Tabitha Korol
Muslim student video: !SMITCIV
By Tabitha Korol
This year's Miss World's competitive beauty pageant held in Jakarta, Indonesia, was threatened by Muslim martinets who insist that too much skin would offend the population. Apparently, no one could defy the devout religionists who had the right not to attend, but the bikinis were indeed replaced by a sarong, and the participants turned into obedient dhimmis.
Not long after that, there was an attack on non-Muslims at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, where at least 70 were killed, 175 injured, 49 still missing. Apparently, when you rape, severely mutilate and slaughter in the name of religious persecution, skin is not an issue.
Around the same time, there were torchings of Christians and their churches and attacks on Egyptian Copts who failed to vote as they were instructed. Kirsten Powers described the scene where Christians in the Middle East and Africa were kidnapped, raped, tortured, slaughtered, and beheaded, while others were forced to flee the birthplace of Christianity.
Then there was a report of a major fire set in a supermarket, followed by the ambush and killing of 46 students who were receiving a western, non-Islamic, education in a Nigerian school. Not to be outdone, Taliban suicide bombers killed at least 85 worshippers at the ancient All Saints' Church, in Pakistan. I could go on and on – and, unfortunately, so could they.
Although never done for any other religion, the U.S. National Park Service produced, so far, two pro-Islamic videos (denying the use of taxpayer funds) to help Muslim students assure their viewing audience that theirs is a religion of peace. The young women in one film claim to have been misunderstood ever since September 11, 2001, and are themselves victims of bigotry. The mantra of victimhood, repeated time and again when Palestinians throw deadly missiles at Israeli vehicles, and when Islamists self-explode on well-trafficked streets or in busy restaurants, was also the mission of the Million Muslim March planned for September 11, 2013.
At this point, it might be prudent to add something about September 11, 2001, since I've been reviewing current textbooks that seem to employ a considerable amount of whitewash and historic revisionism. One book states terrorists slammed three airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the fourth crashing into a field in Pennsylvania, without identifying the terrorists as Islamic jihadists. Neither is the meaning of jihad provided, a critical omission. According to Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani, a 20-year Shari'a judge on Pakistan's Supreme Court, the purpose of jihad is to establish the dominance of Islam, and aggressive jihad is "obligatory" for Muslims until the domination of Islam is established over all other religions. If there was any misunderstanding, certainly it was cleared with Feisal Abdul Rauf's declaration that he would erect a mosque on Ground Zero.
In the film, the young women claim Muslims to be victims in America, Europe and elsewhere, pleading for their freedom of worship. They are on a mission for human, civil, and women's rights, such as espoused by their faith. Yet, the First Amendment to our Constitution permits them the freedom of worship in America. It stipulates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It also includes the freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group, called "apostasy," a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So why the complaint?
My guess is that a good percentage of Americans came to this land for religious freedom, and found America welcoming. Plus, with such diversity already entrenched in this country and throughout Europe, how is it that only these jihadists claim intolerance. This is a device of deception to obtain by accusation and denunciation what they could not by the proverbial sword – or "weaponized" jet.
Muslims have the right to practice their religion when and as they wish, not prohibited, as they would have us believe. America imposes no jizya taxes, repressive social legislation, or political disenfranchisement as seen in the Middle East through 14 centuries. Our laws do not mandate executing apostates, or striking adulterers with 100 lashes, or permitting husbands to beat their wives, or torturing homosexuals, or assassinating poets, or decapitating or enslaving women and children, yet these women say they have been met with hostility.
If they perceive hostility, perhaps it is because we understand jihad, and will not yield our freedoms to grant them domination. If they perceive opposition, it is because we will not desist from speaking our minds and conducting ourselves in accordance with our own culture and laws regardless of offense. Are we not offended by the hate rallies, boycotts, flag burnings, rapes and deaths?
When previous immigrants reached our shores, they were eager to assimilate, learn our manners and customs, and become one with their new hosts. When an immigrant demands obedience from the host, however, that is conquest, not assimilation.
In America, the Islamists threaten others on city streets, conduct BDS rallies to intimidate and discredit (particularly in universities), deface synagogues, and make special demands. Accusing their adversary of the strategy they use themselves is called "projection."
These students are using a passive-aggressive technique, based on an unsupported accusation, to claim they are "VICTIMS," when in fact, they are the reverse: "SMITCIV," a word I created because we do not have such war strategies in our culture.
In truth, the Muslim woman's true victimization comes at the hands of her own people. She holds a far lower legal and cultural status and is denied the dignity of choice. Although both men and women live by Shari'a law, with every aspect of their lives tightly controlled and both subject to cruel punishment for the slightest infraction of stringent rules, Shari'a applies more to women. This is evidenced by the proliferation of head scarves or longer shrouds, which is a political, not religious, statement. These were rarely seen before September 11, 2001, but instituting the dress code announced the Islamist's arrival and presence in the host country, along with increased mosque construction and intensified terrorism.
Shari'a, the basis for the totality of the Islamic way of life, provides no human rights or protection. Shari'a demands female genital mutilation before puberty, controls women's dress, daily prayers, even which hand to use for which purpose and when it may be chopped off. Severe corporal punishment looms for any deviation from the decrees – from leaving their homes, to attending school, to seeking medical care, to any act that a father or husband may declare a state of dishonor, and more.
Above all, Shari'a determines that her purpose is to serve men, and this is the true victimization of these women.
© Tabitha Korol
October 5, 2013
This year's Miss World's competitive beauty pageant held in Jakarta, Indonesia, was threatened by Muslim martinets who insist that too much skin would offend the population. Apparently, no one could defy the devout religionists who had the right not to attend, but the bikinis were indeed replaced by a sarong, and the participants turned into obedient dhimmis.
Not long after that, there was an attack on non-Muslims at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, where at least 70 were killed, 175 injured, 49 still missing. Apparently, when you rape, severely mutilate and slaughter in the name of religious persecution, skin is not an issue.
Around the same time, there were torchings of Christians and their churches and attacks on Egyptian Copts who failed to vote as they were instructed. Kirsten Powers described the scene where Christians in the Middle East and Africa were kidnapped, raped, tortured, slaughtered, and beheaded, while others were forced to flee the birthplace of Christianity.
Then there was a report of a major fire set in a supermarket, followed by the ambush and killing of 46 students who were receiving a western, non-Islamic, education in a Nigerian school. Not to be outdone, Taliban suicide bombers killed at least 85 worshippers at the ancient All Saints' Church, in Pakistan. I could go on and on – and, unfortunately, so could they.
Although never done for any other religion, the U.S. National Park Service produced, so far, two pro-Islamic videos (denying the use of taxpayer funds) to help Muslim students assure their viewing audience that theirs is a religion of peace. The young women in one film claim to have been misunderstood ever since September 11, 2001, and are themselves victims of bigotry. The mantra of victimhood, repeated time and again when Palestinians throw deadly missiles at Israeli vehicles, and when Islamists self-explode on well-trafficked streets or in busy restaurants, was also the mission of the Million Muslim March planned for September 11, 2013.
At this point, it might be prudent to add something about September 11, 2001, since I've been reviewing current textbooks that seem to employ a considerable amount of whitewash and historic revisionism. One book states terrorists slammed three airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the fourth crashing into a field in Pennsylvania, without identifying the terrorists as Islamic jihadists. Neither is the meaning of jihad provided, a critical omission. According to Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani, a 20-year Shari'a judge on Pakistan's Supreme Court, the purpose of jihad is to establish the dominance of Islam, and aggressive jihad is "obligatory" for Muslims until the domination of Islam is established over all other religions. If there was any misunderstanding, certainly it was cleared with Feisal Abdul Rauf's declaration that he would erect a mosque on Ground Zero.
In the film, the young women claim Muslims to be victims in America, Europe and elsewhere, pleading for their freedom of worship. They are on a mission for human, civil, and women's rights, such as espoused by their faith. Yet, the First Amendment to our Constitution permits them the freedom of worship in America. It stipulates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It also includes the freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group, called "apostasy," a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So why the complaint?
My guess is that a good percentage of Americans came to this land for religious freedom, and found America welcoming. Plus, with such diversity already entrenched in this country and throughout Europe, how is it that only these jihadists claim intolerance. This is a device of deception to obtain by accusation and denunciation what they could not by the proverbial sword – or "weaponized" jet.
Muslims have the right to practice their religion when and as they wish, not prohibited, as they would have us believe. America imposes no jizya taxes, repressive social legislation, or political disenfranchisement as seen in the Middle East through 14 centuries. Our laws do not mandate executing apostates, or striking adulterers with 100 lashes, or permitting husbands to beat their wives, or torturing homosexuals, or assassinating poets, or decapitating or enslaving women and children, yet these women say they have been met with hostility.
If they perceive hostility, perhaps it is because we understand jihad, and will not yield our freedoms to grant them domination. If they perceive opposition, it is because we will not desist from speaking our minds and conducting ourselves in accordance with our own culture and laws regardless of offense. Are we not offended by the hate rallies, boycotts, flag burnings, rapes and deaths?
When previous immigrants reached our shores, they were eager to assimilate, learn our manners and customs, and become one with their new hosts. When an immigrant demands obedience from the host, however, that is conquest, not assimilation.
In America, the Islamists threaten others on city streets, conduct BDS rallies to intimidate and discredit (particularly in universities), deface synagogues, and make special demands. Accusing their adversary of the strategy they use themselves is called "projection."
These students are using a passive-aggressive technique, based on an unsupported accusation, to claim they are "VICTIMS," when in fact, they are the reverse: "SMITCIV," a word I created because we do not have such war strategies in our culture.
In truth, the Muslim woman's true victimization comes at the hands of her own people. She holds a far lower legal and cultural status and is denied the dignity of choice. Although both men and women live by Shari'a law, with every aspect of their lives tightly controlled and both subject to cruel punishment for the slightest infraction of stringent rules, Shari'a applies more to women. This is evidenced by the proliferation of head scarves or longer shrouds, which is a political, not religious, statement. These were rarely seen before September 11, 2001, but instituting the dress code announced the Islamist's arrival and presence in the host country, along with increased mosque construction and intensified terrorism.
Shari'a, the basis for the totality of the Islamic way of life, provides no human rights or protection. Shari'a demands female genital mutilation before puberty, controls women's dress, daily prayers, even which hand to use for which purpose and when it may be chopped off. Severe corporal punishment looms for any deviation from the decrees – from leaving their homes, to attending school, to seeking medical care, to any act that a father or husband may declare a state of dishonor, and more.
Above all, Shari'a determines that her purpose is to serve men, and this is the true victimization of these women.
© Tabitha Korol
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
