Lost in the controversy over Ben Carson’s remarks on Sharia and a Muslim President was the fact that a recent poll bears out his concerns.
Investigative journalist Paul Sperry reported during the Carson brouhaha that “Muslims living in the U.S….just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having ‘the choice of being governed according to Shariah,’ or Islamic law.” He also noted “the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”
Many key Muslim leaders in the U.S. have said the same thing. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” So said the cofounder and longtime Board chairman of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad, back in 1998. He has since denied saying this, but the original reporter stands by her story.
Ahmed’s longtime colleague, Hamas-linked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, said in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
Another prominent Muslim leader in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj, said back in 2002: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”
Younger Muslims have expressed the same sentiments. “We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.” That was Muhammad Faheed, a young Muslim leader at a Muslim Students Association meeting at Queensborough Community College in 2003.
Some may object that none of these quotes are newer than twelve years old. One wonders, then, what transformation in Islam in the United States has taken place over the last twelve years to make it likely that these men have changed their views.
Others may suggest that these men don’t speak for the vast majority of Muslims. If that is so, however, then where is the Muslim group that equals the power and influence of Hamas-linked CAIR while eschewing jihad violence, Islamic supremacism, and any desire to impose Sharia in the United States now or in the future? Where is the Muslim student group that rivals the Muslim Students Association in the number of campuses on which it has chapters (the MSA has hundreds, all over the country) while rejecting all attachment to the aspects of Sharia that are incompatible with U.S. law, such as its denial of the freedom of speech and of the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims?
And there are others as well. Sperry quotes Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and the North American Islamic Trust: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”
Sperry also quotes the Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California, has said: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time….What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”
Really, what did you expect? Islam has been supremacist, authoritarian, and expansionist since its inception. U.S. Muslims are not from some sect that rejects all that. Yet a considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history.
But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.
October 14, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir met on Wednesday evening with the 14-year old Ahmed Mohamed who became a global sensation after his brief arrest by police in the U.S. state of Texas last month.
The staff at the school which Mohamed attended called the police on him after a clock he claimed to have put together was mistaken for a bomb.
The teenager who was described as science geek was handcuffed, fingerprinted and questioned over the hoax bomb. He was released afterwards and the police decided not to file charges.
But his arrest drew a firestorm of condemnation by those who say that his arrest was driven by Islamophobia. He garnered a flood of support from celebrities and politicians including U.S. president Barack Obama who invited him to a White House science function.
Ahmed is the son of former Sudanese presidential candidate Mohamed al-Hassan who ran unsuccessfully last April against Bashir. He was excluded from running in 2010 by the National Elections Commission (NEC) for not gathering the required number of signatures.
At the time he accused the NEC and the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) chaired by Bashir of collaborating to exclude him from the running.
“The NEC did not want me in the race under pressure from the NCP and [president] Bashir. They know I have wide support among my tribe, farmers, Sufi sects and expatriates” al-Hassan toldSudan Tribune in 2010.
“I was told that Bashir personally intervened with the [appeals] court to reject my challenge. The NCP wanted the elections on time and refused any requests for rescheduling. We heard the president [Bashir] threatening to torture any foreign observer talking about postponing the elections. Bashir got it his way,” al-Hassan said.
But today al-Hassan and his son spoke graciously of Bashir who according to Sudan official news agency (SUNA) honored him in tribute to his intelligence and talent and in line with government policy of caring for gifted youngsters.
Mohamed told reporters afterwards that he is “extremely delighted” for meeting Bashir and visiting Sudan. He expressed hope that he would have the opportunity to meet again with the Sudanese president “with a new invention and success”.
Al-Hassan for his part said that talented youngsters should be cared for in Sudan so that they help “write a new [chapter in] history for an advanced and developed Sudan”.
He said that they are pleased with Bashir’s honoring of his son adding that this is not something new to president Bashir.
UN Dispatch — Conflict of Interest
Is Disney Trying to Censor the ‘Net?
In the new sex ed, boys are presumed to be rapists until proven otherwise. Why else would boys be required, every few minutes, to repeatedly ask women if they are enjoying the sex, and if they fail to ask, boys can be accused of rape?
Consent from the person you are kissing — or more — is not merely silence or a lack of protest, Shafia Zaloom, a health educator at the Urban School of San Francisco, told the students. They listened raptly, but several did not disguise how puzzled they felt.
“What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?” asked Aidan Ryan, 16, who sat near the front of the room.
“Pretty much,” Ms. Zaloom answered. “It’s not a timing thing, but whoever initiates things to another level has to ask.”
Look at how the bar keeps rising! At first, there was common sense that if a woman didn’t object, there was no problem. Then a woman had to consent. Then a woman has to be specifically asked about sex and has to specifically consent. Now a woman has to consent at each level of sexual intimacy. At the rate things are going, men will be required to ask for consent each time they want to move six inches forwards or backwards.
With Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature on a bill this month, California became the first state to require that all high school health education classes give lessons on affirmative consent, which includes explaining that someone who is drunk or asleep cannot grant consent.
Someone who is drunk cannot give consent? Who determines what drunk is? How many people drink before having sex? Most do, I think.
“There’s really no clear standard yet — what we have is a lot of ambiguity on how these standards really work in the court of law,” said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “The standard is not logical — nobody really works that way. The problem with teaching this to high school students is that you are only going to sow more confusion. They are getting mixed messages depending where they go afterward.”
Last year, Corey Mock, a student at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, was expelled after officials there found him guilty of sexual misconduct because he could not prove he had obtained verbal consent from a woman who accused him of sexual assault. But a Davidson County Chancery Court judge ruled in August that the university had “improperly shifted the burden of proof and imposed an untenable standard upon Mr. Mock to disprove the accusation.” The judge called the university’s ruling “arbitrary and capricious.”
Men are guilty until proven innocent. Why do liberals only apply this standard to men wanting to have consensual sex?
I think there is a certain mindset in feminists who are pushing this. The article had a photo of two high school girls who looked worried and were holding each others hands tightly for support, as if they were witnessing an airplane disaster instead of talking about sex. I think this is being pushed by feminists who are uptight about sex, or those who decide to have sex but because they are mixed up (as feminists usually are) they decide afterwards they didn’t like it, sometimes weeks or months afterwards, like Columbia University’s famously nutty “mattress girl” who carried her sex bed around with her and made a porn video to protest (or celebrate?) rough sex.
But why should everyone else be punished for feminist nuttyness? The common sense standard worked–if a woman is unhappy, she should say something, and the man should stop. Anything else is simply perpetuating the left’s “war on men”, an asymetrical counterpart to the Republican’s non-existent “war on women.”
Exit question: I couldn’t help but notice that Shafia is a Muslim name. Do you think in Shafia’s culture men are very fastidious about constantly asking the woman’s permission before engaging in sexual intercourse?
(Abridged version originally published in AT)
Men may have to move aside from high-profile roles in business and government to make way for women to move in, according to the chairman of Transfield, Diane Smith-Gander.
A bill proposed by a group of Senate crossbenchers would make it compulsory for federal government boards to be at least 40 per cent female.
Ms Smith-Gander, who is also president of the Chief Executive Women group, said to reach that target, and an eventual bigger target of 50-50 representation of women on business boards and in senior roles, capable men would have to make way for capable women.
“When it comes to senior jobs and political appointments I think 50-50 representation is where we’re heading,” she said at an Australian Institute of Company Directors lunch in Melbourne on Tuesday.
The Prime Minister’s business advisory council had only two women and 10 men.
“If we’re going to get six and six it means that four of those 10 men who are inevitably qualified and well-intentioned are going to lose their gig,” she said.
“They are not going to want to lose their gig and that’s a sad and sorry thing, but that’s just the way it is. This is the problem we’re actually dealing with. Some men are going to have to give up their hard won roles to allow equality.”
Only 20 per cent of ASX200 directors are women and less than 40 per cent of government board members are women.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/men-will-will-have-to-lose-jobs-to-make-way-for-gender-equality-transfields-diane-smithgander-20151013-gk7kzt.html#ixzz3oqAzkmaI
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook