ISNA Thugs

#147, Jang,
Just wait till the Kanucks feel the effects of divine wrath. Pretty soon, the salmon will be gone, the polar bears will eat their young uns, nobody will drink Molson`s, and all the East European lap dancers will start charging in Euros.

finally, canada, the last bastion of tolerance is turning against the religious by turning sharia down. now, we all went to canada because it was nice place to raise kids..where do we go next? mexico?

#135, DM Sahib,
Please don`t be so hasty in gloating over this defeat for the Sharia Law. Shariah Law is not a Muslim thingy. It is for the benefit of all men.
If you Indians keep going the western route, eventually your females will ruin you, they will take all your kids, money, and property and marry Tanzanian foreign students, and you will have to go to the local dhabba every Sunday to be with your own kids.

#142, {``on US civil rights .. they in turn stood on the shoulders of Eisenhower (who sent federal troops to little rock to push aside state officials in Alabama), who stood on the shoulders of Rosa Parks .. who in turn stood on the shoulders ...``}

Tahmed Sahib,
That`s a lot of shoulders! Phew, I started to feel sorry for the poor dude who is at the bottom of the totem pole with all these people standing on top of each others` shoulders.
What was this? History of the World, Part Deux? BTW, did Temporal Sahib write this post? Just asking, because when I went to Little Rock a few years ago, it was in Arkansas. Maybe, back in those days when men were men and women did all the work, Little Rock might have been in Alabama.

Anyway, good post. I liked the dragon part.

hahahaha, please feel free to ignore or not ignore my so-called vulgarity which appears in spite of my upbringing. . . . just keep my upbringing out of it!

moving on. . . .

#141, ana {``i don`t think she, or the ``liberals`` that i know ignore or say that it is peachy for men from a certain group to have affairs, while another group can`t. that is plain ridiculous. it is either not okay for some across the board, or it is, or it is plain none of our bloody business...

i don`t really give a rat`s ass what anyone thinks...``}

Ana,
Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree that if objectivity is maintained then selective adulation can be overcome.

BTW, your remark about a rodent`s posterior was totally unnecessary. I will ignore this vulgarity and give you the benefit of doubt as far as upbringing is concerned.

Thanks

on US civil rights - there is enough credit to go around. it was not just MLK, not just the US clergy, or the jewish liberals who get credit. they in turn stood on the shoulders of Eisenhower (who sent federal troops to little rock to push aside state officials in Alabama), who stood on the shoulders of Rosa Parks (the woman who refused to give up her seat on the front of the bus, as required by law back in the 1950s), who in turn stood on the shoulders of Truman (who ended de-segregation in the armed forces) who in turn stood on the shoulders of the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who died in the US Civil War to put an end to slavery, who in turn stood on the shoulders of those who laid down the ideals of the US in the US constitution, who in turn stood on the shoulders of freethinkers like Stuart Mill and Rousseau who were the ones who slayed the dragon, namely the theory of the Divine Right of Kings.

That dragon that was slayed two centuries ago in europe today stalks the muslim world, as islamists try to reintroduce kingships (khalifates) through islamic sharia. luckily, because democratic ideals are so well entrenched in the world today - thanks to the above-mentioned giants - muslims will not be called upon to do what they are intellectually and morally incapable of doing: namely slaying the dragon of tyranny that walks breathing the ``sharia``. this dragon will die its own death because the rest of the world no longer provides an environment in which it can survive.

salim,

i will try to be as brief and civil with this response as possible. i think it is unfair of you to paint ``liberals`` and ``feminazis`` with one brush just as it is for some to paint ``conservatives``.

i am not helping anyone with any particular agenda except that of inclusion. i agree with samina on certain points, but i`m not pushing any agenda here except that of inclusion. and i am not sure that i appreciate the implication.

a good part of this article deals with how ``minority`` populations within a minority such as the ISNA are treated. that is what samina was trying to express by drawing parallels. i don`t think she, or the ``liberals`` that i know ignore or say that it is peachy for men from a certain group to have affairs, while another group can`t. that is plain ridiculous. it is either not okay for some across the board, or it is, or it is plain none of our bloody business.

some preachers have used their pulpits not to denigrate gays, or ``philanderers`` or to tell women what they should do with their bodies, but to speak of inclusion and loving one another including our enemies, jim bakker, jimmy swaggart and ``moral majority`` folks have done just the opposite. that is when some feel their hypocrisies should be pointed out. there are many people in this world who are hypocrites, and many who have feet of clay. . . .jesse jackson, dr. king, bill clinton, benazir ``pinky`` bhutto, you name `em. the issue here, as some see it, salim, is of inclusion and how groups lack that. that is what umbreen was addressing, if i understood that. now if i support an agenda of inclusiveness, i don`t really give a rat`s ass what anyone thinks but kindly refrain from applying any other agendas to me.

now can we please move on. . . .

#138, {``#138 by tahmed32 on September 12, 2005 9:33am PT
salim #126 greetings my friend. yes indeed...if only mullah omar could read...if only the tin man had a heart...if only the scarecrow had a brain...if only our ``muslim ummah`` brothers had all of the above... ;-)``}

Agreed!
We should start a movement that proclaims that Muslims are and, if necessary, can be just plain normal simple humans. :)

#137,
DM Sahib,
Glad to meet someone who trimmed his ponytail and threw out the roseprim glasses for laservision. :)

Actually, the civil rights movement was in the `50s and peaked in the mid-60s. The women`s, gays`, and other movements came right after the anti-war movement that began around 1967 or so. I talked to a lot of people who, like you, participated in each of these endeavors. The real women`s movement didn`t take off until the very late `60s and well into the `70s. Any wonder that the sexy mini and micro skirts of the 60s gave way to the bland pant suits of the `70s?

salim #126 greetings my friend. yes indeed...if only mullah omar could read...if only the tin man had a heart...if only the scarecrow had a brain...if only our ``muslim ummah`` brothers had all of the above... ;-)

stuka, Salim_Chauhan:

You guys are only partly right. While the civil rights movement in the fifties was all about negro rights, it expanded in the `60s to include all kinds of disempowered sections of the society, including women, homosexuals and Mexican farm workers, not to mention anti-war activists and draft dodgers. It was led more often than not by jews and other white liberals who all wear neocon badges these days.
Take it from someone who was there if not fully in the trenches.

Stuka #134, Thank you my friend for this column. I have always respected Phyllis Schlafly for her objectivity and ability to reason beyond common hysteria. The following really made me laugh:
``The outburst by feminist professors simply confirms the stereotype not only that they are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate, but that they seek to forbid any research that might produce facts they don`t want the public to know. ``

This is exactly the problem afflicting our ``highly educated`` matron and her gang of amazons. Notice how hostile and profane she gets when confronted with facts that contradict her nonsense.

Thanks, I really enjoyed reading this.

A small defeat for ISNA types. The Ontario govt. has decided not to implement Sharia courts in the province.

Zev Singer
The Ottawa Citizen
Monday, September 12, 2005

``A surprise announcement yesterday by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to reject Shariah courts -- and to get rid of existing religious arbitration -- has shocked Muslim and Jewish leaders alike.

After debate on the issue heated up last week, with synchronized international protests against an Ontario proposal to allow consenting Muslims to use their own religious courts to arbitrate family law, Mr. McGuinty made his decision public yesterday.

``I`ve come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,`` he said. ``There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.``

---

Wahida Valiante, national vice-president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said she could barely believe her ears when she heard the news.

``In a way I`m kind of stunned, really,`` she said. ``I can`t fathom that he has taken that position.``

Mr. McGuinty`s own government, she said, commissioned a report from former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd that recommended that the Muslim courts be recognized so that they could be regulated by the province to ensure their rulings respected Canadian law.

Mohamed Elmasry the Canadian Islamic Congress`s president said that for those who fear that Shariah law is loaded against women, Mr. McGuinty`s decision is ``counter productive.``

Salim: Check out this site...

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/

Awesome columns :) read on...

Feminist Whines Lead Down a Dead-End Road

---

by Phyllis Schlafly, March 9, 2005

---

Despite five weeks of public mea culpas by Harvard President Lawrence Summers, what one Harvard professor called ``a firestorm`` continues to percolate on Ivy League campuses and in the national media. A Harvard Crimson poll reported that 52 percent of Harvard professors now disapprove of Mr. Summers, and the presidents of Princeton, Stanford and MIT have chimed in with op-ed criticisms.

Now that Summers has released the text of his January 14 speech, we can see that he presented three very rational hypotheses to explain why there are fewer women than men in science and engineering academia: (1) ``the high-powered job hypothesis`` (the concept that women voluntarily reject the 80-hour-week and job-intensity that top careers require), (2) ``different availability of aptitude at the high end,`` and (3) ``different socialization and patterns of discrimination`` (the favorite feminist explanation for all sex differences).

The outburst by feminist professors simply confirms the stereotype not only that they are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate, but that they seek to forbid any research that might produce facts they don`t want the public to know.

When MIT Professor Nancy Hopkins rushed from the room, claiming her ``heart was pounding`` and her ``breath was shallow,`` she reminded us of Miss Pittipat Hamilton in ``Gone With the Wind`` calling for her smelling salts before she swooned. We expect more willingness to discuss unpopular views from female professors who want to be taken seriously.

Perhaps it`s a coincidence, but the national media have climbed on this gender controversy to help market the latest feminist assault against homemakers, Judith Warner`s ``Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety.`` She calls ``the general culture of motherhood in America oppressive`` and asserts that women are locked into a ``cult`` that worships the goddess of perfect motherhood.

Forty years ago, Betty Friedan`s book ``The Feminine Mystique`` appealed to the pampered suburban housewife by claiming she suffered from ``the problem that has no name.`` Judith Warner tries to initiate a similar movement by labeling women`s plight the ``mommy mystique`` or, inelegantly, ``this mess.``

Whereas Friedan`s book initiated a drive to move mothers out of the home, Warner`s book hopes to start a drive for the taxpayers to help women ``living Mommy Track lives`` to ``get a life of their own.`` Both books are a tiresome litany of complaints about life`s daily challenges in the lifestyles that women have freely chosen.

Sylvia Hewlett`s book ``Creating a Life,`` which received unprecedented free publicity several years ago, recorded the complaints of successful professional and business women who were unhappy because they were childless. Judith Warner`s book ``Madness`` is filled with the whines of educated upper middle-class women who did become mothers but surprise, surprise, discovered that babies require a lot of care.

It`s all society`s fault, according to the authors. If only the government were caring enough to provide taxpayer-paid high-quality daycare and preschool, employer-paid maternity and parental leave, and taxpayer/employer-paid health care for all full- and part-time workers, mothers could get out of the ``mess`` or at least shift the cleanup burden onto the backs of society.

All these big-government liberals are spreading the lie that American women are massively discriminated against and victims of a ``nationwide epidemic`` of stress, anxiety, frustrations, and depression. Both Warner and Hewlett want socialist Europe to be our model.

These whiners should get a reality check by reading Dr. Warren Farrell`s new book ``Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap and What Women Can Do About It.``

This well-documented book is the total answer to the feminist complaint that women make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes (the figure used by John Kerry in his campaign last year). If this were true, then businesses could become much more profitable by hiring mostly women.

Equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963, and a big federal bureaucracy enforces the law. The average pay of all women tells us nothing about equity for individuals.

Dr. Farrell provides massive documentation to prove that men earn more than women because men work more hours per week, take more hazardous jobs, work at less desirable locations and under less pleasant working conditions, and take more technical training. That should be obvious to all but the ideologues who major in women`s studies and then complain because engineers make more money after graduation.

Dr. Farrell sets forth 25 ways women can earn higher pay, sometimes even equal pay with men without incurring the same drawbacks of the job. But there are trade-offs, and more and more women are happily trading career advancement for more family time.

Whether a woman chooses home or the workplace, or the ``work-life balance`` that Warner claims is illusory, victimhood is a dead-end road to a discontent which the government cannot cure.

Stuka #128, {``Why ban it? Who cares about the noise they make, as long as it is just noise? Essentially Mullahs in the US are powerless. They deserve, and get, abuse every time they mention ``Islamic Causes`` such as Palestine etc. The whole ``root cause`` mantra is a joke. ``}

Stuka,
I think that you raised the main reason why people are upset at ISNA usurping the unfair claim to represent six gajillion Muslims in North America. Yes, they are making a lot of noise, some comical but some very dangerous to the position of ``regular`` Muslims. By ``regular`` I mean those Muslims who are easily identified by their ``Arabic`` sounding names. They tend to believe in God, work for a living, like their neighbors, raise their children, and take care of their families, while being patriotic citizens or hopeful citizens of their countries. These folks are NOT that interested in installing Sharia Law, or electing ``Muslim`` candidates, or creating ghettos for themselves so they can be protected from the impure influence of the ``Kaffirs.`` Many of these Muslims do not want to be concerned with what`s going on in Kashmir, Palestine, Mindanao, or Chechnya anymore than what is happening in Venezuela, Tibet, Norway, and Guatemala.

ISNA makes a fool out of the Muslim image at the least. On the more dangerous side, it presents Muslims as a backward, suicidal, inflexible, violent, and dogmatic bunch - whose honor lies between the legs of their women. This stereotyping is not the work of the media, it is rather the self-proclamation of idiots such as the ISNA leadership.