"Moderate" Australian Islamic group: women can't refuse sex

There should be nothing surprising about this. It is in line with Muhammad's words: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4:54:460)

"Women can't refuse," from the Sydney Morning Herald, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

AN Islamic group praised by the Howard Government as preaching moderation has advised its followers that a woman cannot refuse to have sex with her husband.

The advice was posted on the website of the Darulfatwa organisation, in response to questions posed by readers.

One asked: "Is it haram [forbidden] for a lady to say no if her male partner wants to make love with her?"

The Islamic scholars replied: "In this case she should not refrain from such a legitimate right of marriage, but she could Islamically request for a place of living from her husband."

Darulfatwa spokesman Mohammad Mehio said Islamic teaching was that a wife could not refuse sex unless she had a good excuse such as being ill, tired or depressed.

Note that this was altered after it came to the attention of the media:

After The Sun-Herald questioned Mr Mehio about the answers on the website, he said they posted a "clarification".

The answer to the sex-in-marriage question was changed to: "In this case she has the right to refuse."

But when the media turns away again, will this caveat remain? That's doubtful. After all, Muhammad did not specify such an exception.

Veils gag falls flat

Anti-dhimmitude in Italy. "Veils gag falls flat: An imam's 'death threat' to an Italian MP has not stopped her speaking out on Islam and feminism," by John Hooper in The Guardian, with thanks to Mackie:

Britain and Australia are not the only countries where debate is raging over the Islamic veil. In Italy, the issue burst into the news this week after the interior ministry ordered round-the-clock police protection for an MP, believing she had been threatened for expressing her views on the subject.

Daniela Santanche, an MP for the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance, clashed in a TV chat show with the imam of a mosque near Milan. After Ms Santanche insisted that the Qur'an did not call for women to wear a veil, the other guest, Ali Abu Shwaima, angrily replied: "I am an imam and I will not permit those who are ignorant to speak of Islam. You are ignorant of Islam and do not have the right to interpret the Qur'an."

Ali Abu Shwaima's charge is interesting. In the U.S. those who speak about the roots of the jihad ideology in the Qur'an and Sunnah are routinely called "ignorant" by Islamic apologists. Yet here Santanche is asserting that a more moderate view on veiling is supported by the Qur'an, and she is called "ignorant" by a hardline Muslim. So in the U.S. we are ignorant if we say Islam is radical, and in Italy we are ignorant if we say Islam is moderate. This is perhaps a measure of the relative strength and assertiveness of the Muslim communities in these two countries.

The ministry said it had been advised that the words used by the imam might amount to a coded death sentence - which the imam has vigorously denied.

At all events, his admonition has done nothing to silence Ms Santanche. A few days later she returned to the attack, comparing the veil to the yellow Star of David the Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis.

Her words have so far had two results. The first has been a debate among Muslims themselves. One imam has gone so far as to argue that the niqab, which leaves only the eyes visible, is obligatory for Muslim women. Not so, said the president of the Muslim Assembly of Italy, Abdul Hadi Massimo Palazzi: "The veil is a tradition that spread at a late stage among Muslims".

The other has been discussion of the position to be taken by non-Muslim Italian women. "Muslim males want to show that their women are submissive. They want to assert their macho, autocratic culture," Ms Santanche said this week. "I'm not worried by the threats. What worries me is the deafening silence of feminists."

Veil teacher was obeying a fatwa

Aishah Azmi, I think

Aishah Azmi Update from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Dragon:

THE Muslim teacher who insisted on wearing a veil in class has been following a fatwa issued personally to her by a Islamic cleric belonging to a hardline sect.

Aishah Azmi found herself in the middle of a national row about integration when she took her school to an employment tribunal after it suspended her for refusing to remove the veil in class.

Tony Blair joined the debate about the wearing of veils — opened by Jack Straw, the Commons leader — and supported the school’s actions.

Azmi, 24, has maintained that her decision to wear the veil was driven entirely by her personal beliefs, rather than the advice or instruction of a third party. But this weekend it emerged that she refused to take the veil off at school after receiving a fatwa, or religious ruling, from Mufti Yusuf Sacha, a Muslim cleric in West Yorkshire.

Her legal team revealed that the advice Sacha issued to Azmi ruled that it was obligatory for women to wear the niqab (face-veil) in the presence of men who were not their blood relatives.

Sacha is one of several hundred Islamic clerics in Britain with the status of mufti, entitling him to issue fatwas based on Islamic law. Although Muslims are expected to follow fatwas, they are not obliged to do so, particularly if they live in a non-Muslim state....

Whittingham said that Azmi, who had been wearing the niqab since the age of 15, asked Sacha whether women had a choice whether or not to wear the niqab. She was told it was obligatory, Whittingham said.

Azmi, who was employed as a bilingual support worker helping British Pakistani children learn English, was told to remove the veil because pupils found it difficult to understand her as they could not see her lips move....

During Azmi’s employment tribunal, Sacha was asked to give a written statement. He set out his reasons for insisting that the niqab was obligatory for women.

Whittingham said: “I know she went to Sacha for advice before starting the job. And at the tribunal Sacha also set out the religious position, which was accepted by both sides. It said that she is required to wear it in the presence of men who are not her blood relatives, or whom she can potentially marry.”

The tribunal ruled that Kirklees council — which runs the school — was within its rights to suspend her from work. But Azmi was awarded £1,100 on the grounds of victimisation....

Sacha follows the teachings of the Tablighi Jamaat, a hardline Muslim group, elements of which are suspected by western intelligence agencies of having links with terrorism. The majority of Tablighis are, however, regarded as moderate.

A colleague of Sacha, who did not want to be named, said that the cleric teaches at the Tablighi mosque in Dewsbury, which has become the organisation’s European headquarters.

Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the London bombers, are said to have been regular worshippers there.

Sacha’s ruling on the veil is disputed. Mufti Abdul Kadir Barkatullah, who is affiliated to the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “I am 100% sure that wearing the niqab is not obligatory on Muslim women — it is a matter of choice. It’s more about habit than religion. The Tablighis observe the niqab very strictly.”

"You can't bring THAT in my cab!"

Cox and Forkum nail the Minnesota Sharia Cab Controversy.

And don't miss the nifty "9:29" license plate.

Iraq: Women's rights champion murdered

"The lives of women" -- as well as those of non-Muslims "in Iraqi society have worsened dramatically since the US-led invasion of March 2003, amid a general break down in law and order and the rise of conservative Islamist militias."

"Women's rights champion murdered," from AFP, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair and PRCS:

GUNMEN broke into the house of an Iraqi women's rights campaigner and shot her dead in front of her three children.

Human rights activists say the lives of women in Iraqi society have worsened dramatically since the US-led invasion of March 2003, amid a general break down in law and order and the rise of conservative Islamist militias.

Captain Imad Khudhir of the Kirkuk police said 38-year-old Halima Ahmed Hussein al-Juburi was killed late yesterday by 10 unidentified attackers who broke into her home in the northern town of Hawijah.

``We do not know the motive behind the crime,'' he said.

Oh really?

...Professional women and rights campaigners are often targeted by conservative Islamist groups who adhere to a strictly traditional view of women's role in society and use violence to drive women out of public life.

Muslim Council of Britain leader backs Aussie imam in "women are like uncovered meat" row

An indication that, unfortunately, Sheikh al-Hilali's views are not all that uncommon. "Briton backs imam in 'uncovered meat' row," by Bernard Lagan in the TimesOnline, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

ONE of Britain’s most senior Muslims has defended as “a great scholar” the Australian imam who likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat that draws predators.

Abduljalil Sajid, a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views, saying that “loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or “standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts”.

Although the Australian cleric did not use the word prostitute, but appeared to be attacking women wearing revealing clothes, Dr Sajid said that the sermon had been taken out of context. Referring to the thrust of the Sheikh’s argument, he said: “So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?” Dr Sajid, who is on a speaking tour, met the controversial Sheikh at his Sydney mosque yesterday.

Sheikh al-Hilali bowed yesterday to pressure and agreed not to preach for three months. But he defied those pressing for him to quit as the leading Muslim cleric in Australia.

After meeting him yesterday, Dr Sajid said: “As far as I am concerned he is a great scholar and he has a great knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence.” Dr Sajid added that he believed that the inflammatory excerpts from a speech, given last month, had been quoted out of context. “I respect his views. His intentions are noble in order to make morality and modesty part of our overall society,” the British cleric said.

BBC internal memo admits anti-Christian, pro-Muslim bias

The dhimmis at the Beeb admit they're dhimmis. "BBC Internal Memo Admits Anti-Christian Bias," by Gudrun Schultz for LifeSiteNews.com, with thanks to Angie:

LONDON, United Kingdom, October 24, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting among the network’s executives and key anchors, in a leaked account of an “impartiality summit.”

The Daily Mail reported Sunday on the secret London meeting of key executives, called by BBC chairman Michael Grade and hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley. The report revealed that many senior executives are deeply frustrated with the corporation’s commitment to “political correctness” and liberal policies at the expense of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledged that ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians.

Tossing the Bible into a garbage can on a comedy show would be acceptable, they said, but not the Koran, and if possible they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, giving him the opportunity to explain his views.

Fitzgerald: A call for papers

After receiving $20 million from Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University has been renamed the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. According to this article, "The Center's leaders say it now will be used to put on workshops regarding Islam, fostering exchanges with the Muslim world, addressing U.S. policy towards the Muslim world, working on the relationship of Islam and Arab culture, addressing Muslim citizenship and civil liberties, and developing exchange programs for students from the Muslim world."

Why, it sounds as though the activities it plans are no different from those of the State Department or, more generally, the idiotized and paralyzed American government: explaining and explaining away Islam through the "workshops" and "fostering exchanges" and "working on relationships" and "addressing Muslim citizenship and civil liberties." Would that include discussing the relation of Islam and the conceivable loyalty of Muslims to the American Constitution and especially to the Bill of Rights?

Fitzgerald: Paying for the stupidity of others

"One day, my professor even had us act out the five pillars of Islam in class..."
-- from this article about the teaching of Islam at Butler University

This is a dead giveaway. The focus is on what is hardly doctrine, but essentially, for Infidels, the utterly trivial rituals of worship. They are trivial because they are seemingly devoid of ideological content.

Who would object if some people in some religion or cult pray five times a day? Or once? Or twenty? Who would object to those people prostrating themselves toward Mecca without knowing the significance of this in making Islam a vehicle for Arab imperialism? Who would object, unless they understand the ferocious collectivism of the prayers, and especially of the Friday Prayers, and especially of the sermons (khutbas) at those Friday Prayers? And who would object to the hajj, unless you knew exactly what was done at the hajj, the primitive pagan worship, the throwing of stones at a pillar that symbolizes not merely Evil, but the evil embodied in the Unbeliever. And why should you object to Ramadan? Or to the giving of zakat -- but only to fellow Muslims, unless by occasionally giving to Unbelievers that furthers the cause of Islam (see bin Talal's check ostentatiously handed over to Giuliani just after 9.11.2001)?

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Vali Nasr

Vali Nasr (Member of the US Council on Foreign Relations): "We Need Engagement with Iran"

No doubt Vali Nasr, the son of a well-known Shi'ite writer and apologist, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, wishes to enroll the Americans in Iraq in order to dampen the Sunni-Shi'a clash. But his perspective is that of a Shi'a, loyal to Shi'a Islam, although not to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which he no doubt deplores. That is understandable. What is not understandable is why his views should coincide with those of Infidels, or that Americans should heed his desire to "avoid radicalization" of "both sides" by, of course, having the Americans remain and stick it out -- not for their own good, but for the good of both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims in Iraq.

Particularly piquant is Vali Nasr's inability to see that wherever Infidels are concerned, all the supposed assumptions about Sunni-Shi'a rivalry -- remember during Israel's attack on Hezbollah how we kept being assured that the Sunni Arab states were secretly delighted, and wanted Israel to keep going? -- tend to be muted, for the Infidels are the real enemy who will unite even warring sects of Islam.

Fitzgerald: Un petit bleu -- Sois-belle et tais-toi

We were recently told that the renewed French riots spring “in part from anger over entrenched discrimination against immigrants and their French-born children, many of them Muslims from former French colonies in Africa."

And in the same article this as well:

"Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, who is considering whether to run for president, said that attacks demonstrate 'a desire to kill.'

'Some individuals are looking for provocations, and sometimes go further,' she said on i-Tele television. She acknowledged people facing unemployment and living in overcrowded housing projects 'have trouble finding their place' in society." -- from this article

The article's author apparently thinks it is part of his job to tell us that when people in gangs, many of them with handguns, hijack busses, and turn the terrified passengers out, and then burn those busses, "many of them [are] Muslims." Yet ordinarily all of them are Muslims, with the appearance occasionally of one or two non-Muslim immigrants who are too terrified not to go along, and have already imbibed from the ambient air the same attitudes exhibited by Muslims who grow up in societies suffused with Islam -- in Paris as in Quetta or Riyadh or Baghdad.

And that author also takes it upon himself to supply the reader with a motive -- the motive never being Islam, but always being something else, in this case "anger over entrenched discrimination." What "entrenched discrimination"? Ask the non-Muslim immigrants, the Chinese or Vietnamese or Hindus or Antillais. Ask Madame Belaya, or for that matter de author of "Un plat de porc..." if they suffer discrimination in that land of la carriere ouverte aux talents.

Fitzgerald: Muslim behavior in the U.S. and Europe

The difference in Muslim behavior in the U.S., as compared to that demonstrated in Western Europe, is owed primarily to several factors.

First, and most important, the Muslim population is a much smaller proportion of the American population -- scarcely 1%. And of even that 1%, most of the Muslims are homegrown Black Muslims, whose own easygoing and at times even syncretistic interpretation of Islam in the past caused the orthodox at Al Azhar to refuse to recognize Elijah Mohammad's group as really Islamic at all.

But what if there were not 3 million Muslims (two million of them identified as belonging to the "Black Muslims") but rather 15 million -- that is, 5% of the total population -- or even 30 million, or 10% of the total population, as may already be true in France? Wouldn't local Muslims, already so aggressive and unyielding in the demands of their so-called representative groups (e.g. CAIR), be far more aggressive and even more demanding, even more uncooperative with the authorities on matters of security, even more aggressive in demands to changes in our legal and political institutions, in our schools, in our social understandings and arrangements, in our everything?

It's OK to kill gays -- British imam

Sharia Alert from Britain, via GCN, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

The leading imam in Manchester, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported.

Arshad Misbahi of the Manchester Central Mosque confirmed his views in a conversation to John Casson, a local psychotherapist.

Casson said: "I asked him if the execution of gay Muslims in Iran and Iraq was an acceptable punishment in Sharia law, or the result of culture, not religion.

"He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: If the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts."

"I asked him what would be the British Muslim view? He repeated that in an Islamic state these punishments were justified. They might result in the deaths of thousands but if this deterred millions from having sex, and spreading disease, then it was worthwhile to protect the wider community."

"I checked again that this was not a matter of tradition, culture or local prejudice. 'No,' he said, 'It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours.'"

Plan drawn up to integrate EU's Muslims

This is ironic on so many levels. One is that the EU has discouraged assimilation at the behest of the Arab League and Muslim leaders in Europe since 1973 -- see Bat Ye'or's Eurabia. The other irony is that statements like Straw's were calls to assimilate -- and were greeted only with hostility by Muslim leaders. From AP, with thanks to Fjordman:

Stratford-Upon-Avon, England: Interior ministers from six of Europe's most populous nations met to seek ways to curtail alienation among the continent's Muslims.

The issue topped the agenda of the interior ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland who concluded a two-day summit yesterday.

Concerns about alienation of European Muslims were highlighted by violence in the deprived suburbs of Paris, where youths - many from immigrant families - set three buses on fire before the first anniversary of three weeks of rioting that raged there last year.

Relations between Europe's Muslims and non-Muslims have become a contentious issue around the continent, with strains growing and many fearing that increasing numbers of disaffected young people are being seduced by extremism.

The ministers agreed to work together to promote integration and said they would stage media campaigns and public events to try to persuade young Muslims to reject radical ideologies and embrace democratic values.

They said they would target young audiences with messages from 'secular Muslim' role models as part of the effort.

A debate over the veils some women wear has prompted emotionally charged arguments about minority groups' identities and integration. Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw set off the argument by announcing he had asked Muslim women to remove their veils when they came for meetings in his district office.

Fear of religious conflict in Belgium

The dhimmis in Belgium are beginning to awaken to the fix they're in. Still, a large number would happily throw freedom of speech overboard. From Expatica, with thanks to Fjordman:

BRUSSELS - More then six citizens in ten fear an increase in religious tensions in Belgium according to a survey by Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

A "pessimistic" attitude in contrast with the overall "moderate attitude" of Belgians towards religions, notes the evening paper.
The majority of interviewees supported a 'respectful criticism' of religions, meaning that criticism can be expressed so long as personal religious beliefs are respected.

But not all Belgians follow this moderated view: 23 percent are opposed to all critics of religion, half as much as the French notes Le Soir, while 16 percent assume a highly critical standpoint, three times more then in France.

Eric de Beukelaer, spokesman of Belgium's Francophone Bishops, said he was satisfied with the results.

"All religions can be criticised, but there are limits," he said, emphasizing the difference between "criticising" and "offending someone in his or her conviction."

The CAL, the Centre for Secular Action (Centre d’Action Laïque), agreed, although its president, Philippe Grollet said that 23 percent of Belgians thinking religion should not be criticised is "too much." He deplores such attitudes which leave no space for debate.

Abdelmajid Mhauchi, Belgians representative of the European Muslim Network, said that Belgium has a long history of conflict between Seculars and Catholics and has learnt to respect religious liberties. "As a Muslim" he said "I accept critics of Islam … but I cannot tolerate mockery and provocation."

[...]

Despite these reasonable views, 60 percent of the people interviewed predict an increase in tensions between Christians and Muslims with Flemish men being the most pessimistic.

Death of a President film suggests Muslims unfairly targeted

Debbie Schlussel has the goods on the latest Hollywood absurdity: "Weekend Box Office: Death of a President = More Re-Birth of Islamist BS":

The much-hyped "Death of a President" isn't worthy of its press. It's a boring, silly movie that's hardly plausible. Unless you're a shrieking leftist who believes in all the BS about Muslims not being terrorists, but being loyal Americans who are wrongly maligned. If you're one of those, then this is your movie.

If you want to see this movie and don't want to find out who really killed President Bush, stop reading here. For everyone else, guess what? The assassin is not the Syrian Muslim, who trained in an Al-Qaeda terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, found with gun powder on his clothing.

Nope, the gun powder was on his clothing "by coincidence," he trained at the terror camp because he's a peaceful guy who thought the camp was just about learning more about Islam (the same excuse everyone who trains there says when they get caught), and he's just an innocent hard-working Syrian Muslim American patriot. Why, even his wife tells us she "cried for three days" after the 9/11 attacks and that the first thing she learned in English was the American National Anthem.

No, predictably, the assassin of the Prez is not the wrongly-convicted, innocent, peace-loving, Al-Qaeda trainee Syrian. It's a Black American Vietnam Vet whose two sons fought in Iraq, one of whom was killed there. Of course, a Vietnam Vet or parent of kids serving or slain in Iraq would murder the President. Gee, why didn't we think of that.

In "Death," despite all the evidence that the vet is the killer, Congress has passed Patriot Act III, and the innocent Muslim is still in prison, easily convicted with no chance of getting out. And no-one will look at the evidence, including a suicide note apologizing for killing the Prez, that the Black American left behind.

Fatwa by Iranian Grand Ayatollah: Men can hit their wives

Many times, when speaking of the nature of Sharia and the rights of women and non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, I have in reference to women quoted Qur'an 4:34: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

And often, when I have quoted this verse, I have been charged with "cherry-picking" unpleasant verses from the Qur'an, and told that no Muslim takes this verse literally in the modern age. I wish that were so, but here is more evidence that it isn't.

"Iran: Men Can Hit Their Wives, Cleric Says," from AKI, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Tehran, 26 Oct. (AKI) - Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious edict - saying it is legitimate for men to hit their disobedient wives. Shirazi, one of the leading clerics of the Shiite holy city of Qom, wrote on his website that "the Koran first of all advises a man to try and convince his wife to obey to him in a polite way and through advice, then by refusing to have sexual relations with her and, finally, if all this will have failed to make her reason, with physical punishment."

The punishment, the leading cleric said, "must be light and considered an exceptional event, like surgery in case of a serious illness."

Makarem Shirazi advised his readers against "physical punishment which leaves signs and wounds." Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal."

Danish cartoon lawsuit rejected

Anti-dhimmitude in Danish courts. From AP:

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) -- A Danish court on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by Muslim organizations against the newspaper that first published the Prophet Mohammed cartoons that touched off protests in the Islamic world.

The City Court in Aarhus said it could not be ruled out that some Muslims had been offended by the 12 drawings printed in Jyllands-Posten, but said there was no reason to assume that the cartoons were meant to "belittle Muslims."

The newspaper published the cartoons on September 30, 2005 with a text saying it was challenging a perceived self-censorship among artists afraid to offend Islam.

The caricatures were reprinted in European papers in January and February, fueling a fury of protests in the Islamic world. Some turned violent, with protesters killed in Libya and Afghanistan and several European embassies attacked.

Islamic law forbids any depiction of the prophet, even positive ones, to prevent idolatry.

"It cannot be ruled out that the drawings have offended some Muslims' honor, but there is no basis to assume that the drawings are, or were conceived as, insulting or that the purpose of the drawings was to present opinions that can belittle Muslims," the court said.

The seven Muslim groups filed the defamation lawsuit against the paper in March, after Denmark's top prosecutor declined to press criminal charges, saying the drawings did not violate laws against racism or blasphemy.

The plaintiffs, who claimed to have the backing of 20 more Islamic organizations in the Scandinavian country, had sought $16,860 in damages from Jyllands-Posten Editor in Chief Carsten Juste and Culture Editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

The lawsuit said the cartoons depict Mohammed "as belligerent, oppressing women, criminal, crazy and unintelligent, and a connection is made between the Prophet and war and terror."

Yep.

It said the drawings were published "solely to provoke and mock not only the Prophet Mohammed but also the Muslim population."

Fjordman: Why the European Union Must be Dismantled

A new essay by the prolific and profound European essayist Fjordman:

In my criticism of the European Union, I have been accused of being too positive towards the nation state. It is true that Western civilization isn't exclusively about nation states. The Renaissance took place in the city states of Italy while nation states were non-existent or weak. It is also true that there is a potentially destructive side to nationalism as opposed to defensive patriotism. However, our current democratic system is tied to nation states. The EU didn't cause all of Europe's problems, but it made some of them worse, and added a few new ones. If the EU collapsed tomorrow, we would still be in a lot of trouble, but at least we would have a fighting chance. I have heard a number of people say that "Europe is already lost." I do agree with them that if the political situation remains as it is today, then yes, Europe is lost to Islam, or at least significant parts of Western Europe, maybe not all of Eastern Europe. But I'm not so sure whether the political situation will, or has to, remain as it is today.

Tens of millions of ordinary citizens are now rapidly waking up to the full scale of the Islamic threat. The problem is that many Western Europeans have a sense of hopelessness because they need to confront so many enemies at the same time. Let's call them Enemy 1, 2 and 3. Enemy 1 is Islam and Muslim immigration. Enemy 2 is the anti-Western bias of our media and academia.

Enemy number 2 is common to all Western nations, also the USA, Canada and Australia. Enemy 1 is also common to all Western nations, but more powerful in Europe because of sheer numbers and proximity to the heartland of the Islamic world.

Enemy 3 consists of Eurabians and EU federalists, who are unique to Europe and make the situation more critical here than it is in North America or Australia.

The feeling among many of those Europeans who now understand the threat is that we can face down and defeat one of these enemies, maybe two, but not all three at the same time. We need a major shake-up in the political situation, something that is visible to everybody, to demonstrate that change is possible. The downfall of the European Union could do the trick.

Muslims may actually have done us a favor. The massive infiltration of Leftist and anti-Western rhetoric that now permeates our media and academia predates Islam, but the failure to identify the threat posed by Muslim immigration has exposed it. Many ordinary citizens still remember that our so-called academic experts and media columnists hailed Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, which are turning out to be the most massive mistakes in modern Western history. This will sooner or later trigger a backlash.

The bad news is that all our various enemies are closely tied together. The good news is also that all our various enemies are closely tied together, and may all go down if one of them falls.

We can start with the Muslims. Their greatest flaw is that they are insanely aggressive and can't handle criticism or mockery at all. A
smart move would be to deliberately provoke Muslims as much as humanly possible. The more they rage and rant and threaten, the more they will discredit the ones who said it was a good idea to let them into our countries and that everybody who said otherwise were "racists."

Muslim Brotherhood behind Minnesota airport taxi dispute

It turns out that the Somali cabdrivers in Minneapolis who refused to carry passengers with alcohol were inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood, as part of a larger effort to bring Sharia to the United States. For what may seem to be a pragmatic and fair solution -- the airport's initial plan to color-code the cabs as Sharia-compliant and non-Sharia-compliant -- actually opens the door to numerous other Sharia provisions in the U.S., as Daniel Pipes has pointed out. Will an unmarried man and woman be allowed to share a cab? A man carrying a ham sandwich? This kind of effort, especially now that the Ikhwan turns out to be behind it, must be seen for what it is and resisted strenuously.

"Airport taxi flap about alcohol has deeper significance," by Katherine Kersten in the Star Tribune, with thanks to Fjordman:

The taxi controversy at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has caught the nation's attention. But the dispute may go deeper than the quandary over whether to accommodate Somali Muslim cabdrivers who refuse to carry passengers carrying alcohol. Behind the scenes, a struggle for power and religious authority is apparently playing out.

At the Starbucks coffee shop in Minneapolis' Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, a favorite Somali gathering spot, holidaymakers celebrating Eid, the end of Ramadan, filled the tables on Monday. Several taxis were parked outside.

An animated circle of Somalis gathered when the question of the airport controversy was raised.

"I was surprised and shocked when I heard it was an issue at the airport," said Faysal Omar. "Back in Somalia, there was never any problem with taking alcohol in a taxi."

Jama Dirie said, "If a driver doesn't pick up everyone, he should get his license canceled and get kicked out of the airport."

Two of the Somalis present defended the idea that Islam prohibits cabdrivers from transporting passengers with alcohol. An argument erupted. The consensus seemed to be that only a small number of Somalis object to transporting alcohol. It's a matter of personal opinion, not Islamic law, several men said.

Ahmed Samatar, a nationally recognized expert on Somali society at Macalester College, confirmed that view. "There is a general Islamic prohibition against drinking," he said, "but carrying alcohol for people in commercial enterprise has never been forbidden. There is no basis in Somali cultural practice or legal tradition for that.

"This is one of those new concoctions."It is being foisted on the Somali community by an inside or outside group," he added. "I do not know who."

But many Somali drivers at the airport are refusing to carry passengers with alcohol. When I asked Patrick Hogan, Metropolitan Airports Commission spokesman, for his explanation, he forwarded a fatwa, or religious edict, that the MAC had received. The fatwa proclaims that "Islamic jurisprudence" prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol, "because it involves cooperating in sin according to the Islam."

The fatwa, dated June 6, 2006, was issued by the "fatwa department" of the Muslim American Society, Minnesota chapter, and signed by society officials.

The society is mediating the conflict between the cab drivers and the MAC. That seems odd, since the society itself clearly has a stake in the controversy's outcome.

How did the MAC connect with the society? "The Minnesota Department of Human Rights recommended them to us to help us figure out how to handle this problem," Hogan said.

Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, thinks he knows why the society is promoting a "no-alcohol-carry" agenda with no basis in Somali culture. "MAS is an Arab group; we Somalis are African, not Arabs," he said. "MAS wants to polarize the world, create two camps. I think they are trying to hijack the Somali community for their Middle East agenda. They look for issues they can capitalize on, like religion, to rally the community around. The majority of Somalis oppose this, but they are vulnerable because of their social and economic situation."

The society

What is the Muslim American Society? In September 2004 the Chicago Tribune published an investigative article. The society was incorporated in 1993, the paper reported, and is the name under which the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood operates.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. The Tribune described the Brotherhood as "the world's most influential Islamic fundamentalist group."Because of its hard-line beliefs, the U.S. Brotherhood has been an increasingly divisive force within Islam in America, fueling the often bitter struggle between moderate and conservative Muslims," the paper reported.

The international Muslim Brotherhood "preaches that religion and politics cannot be separated and that governments eventually should be Islamic," according to the Tribune. U.S. members emphasize that they follow American laws, but want people here to convert to Islam so that one day a majority will support a society governed by Islamic law.

Ohio: Parents Claim Discrimination Against Christian Students

In Mason, Ohio, as well as in many other places around the country, religious observance suddenly appears to be acceptable in public schools, after decades of court rulings against it -- provided, that is, that the religious people in question are Muslim. "Parents Claim Discrimination Against Christian Students," from WCPO.com, with thanks to Janet Levy:

Some Mason residents are claiming their school district is discriminating against Christian students, and giving special treatment to Muslim students.

The accusations came after office space was made available to two students who were observing Ramadan.

District leaders said they set aside the space so Muslim students who were fasting for Ramadan didn't have to be in the cafeteria during lunchtime.

They said the students could have prayed in that room if they wanted to.

Some say that decision is favoring one religion over another.

Sharon Poe and Mason School Board Member Jennifer Miller said public schools like Mason High School are forcing Christianity out of the hallways.

Examples they give include the fact that Easter break is now called Spring break.

And nativity scenes are also not allowed on school grounds.

They claim that Christian students are being discriminated against.

They argue that if Christian students can't share their religion at school, no one should be able to.

Sharon Poe is a Mason resident.

"I want to make sure that it is being fair for every religious group in the school. We can't stipulate that's what's good for one is not good for another. This is a public education facility."

Turkey: Teenage girl murdered by brother in honor killing

All too often this happens: the victim of rape is punished -- in part because, after all, she must have brought it on herself, and also because the moral crime involved is that which results from her own impurity, however unwilling she was. "Teenage girl murdered by brother in 'honor killing,'" from AFP, with thanks to DFS:

ANKARA -- A 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child that she said resulted from a rape became the latest victim of so-called "honor killings" in Turkey, newspapers said Monday.

The young girl, from a mainly Kurdish town near Turkey's eastern border with Iran, was murdered by an elder brother Saturday, press reports said. The victim, named only as Naile, had apparently not been aware that she was pregnant until she started feeling unwell and was admitted to a hospital, where she gave birth to a boy, the reports added.

She later told her mother that the pregnancy had resulted from a rape. When other members of the family heard the news, the elder brother shot her dead at point-blank range in a street of the town, and then fled.

Lawmakers react, one suggests sheik leave Australia after blaming unveiled women for rape

Anti-dhimmitude from Australia's Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward. "Sheik's sexist comments create storm," an update on this story from AAP:

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward believes the comments are an incitement to crime.

"Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man ... their leader in court," she told the Nine Network.

She wants him to go, but did not make clear whether she wanted to him to leave the country or step down as a leader of the Islamic community.

"It's time we stopped just saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community did more then say they were horrified. I think it is time he left," Ms Goward said.

Victorian Liberal backbencher Sophie Mirabella wants the sheik to consider moving back to the Middle East.

"I have a message for Sheik Alhilali: This is Australia, not Iran, and violence and degradation of women is not acceptable," she said.

More senior members of government were also scathing.

"Certainly I think if a religious leader in the Catholic Church or the Anglican Church or in Judaism was to make these sorts of statements, they would be getting a very severe rap over the knuckles, at the very least," Health Minister Tony Abbott told the Nine Network.

"He's wrong. He should be reprimanded and it's up to ordinary, decent Australians to make it clear that he is wrong."

Treasurer Peter Costello urged other Muslims to pull the sheik into line.

"I hope that the moderate Muslim leaders will speak out today and condemn these comments," he told the Seven Network."

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said the sheik's comments were offensive and should be corrected by the Islamic community.

Not much luck so far: Keysar Trad says earlier in the article that this has all been taken out of context:

President of the Islamic Friendship Council of Australia, Keysar Trad, said the sheik's comments had been misrepresented, although he admitted his analogies could have been better.

"From what I understand, he was talking about the context of encouraging people to abstinence before getting married," Mr Trad said.

"His references to exposed meat etc was a very poor example that was meant to be a reference to both men and women, he wasn't talking about Islamic dress, he wasn't talking about rape."

Oh, really now. From the earlier item:

Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

British Airways employee rejects compromise on wearing cross

An update to this story. "BA employee rejects 'cross' offer," from the BBC, with thanks to Kasper:

A British Airways employee fighting to openly wear a cross necklace at work has rejected a compromise deal.

Nadia Eweida, 55, said BA has offered her a job in recruitment where she would not have to conceal her cross.

The check-in worker, from Twickenham, south-west London, plans to sue BA for religious discrimination after being told to conceal her necklace.

The airline said its uniform policy stated such items could be worn if concealed underneath the uniform.

Ms Eweida told the BBC she did not see why she should compromise "when my colleagues of other faiths are there in public view in uniform and they are accepting of their religious apparel".

Former Iran leader wanted in Argentina

Anti-dhimmitude from Argentine prosecutors. By Oscar Serrat for AP, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Argentine prosecutors asked a federal judge on Wednesday to order the arrest of former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center that killed scores of people.

The decision to attack the center "was undertaken in 1993 by the highest authorities of the then-government of
Iran," prosecutor Alberto Nisman said at a news conference.

He said the actual attack was entrusted to the Lebanon-based group Hezbollah.

The worst terrorist attack ever on Argentine soil, the bombing of the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires killed 85 people and injured more than 200 when an explosive-laden vehicle detonated near the building.

Iran's government has vehemently denied any involvement in the attack following repeated accusations by Jewish community and other leaders here.

Iranian authorities contacted here by The Associated Press said they would have no comment.