The near total inability, the obsessive resistance by leftist ‘intellectuals’ to identify Islamic doctrine being the casus belli for jihad, genocide, obsession with conquest, beheadings, FGM, child marriage and honour killings, is Â infuriating and annoying. But it is also comical. An example here by Â ‘Harry’s Place’ marathon scribbler Sara AB, who wastes an enormous amount of time on Islam apologies:
After quoting a few individual Muslims who spoke out about honour killings, Sara AB Â takes the taqiyya dripping MCB , which she calls “orthodox and conservative” by its (weasel-)words. If that’s not dense I don’t know what is.
She (also) quotes Â what she believes is aÂ Â really excellent pieceÂ by Joanne Payton.
*particularly in the light of an almost universal agreement, amongst Muslims, that such killings are unislamic.”
Christina McIntoshÂ makes far more sense and keeps things in perspective:
Saturday, 28 June 2014
For once, it isn’t a non-Muslim speaker being dropped from something because of Muslim “outrage” but a Muslim being dropped from something because ofÂ non-MuslimÂ outrage.
As reported on Wednesday this last week, by Geoff Chambers and Alicia Wood for Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.
‘A radical Islamic (hey, let’s cut to the chase and just say – “pious Muslim” or simply “Muslim” – CM)Â spokesman has been stopped from delivering a speech defending honour killings (that is: honourÂ murdersÂ – CM) at a cultural festival at The Sydney Opera House.
That is an unfortunate sentence, grammatically speaking. Â One could read it as if the honour murders themselves were part of the cultural festival...- CM
‘The event – part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas – was slammed asÂ a cheap stunt that could have put women’s lives at risk.
Women’s lives areÂ alreadyÂ at risk, within the Ummah. Â It is estimated that Muslims commit some 90 percent of “honour” murders within the Western world and also the majority of such murders outside the West. Â Phyllis Chesler’s articles on “honour” murders, and how they are distinct from what western countries ordinarily call “domestic violence”, are well worth reading.
Another useful essay is “Spengler” in “Asia Times”, on “Wife-Beating, Sharia and Western Law”.
He observes that within Islam’s legal systemÂ “the father is a “governor” or “administrator” of the family, that is, a little sovereign within his domestic realm, with the right to employ violence to control his wife and children…The practice of wife-beating, which is found in Muslim communities in Western countries, is embedded too profoundly in sharia law to be extracted. Â Nowhere to my knowledge has a Muslim religious authority of standing repudiated wife-beating as specified in Surah 4:32Â [sic: usually 4:34 – the numbering of the verses varies from translation to translationÂ – CM] for to do so would undermine the foundations of Muslim society.
“By extension, the power of the little sovereign of the family can include the killing of waywardÂ (or deemed or imagined to be waywardÂ – CM)Â wives and female relations.
“Execution for domestic crimes, often called “honor killing”, is not mentioned in the Koran, but the practice is so widespread in Muslim countriesÂ – the United Nations Population Fund estimates an annual toll of 5,000 -Â that it is recognized in what we might term Islamic common law. Â Muslim courts either do not prosecute so-called honor killings, or prosecute them more leniently than other crimes..”.
It may be noted, in this connection, that although crimes fitting the “honour” murder pattern do occur among Sikhs and Hindus (communities that, it should be observed, have historically lived under Muslim rule for long periods and even when not under direct Muslim rule have endured heavy cultural pressure from Islam), they do not engage in them at anything like the same rate as Muslims. Â Sikhs and Hindus immigrated to Britain alongside Muslims. Â But when, in 1994, Australian journalist Geraldine Brooks published her book, “Nine Parts of Desire”, about the lot of women in Muslim countries and communities, and included an account of the trial of a Sudanese Muslim man, in the UK, for the murder of his wife Afaf, she added the following information – unfortunately, without supplying the reference: “In a British study of family violence completed not long after Afaf’s death, the researchers found thatÂ women married to men of Muslim background were eight times more likely to be killed by their spouses than any other women in Britain”. Â And now, back to our Hizb ut Tahrir gang member.Â – CM
‘The furore comes days after Opera Australia sacked a soprano from performing at the Opera House after an anti-gay slur appeared on her Facebook page.
‘Federal and State MPs condemned the Opera House for its decision to host Hizb ut Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar in a speech entitled “honour killings are morally justified”.
Why is Uthman Badar in Australia at all, anyway? Â Why has Hizb ut Tahrir not been banned? Â – CM
‘Honour killing involves murdering a woman who is considered to have shamed her family.
‘The speech, scheduled for August 30, was removed from the festival’s playlist last night following widespread outrage.
Now thatÂ isÂ interesting. Â Non-Muslim outrage, for once, gets results. Hey, maybe if we got angry enough, and stayed angry, we might even manage to persuade the Aussie government to ban Hizb ut Tahrir in this country and expel from Australia all identifiable operatives thereof…including, of course, the repulsive Mr Badar. Then we could move in on other equally sinister Islamic outfits.Â – CM
‘The state govenrment is understood to have put pressure on the Opera house with NSW Arts Minister Troy Grant asking for an urgent explanation on why the event was scheduled.
“The NSW govenrment is proud to support programs that enrich our society and culture, but I am concerned this program does not meet that criteria, and I have sought an urgent explanation”, Mr Grant said.
“Where these ideas have the potential to spark racial tension (stupid choice of words: this is about ideology, not ethnicity –Â CM) they move from dangerous to stupid”.
Hmm. I see. Â Mr Grant is afraid that evil Aussie racists, if they hear a proud Muslim like Mr Badar arguing unashamedly in favour of the right of Muslim males to kill uppity female chattels, will attack the pooor little Â Muswims in the streets…???Â – CM
‘Hizb ut Tahrir is a banned radical (i.e. Muslim revivalist – CM) organisation in Germany and The Netherlands, and, before becoming Prime Minister, Tony Abbott said he would outlaw it here.
Oho. So he hasn’t, yet? Shame on him. It is high time that theyÂ wereÂ banned, and every last one of their identifiable operatives given the boot.Â – CM
‘Promotional material for the speech said that historically “parents have reluctantly sacrificed their children – sending them to kill or be killed for the honour of their nation, their flag, their king, their religion. But what about killing for the honour of one’s family?”
Note the false analogy. Â In Australian history, all our soldiers have been volunteers, and of age, or nearly so (like my 16 year old great-uncle who lied about his age in order to enlist, and fought in the battle of Milne Bay). Â But a 13 year old girl in a Muslim family who is declared insubordinate – perhaps for refusing to wear hijab, or because she is rumoured to have made eyes at a boy, or because some boy made eyes at her – and set upon by a male mob consisting of her father, uncles, male cousins and brothers and sadistically destroyed in a frenzy of overkill, does not “volunteer” to be thus destroyed. Â One might note also that what westerners mean by honour, whether of a person or of a nation, and what Muslims mean by honour, are actually two very different things. –Â Â CM
‘Foreign Minister Julie Bishop condemned the event, saying: “It is abhorrent for any person, regardless of faith or ethnicity, to argue in support of murder as a means of protecting the so-called honour of any other individual, family or community”.
‘Federal Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek said honour killing was murder, and “any promotion of or justification for it is completely unacceptable”.
Good. Â However, it would be well for Islamosavvy Australians to make sure that Ms Plibersek and Ms Bishop are aware of the writings of Phyllis Chesler, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Nonie Darwish on the subject of Islamic “honour” murders of women, so that they have a good solid grasp of the subject and will not be able to be fooled by Muslim evasions and deflections.Â Indeed, it might have been preferable had the Festival of Dangerous Ideas been permitted to let Mr Badar shoot off his mouth – give him enough rope with which to hang himself – but…had been required to also engage any one or all of these three women I have just named, and perhaps also Taslima Nasreen from Bangladesh, to respond to Mr Badar right there and then, in person. Â NowÂ thatwould have been a debate worth buying tickets for.Â – CM
‘Women’s Minister Pru Goward said the event had no place in Australia.
But so long as we have Muslims in Australia, we will have “honour” murders. Â Guaranteed. – CM
“The justification of honour killings has no place in this country, and frankly I’m surprised the idea is being entertained”, Ms Goward said.
“If Hizb ut Tahrir and the Islamic Caliphate are trying to improve cultural understanding, I have a tip for them; promoting honour killings is not the way to do it”.
I wonder what would have happened if he had proposed to argue in defence of the murder of those who leave Islam for another belief system, or in defence of the murder of “blasphemers”? Or in defence of the right of Muslims within Australia to marry more than one “wife”, plus sex slaves (number unlimited), and to take “wives” under the age of sixteen, perhaps even as young as eight or nine? Â Or in defence of the right of those Muslims who adhere to the Shafiite school of sharia, to cut out the clitoris of their young daughters?Â – CM
‘Festival of Dangerous Ideas co-curator Ann Mossop denied Mr Badar was promoting honour killing, despite the event’s title, saying, “There is a distinct line between discussing ideas…and advocating violence, he is not saying that people should perpetrate honour killings”, Ms Mossop said.
Suuuure… Â But heÂ wasÂ revealing how Muslims think. Â And it ain’t pretty.Â – CM
‘But when cancelling Mr Badar’s speech last night, the Opera House stated it believed it crossed a line between provocation to thought and simply provocation.
“The Festival of Dangerous Ideas is intended to be a provocation to thought and discussion, rather than simply a provocation”, the statement read.
“It is always a matter of balance and judgement, and in this case a line has been crossed. Accordingly, we have decided not to proceed with the scheduled session with Uthman Badar.
“It is clear from the public reaction that the title has given the wrong impression of what Mr Badar intended to discuss”.
“Neither Mr Badar, the St James Ethics Centre, nor the Sydney Opera House in any way advocates honour killings or condones any form of violence against women.”
Really? Â I can be pretty sure that’s true of the two former entities, but I very much doubt that Mr Badar, if pinned to the wall, would be prepared to repudiate Quran 4: 34 and give up his fully-Islamic sharia-mandated right to thrash his wife.Â – CM
“Mr Badar hit back last night, tweeting, “Hysteria wins out. Welcome to the free world, wher freedom of expression is a cherished value”.
ROFLMAO. Â A Hizb ut Tahrir gang boss is the last person on earth to be making any sort of defence of the principle of free speech. Â I bet Mr Badar fully approved of the Islamic murder of Theo Van Gogh, inflicted as “punishment” for making a film critical of Islam. Â I bet he’d applaud if a Muslim assassin slit Salman Rushdie’s throat, or murdered Kurt Westergaard, he of the “turban-bomb Mohammed” cartoon. Â He’s just annoyed that Aussie infidels, in a show of strength, prevented him from publicly presenting the nonexistent “case” for killing off insubordinate female chattels so as to “defend” the fragile egos of Muslim males.
I advise readers to click on the “Telegraph” link. They opened the article for Comments, and there were quite a few. Â Most are pretty astute. Â This one, for example, form “Norm” – Â ‘”You must wonder why this bigot is invited to spew such vileness…however I do not doubt for one moment the “Festival of Ideas” is selective in who it invites. Â Try getting a slot denouncing Islamic Fundamentalists”.
The ABC reported the affair as well, with a few extra details.
“An event at the Sydney Opera House examining whether honour killings can be morally justified has been cancelled after public outcry.
‘Sydney-based Muslim speaker Uthman Badar, from Islamic group Hizb ut Tahrir, was to give the speech, titled “Honour Killings are Morally Justified, at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in August.
‘However, the event sparkedÂ an angry response on social media and talkback radio (excellent! – looks like we Infidels can do Outrage tooÂ – CM),Â and drew strong condemnation from two New South Wales Government ministers.
Perhaps they sense which way the wind is starting to blow. – CM
‘The state’s Minister for Women, Pru Goward, and the Minister for Citizenship and Communities, Victor Dominello, were both fiercely critical.
‘Last night, festival co-curator Simon Longstaff said the event had been withdrawn due to the level of public anger.
“The justification for removing it was simply the level of public outrage”, he said.
“We took the view that it was so strong and overwhelming thatÂ the ability of the speaker to even open up the question for some discussion and reflectionÂ would be impossible”.
So the murder of Muslim females by their male kin – which is happening at a horrific rate all over the world, everywhere there are Muslims – was going to be treated as if it were something that was not necessarily a bad thing?Â Â – CM
“It would be unfair for the speaker to put them in a situation where they wouldn’t get a word out without finding all of condemnation”.
Thought experiment. Â Imagine a neo-nazi being offered a platform to explain why he thought the mass murder of Jews was morally justified. Â Imagine the ensuing outrage, resulting in a cancellation. Â Then imagine one of the event organisers deploring the fact that they had had to cancel the event because their speaker “wouldn’t get a word out without finding all of condemnation”.Â – CM
‘In a Facebook post, Mr Badar defended himself, saying the suggestion that he would advocate for honour killings is ludicrous.
Suuuure. You’re a Muslim, Mr Badar. A very, very pious Muslim who takes Islam fully to heart. I don’t believe your protestations for a nanosecond. Â Shall we ask you about Meriam nee Ibrahim, Mrs Daniel Wani, in the Sudan, and what you think of the sentence of death imposed on her by the sharia court in the Sudan, and her supposed Muslim brother who declares himself willing to kill her?Â Â – CM
“He says he wanted to explore the issue (what is there to explore? Murder is murder is murder.– CM) and has described the public outcry as Islamophobia.
Nonsense.Â But of course he would say that.Â – CM
‘His tweeted response to one critic who wrote, “Anyone who condones or justifies the murder of defenceless women is a gutless creep”, was “I’m with you on that. Calm down”.
Ah yes, but what the average infidel means by “murder” and what Mr Badar means by “murder” are two different things. Â I doubt that Mr Badar would regard it as “murder”, for example, if a Muslim male – enforcing the sharia rule that Muslim women must not form liaisons with non-Muslim men – Â disposes of a female kinswoman who has taken a non-Muslim as boyfriend, lover or husband. -Â CM
‘Shortly before his session was cancelled, Mr Badar blamed anti-Muslim sentiment for fuelling the “hysteria”.
“Anti-Muslim sentiment”. That’s like a neo-nazi whining about “anti-Nazi sentiment”. Â Or a mafioso complaining that people have the hide to express “anti-Mafia sentiment”. Â Or a Klansman complaining that people are expressing opposition to the KKK. Â So it’s wrong to fear and oppose an ideologically-defined “community” whose foundation text explicitly tells men to beat their wives? It’s not allowed to fear a cult group whose founder had sex with a nine year old girl? Â It’s not allowed to fear a group that says that anyone who leaves the cult, and anyone – whether member or non-member – who criticises the cult or its founder or its doctrines, must be killed? Â Is it really just “hysteria” when one is dealing with a group that feels entitled to execute and has indeed executed – for what amount to “thought-crime” – both members and non-members? Â -Â Â CM
“I anticipated that secular liberal Islamophobes would come out of every dark corner, foaming at the mouht, furious at why a Muslim “extremist” from Hizb ut Tahrir, no less, was being allowed a platform at the Sydney Opera House to speak”, he wrote in a Facebook post. Â “What’s interesting is that I’m being attacked left, right and cente without having opened my mouth yet”.
Try to play the victim all you like, mate. Â But you know, and I know, that in that Caliphate to which you are committed – a Caliphate in which the entire planet would be subjected to Â Sunni Muslim despotism and the sharia would be imposed upon all – there would not be any such thing as freedom of speech. -Â CM
‘The Sydney Opera House released a statement saying the Festival of Dangerous Ideas is “a provocation to thought and discussion, rather than simply a provocation…”…
“Mr Badar says he did not choose the title of the speech, but did consent to it.
“He also said he wanted to discuss a different topic.
“I, in fact, suggested a more direct topic about Islam and secular liberalism – something like “The West Needs Saving By Islam” – how’s that for dangerous? ” Mr Badar said.
Saving? Â Freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and salvation is destruction…The West, and the rest, need Islam – the desolation and delusion that Islam fosters and always has fostered, everywhere it goes – like they need a hole in the head.Â – CM
“But the organisers insisted on this topic, which I think is still a worthy topic of discussion, for many reasons”.
They should have cut to the chase, and proposed that he attempt to justify the Muslim killing of apostates and blasphemers. With specific reference to the cases of Mrs Daniel Wani, and Asia Bibi, and the late Theo Van Gogh. -Â CM
“Mr Badar also noted that events at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas are “confronting and provocative”.
“In 2011, for instance, Marc Thiessen, former George Bush speechwriter, argued for torture. Last year one of the presentations was entitled A Killer Can Be Good”, he said.
“In this respect, my presentation is no different. Â What is different is that I’m Muslim – one willing to intellectually challenge secular liberal ideology and mainstream values – and that says a lot about the true extent of freedom and equality in modern western liberal democracies such as Australia.”
Whiiiine. Â Mr Badar, indeed, is a Muslim. This is not just about an “intellectual challenge”. He is committed to the total destruction ofÂ everyÂ non-Muslim society and belief system (not just “the West” nor “secular liberal ideology”; shall we ask him a few pointed questions about Israel? about the Jews? about Hindus? Buddhists? Christians? and see how he reacts?)Â – whether by violence or by other means, as applicable – and their replacement by nothing but Islam, Islam, Islam. A system that, wherever it prevails, wherever it is fully and strictly applied, one cannot publicly leave, or publicly question, on pain of death.Â – CM
‘Hizb ut Tahrir, for which Mr Badar is a spokesman, advocates the establishment of a global caliphate Â – or Islamic state – including an independent judiciary.
That should be “totalitarian Islamic state”. Islam is a total and totalitarian system. And where sharia reigns supreme women and non-Muslims live lives of degradation, humiliation, and perpetual physical peril.Â – CM
‘The group garnered headlines last year when it criticised the Federal Government for forcing Islamic schools in Australia to commemorate Anzac Day, prompting Prime Minister Tony Abbott to declare the group had “some pretty dodgy views,Â to say the least”.
Understatement of the year, Prime Minister. Â “Pretty dodgy”? Â Really? Â The word you should have used was “treasonous”. Or, “seditious”. Or “malevolent”. Â Or “inimical to everything we understand by the word “Australian””. Â Why haven’t you banned these openly-declared Fifth Columnists yet, like you said you would? Â Looks like you need to be reminded.Â – CM