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, all members of the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center (HRVWCC), join U.S. and foreign government partners, non-governmental organizations, and local communities to call for the eradication of the practice.

 

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a federal crime, and any involvement in committing this crime is a serious human rights violation which may result in imprisonment and potential removal from the United States.Individuals suspected of FGM/C, including sending girls overseas to be cut, may be investigated by the HRVWCC and prosecuted accordingly.

The elimination of FGM/C has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large. This day serves as an opportunity to reflect on victims who have suffered from female genital mutilation/cutting, including many women and girls who have died or suffered lifelong health complications from the practice. The day also renews a global commitment to the health and well-being of all women, girls and communities by eliminating the practice.

[…]

“The FBI is committed to investigating human rights violations, including female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM),” said unit chief Maureen Schutz of the FBI’s Criminal Division. “We continue to work with our partners at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to protect the rights of young women and children and to bring justice to those who have violated them.”

FGM/C prevalence is primarily concentrated in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, but also occurs in parts of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. It is global in scope and found in multiple geographies, religions, and socioeconomic classes. [The practice has been associated with certain ethnic groups from especially Africa, Somali being one such country.—ed]

Anyone who has information about an individual who is suspected of assisting in this crime is urged to call the toll-free ICE tip line at (866) 347-2423 or complete the ICE online tip form or the FBI online tip form. All are staffed around the clock, and tips may be provided anonymously.

More here.

You don’t see enough coverage of stories like this because I believe that the Lefties running most of our media simply can’t bring themselves to recognize that diversity is not always beautiful and can often bring practices that are violent and culturally abhorrent to the West.

They want us to focus on images like African refugee children frolicking in their first snow as one social media video that went viral recently promoted.

question markAre you in an ethnic community in the US where you hear some whispering about FGM? If so use the tip line and let the feds investigate.

And, mark your calendar for next year and send an op-ed to your local paper as the day approaches!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Arwan Sutanto on Unsplash.

#NoHijabDay campaign fights against Sharia propaganda, stands for women who are brutalized for not wearing hijab

This is a most welcome and much-needed initiative. The women who indulge in virtue signalling every year by donning a hijab on World Hijab Day have never shown any concern for the victims of the enforced hijab. They have never indicated that they know of or care about the women who have been brutalized and even killed for not wearing the hijab.

Do the women who will happily participate in World Hijab Day care about Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it.

Or Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab?

Have they shown any concern for the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or for Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or for Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or for the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or for the women in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or for the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or for the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or for the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or for the women in Iran who protested against the regime, even before the recent uprising, by daring to take off their hijabs; or for the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or for the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents; or for the fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia who were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment; or for the girl in Italy whose mother shaved her head for not wearing hijab; or for all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab?

Courageous women in the Islamic Republic of Iran are taking off their hijabs as a sign of resistance to the oppressive Sharia regime under which they live, and at least 29 women have been arrested for doing so. Who is standing in solidarity with them? Not the participants in World Hijab Day. No Hijab Day is a needed rejoinder.

“#NoHijabDay Campaign Fights Women’s Subjugation, Indoctrination,” by Abigail R. Esman, IPT News, January 30, 2019:

The first time my friend Nour appeared in public without her scarf, a neighbor commanded her to put it on. When she refused, he grew enraged. “Then you are no longer Muslim!” he called out after her as she continued down the street.

The year: 2008

The place: New York’s ultra-hip East Village.

But when Canadian human rights activist Yasmine Mohammed removed her hijab during a 2004 visit with her mother in Vancouver, Canada, the fury was even greater. “That was the day,” she recalled recently, “when my mother threatened to kill me.”

Now, with worldwide demonstrations planned on Friday to celebrate Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab, Mohammed is leading a protest, instead, in support of those who don’t….

With World Hijab Day and NoHijabDay both around the corner, the Investigative Project on Terrorism spoke with Mohammed to get her thoughts on the movement, and the passion that inspired it.

(Note: the interview has been edited for length.)

Abigail R. Esman: Explain to me how this all came about.

Yasmine Mohammed: NoHijab started as a counter-protest to World Hijab Day, which is supported by 180 countries. To be honest, when I got onto social media I didn’t know what this day was – it shocked me, I wasn’t prepared for it. I was floored to see all of these women all over the Western world putting hijabs on, and I was so frustrated and enraged, so angered at what seemed like the indoctrination of the entire Western hemisphere.

So the next year, it was creeping up and I thought, I’m going to fight back this time. And so just a few days before World Hijab Day I announced that I was going to be burning a hijab and I wanted people to join me in protest of this idea that hijab is this completely innocuous piece of cloth. I wanted to stand in solidarity with the women who can be harassed and abused and imprisoned and even killed for not wearing it. Because that’s what we should talk about.

So I burned a hijab with three other women. My video got 3 million views. All of us are coming from Islamic backgrounds, and one is still Muslim. And people started to see that it’s insane that a 16-year-old girl can be killed in Canada and girls and women are killed all over the planet, for not dressing the way their family and government say they should dress.

This Jan. 1, they announced World Hijab Day and they announced their hashtag as #FreeinHijab, which made it so easy for us – we turned it into #FreeFromHijab and it has turned into an onslaught, with pictures from Saudi, Turkey, Kuwait, Canada, Sweden, France – all over the world, people posting. Some are in hijab, some are posting before and after pictures of hijab that they used to wear and the fact that they are now free from hijab. It gave women a chance to celebrate not only the mental constraints from the ideology behind wearing a hijab, but the physical constraint of wearing a cloth over their heads.

ARE: What do you say to those who say “it’s just a scarf?”

YM (laughs): A lot of people say it’s just a cloth, why are you worrying about a piece of cloth? Obviously we are not fighting about a piece of fabric. We are fighting about the mindset behind people wearing a piece of fabric. If it is just a piece of fabric, why are people being killed for not wearing it? Because it’s a tool of modesty culture, it’s a tool of subjugation, it dehumanizes her, it turns her into just another Muslim- looking thing where you can’t have an individual thought or individual action.

Recently a Muslim woman in the UK, Dina Torkia, decided she wasn’t going to wear a hijab anymore. Only when she felt like it. The amount of backlash she received – she was getting death threats on herself and her family, and rape threats. There is a videoalmost an hour of her reading all the hate she gets. This is how they treat their own when they decide not to wear a hijab, so how can you tell me it’s just a piece of cloth? It’s like saying a slave just has pieces of metal on his wrist. If a woman is able to free herself from wearing a hijab, she is freeing herself from so much more.

So with this campaign now I have the support of so many women. So when you are fighting the hijab you will have a lot of support of even fellow Muslims because it is a truth that women are forced to wear it. This is new news for the Western world because the Muslim world has tried so hard to hide that fact.

ARE: Do Westerners understand it this way?

YM: If you try fighting it specifically highlighting the fact that hijab comes from Islam, people shy away. They’d rather criticize the misogyny [behind it], but they don’t want to criticize the root of it, which is Islam. And we have to do that. We have to hone in on the specific problem. If we talk just about misogyny, that’s a huge story. Hijab is one piece.

But if that gives people the mental ability or excuse to work past that misogyny, tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself, tell yourself that it’s not Islamic – whatever it is you want to tell yourself. I lived that life before and after, and I have paid an extremely high price. And a lot of people I know have paid extremely high prices for their freedom. But they will tell you that the cost of freedom, no matter what you have to pay, is worth it. That is the message I want to give to these women who are fighting, whether it is their husbands or their fathers or their communities or their government or even their best friends – whatever entity you have to fight for your freedom it will be absolutely worth it. I can promise them that. I can guarantee it. And I don’t want them to waste their lives. I was almost 30 when I took off my hijab. I was so scared of making that move.

ARE: Have you had people contact you and say they want to, but they don’t dare?

Oh, yes. Some will post, “oh, you’re so lucky, I can’t wait to feel that freedom you’re talking about,” and then someone will respond and say “why don’t you?” And she’ll say, “because my father will kill me,” and Muslims will answer and say well, you deserve to die. So they can’t theoretically daydream about freedom without having people heartlessly attacking them.

It’s really shocking to be the recipient of that. You’re still the same person, you just don’t want to wear this thing on your head anymore. And suddenly you go from being their daughter whom they love and adore to being someone they want to kill.

ARE: Hijabs have become very politicized now. I know many women who wear it not for religious reasons, but to assert themselves as Muslims. Has that changed the environment at all?

YM: Yes. And it has been exacerbated by the fact that Western society feeds into that, because how do they show a Muslim woman? Wrapped in hijab. So they are supporting that stereotype that Muslim girls wear hijab. Girls these days are getting that message both from home and media – they’re seeing girls on the runway, in GAP ads, in fashion magazines, all in hijab – and they’re seeing it as something to be proud of, something to define them and make them stand out.

Whereas there is nothing a man has to do to constantly put himself front and center as just a symbol of this, and nothing else. When a Muslim woman puts on a hijab, she is nothing else. She’s just a Muslim. That’s why I say it’s dehumanizing,

ARE: Many people will defend the wearing of hijab as a religious expression. How do you get across that wearing that a hijab is not like wearing a cross?

YM: I’m not a fan of banning it, because I know there will be a backlash that will only encourage people to wear it even more. I think it’s more important to educate the women themselves, to see that they are indoctrinated. We will be on the sidelines cheering them on, but we can’t be on the sidelines forcing them to take it off. It has to be a decision they make because they have come to that conclusion. That said, It’s easy to convince a woman all this. The hard part is getting her to pay the price of making that decision.

ARE: Can we help make non-Muslim women understand what you’re trying to make Muslim women understand, so they support them rather than enable them?

I would love that. Whenever I talk about this, the only thing that stops Westerners from completely agreeing with me is that there is religion involved. But if they are able to look at it objectively with all the things they understand about women’s equality then they understand why the hijab is a dangerous tool of misogyny. In the Muslim community I find that harder, because in Arabic, the word “feminism” doesn’t even exist. These are topics that have not even been broached before. So it’s a much bigger battle on that side, because they have from birth accepted this indoctrination that they are lesser-than. So to come to someone who already believes that she is lesser-than, and believes it because the idea of defying the word of the creator means spending eternity in hell, it’s hard to talk to her and tell her you are equal, and you deserve freedom, and you deserve rights. These are concepts that are totally foreign to her. Those are options for the non-Muslim women. When it is something you can never even attain because it is too far from your world, you don’t even think about it – you just find a way to survive in your own world, whether it’s cognitive dissonance or whatever. You find a way to survive in the world that you are in. So that’s where the bigger fight is.

ARE: There seems to be more and more interest in, even support for, the whole “modesty” thing among Westerners. You see it, as you mentioned, in fashion, but also other areas.

YM: I think Western people getting on the train with modesty culture is a very new phenomenon and I think it can be swatted away effectively if Muslim women start to show them what they’re saying is not true. Mine is just one voice – but I want them to see and hear voices from all over the world, saying this in unison. And if you are a human being, then this is not difficult to understand. If you are a human being, then you know, someone telling you, whether it is your god, your government, your father or brother or husband, someone telling you what you’re going to wear every day, is not something any human being desires or appreciates or wants.

ARE: I’m not entirely sure. Many women, especially converts, have talked about how much they prefer having these rules, these guidelines. They make them paradoxically feel even more free.

YM: But we have to fight that. Because I feel like that human need for freedom is in there. It might have been completely stifled out, but I feel like the pilot light is still burning, that the basic humanity that we all have, that basic need to be an individual, to be free, is in there.

Having said all that, I’m sure there are some people that really would make the choice to cover themselves head to toe. There are people who will kill themselves and their families for the sake of a cult. But we should not be celebrating that. So who are the women I will support and celebrate? The women who are fighting back and aligning with enlightenment values and these basic ideas of personal autonomy and freedom.

And even these women who spit back poison at me, I still know you’re spitting back poison because you’re trying to convince yourself and you’re trying to convince your god, but I know, that deep down, the spark of humanity is still in there.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission.

Iran spends $7,000,000,000 every year on jihad terror activities in the Middle East

“Israeli UN Envoy Reveals: Iran Spends $7 Billion Annually on Terror Activities in Middle East,” Algemeiner, January 22, 2019:

Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon revealed to the Security Council on Tuesday details of Iran’s terror activities throughout the Middle East.

“The Iranian regime’s obsession with Israel is not just well-known. It is expensive,” he said. “Seven billion dollars annually are directed toward the never ending attempts to destroy Israel. Follow the bloody trail of money starting in Tehran and you will arrive at the terror tunnels in Lebanon and Gaza and the weapons warehouses in Syria. It is now trying to infiltrate Judea and Samaria,”

“With the help of Saleh Al-Arouri, Hamas’ deputy political chief, and Saeed Izadi, the head of the Palestinian branch of the Iranian Quds Force, Iran is trying to turn Judea and Samaria into a fourth military front against Israel,” Danon added. “The world’s silence allows Iran to continue with its operations and aggression to undermine stability in the Middle East.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission.

Islamic State calls on Muslims to poison food Kate Middleton buys at supermarkets

This is nothing new. Al-Qaeda has long considered the contamination of food as a jihad mass murder tactic. And in 2017, the Islamic State called on Muslims to poison food in Western supermarkets

And it has happened at least twice in Britain:

UK: Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human feces

UK: Muslim who sprayed food with feces and urine can’t be deported

Also:

Food jihad? Muslim woman puts needles in meat in Canada

Kate Middleton – Duchess of Cambridge

“ISIS plot to KILL Kate Middleton in sick supermarket scheme,” by Isobel Dickinson, Daily Star, January 13, 2019:

TERRORISTS have threatened to poison Kate Middleton’s food in a sick new plot.

A vile post sent on encrypted extremist site Telegram urged Isis fanatics to try to tamper with what she eats at her favourite supermarkets.

They shared photos of the Duchess shopping, with a red X scrawled over her trolley, with the message: “We know what she eats – poison it!”

There was also a chilling new threat against Prince George.

A picture showed the tot holding Prince William’s hand beside a masked knife-wielding ISIS nut, alongside the words: “Rise of the kuffar” – which translates as “unbeliever”.

The messages prompted an exchange between dozens of fanatics on the chat room, detailing how to insert poison into food, where Kate has been spotted shopping.

They also shared information on which stores Kate shops in.

A security source told Daily Star Sunday the threat was being taken “very seriously”.

The hate message was posted on the same site used by Islamic State supporter Husnain Rashid to call on his followers to kill Kate and William’s son Prince George.

Former mosque teacher Rashid, 32, is now serving life in jail over the plot.

He also urged fanatics in some of the staggering 290,000 hate messages he sent on encrypted sites to poison tubs of ice cream in supermarkets across Britain.

The Telegram instant messaging app has military grade encryption and was described as a “tool kit for terrorism” during Rashid’s trial.

Our source said: “Intelligence agents believe the threats made against Kate are not idle and are linked to messages sent by Husnain Rashid….

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton’s Facebook page.

US govt approved thousands of child bride requests, ‘Middle Easterners had highest percentage of approved petitions’

Of course they had the highest percentage of approved petitions. The government didn’t want to appear “Islamophobic,” and sacrificed the well-being of these girls to that fear.

Islamic tradition records that Muhammad consummated his marriage with (i.e., raped) Aisha when she was nine, and the resultant fact that child marriage is accepted in wide swaths of the Islamic world. Child marriage has abundant attestation in Islamic tradition and law.

Turkey’s directorate of religious affairs (Diyanet) said in January 2018 that under Islamic law, girls as young as nine can marry.

“Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this” — Ishaq Akintola, professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern, Nigeria

“There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law.” — Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-‘Ubeidi, Iraqi expert on Islamic law

There is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.” — Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council

“Islam does not forbid marriage of young children.” — Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology

Hadiths that Muslims consider authentic record that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).

Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).

Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:

The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.

Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

According to Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (pp. 90-91), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.

“US govt approved thousands of child bride requests,” AP, January 12, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

WASHINGTON: Thousands of requests by men originally from other countries, including Pakistan, to bring in child and adolescent brides to live in the United States were approved over the past decade, according to government data obtained by AP news agency. In one case, a 49-year-old man applied for admission for a 15-year-old girl.

The approvals are legal: the Immigration and Nationality Act does not set minimum age requirements. And in weighing petitions for spouses or fiancées, US Citizenship and Immigration Services goes by whether the marriage is legal in the home country and whether the marriage would be legal in the state where the petitioner lives.

Take a look: 21pc girls in Pakistan become victim of child marriage, WHO reports

But the data raises questions about whether the immigration system may be enabling forced marriage and about how US laws may be compounding the problem despite efforts to limit child and forced marriage. Marriage between adults and minors is not uncommon in the US, and most states allow children to marry with some restrictions.

There were more than 5,000 cases of adults petitioning on behalf of minors and nearly 3,000 examples of minors seeking to bring in older spouses or fiancés, according to the data requested by the Senate Homeland Security Committee in 2017 and compiled into a report.

Some victims of forced marriage say the lure of a US passport combined with lax US marriage laws are partly fuelling the petitions.

“My passport ruined my life,” said Naila Amin, a dual citizen from Pakistan who grew up in New York City. She was forcibly married at 13 in Pakistan and applied for papers for her 26-year-old husband to come to the country.

“People die to come to America,” she said. “I was a passport to him. They all wanted him here, and that was the way to do it.”

Amin, now 29, said she was betrothed to her first cousin Tariq when she was just eight and he was 21. The petition was eventually terminated after she ran away.

She said the ordeal cost her a childhood. She was in and out of foster care and group homes, and it took a while to get her life on track.

“I was a child. I want to know: why weren’t any red flags raised? Whoever was processing this application, they don’t look at it? They don’t think?” she asked.

Over that period, there were 5,556 approvals for those seeking to bring in minor spouses or fiancées, and 2,926 approvals by minors seeking to bring in older spouses, according to the data. Additionally, there were 204 approvals of applications by minors seeking to bring in minor spouses….

USCIS didn’t know how many of the approvals were granted by the State Department, but overall only about 2.6 per cent of spousal or fiancée claims are rejected.

Separately, the data show some 4,749 minor spouses or fiancées received green cards to live in the US over that same 10-year period.

The country where most requests came from was Mexico, followed by Pakistan, Jordan, the Dominican Republic and Yemen. Middle Eastern nationals had the highest percentage of overall approved petitions.

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Jihad Watch with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Emiliano Vittoriosi on Unsplash.

Facebook and Twitter consult with Hamas-linked CAIR over who gets banned from their platforms

This doesn’t come as any surprise given the eagerness of both Facebook and Twitter to be Sharia-compliant. Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July 2017 to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. And Facebook has done so assiduously, banning numerous foes of jihad terror and twice now blocking the Jihad Watch Facebook page on spurious technical grounds. And Twitter has recently been notifying people that they’re in violation of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which violation carries a death sentence.

But this shows how sick and degenerate the social media giants really are. CAIR has ties to Hamas, and “Billoo has expressed her support for an Islamic caliphate and Sharia law. She also claims, in multiple tweets, that ISIS is on the same moral plane as American and Israeli soldiers, adding that ‘our troops are engaged in terrorism.’” This pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist is deciding what is acceptable discourse and what isn’t. It’s no wonder that the result would be platforms that are increasingly hostile to foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others.

“Report: Facebook and Twitter consult with terror-tied CAIR over who gets banned from platforms,” by Jordan Schachtel, Conservative Review, January 8, 2019:

The Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is best known as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history, appears to have access to high-ranking Facebook and Twitter executives and has communicated with these individuals about who should be allowed to stay on their platforms, according to a Wall Street Journal report published Tuesday.

The Wall Street Journal reports that CAIR officials “complained to Twitter” about activist Laura Loomer, citing a tweet in which she called the anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an anti-Semite and an apologist for Sharia law. Loomer was later permanently banned from Twitter.

Zahra Billoo, the executive director of CAIR’s San Francisco chapter, was quoted in the Journal piece as an individual who appears to have special access to both Twitter and Facebook.

“The council doesn’t often step in to advocate against other users, says Executive Director Zahra Billoo, but did so in the case of Ms. Loomer based on her previous comments about Muslims,” the piece explains.

Yet the Wall Street Journal fails to note that Billoo herself is a proven radical extremist. In tweets that remain publicly available, Billoo has expressed her support for an Islamic caliphate and Sharia law. She also claims, in multiple tweets, that ISIS is on the same moral plane as American and Israeli soldiers, adding that “our troops are engaged in terrorism.

Billoo is not an anomaly at CAIR. Her views reflect the mainstream consensus within the organization, which over the years has attempted to transform itself from a clandestine Hamas-funding operation to a mainstream Muslim “civil rights organization.” CAIR directors have cheered terrorist attacks, publicly declared support for terrorist groups, and engage in regular bigotry against various religions, ethnicities, women, homosexuals, and others….

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim Rep. André Carson Envisions 30-35 Muslims in Congress with a Muslim President by 2030 at CAIR Reception (VIDEO)

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by NordWood Themes on Unsplash.