Women's Rights Weakens Orthodox Islam

The European Union recently approved a new ruling that strengthens women's rights. Under the new law, forced marriage and female genital mutilation are completely prohibited.

The easiest way to weaken orthodox Islam without excess resistance is to strengthen a commitment worldwide to human rights for women. And this is a good example: No child marriage and no clitoridectomies, regardless of what your religious beliefs are, because they are human rights violations, and that's more important than respect for religion when the two are in conflict.

The principle is simple: Religious tolerance is great. But not at the expense of human rights. Human rights trumps religious tolerance.

This forces Muslims to become less orthodox. It encourages an attitude of being selective about what edicts to follow from Islamic doctrine. That directly opposes fundamentalism.

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence. Subscribe to Citizen Warrior updates here. You can send an email to CW here.

Read more...

An Op-Ed About CAIR by Sue Myrick

CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, is one of the largest and most well-funded Muslim organizations in the U.S. But they're not the moderate Muslim group they say they are. They're actually a front for the terrorist group HAMAS.

CAIR attacks those who try to speak the truth about what they are up to, like how they're placing CAIR interns in U.S. government offices. Few people have the courage to go up against any terrorist organization, but the former U.S. Representative for North Carolina's 9th congressional district, Sue Myrick, once explained CAIR's motives very clearly and very publicly. I'll quote her in a moment.

The goal of CAIR is to undermine our government by gaining government positions and influencing public perception and eventually replacing our laws with Sharia law. Europe looked the other way for too long and now they are paying the price. We can't afford to look the other way. We can't afford to believe what they say and ignore what they do.

Here's what Myrick said:

I held a press conference on Capitol Hill attended by three of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to call for a federal investigation (s) into a non-profit group called the Council on American Islamic Relations (C.A.I.R.)

Here are the facts:

1. CAIR has documented ties to the terrorist organization HAMAS. This is stated fact by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In an April 28, 2009 letter to US Senator Jon Kyl, the FBI wrote the following:

“As you know, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in the United States v. Holy Land Foundation et al. (Cr. No. 3:04-240-P (N.D.TX.). During that trial, evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders (including its current President Emeritus and its Executive Director) and the Palestinian Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestinian Committee and HAMAS, which was designated a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI.”

In case you are not familiar with the Holy Land trial referenced above, it was a Dallas, Texas trial that ended with guilty verdicts on 108 counts of funneling money ($12 million) to HAMAS.

2. The purpose of our press conference was to make public an internal CAIR memo that documented CAIR's stated goal of placing CAIR interns in the offices of members of Congress, especially the members who serve on the Homeland Security, Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. Let me be clear here, CAIR, a group whom the FBI says is affiliated with the terrorist group HAMAS, is trying to place their interns in the offices of those members who serve on the three committees that handle national security related issues. National Security is the first responsibility of the federal government.

3. Following our press conference, CAIR, immediately labeled we four members as bigots and started their public relations campaign to discredit us by claiming that we were against Muslims working on Capitol Hill. We never said that. At no time during our press conference did we even insinuate that we were investigating Muslims being interns on Capitol Hill.

Our focus was and is on CAIR and CAIR alone, not Muslims.

Likewise CAIR tried to make this a Republican vs. Democrat thing, because the four members at the press conference happened to be Republican.

How then does CAIR explain Democrat Senator Charles Schumer’s call earlier this year for a government-wide ban on CAIR in the federal government due to their ties to HAMAS? Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer has likewise made public her opinions of CAIR and any Google search will find her remarks.

4. CAIR is spending time, money and energy to position themselves as the spokespeople for the moderate Muslim community. Problem is CAIR is not a moderate Muslim organization. It is a radical front group for HAMAS. So who is CAIR competing with for this designation? The real moderate Muslim groups/individuals in America. Groups and individuals like the following who are committed to countering Islamist extremism:

Dr. Hedieh Mirahmadi – President World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE)

Zeyno Baran – Director for the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute

Farid Ghadry – President of the Reform Party of Syria

Manda Zand Ervin – Founder and director of the Alliance of Iranian Women

Omran Salman – Arab Reformists Project, 'Aafaq (Arabic for “horizons”).

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – American Islamic Forum for Democracy

Karim Bromund – Director of Inter-Religious Affairs for the Islamic Supreme Council of America

I SUPPORT the Muslim individuals and groups mentioned above. These groups renounce terrorists and their radical ideology. They are trying their hardest to be heard and recognized in America, but are being overshadowed and out-funded by CAIR. Today, when something happens that impacts the Muslim community, the media calls CAIR (an unindicted co-conspirator to terrorism and a HAMAS front group) for comment on behalf of American Muslims. What an insult the media is performing on the Muslim community. Instead they should be calling Muslim groups/individuals like those named above. This is part of the reason we are focusing our attention on CAIR and exposing them for who they are. For one they pose a threat to our national security, and two, they deny the ability of legitimate Muslim groups to gain credibility.

5. In July of this year I held a summit on Capitol Hill where I introduced the leaders of eight moderate Muslim organizations to the heads of several US Agencies, Members of Congress and congressional staff. For example, they met with representatives from the State Department, USAID, Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. How can I be against Muslims working on Capitol Hill and hold such an event? Go here to read for yourself about this summit.

See through the lies and realize what is really going on here.

We are trying to expose a HAMAS Front Group (CAIR) for who they are, and they are crying we are anti-Muslim hoping that media outlets will ignore the terrorist claim and instead pick it up as a race/religion story. When those claims don’t work, they claim it’s a Republican political thing.

Americans, on this subject we need to stop the Republican vs. Democrat, Conservative vs. Liberal, Christian vs. Muslim division and unite on one simple point…. CAIR is a front group for HAMAS. It was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case that lead to 108 convictions of funneling $12 million to HAMAS. Because of the evidence produced in that case, the FBI severed all ties with them. This same CAIR, by their own admission, is trying to place people inside the offices of members of Congress who deal with national security issues (judiciary, homeland security and intelligence committees). I serve on one of those committees, Intelligence, am the co-chairwoman of the House Anti-Terrorism Caucus, and have spent the better part of the last four years working every day on terrorism related issues.

If we Americans fail to set aside our political, religious and ideological differences and unite when we encounter the enemy in such stark and plain terms, then God help us.

Read more...

The Search For The Moderate Muslim

This may be one of the most difficult issues to deal with for those of us who are working to defeat the third jihad: What about the moderate Muslims? Is there such a thing? What does "moderate" mean?

I think what most of us hope it means is "a Muslim that openly and definitely repudiates the violent, intolerant, supremacist passages in the Koran."

But the more I read about mainstream "moderate" Muslim organizations in America, the more I realize that what I hope "moderate" means and what those "moderate Muslims" mean by the term are entirely different. I am getting the feeling that the term "moderate Muslim" is not only pointless, but misleading — perhaps even deliberately misleading.

We should stop using the term. We should come up with a name for Muslims who straightforwardly reject the violent, intolerant passages in the Koran and openly reject the supremacist ideology strewn throughout Islamic teachings.

In my opinion, someone who does that is not really a Muslim, but maybe they still enjoy praying five times a day and fasting during Ramadan, so they might prefer to call themselves Muslims. Maybe they don't want to be rejected by their community and family. Who am I to tell someone what they call themselves?

On the other hand, we non-Muslims need a term that draws a distinction between the two types of Muslims. One type is dangerous to non-Muslims and one is not. A Muslim may not care about this distinction, but it's pretty important to us non-Muslims.

I heard Walid Phares use the term "democracy-seeking Muslims" and I thought that was pretty good, but it doesn't go far enough. Until a Muslim acknowledges that there are, in fact, calls to violence and intolerance against non-Muslims in their central holy book, and then repudiates those specific Koranic passages, I don't feel that Muslim can be trusted.

I know that would sound terrible to someone who doesn't know anything about Islam. But really, this is a pretty straightforward matter. If you call yourself a Muslim, almost everybody on earth is assuming you think the Koran contains the core teachings you will follow. For us non-Muslims who have read the book, that's a scary thought. For those of you who haven't read it yet, these passages will give you an idea: What the Koran Says About Non-Muslims.

So a firm repudiation of those passages would at least acknowledge that the Muslim knows those passages exist and acknowledges that they should be rejected. I know it is entirely possible someone saying so could be lying, but it would at least be a start.

What should we call Muslims who repudiate intolerant and supremacist Islamic teachings? "Moderate" isn't good enough. How about "Scrubbed Muslims?" "Jihad-rejecting Muslims?" "Freed Muslims?" "Friendly Muslims?" "Non-jihadi Muslims?" "Pluralist Muslims?"

I like "Jihad-rejecting Muslims," or JRMs. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, JRMs are the only ones we should engage in "interfaith dialogs" and the only ones allowed to provide counsel for the FBI and the only ones translating documents for security services.

JRMs are the only Muslims who should be allowed to preach in mosques in free countries or teach in madrassas. This is just simple, reasonable self-preservation. A person who calls himself a Muslim but does not openly reject the killing of non-Muslims for being non-Muslims, and who does not reject the overthrow of legitimate democracies, and who does not reject Shari'a law, should not be allowed into those positions. That should be a no-brainer for any person who cares about their government's survival.

So far there aren't many Muslims who are clearly JRMs. The term "moderate Muslims" lets them off the hook — they don't have to risk rejection by their families or perhaps even risk their lives openly repudiating specific Koranic passages, and non-Muslims are left with no way to tell who is a friend and who is a foe.

The term "moderate Muslim" also allows Muslims to remain "undeclared." They don't have to decide whose side they are on. They can secretly harbor a wish that some day their democratic country will be ruled by Shari'a, that some day Islam will reign supreme over the whole world, and that some day all kafirs will pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims), and yet they may look in every way like a good citizen, trusted by non-Muslims, allowed into influential positions, etc. But if circumstances permitted, they would work toward their Islamic supremacist fantasy. They can function like a kind of sleeper cell in our midst.

By making our own term and defining it, we can make a clear distinction for ourselves and for Muslims, between who is an enemy and who is a friend.

I don't know if simply rejecting jihad would be even be enough, however. One of the most fundamental principles of Islam is that loyalty to Islam comes before loyalty to anything else, including one's country or even one's family. Wouldn't that be a potential problem if the person is working for the government? But maybe our definition of a JRM could include a repudiation of this Islamic hierarchy of loyalties as well.

Another problem is that it says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should use Mohammad as an example to emulate. And Mohammad ordered the torture of people, personally participated in beheading 600 people in one night, ordered and led raids on caravans, captured, owned and had sex with slaves, and spent the last ten years of his life conquering and subjugating people. So the definition of a JRM would also have to include a bold rejection of the idea that Mohammad is someone who should be imitated.

Since the stakes are so high for us non-Muslims (being the target of the violence), and since it is easy enough to find out what it actually says in the Koran (that it's a Muslim's duty to fight against the unbelievers until no god is worshiped in the world but Allah), we would be foolish to cavalierly grant our trust to Muslims until they prove themselves trustworthy.

The onus, the burden of proof, is not on non-Muslims.

Muslims will have to prove themselves trustworthy. This whole thing is difficult for all of us, but this distinction must be made. It's a sane response for non-Muslims to make to this sticky situation.

If any Muslim thinks this is offensive or intolerable or somehow outrageous, I think we have discovered someone who is trying to pretend those dangerous passages are not in their holy book, and that sounds like someone we cannot trust.

But if non-Muslims named and defined who we would be willing to trust, and we did it clearly and defiantly, we might find out how many Muslims are on the side of freedom, equality, and pluralism. What do you think?

Read more...

A Slow-Motion Conquest by Stealth

YESTERDAY a commenter named Reilly left an interesting comment on the article, The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam, and I wanted to share it with you:

I started thinking about Islam as a dangerous, self-replicating "meme" a few years back.

The catalyst was a Muslim colleague who tried to convince me Islam was tolerant. His evidence was a source claiming that the Koran demanded that Muslim men could marry Christian/Jewish women and were obliged by the Koran NOT to interfere with their wive's religion (thus allegedly proving how tolerant Koran is).

But... the same source also declared that:

1 - Children should follow the father's religion.
2 - And while Muslim men were allowed to marry infidels, Muslim women were not.

And then I thought how those rules interacted with each other.

And then I realized that, under a thin disguise of supposed "tolerance", these rules gave an evolutionary/competitive advantage to the Muslims over the long term (ie: birthrate/religon of children).

In reality, these rules didn't facilitate "tolerance". They simply facilitated a steady, slow-motion conquest by stealth.

Now I don't know the providence of these claimed traditions, but when even the evidence shown to me directly by a "Moderate Muslim" clearly shows a Supremacist mindset, this is not encouraging!

And so my suspicion began...

Thank you for laying this all out so clearly and easy-to-understand in a single article.

Read more...