"Religion Of Peace" Worshippers Stone Couple To Death

Somehow, the appelation "Religion of Peace" doesn't seem to stick when I read stories like this.

From the Telegraph UK:

A man and woman have been stoned to death in northern Afghanistan after being accused by the Taliban of having an affair. The 23-year-old woman and 28-year-old man were killed because "they had an affair," said Mohammad Ayob, the governor of Imam Sahib district in Kunduz province. "Two people were stoned to death by Taliban in Mullah Quli village late yesterday," he said. The village is under the control of the Taliban. ... The couple had their hands bound behind their backs and were forced to stand in an empty field as their sentence was carried out, he said. A local Taliban commander, who contacted media but refused to give his name, confirmed the killings. ... Earlier this month, the Taliban publicly flogged and then killed a pregnant widow for alleged "adultery" in western Badghis province.

Where is the outrage from the so-called "moderate" Muslims? If this were a Christian or Jewish happening, the entire world would be screaming with rage (including the Muslims). Where was the courageous Islamic who stood up in front of the crowd and said, "Let him who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone!"

But then, I'm sure that the apologists for the Islamics will assert that the couple was violently stoned to death in the most peaceful manner possible.

Taliban Kill Couple In Public Stoning
Foreign Staff
Telegraph UK
August 16, 2010

Some Aspects Of Obama's Speech To The Muslims

Anyone who listened to Barack Obama's speech in Egypt knows exactly where he stands on issues involving the Muslim world. He is clearly for the Muslims and against us mainstream Americans.

One of his biggest whoppers was saying, "If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

Now, why would Obama tell such a huge lie? Does he actually think that the Arab Muslims will believe that?

Debbie Schlussel has the numbers:

At one point during the Presidential campaign, Obama said that we are not a Christian nation (despite the numbers given above). He even lashed out at John McCain for saying that we are a Judeo-Christian nation. Today, Obama says we are a Muslim nation? Must be that fuzzy math that the Democrats insist on teaching in public schools. The numbers show that among nations with Muslim populations, America is ranked 34th.

Obama also went on to blame the U.S. for the problems in the Arab world and said that colonialism was the root cause. But America never had any colonies in the Arab world. So, how can we be responsible for something we didn't even get involved in?

Instead of bashing America, Obama had the opportunity to build up America's image by citing the many times when Americans came to the aid of the Muslim world. He could have talked about Kosovo, Bosnia, the aid we sent to the tsunami victims in Inodnesia and southern Thailand and a whole bunch of other examples. But, no. Instead, Obama had to show how much contempt he has for the country he is supposedly leading by trashing us on foreign soil yet again.

Obama talked about a new understanding of Islam. But where was his call for Islam to launch a new understanding of America? A man who truly had the best interests of America at heart would have done exactly that.

Obama also said, "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Is that why Jews are not allowed in Muslims countries? Is that why Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be a Christian? Is that why many Muslim nations force their women into subservient roles and require them to hide their faces? If a Muslim preached Islam on the streets here in the United States, no one would bother them. (First Amendment, you know.) But, if a Christian preached the Gospel or a Jew preached the Torah on the streets of Iran or Saudi Arabia, they'd be charged with heresy and face the death penalty. Obama must think we are really stupid if he expects us to believe that the Mohammedans are tolerent of other religions or other cultures.

Obama said that we Americans overreacted to the 9/11 attacks where 3,000 innocent people were killed by 19 Muslim terrorists. And yet he said nothing about how Arab Muslims were dancing in the streets in celebration of the success of the attacks. A rationally thinking human being would call the dancing in the streets an overreaction, but Obama, preferring to blame America first, would never come to such a logical conclusion.

In terms of extremism, Obama could have called on Saudi Arabia to stop supporting the Wahabbis, a sect that promotes hatred and violeance as a means of extending the rule of Islam. No, Obama instead preferred to blame America for the hatred that Muslims feel towards us.

Clearly, Obama wants to prop up the Mohammedan world at the expense of those of us living here in the West.

Did you vote for that last November? Whether you did or not, that is what you are getting.

You can access a very good analysis of the speech on-line here:

The Lies in Obama's Speech Exposed!
Christopher Logan
Islam In Action
June 4, 2009

Obama Makes Ridiculous Claim That Islam Has Shaped The World 'For The Better'

Just what rock has Barack Obama been hiding under for the past 50 years? Where did he learn about Islam such that he would be so blind to the reality of a very hateful and intolerant religion?

According to Associated Press, Obama said the following to the Turks:

"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida," he said. "We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."

"Mutual respect?" Since when has the Islamic world ever shown respect for America?

Since when have the loud speakers at Mecca ever said one, single respectful thing about the United States? The Muslim world has no respect for us at all and Obama is not going to change that by trying to "make nice" with people who have no intention of making nice in return.

They have shown nothing but disrespect and disdain for us. They celebrated when 19 of their brethren killed 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.

More:

"We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country," Obama said.

"For the better?" Who in their right mind would ever say such a thing?

Is it "for the better" that women are treated like property and have massive restrictions placed on them? Is it "for the better" that the practitioners of Islam are completely intolerant towards other religions? Is it "for the better" that Muslim children are taught to hate non-Muslims from the day they are born?

Is it "for the better" that few, if any, Islamics have made any attempt at speaking out against those who support the following suras:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Sura 5, verse 51). "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!" (Sura 9, verse 30). "And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper." (Sura 2, verse 120). "And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." (Sura 2, verse 191). "Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." (Sura 3, verse 28). "And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY." (Sura 4, verse 101). "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (Sura 9, verse 123). "Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire." (Sura 76, verse 4). "O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed." (Sura 3, verse 100).

What does the Koran say about women? Will Obama go on record as saying that these things that Islamics teach their children about how women are to be regarded under Islamic law are "for the better?"

Here are some more excerpts from the Koran:

"Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." (Sura 4, verse 34). "And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them." (Sura 4, verse 15). "O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other." (Sura 2, verse 282). "Your wives are a tilth (sexual toy) for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers." (Sura 2, verse 223). "O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving." (Sura 4, verse 43). "They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things." (Sura 4, verse 176).

But, according to Obama, all this abusive misteatment of women is "for the better," right?

I know that some of you moral relativists out there are going to say that similar verses appear in Judeo-Christian religious texts. That is correct, but few, if any Jews or Christians are actively trying to apply those writings to the real word the way the majority of Muslims seem to be doing.

The big difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity is that Jews and Christians have been enlightened over the years by actively seeking knowledge outside of the church. Muslims seem to be stuck in the 7th Century.

As a case in point, Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be anything other than Muslim in Iran.

Was there any outrage at all from the Muslim community over this? No. I don't remember hearing one little peep out of any of them.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Tells Turkey: U.S. ‘Not At War With Islam’
Associated Press via MSNBC
April 7, 2009

Hassan Chop: The Faces Of Those Who Were Killed For 'Honor'

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has a blog entry entitled Losing Our Heads ......

Within this blog entry you will find pictures. Pictures of girls and young women who were full of beauty, life, potential and free spirit. These same girls were killed by members of their own families simply because the girls did not want to submit to the sexist, male-dominated restrictions that Islam places on women.

And our so-called mainstream media has not any courage whatsoever to report these killings. They will report so-called hate-crimes, but never would anyone at the likes of NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN nor at the Washington Post or New York Times ever want to "offend" the Muslims.

Look upon their faces here:

Losing Our Heads ................
Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs
February 15, 2009

Take for instance, the case of Aasiya Z. Hassan, wife of Muzzammil Hassan who launched the pro-Muslim Brdiges TV network in an effort to promote a positive image of Islam. He beheaded his wife because she "disobeyed him."

I'm sure Islam looks really appetizing to women right now.

From the Buffalo News:

Aasiya Hassan had filed for divorce and obtained an order of protection on Feb. 6, barring her husband from their home in Orchard Park, police said. “There had been problems before — there had been prior incidents of physical abuse,” said Corey Hogan, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding. Hogan said discussions were being held about continuing arrangements for the couple’s two children, ages 4 and 6, and two older children, ages 17 and 18, from Muzzammil Hassan’s previous marriage. The family lived on Big Tree Road in Orchard Park. “Obviously, this is the worst form of domestic violence possible,” Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said Friday.

But you will never hear about this on any of the major networks.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Orchard Park Businessman Charged In Beheading Of Wife
Fred O. Williams and Gene Warner
Buffalo News
February 14, 2009

Canadian Human Rights Commission: One Of The Most Hypocritical Organizations In North America

Mark Steyn is a pistol. He has no problem pointing out the idiots and fools in any crowd, regardless of what meaningless insults those idiots and fools throw back at him.

The latest batch of foolish idiots to be highlighted by Mr. Steyn are the members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You remember them, don't you? They are the kangaroo courts who prosecute thoughtcrimes in Canada on behalf of Big Brother.

But, as Napoleon Pig pointed out, some perpetrators of thoughtcrime are more equal than others. Read what Mark has to say in his latest blog entry:

Marc Lebuis (of the excellent Quebec website Point de Bascule) has had his complaint against a Montreal imam, Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus al-Hayiti, rejected by the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. M Lebuis filed the case to test the consistency of the CHRC: Do they apply their speech codes equally to all Canadians? Or do they just screw over the soft targets who've had the misfortune to catch the eye of serial plaintiff Richard Warman? Well, M Lebuis has his answer. In the eyes of the CHRC's international laughingstock Jennifer Lynch, QC and the rest of the Lynch Mob, not all hatemongers are equal. As the headline in Le Devoir puts it: Commission canadienne des droits de la personne - S’attaquer aux gais, aux occidentales et aux juifs n’est pas nécessairement haineux That's to say, "CHRC: Attacking gays, western women and Jews isn't necessarily hateful." Hey, that's great to know, isn't it? At least if you're an imam. If you're an Alberta pastor opposed to gay marriage, you might want to tread more carefully. Over at Point de Bascule, M Lebuis lists some of the choicer statements from Imam al-Hayiti's book: * "Homosexuality is a 'perversion'" * "Homosexuals 'spread disorder on earth'" * "Homosexuals and lesbians should be 'exterminated in this life'" * "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded..." * "Most Infidels 'live like animals'" * "they are evil people, they love perversity," and "they are our enemies..." * "Men are superior to women and better than them..." * "This is the reason why ethnic groups are not equal..." * "It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery..." * "Jews 'spread corruption and chaos on earth.'" * "Most Jews 'seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing...'"

Apparently, these Canadian kangaroo courts are perfectly happy to read and hear about Islamic Imams bashing gays and women and attacking other religions, but if a Christian were to mention anything negative about gays, women or any other religion, then the CHRC is primed up for litigation and legal action as well as smearing the names of those they prosecute, or rather persecute.

Hypocrisy, thy name is leftism.

You can access the original blog entry on-line here:

CHRC: Infidels Are Not A Protected Category
Mark Steyn
SteynOnLine.com
December 17, 2008

Book Review: Mark Steyn's "America Alone"

I like to read whenever I get the chance. But lately, my only chances have been at the gym where I can sit at one of the bicycle machines and do a 30 to 40 minute aerobic workout while reading some good current event analysis.

The latest book I've been able to finish is America Alone by Mark Steyn. My advice? Go get this book and read it thoroughly. When you are finished with it, send it to someone you know in Europe because they need to read it more than we do.

The premise of the book is that within 60 to 70 years, the United States will be alone in facing Islamic terrorism since Europe will have since become an Islamic Caliphate. Sound far-fetched? Like something out of an apocolyptic movie produced in Hollywood? Read the book and you will see exactly how serious it is.

First, Mark deals with birthrates and what they mean. Right now, Occidental Europeans are not replacing themselves. Their birthrates are far below the rate of 2.1 live births per death needed to effectively replace the population and maintain current levels. As Mark puts it, European couples wait until their late 30's and decide to have "one designer baby." That's one baby coming from two adults. What happens after one generation? Population drops fast.

But not all European groups are below this 2.1 rate. In fact, Muslims are far above it, somewhere between 3.0 and 5.0. So, what happenes to their population after one generation? It grows and it grows fast. Europe is going to lose to numbers. The Muslims will have the numbers while the Occidentals will not.

Other factors come into play too. Europe has made no effort to assimilate their Arab/Muslim immigrants. In fact, Europe has bent over backwards to accomodate them, even to the point of letting them on the welfare rolls and giving them unconditional financial support. The Arab/Muslim response? Take a look at the riots that occurred in France. That is how the Arab/Muslims said "Thank you."

Even when Muslims flatly state outright what their intentions are, the Europeans show no backbone in confronting the obvious threat.

Consider this from Page 197 of the book:

After the carnage in Spain, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed told Lisbon's Publica magazine that a group of London Islamists were "ready to launch a big operation" on British soil. "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents," he said, clarifying the ground rules. "Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value."

How can anyone interpret that any other way than for it to mean exactly what he said? Fools might attempt to do so, but the truly wise among us will see the truth.

Finally, here is one more excerpt from Page 200 that describes precisely what situation Europe is walking straight into with their collective eyes wide open:

Bomb us, and we agonize over "root causes." Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace." Issue blood-curdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodmites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush and Blair. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "healthy-lifestyle lo-fat granola bar."

See how many fools there are who would quickly side with the likes of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed?

Europe is sliding down a greased pole right now. We can't stop it. Only the Europeans can, but they don't have the courage or committment to do so.

That is why, by the time my grandchildren graduate college, America will be alone in facing the Islamic threat.

Pope Baptizes Prominent Italian Muslim

Now this is something I doubt you will ever hear on the Today Show or Good Morning America. We've heard alot about everyday people converting to Islam and then expressing support for extremist elements. But when have we heard of the exact opposite occurring? When have we heard about a Muslim converting to Christianity because he/she opposed extremist elements?

It happened in Italy. From TownHall.com.com:

Italy's most prominent Muslim, an iconoclastic writer who condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel, converted to Catholicism Saturday in a baptism by the pope at a Vatican Easter service. An Egyptian-born, non-practicing Muslim who is married to a Catholic, Magdi Allam infuriated some Muslims with his books and columns in the newspaper Corriere della Sera newspaper, where he is a deputy editor. He titled one book "Long Live Israel." ... Allam, 55, told the newspaper Il Giornale in a December interview that his criticism of Palestinian suicide bombing provoked threats on his life in 2003, prompting the Italian government to provide him with a sizable security detail. ... Allam also explained his decision to title a recent book "Viva Israele" by saying he wrote it after he received death threats from Hamas. "Having been condemned to death, I have reflected a long time on the value of life. And I discovered that behind the origin of the ideology of hatred, violence and death is the discrimination against Israel. Everyone has the right to exist except for the Jewish state and its inhabitants," he said. "Today, Israel is the paradigm of the right to life."

Interesting.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pope Baptizes Prominent Italian Muslim
Nicole Winfield
TownHall.com
March 22, 2008

Peace Loving Muslims

I think I can still count on one hand the number of Muslims who have come out and condemned terrorist attacks committed by other Muslims. But, they are so few and far between that I can't remember their names anymore. I think there was one last year and then another one the year before that.

That is the point of Dr. Walter Williams' latest column. It is short, simple and to the point. Here are some excerpts:

We're told it's only that 1 percent, out of 1.2 billion Muslims, who are fanatical jihadists who believe America is the Great Satan, cause of all evil, and should be attacked and destroyed.

By the way, 1 percent of 1.2 billion is 12 million.

Think back to the 1930s when the Japanese murdered an estimated 3 million to 10 million people in China, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines and Indochina; and on December 7, 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. I'm betting that most of Japan's at-the-time 60 million population were peace-loving people and would have wanted nothing to do with the brutal slaughter in China and the attack on the U.S. In formulating our response to the attack, should President Roosevelt have taken into account the fact that most Japanese are peace-loving people ruled by fanatics? ... Horrible acts can be committed in countries where most of the people are peace-loving and simply want to be left alone to attend to their affairs. I imagine that described most of the people in the former Soviet Union; however, that did not stop the killing of an estimated 62 million people between 1917 and 1987. The same can be said of the Chinese people, but it didn't stop the killing of 35 million of their countrymen during Mao Zedong's reign. ... At this particular time, fanatical jihadists are calling the terrorism shots in many Muslim countries. Their success in committing terrorist acts is in no small part the result of the actions by the millions of peace-loving fellow Muslims. First, there is not enough condemnation of their terrorist acts by the Muslim community. More important is the direct or indirect assistance terrorists receive through the silence of their fellow Muslims. There is no way terrorists can carry on their operations, obtain explosive materials, run terrorist training camps, raise money without the knowledge of other Muslims, whether they're government officials, bankers, family members, friends or neighbors.

During the liberation of the Concentration Camps in Germany and other parts of Europe, the people living in nearby towns said they had no idea what the Nazis were doing. It was a lie. They knew full well what was going on, just as Muslim communities know full well what is happening within their own strata.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Peace-Loving Muslims
Dr. Walter Williams
TownHall.com
March 19, 2008

Time Editor Wants 'Macaca' Moment, Planned Parenthood Protects Child Rapists And Feminists Silent On Islamic Suppression Of Women

The leftist elites of Old Media, aside from being entrenched in a philosophy that has always been on the wrong side of history, are seemingly incapable of learning or of having integrity. The latest case is one Ana Marie Cox who arrogantly suggested that something Mitt Romney said in jest should be treated as a "macaca moment" by Old Media.

From NewsBusters:

Time online editor Ana Marie Cox apparently believes a dated quip by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney should be considered a "macaca moment." During a Florida event on Monday, Romney, joking with a group of young people, quoted a rather lame song by the Baha Men. After asking who had a camera, he blurted, "Who let the dogs out? Who? Who?" Now, most people would simply smile or appreciate Romney's friendly, if somewhat dorky, sense of humor. Cox, however, at Time's "Swampland" blog, wondered, "Shouldn't it be a 'macaca moment'? I suspect he's not being pilloried for it because the moment [sic] less offensive than it is cringe-inducing..."

How pompous can a newsreader like Cox get? If she ever makes a claim that she is somehow objective and not trying to push an agenda for a leftist political party, the above shows how big of a liar she is.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Time Editor On Romney Quip: Shouldn't It Be A 'Macaca Moment'?
Scott Whitlock
NewsBusters.org
January 23, 2008

---

Although Planned Parenthood likes to paint itself as a supporter and proponent of women's rights and all that, they clearly have another mission too: to cover-up sex crimes in which 13-year-old girls are sexually assaulted by adult men.

From OneNewsNow:

Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline says there is a new important battleground in dealing with the abortion industry -- the enforcement of current laws and the enforcement of new laws once Roe v. Wade falls. Kline, now the district attorney for Johnson County, Kansas, has filed a 107-count criminal indictment against federally funded Planned Parenthood. Among other things, he charges the nation's largest abortion-provider with performing late-term abortions, which are illegal in the Sunflower State. While speaking at the Blogs for Life Conference at the Family Research Council, Kline noted that Planned Parenthood admits in its own studies that it is servicing 13-year-old children -- who have, on average, 22-year-old male sexual partners -- who are predominantly in coercive sexual relationships. "[Planned Parenthood's] idea of treatment, of course, is to allow [that] relationship to continue," explains Kline, "by either helping cover up the crime through an abortion, or providing birth control that will help conceal something later from revealing the crime."

Pedophiles all over the U.S. are cheering to have their sexual deviancies covered up by PP. But I doubt that parents of the victims of these cover-ups would be on the same sideline.

Perhaps PP should come out and say what they really stand for.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Federally Supported Abortion Clinics Labeled 'Safe Havens For Child Rapists'
Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
January 23, 2008

---

And while we are on the subject of women's rights, FrontPageMag has an interesting piece about feminists and the treatment of women in Islamic countries. Here's how it starts:

The David Horowitz Freedom Center has succeeded in putting the feminists and Islamists on the defensive. As David Horowitz and Robert Spencer note in the article below, the DHFC's exposure of the feminist movement's lack of attention to women's rights in the Muslim world has caused many of the movement's most prominent activists to sign a letter protesting that they originated concern for Muslim women. The letter, drafted by feminist writer Katha Pollitt, has been signed by such notables as: Susan Faludi, the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women, which argues conservatives are trying to suppress American womyn, and The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America, which claims terrorism provided a handy excuse for the American Right to begin binding women's feet again; Julianne Malveaux, who expressed her feelings about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on PBS' To the Contrary, "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease" Jennifer Baumgardner, a Nation writer whose idea of fighting female oppression is staging productions of The Vagina Monologues; Dana Goldstein, an employee of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and a writing fellow at the Soros-funded The American Prospect; and More than 700 more leftists. The letter spread quickly, beginning on the website of the far-Left's flagship publication, The Nation. (The Nation's piece was also picked up by Yahoo News). Soon, it had been posted on Mother Jones, the Islamic Forum, the University of Maine, and many other sites -- including that of a woman named Heart who is running for president. Not all are pleased; at least one insists U.S. immigration laws and Israeli treatment of Palestinians are a more direct affront to women's rights than clitorectomies. (She asks, "Does Ms. Pollitt think that 'Muslim countries' are particularly hostile to women’s rights for some reason?") Nonetheless, the very fact that the Left, so long silent about the crimes countenanced by its Islamic partners in the antiwar movement, now feel they must mount a rousing defense is vindication of our efforts. -- The Editors.

That's just the reaction from the left. How long have we conservatives been trying to bring light upon how women are being treated in Muslim countries? And only now do the feminists respond by criticizing the effort to expose such treatment?

David Horowitz and Robert Spencer have a fantastic response to this open letter. It is difficult to single out any details as more important than the others as there are so many good points to ponder.

Read on:

The signers of this Letter claim that, “contrary to the accusations of pundits,” they support Muslim feminists in “their struggle against female genital mutilation, ‘honor’ murder, forced marriage, child marriage, compulsory Islamic dress codes, the criminalization of sex outside marriage, brutal punishments like lashing and stoning, family laws that favor men and that place adult women under the legal power of fathers, brothers, and husbands, and laws that discount legal testimony made by women.” Well, we welcome these avowals of support for the rights of Muslim women. However, forgive us for doubting their sincerity. As one of us pointed out in a speech given at the University of Wisconsin during Islamo-Fascism Week: “One of our concerns … is the failure of the Women’s Studies Movement to educate students about these atrocities. There are probably 600 Women’s Studies programs on American campuses, which focus on the unequal treatment of women in society. We have had a very hard time locating a single class which focuses on the oppression of women under Islamic law.” What was true last October is still true today. As recently as December 10, a Muslim teenager was strangled by her father for refusing to wear a hijab without a protest from the American feminist movement. And that is only one of many crimes committed in the name of Islam against Muslim women over which the feminist movement continues to be silent. On New Year’s Day, Amina Said, 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead in Irving, Texas. Police are searching for their father, Yaser Abdel Said, on a warrant for capital murder. The girls’ great aunt, Gail Gartrell, told reporters, “This was an honor killing.” Apparently Yaser Said murdered his daughters because they had non-Muslim boyfriends. The signers of the Open Letter say that they are against honor killing. Here is an honor killing in the United States. Where are these feminists on this issue? Why are they not supporting the hunt for Amina’s and Sarah’s killers and organizing a campaign in the Muslim community to stop such practices? On Sunday, January 20, the New York Times published an article, “A Cutting Tradition,” which falsely described female genital mutilation practiced under Islamic law as “circumcision” and portrayed it in a generally positive light, and even warned against “blindly judging those who practice it.” The article made no mention of the physical effects of this barbaric practice, which affects 140 million Muslim girls who have their genitals sliced off yearly, and in some 15 million cases their vaginal tract sewn up. ... Where is the feminist outrage over the New York Times article? Where are the feminist demonstrations against this practice? Where are the campus teach-ins? Where are the candlelight parades? What Muslim organizations have been confronted for their complicity in this assault on female Muslim children? This is a horrific crime against the female gender -- global in extent -- and yet one would be hard-pressed to identify a single public event, protest or march organized by feminists to oppose it. The Open Letter mentions the feminist “V-Day” organized to protest violence against women. We challenge the signers of this letter to identify the speeches given during “V-Day” that protested female genital mutilation in the Islamic world. We challenge them to identify the Vagina Monologue of Islamic misogyny. We are encouraged by the fact that these American feminists feel the need to respond to our challenge over their silence as a movement on violence against Muslim women and to assert their opposition to these barbaric practices. We challenge them now to put actions behind their words. Join us in sponsoring a campus tour on the Oppression of Women in Islam with speakers such as Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Form academic committees to provide curricula on these subjects in Women’s Studies courses. Devote a major segment of your V-Day demonstrations to the plight of Muslim women. Join us during Islamo-Fascism Week II this spring in appealing to campus Muslim organizations to condemn these practices. Then we’ll know you’re serious.

Wow. If only the newsreaders of Old Media had the courage to say such words.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

A Response To Feminists On The Violent Oppression Of Women In Islam
David Horowitz and Robert Spencer
FrontPageMag.com
January 24, 2008