And the Women’s March participants complain of “oppression” and “denial of humanity.”
Such drama queens.
From Daily Mirror: A woman and her partner were publicly whipped for getting “too close” to each other just days before their wedding. The shocking public punishment took place in Aceh, Indonesia. Closeness is seen as a step towards pre-marital sex which is against Sharia Law and as a result the couple each received 20 lashes, in front of gathering crowds. The pair were among a group which were brought forward for public punishment on a makeshift stage outside a mosque on Friday. An Indonesian Christian was also whipped for selling alcohol in the conservative province of Aceh.
Islamic law also forbids selling and consuming alcohol and Jono Simbolon was arrested in October and sentenced to 36 lashings. As a masked officer whipped his back with a rattan stick the man could be seen grimacing in pain in front of the jeering crowd.
After 10 of the lashings a doctor was brought in to check on Simbolon – but he gave the go-ahead for the whipping to continue.
Simbolon is the third non-Muslim to endure a public whipping since Aceh began implementing Islamic law in 2001 – the only province in Indonesia to do so.
Banda Aceh mayor Aminullah Usman said: “This is our government’s commitment to enforcing Islamic law. If there is a violation immediately report it to the Sharia police and we will carry out a punishment like today’s caning.” About 98% of Aceh’s five million residents are Muslims and are subject to the Sharia law. People are flogged for a range of offences including gambling, drinking alcohol, gay sex or any sexual relationship outside of marriage.
Let’s see the proggies try and defend this.
From The Daily Mail: British Muslims disagree with the rest of the country on a range of key issues such as sexuality, freedom of speech and polygamy, according to new research. A poll carried out by ICM discovered that more than half of Muslims disagree with homosexuality being legal in Britain, while a quarter support Sharia law being introduced into parts of the country instead of British law.
The full findings will feature in a Channel 4 documentary presented by Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, on Wednesday. Entitled What British Muslims Really Think, the programme will investigate the ‘split’ between Britons who follow Islam and the rest of the population. Among the most startling findings by the research was the attitude of Muslim men and women to the treatment of wives. A third of those polled said it was acceptable for a British Muslim to keep more than one wife, while 39 per cent said wives should always obey their husbands. Nearly half of those questioned said it was unacceptable for a gay or lesbian person to teach their child, with the majority also opposing gay marriage.
Former equal rights chief Phillips, who speaks to several members of the Muslim community on their views during the documentary, states that ‘the integration of Muslims will probably be the hardest task’ the country has ever faced.
He told The Sunday Times Magazine: ‘I thought Europe’s Muslims would gradually blend into the landscape. I should have known better. Britain desperately wants us to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappy athlete Mo Farah. ‘But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we know that just isn’t how it is.’
More than 80 per cent of Muslims surveyed said they felt British and were happy living here, yet conceded they were more likely to stay within their own communities, especially when it came to relationships. The ICM figures reported that more than half mix with non-Muslims each day, normally through work or education, but one in five never enter a non-Muslim household.
Phillips, who was head of the equal rights commission from 2006 and 2012, published a report on Islamophobia twenty years ago, in which he underestimated the number of Muslims that would be living in the UK.
Nearly three million Muslims currently call Britain home, half of which were born abroad, while it is projected that at least six million will live in Britain by 2050. As part of its research, ICM carried out interviews with 1,801 adults compiled from a random sample who categorised themselves as being Muslim.
Funny how that “tolerance” doesn’t work under Sharia Law.
Via The Telegraph: Air France stewardesses, furious at being ordered to wear headscarves in Tehran, say they will refuse to fly to the Iranian capital when the airline resumes the service later this month. Female members of flight crews have been ordered to cover their hair once they disembark in Tehran and unions are demanding that the flights be made voluntary for women.
The resumption of a thrice-weekly service between Paris and Tehran, planned for April 17 after an eight-year break, follows a thaw in relations since Iran agreed to dismantle large sections of its nuclear programme. Iranian women have been forced by law to cover their hair or face stiff fines since the 1979 Islamic revolution. In staunchly secular France, however, public signs of religion have been frowned upon since a 1905 law separating church and state. French women see Islamic headscarves and veils as an affront to their dignity. Headscarves are banned in French state schools and offices, and it is illegal to wear the full-face Muslim veil in public.
Flore Arrighi, head of the UNAC flight crews’ union, said: “It is not our role to pass judgement on the wearing of headscarves or veils in Iran. What we are denouncing is that it is being made compulsory. Stewardesses must be given the right to refuse these flights.” She added that female staff were entitled to exercise “individual freedoms”.
The financially ailing French airline, which sees the resumption of Tehran flights as an “excellent” business development, pointed out that other airline staff were obliged to comply with Iranian rules. “Tolerance and respect for the customs of the countries we serve are part of the values of our company,” a spokesman said.
The lovely abaya…
In Saudi Arabia, stewardesses must wear the “abaya”, a long robe that covers the body, but unlike Saudi women they are not compelled to wear face veils. Air France argued that French law allows “the restriction of individual liberties” if “justified by the nature of the task to be accomplished.”
The deputy head of the SNPNC flight crews’ union, Christophe Pillet, said: “Female staff do not wish to have dress regulations imposed on them, especially the obligation to wear an Air France scarf that completely covers their hair as soon as they leave the plane.” Stewardesses normally have a choice between a uniform with a skirt or trousers, but they have been instructed to wear a long jacket and trousers on Tehran flights. Mr. Pillet said flight crews were prepared to wear headscarves in Iran when out of uniform, but objected to being ordered to wear them as part of their uniform. Unions want Tehran flights to be made voluntary without penalties for staff, deductions from wages or consequences for their careers.
Another union representing flight crews, UNAC, has written to the minister for women’s rights and families, Laurence Rossignol, complaining about the headscarf order. Ms. Rossignol, who describes herself as “a feminist with a modern vision of the family”, was herself embroiled in a row over headscarves last month prompted by Marks and Spencer’s decision to sell the burkini, or full body swimsuit. Women who wear veils or Islamic headscarves, she said, were like “negroes who supported slavery”.
Françoise Redolfi of the UNSA union said Air France had told staff it was restoring rules that applied before 2008, when Air France discontinued flights to Iran as the country’s relations with western nations deteriorated over concerns that it was seeking to develop nuclear weapons. “The general environment now is much more sensitive,” she said. “Many female members of flight crews have informed us that it is out of the question that they be obliged to wear headscarves. It is not professional and they see it as an insult to their dignity.”
Wonder if Hillary believes that “human rights” are to be applied to those with different religious beliefs as well? No worries, more donations should keep her quiet on this matter.
The Guardian reported yesterday that Ashraf Fayadh (35), a Palestinian poet and leading member of Saudi Arabia’s nascent contemporary art scene, has been sentenced to death for renouncing Islam.
A Saudi court ordered the execution of Fayadh, who has curated art shows in Jeddah and at the Venice Biennale. The poet, who said he did not have legal representation, was given 30 days to appeal against the ruling.
Fayadh is a key member of the British-Saudi art organisation Edge of Arabia.He was originally sentenced to four years in prison and 800 lashes by the general court in Abha, a city in the south-west of the ultraconservative kingdom, in May 2014. After his appeal was dismissed he was retried last month and a new panel of judges ruled that his repentance did not prevent his execution.
If you are aware of human rights (such as they are) in Saudi Arabia, this should come as no surprise. Systematic discrimination against women and religious minorities is prevalent. “I was really shocked but it was expected, though I didn’t do anything that deserves death,” Fayadh told the Guardian.
Ashraf Fayadh/Photo from his Instagram account
A migrant rights activist from Kuwait, Mona Kareem, has led a campaign for the poet’s release, said: “For one and a half years they promised him an appeal and kept intimidating him that there’s new evidence. He was unable to assign a lawyer because his ID was confiscated when he was arrested [in January 2014]. Then they said you must have a retrial and we’ll change the prosecutor and the judges. The new judge didn’t even talk to him, he just made the verdict.”
Fayadh’s supporters believe he is being punished by hardliners for posting a video online showing the religious police (mutaween) in Abha lashing a man in public. “Some Saudis think this was revenge by the morality police,” said Kareem. He also believes that Fayadh has been targeted because he is a Palestinian refugee, even though he was born in Saudi Arabia.
Fayadh was first detained in August 2013 after receiving a complaint that he was cursing against Allah and the prophet Muhammad, insulting Saudi Arabia and distributing a book of his poems that promoted atheism. Fayadh said the complaint arose from a personal dispute with another artist during a discussion about contemporary art in a cafe in Abha.
After one day in jail, he was released on bail but the police arrested him again on January 1, 2014, confiscating his ID and detaining him at a police station until he was transferred to the local prison 27 days later. According to Fayadh’s friends, when the police failed to prove that his poetry was atheist propaganda, they began berating him for smoking and having long hair.
You are not allowed to practice or preach a different religion in Saudi Arabia other than Islam. Hence Fayadh is in the position he is in now. “They accused me [of] atheism and spreading some destructive thoughts into society,” said Fayadh. He added that the book, Instructions Within, published in 2008, was “just about me being [a] Palestinian refugee … about cultural and philosophical issues. But the religious extremists explained it as destructive ideas against God.”
During Fayadh’s trial in February 2014, complainant and two members of the religious police told the court that Fayadh had publicly blasphemed, promoted atheism to young people and conducted illicit relationships with women and stored some of their photographs on his mobile phone. He denied the accusations of blasphemy and told the court he was a faithful Muslim. According to the court documents, he said: “I am repentant to God most high and am innocent of what appeared in my book mentioned in this case.”
The case highlights the tensions between hardline religious conservatives and the small but growing number of artists and activists who are tentatively pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia, where cinema is banned and there are no art schools.
Saudi Arabia has a complete intolerance of anyone who does not share government-mandated religious, political and social views. But that is not unexpected from those who adhere to Sharia Law.
Do you know of any American business bending over backwards to please Christians?
Despite the fact that nearly 8 out of every 10 Americans are Christian?
In fact, these days we are more likely to find Americans businesses that do their best to offend Christians.
According to a website on Islam in Europe and North America, estimates of the percentage of Americans who are Muslim vary:
A 2007 survey by Pew Research Center places the figure at 0.6%.
Preceding surveys fall somewhere below that estimate: Baylor (2006) at 0.2%; Pew (2000-2007) at 0.5%; General Social Surveys (1998-2006) at 0.5%; Gallup (1999-2001) at 0.3%; American Religious Identification Surveys (2001) at 0.5%; and the National Election Study (2000) at 0.2%.
Not surprisingly, estimates by Muslim American groups are higher:
1.5% (or 4.7 million), according to the 2005 Britannica Book of the Year.
2.1% (or 6.7 million), according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the premier Muslim-American “civil rights” organization in the United States which the FBI had identified to have ties to terrorists. In 2007, U.S. federal prosecutors named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.
Even if we take the most generous estimate, CAIR’s, that still puts Muslims at 2.1% of the total U.S. population, which is miniscule when compared to the number and percentage of U.S. Christians. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008), the majority of U.S. adults — 76% — identified themselves as Christians.
And yet, the 2% of Americans who are Muslims manage to wield grossly disproportionate power and influence.
Amy Elizabeth reports for GOPTheDailyDose that on March 19, 2014, a Home Depot in Dearborn, Michigan, succumbed to the demands of CAIR and subjected its employees to “cultural awareness training” in order to accommodate the “religious sensitivities” of Muslim employees and customers,” and to “help corporate managers gain a better understanding of Muslims and Islam.”
Not just in Dearborn. CAIR Michigan says it also “has provided similar trainings in the past to other Home Depot locations in southeastern Michigan.”
Friday is the day for congregational worship, called Jum’ah. The prayer generally takes place at a mosque during the noontime prayer and includes an address or sermon, and lasts a total of 45 to 90 minutes.
Performing the rituals of the pilgrimage may last five days during the second week of the twelfth month of the lunar calendar. However, considerable variations exist in trip arrangements, and group travel may take 10-21 days. Muslim employees may choose to make pilgrimage using vacation time.
Employers may wish to modify dress code policies so that religiously-mandated attire is addressed as a diversity issue. For example, many corporations have a policy forbidding the wearing of hats. This rule may be amended to exempt items such as Muslim head scarves and skullcaps.
A Muslim employee should not be asked to serve or sell religiously offensive products, such as alcoholic beverages.
Amy Elizabeth points out these so-called Muslim “accommodations” are nothing more than forcing American businesses to comply with Islam’s sharia law, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws.
Elizabeth rightly asks: In a world where Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims, how can any American, let alone an American corporation like Home Depot, bend over backward to accommodate the enemy?
Emirati R M admitted repeatedly hitting his son with an electrical wire and a cane, claiming he only wanted to discipline him for poor school grades.
The beating was so severe the son was left unconscious and covered in blood. He was driven to hospital by his mother where he was declared dead.
Prosecutors originally charged R M with causing death by beating, which holds a maximum jail term of 15 years. At the first trial in Abu Dhabi Criminal Court, the charge was changed to premeditated murder.
What would you say if I told you that women in America are told that, if they want to work outside their homes, they must breastfeed their male co-workers?
Yes, I’m serious: Adult women are to breastfeed adult men who are not their sons. (Never mind the fact that women breastfeeding adults sons is itself a repugnant thought.)
But that’s exactly what fatwas (legal decrees) issued by clerics of that Religion of Peace and Reason and Enlightenment and Human Decency are saying.
Barenakedislam reports on April 16, 2012, that this absurdity began in May 2007, when a Dr. Izzat Atiya, the chair of the Department of Hadith at Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, issued a fatwa saying that female workers should “breastfeed” their male co-workers “directly from her breast at least five times” in order to work in each other’s company. Posted: April 16, 2012 | Author:barenakedislam | Filed under:IslamoMania |30 Comments »
The great and wise Dr. Atiya based his fatwa on a hadith—a documented saying or doing of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and subsequently one of Sharia law’s sources of jurisprudence.
The breastfeeding subject was revisited three years later in 2010, when a high-ranking Saudi, Sheikh Abdul Mohsin al-Abaican issued a fatwa confirming that “women could give their milk to men to establish a degree of maternal relations and get around a strict religious ban on mixing between unrelated men and women.”
The new fatwa, however, differed slightly from Dr. Atiya’s, insisting that “the man should take the milk, but not directly from the breast of the woman. He should drink it [from a cup] and then [he] becomes a relative of the family, a fact that allows him to come in contact with the women without breaking Islam’s rules about mixing.”
Two years later, adult breastfeeding once again raises its ugly head, but now it pertains to a wife breastfeeding her husband.
A report titled “Kuwaiti Activists: Husband Breastfeeding from Wife not Prohibited,” published earlier this month by Arabic RT (see also Garaa News) opens by announcing that “The adult breastfeeding fatwa has returned once again to the spotlight, after Kuwaiti Islamic activists supported the adult breastfeeding fatwa issued by the Egyptian Salafi, Sheikh Jamal al-Murakbi [different from Al Azhar’s Sheikh Atiya]. This time around, the Kuwaitis examined the adult breastfeeding fatwa in the context of relations between a man and his wife.”
The mental images conjured by this insanity are too horrible for a Wednesday morning.
Ann Barnhardt is the guest (starting at the 9 minute mark) for a nearly 2-hour broadcast on the Hagmann & Hagmann Report and unloads on the contraception, social security, cultural corruption, the government corruption, the cult of Islam, the cabal of evil men who put their foreign-born puppet, Obama into power, and that’s just for starters.
Opponents in Philadelphia say bill on Sharia law unfair to Muslims
Newsworks: A bill in Harrisburg that opponents say is targeted against Muslims has followers of that faith upset.
House Bill 2029 would ban Pennsylvania courts from considering any foreign legal code or system that isn’t identical with the Constitution. Muslim activists say that it is specifically targeted against the practice of Sharia Law–a religious code for Muslims that has the power of law in some countries. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Attorney Amara Chaudhry says this would block freedom of religious expression.
“This is not a new faith we are not a foreign faith and yes this dangerous, clearly stated discriminatory purpose on a publicly circulated document, you just don’t get any more troubling than that,” said Chaudhry. Professor Khalid Blankinship of Temple University compares following Sharia to the Catholic teaching that divorce is not allowed. “That would be like going into the Catholic Church and telling them that you can’t marry people the way you want or saying you have to allow divorce of people even if the Pope ruled otherwise,” said Blankinship.
State Representative Rosemarie Swanger of Lebanon County, who authored the bill, says it is designed to preserve rights of liberty that do not exist in some foreign legal systems. She has said recognizing foreign laws could allow women to be treated as second-class citizens. In a letter she sent to colleagues, Swanger called Sharia law “inherently hostile to our constitutional liberties.”
I’m no legal scholar but I’m pretty sure that the US Constitution is the supreme law of this country. And I’m pretty sure that “freedom of religious expression” doesn’t include stoning of women, child rape, and honor killings – at least not here in the US (yet).
No doubt CAIR is on a mission. If the politicians cave to this PC baloney under the guise of “religion” in Pennsylvania, don’t be surprised if CAIR challenges this type of legislation in every other state. You know they will.
“You shall know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16)
The much-trumpeted Arab Spring is shaping up to be an Arab Winter.
In the liberated Egypt and Libya, Sharia law will rule. Now, Islamic radicals have claimed victory in the first democratic election of Libya’s neighbor, Tunisia. Tunisia was the birth-place of “Arab Spring” when Mohamed Bouazizi, a vegetable seller in a provincial town, set fire to himself in protest at poverty and government repression. His action provoked a wave of protests which, weeks later, forced autocratic president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to flee to Saudi Arabia.
The revolution in Tunisia, a former French colony, inspired uprisings which forced out entrenched leaders in Egypt and Libya, and convulsed Yemen and Syria — re-shaping the political landscape of the Middle East.
The Associated Press reports, Oct. 24, 2011, that Islamists on Monday claimed victory in Tunisia’s first democratic election, sending a message to other states in the region that long-sidelined Islamists are challenging for power after the “Arab Spring.” Official results from Sunday’s vote have not been announced, but the Ennahda party said its workers had tallied the figures from results posted at polling stations around the country.
“The first confirmed results show that Ennahda has obtained first place,” campaign manager Abdelhamid Jlazzi said outside party headquarters in the center of the Tunisian capital.
As he spoke, a crowd of people in the street shouted “Allahu Akbar!” or “God is great!” Other people started singing the Tunisian national anthem.
Mindful that some people in Tunisia and elsewhere see Islamists as a threat to modern, liberal values, the party official stressed Ennahda would wield its power in a responsible and inclusive way.
“We will spare no effort to create a stable political alliance in the constituent assembly. We reassure the investors and international economic partners,” Jlazzi said.
Even if its victory is confirmed when official results from the vote — the first democratic election in Tunisia’s history — are released, Ennahda will still have to share power with other, secularist parties.
Sunday’s vote was for an assembly which will sit for one year to draft a new constitution. It will also appoint a new interim president and government to run the country until fresh elections late next year or early in 2013.
Ennahda is led by Rachid Ghannouchi, a scholar who was forced into exile in Britain for 22 years because of harassment by Ben Ali’s police. He is at pains to stress his party will not enforce any code of morality on Tunisian society. He models his approach on the moderate Islamist of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.
But the party’s resurgence is met with ambivalence by some people in Tunisia. The country’s strong secularist traditions go back to first post-independence President Habiba Bourguiba who called the hijab, or Islamic head scarf, an “odious rag.”
A crowd of about 50 people gathered late on Monday outside the offices of the electoral commission, demanding an investigation into what it said were irregularities committed by Ennahda.
A leading secularist challenger to Ennahda, the Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) conceded defeat. It had warned voters that modern, liberal values would be threatened if the Islamists won. “The PDP respects the democratic game. The people gave their trust to those it considers worthy of that trust. We congratulate the winner and we will be in the ranks of the opposition,” a party statement sent to Reuters said.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about the Ennahda or Renaissance Party:
Although traditionally shaped by the thinking of radical Muslim ideologue Sayyid Qutb and Maududi, the party began to be described as “moderate Islamist” in the 1980s when it advocated democracy and a “Tunisian” form of Islamism recognizing political pluralism and a “dialogue” with the West.
Critics charge that one of Ennahda’s main leaders, named Rashid Al-Ghannushi, had a history of violence.
In the 1989 elections, the party was banned from participating. In 1991, President Ben Ali jailed 25,000 Ennahda activists. Ennahda militants attacked the ruling party headquarters killing one person and splashing acid in the faces of several others. The party was legalized on 1 March 2011.
The party is generally described as socially centrist with mild support for economic liberalism (free market). The party says it wants Islam in public life; that it will be more accommodating to other viewpoints such as closer relations with the West and greater economic freedom; and currently rejects radical Islamism as a form of governance for Tunisia.