Ali, a courageous advocate for Women, Speaks Out Against Oppressive Islam

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the personification of strength.

Born in Mogadishu, Somalia and raised in a devoutly Muslim household, Ali grew up in an oppressive Islamic society yet surfaced to tell her tale.

Ali, now in her 40s, has lived a life rarely fathomed anywhere but within the pages of an adventure book. After surviving genital mutilation as a child, fleeing to the Netherlands to escape from an arranged marriage in her twenties, condemning her former faith, and surviving multiple death threats, Ali is now a staunch and outspoken advocate for women and human rights in Islamic countries.

Advocating for justice in the Muslim world has not been easy. After receiving asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, Ali earned a degree in political science at the University of Leiden and served in the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006 — often speaking out passionately about the plight of women in the Muslim world.

In 2004, Ali partnered with director Theo van Gogh to create a film about the Muslim oppression of women, called “Submission.” Several months after the film aired, a Muslim radical named Mohammed Bouyeri murdered van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam, stabbing a note to his body warning Ali that she would be next. Since then, Ali has been in hiding, protected by 24-hour security.

Now living, writing, and speaking out in America, Ali continues to reflect on the life she left behind. In a recent conversation with The Daily Caller, Ali explained that she never realized what a risk she was taking when she left Islam and began speaking out against it.

“When I first started publishing and responding to interviews I didn’t know that my life was in danger,” she said. “And when I got the question, ‘So are you, yourself, Muslim?’ The answer I gave was no, I’m secularized and I realized too late that that answer meant, as a Muslim, I am an apostate and inviting violence.”

According to Ali, Islam, as a template for societal organization, is a complete failure.

“If you look at nations that have adopted Sharia law, you see a number of things: you see an upsurge in the violations of human rights — rights of women, gay people, and religious minorities. You see a dictatorship at all times even though it is sometimes presented as a democracy. For instance, because Islamic law is divine law who ever takes control of government puts himself in the position of God,” she said.

Growing up in a culture that shuns women is incompatible with the ideals of feminism, Ali told TheDC, saying that she got the strength to leave Somalia and the culture in which she was raised from within herself and from circumstances in her life that were unusual for women in her situation — specifically having the opportunity to get an education.

“I was sent to school and there are so many Muslim girls who never go to school or never get to finish it,” she said. “Another circumstance which put me in a lucky position is my father left our family when I was about 10- or 11-years old and he returned when I was 21. And that’s the period when most girls get married off. So, if I had been married off at 16 or 17, I would’ve been much more vulnerable — not as strong. But at 22, after having observed what happens to these young women who are married off and how their lives get shattered, that strengthened me even more to say no to these men.”

Ali says that she never reached common ground with her father and has little idea of where her mother is, saying only that she is “somewhere in Somalia.”  CONTINUED

H/T TheDailyCaller

Imam Rauf -- The Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Ibn Warraq has written two articles about the Imam, his multiple messages - mixed messages - and the two faces of Imam Feisal Rauf - the good Imam and the bad Imam.  I am posting both articles below.

From Ibn Warraq:
Journalist and author Fareed Zakaria has made some grave accusations against those who oppose the building of the Islamic center near Ground Zero, and has predicated his own approval of the project on the moderateness of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Zakaria wrote that Abdul Rauf “has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical — but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day.”


Yes, indeed — you are likely to read similar “stuff” on the Huffington Post, since Rauf has written there. But how can that possibly constitute a convincing defense of Rauf? Many Huffington Post writers are anti-American, and believe that the U.S. had 9/11 “coming to it.” They still have not learned that 9/11 had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy.

Rauf evidently has not learned that lesson either. On Sept. 30, 2001, 60 Minutes host Ed Bradley asked him if he thought the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks. Rauf replied, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. . . . We have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”


It is worth noting Rauf’s words carefully. The atrocity is characterized in the passive: “a crime that happened.” This allows Rauf to avoid stating that it was Islamists who committed it. In his book What’s Right with Islam, Rauf even objects to the term “Islamism” — one that was actually concocted to avoid indicting Islam directly — since, he argues, it falsely implies that Islam is the source of the militancy.
CONTINUED


The problems with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s book What’s Right with Islam begin with the title. As Andrew McCarthy noted on National Review Online, the book, whose full title is now What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West, was previously called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America; before that, it was published in Malaysia as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America post-9/11. In one edition published by HarperCollins, the copyright page told us that the “edition was made possible through a joint effort of The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the office of Interfaith and Community Alliance of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Funding for this project was provided by IIIT.” The HarperCollins edition no longer contains this telling information, and with reason. McCarthy reveals that both ISNA and IIIT have promoted Hamas, and were demonstrated “by the Justice Department [to be] unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.”

Dawa is the invitation, addressed to men by God and the prophets, to believe in the true religion, Islam. The term can mean propaganda, but more specifically, it refers to Islamic missionary work, which is not limited to efforts to convert individuals but includes efforts to convert entire societies and establish Islamic states. Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, predicts that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” through Dawa.


In the book’s chatty and ostentatiously friendly preface, Rauf tells us that he is an American and a Muslim, and proud to be both. Then comes this sentence: “September 11, a day that will live in infamy for having provoked the United States into a war, confused and frightened many non-Muslim Americans about Islam.” Note that in this description of why 9/11 will “live in infamy,” there is not a word about Islamic terrorists killing 2,976 people. We saw earlier how Rauf characterized 9/11 as “a crime that happened”; now it is a provocation.

It is not unusual for Rauf to dismiss or ignore the victims of 9/11. During a lecture he gave in Australia in 2005, Rauf said, “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was secretary of state and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.”
CONTINUED

Imam Rauf is by no means a moderate Muslim. His words have in fact revealed the true Imam Rauf - extreme in his beliefs.  Rauf is much, much too radical and terrorist sympathizing and must not be allowed to build a mosque at Ground Zero, where Muslim extremists murdered 3000 innocents.  Through his words, as seen in the articles above, Imam Rauf has revealed that he is more akin to our enemy than he is a friend to the U.S.

Families of Victims of 9/11 Reject Ground Zero Mosque

I am reposting a very revealing and informative blog post by Patriot's Corner of 9/11 families rejecting the proposed mosque at ground zero with very good reason.


New York, May 24, 2010 — 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America (9/11 FSSA) adamantly rejects the plan for a mosque to be built atop a planned 15-story structure that would tower over the site where nearly 3,000 people were killed by Islamic terrorists.


According to the project’s leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mosque and “Muslim-led community center” is to be called the Cordoba House, named after the historic period when the Islamic Caliphate in Cordoba ruled much of Europe and non-Muslims lived as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.

Victims’ families view the imam’s expressed plan to “leverage” the mosque’s proximity to Ground Zero to engage in proselytizing and to “grow the Muslim community,” as shockingly insensitive to the history of the site where their loved ones were slaughtered in the worst terrorist attack by extremist Muslims in America’s history; following the attack, 20,000 body parts were recovered in a nine-month operation to remove 1.8 million tons of rubble from Lower Manhattan.

“Imam Rauf is a Muslim cleric who, immediately after 9/11, blamed the attacks on U.S. treatment of Muslims, asserting that Osama Bin Ladin was ‘made in the U.S.A,’” said Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 FSSA, whose brother was the pilot of the American Airlines flight which was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. “We do not accept the Cordoba organization’s view that we need Imam Rauf to lecture us about religious tolerance in a city still dealing with the consequences of the attack that he claims we brought on ourselves.”

Last Monday, representatives of 9/11 FSSA met with Sharif El-Gamal, owner and CEO of Soho Properties, the corporation that purchased the two buildings where the mosque will be built at 43-45 Park Place, and asked him to name the investors in the mosque project. Mr. El-Gamal refused, citing the advice of his attorneys, stating that “this is private property” and that “we can build this ‘as of right.’” The property was purchased with $4.85 million in cash.

Imam Rauf is now publicly stating in a professionally-organized PR campaign that the building will be a community center, “not a mosque.” However, Mr. El-Gamal showed 9/11 FSSA members architectural renderings in which a mosque, located on the top floor of the 15-story building, would have a commanding view of the entire Ground Zero neighborhood.

Equally troubling is the fact that, while the stated purpose of the project is to engage in interfaith dialogue and cultural egalitarianism, Imam Rauf embraces Shariah, the Arabic word for Islamic law, a sociopolitical system of jurisprudence based upon the Koran which supersedes man-made law and which rejects the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of church and state. Islamic countries that embrace Shariah and political Islam are known for brutal policies that discriminate against women, gays, and religious minorities. Shariah law is entirely incompatible with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and would violate 1st Amendment protections of speech, assembly and the free exercise of religion.

We feel that the attempt to use our loved ones’ deaths and the painful legacy of 9/11 still felt by New Yorkers to engage in a campaign to reverse America’s core doctrine of religious freedom — and to do so under the guise of interfaith understanding — is a gross insult to the memory of those who were killed on that terrible day.

9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America asks concerned Americans — regardless of race, color, creed, or ethnic origin — to join us in denouncing this effort to chip away at America’s bedrock principle of religious freedom.

You may want to read this article: Planned Ground Zero mosque imam wants sharia law in America



H/T Patriot's Corner

Political Correctness: The Chains On Our Brains

Political correctness has thrust the "need" to micromanage others thoughts and introduced us to the thought police in our society. Political correctness has become like an infectious disease that has spread throughout society and has now invaded and infiltrated our military. Political correctness has made it nearly impossible to distinguish between fake abuse and real abuse. Political correctness blurs the lines between right and wrong and spreads lies about what is actually right and what is actually wrong. Liberals have advocated for this political correctness in an effort to keep the chains on your brains. Now the military's upper echelon all in the name of political correctness has decided to aid our enemy in the persecution of our Navy Seals. The military is aiding our enemy in proving what is most likely, false accusations by Muslim Jihadists who murdered four Blackwater workers and then hung them over a bridge. The military is helping our enemy who committed this heinous crime. Even if the Navy Seals did give our enemy a fat lip, so what? This Navy Seals are not policemen. They are fighting a war. War is hell. These sissyfied liberals and peacenicks need to accept what it takes to win a war or military action. The United States is in this to win and we are not supposed to make it fair for the terrorists. We are not supposed to accommodating the Muslim Jihadists - our enemies every whim. This is about our soldiers being given the necessary tools to have the capacity to fight and win the wars. Political correctness is barring our military from having the necessary tools to win the war against Muslim Jihadists. Political correctness has led to a sissified version of fighting wars or military actions. Places like facebook have sided with political correctness, allowing Muslim Jihadists to have facebook groups while banning groups that are against Muslim extremists. This is ludicrous!! The thought police on Facebook must be stopped. I will not let political correctness or liberalism keep chains on my brain.

A big H/T goes to both TOTUS and Patriots Corner for this letter & article on the Facebook issue:

Recently Facebook removed the accounts of the following counter jihadists in a move that reflects the mindset of dhimmitude and allowing one side to continue(Islam and Islamofacists) while censoring the counter jihadists. Here are the groups, individuals who had their accounts cancelled: Anders Gravers, Stephen Gash, and Harald Andersen of SIOE and SIAD (Denmark), Organizers of Stop Islamization of Bulgaria (Pavel Chernov), and Stop Islamization of America (Kendra) also had their personal Facebook accounts removed. I will post any and every article that these individuals publish, on Facebook. This is nothing more than caving in to political correctness, possibile 'subtle' pressure from the trolls within the Obama administration, fear of allowing anything being critical of Islam, Muslims or shariah law. Please feel free to repost this or go to SIOA site and support them. I have posted the entire article here by D.L. Adams. We are at war with Islam, their march to force their brand of perverse ideology and shariah law upon the upon the free world.



As I post alot of links to articles, editorials about Islam and islamofacism on Facebook, it would not surprise me to have my account get the boot, and that of many others as well. This is a long post but I hope you will read all of it and support SIOA and those of us standing up to Islam, shariah law and jihadist.


A Facebook Controversary

D.L. Adams

SIOA

In the internet world of social networking Facebook is the premier platform. Its reach is global and its user community numbers in the hundreds of millions. According to statistics about Facebook posted on Facebook’s own site there are 350 million users, 50% of whom log in on “any given day”. This means that at any given time there are likely at least 150 million people logged in on the site. Facebook has deeply affected the way that individuals and groups communicate and interact with one another.


Facebook’s rules are extensive and clearly listed on their “Statement of Rights” page. However there are terms used that are open to interpretation. Most specifically the nature of content posted on personal and group pages is open to scrutiny and judgment by Facebook staff; action taken by Facebook against its users sometimes appears arbitrary and harsh. Accounts are disabled or removed generally with no warning or explanation. Returning to the site and recovering one’s content can be difficult or impossible. For people with large “friends lists” or who use Facebook for professional purposes loss of their Facebook account can have unpleasant consequences. For many users especially those who access their accounts throughout the day via mobile device (blackberry, etc.) Facebook is an almost ubiquitous communications tool.

Many Facebook users express political views and opinions – often challenging and unpopular views. There are millions of pages dedicated to discussion of issues across the political and cultural spectrum. SIOA, SIOE and other like-minded groups as well as those holding opposing views use Facebook extensively to get their messages out. With a potential audience in the hundreds of millions the significance of Facebook to those who wish to spread knowledge and engage in direct discussion with interested people, often in real-time, the loss of a Facebook presence can be significant.


Several days ago, without warning or explanation, and in an apparently simultaneous action Facebook removed the personal accounts of Anders Gravers, Stephen Gash, and Harald Andersen of SIOE and SIAD (Denmark). Organizers of Stop Islamization of Bulgaria (Pavel Chernov), and Stop Islamization of America (Kendra) also had their personal Facebook accounts removed. As no explanation for these actions has been provided, one can only speculate as to the cause and purpose of these account removals.

While it is understood that Facebook is privately held and is not required to provide access the removal of SIOA/SIOE organizers’ personal accounts appears to demonstrate a particular opinion on the part of Facebook management, a certain bias against the message if the not the individuals themselves. Notably, the organizer of the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has long been banned from Facebook.

Facebook’s user guidelines regarding content can be interpreted in any number of ways. Simultaneous account removal of multiple users having a common viewpoint appears to demonstrate a negative bias relating to the philosophical and political positions espoused by the individuals mentioned above. Because almost every user of Facebook could be said to be in violation of one or more guidelines at any given time the removal of accounts of users with the same political positions must therefore be specific and targeted rather than arbitrary.


There are many controversial individuals and groups on Facebook including Islamists, supporters of terrorism, Nazis, and even terrorists themselves, etc. People having these views and worse remain on Facebook but those having anti-jihad perspectives apparently are now targets for account removal. How can this be explained?  FULL STORY HERE