Skip to main content

Good for them


A group of non-Muslim Swedish women have taken to wearing traditional Islamic headscarves in protest of the beating of a Muslim woman so attired.

The "hijab outcry" movement says that they believe that discrimination against Muslim women is "reason enough in a country where the number of reported hate crimes against Muslims is on the rise - and where women tie their headscarves extra tight so that it won't get ripped off - for the prime minister and other politicians to take action to stop the march of fascism."

While I personally have considerable difficulty with the entire concept of "hate crimes-" actions, not thoughts, ought to be the concern of the law- I very much sympathize with these women. Islamophobia has long since passed the point of rational distrust of radical Islamists in much of the Western world, and has become nothing more or less than a form of religious bigotry.

I see the "hijab outcry" movement as very much in the tradition of the Lutheran Danes during World War II who chose to wear the Star of David as a sign of solidarity with their Jewish countrymen.

HT: Drudge

ADDENDUM: I keep getting responses from people expressing completely appropriate concern about the negative effects of radical Islam, specifically in Sweden- a nation which now leads the world in rapes, apparently due to the notion certain Muslim men seem to have that "immodestly dressed" Swedish women are legitimate targets.

This, and similar anti-social expressions of Islamic extremism, need to be dealt with not only firmly but ruthlessly. But that does not justify equating Islam itself with the slime balls and nutjobs who profess it. If it did, all of us Christians would be responsible for Fred Phelps and David Koresh.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Most Muslims are peace-loving, as are most Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. Unfortunately, the Koran is the only religious book in the world that justifies killing people who "threaten" their faith--however anyone feels like loosely interpreting that, it's a ticket redeemable in the eyes of society for murder. Lets be honest, the fact is the majority of the Muslim world sees American wars in the Middle East as attacking Islam itself. Neither the Boston Marathon bomber's parents, John Walker Lindh, nor the Fort Hood Murderer are isolated cases; they were the ones discovered. Christian apologists are just putting their heads on the chopping block of White Guilt, self-loathing and "sorry about the Crusades" revisionism, and trying to drum up domestic support of their own offices by pledging support to yet another "suddenly-not-so minority". Muslims in the East have ALWAYS hated the West and Christianity (they tried for 800 years to conquer and subvert Jerusalem and Christian Europe and forced religious pledges of loyalty, long before the "evil" Crusades were even launched--as we know Christians in Europe suffered Islamic "holy wars" for almost 400 years before sending Crusaders to protect Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christ which had no importance to the Muslim faith). Recent American incursions on "Muslim" soil haven't exactly endeared us to them. Muslims are Fundamentalist, and value religious ties over political ones and routinely send eager warriors across country borders and oceans (and from the USA) to "defend their faith" by murdering others, all justifiably and unabashedly in the hearts of their own mothers. All the while their women physically conceal themselves not only to placate their jealous husbands but to ensure their own social anonymity, attracting a perfectly justified focus of suspicion in open, free societies like ours that they enjoy a foreign livelihood from, but do not truly belong to. This is not racist profiling, or religious persecution, or hate; this is "we know what you are, and that you'd rather see us dead." This is the Boston Marathon bombers' parents, and they are not an isolated case in any stretch of a hopeful imagination.
As a sometime Christian pastor, I am very far from wanting to denigrate the Bible. But there are passages in the Old Testament which also are problematic when taken in isolation from the rest of the Bible, and for the same reason. You're talking about one specific passage from the Koran which was written to deal with a specific situation. It's true that this passage is taken out of context and abused by some Muslims, but that does not justify your characterization of the Koran. Also, "fundamentalist-" a perfectly honorable word kidnapped by the secularist Left to mean "excessively and unreasonably conservative-" is a term that can be (mis)used to describe members of any religion. It is certainly not the case that all Muslims would be accurately described by that word even in its popular meaning. In its technical meaning, of course, no Muslim believes in the substitutionary atonement of Christ, His deity, or any of a number of the other "Fundamentals" which gave the original movement its name.

Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…