Phyllis Chesler
Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. For extended biography visit The Phyllis Chesler Organization.
Read page 1 of this post here.
Does Hollywood actually believe that Arabs, Muslims—even al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhohood, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. are the new Native American Indians and that the CIA is the U.S. Cavalry? They sure do. Do they think that Muslims are like African-Americans–much sinned against, and towards whom reparations are due? They sure do. No matter that Africans were instrumental in the African slave trade to the West, no matter that Arabs have always and still practice slavery, no matter that Arabs despise black-skinned people. The truth cannot hold its own against the Big Lies.
These “Dancing With Muslims” films are our American version of the Palestinian-doctored film footage that has come to dominate the 21st century; the template for what Christiane Amanpour reports.
Children, now hear this: Good and peaceful Muslims certainly exist. My personal favorites are those who dare to stand against the Islamist terrorists and infidel haters. In Iran, four incredibly brave activists have just been hung in Evin Prison. These brave souls usually live in exile—where their voices are marginalized by Western leaders as not “representative” of Islam, which the Islamists have now claimed as their own.
Zeyno Baran and her contributors to The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular implore Western governments and media to pay attention to what they have to say, turn to them for advice, install them on committees. The Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam (my group) has Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim members as well. Tommorrow, they are planning to stand in Times Square at 42nd Street and 7th Avenue, three blocks away from where Faisal Shazad’s failed car bomb once stood. They want to tell the truth about Radical Islam. Will the media cover them? Will Hollywood make a film from their point of view?
I rather doubt it—but trust me, by and by, they will because there will be no choice. The next car bomb or human bomb may not fail.
Really, why does President Obama refuse to use the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” in the same sentence? Why do so many journalists refuse to distinguish between “Islam” and “Islamism” or to admit that a war has been declared against the West, against infidels, and against civilians by radical Islamists?
Why do all our Talking Heads keep using the utterly useless phrase “The War on Terror”? Why do they insist that because most Muslims are not terrorists, Muslim terrorists are either not (true) Muslims, not (really) terrorists and, even when they have been trained by satellite or on the ground in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or Iraq, that they are mentally ill lone wolves?
In addition to all the theories about President Obama being a “Muslim Manchurian candidate,” or at least an anti-American, Alinksy-style socialist/communist, a Jew-hater, or at least a Jewish-state-hater—I think it’s also simpler than that. I bet that both our leaders and our leading journalists all go to Hollywood movies where they are misled and indoctrinated.
The Great Dream Factory is now an Actor in History. read more…
<— Previous page Page 2 of 2
In the Qu’ran’s Sura 4, verse 3, it is written:
And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.
I have been told that polygamy is actually very hard to practice in “the right way” because a man must treat each wife equally—exactly equally. Since this is impossible, polygamy, by definition, may never have been practiced in “the right way.” Also, mainly wealthy men can afford to practice polygamy, a fact which dooms young, poor men to unmarried lives of enormous envy and resentment. In an age of jihad we know where this may lead: They will sexually harass and rape infidel women and kidnap Muslim girls and women as sexual slaves. This was done by Islamist paramilitary gangs in Algeria and by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Such resentful young men will also become fundamentalists and terrorists. Trust me: Polygamy makes women and children quite miserable too—but that is the subject for another piece.
Historically, the “right course” among Muslim men has included taking concubines—many, many concubines, both Jewish and Christian, African and European. Muhammed himself did so and this practice has not stopped. Obscenely large harems have existed among Muslim rulers for centuries, although many non-Muslim Africans have “lived large” in terms of multiple wives as well. Jews outlawed polygamy in the eleventh century. Prostitution has always flourished in the world; sexual trafficking is at an all-time high today. Neither Muslim nor African countries are immune to this practice.
Today, the Saudis alone are known to fly in new planeloads full of European prostitutes each and every week. Are they considered to be “temporary concubines” or even “temporary wives,” a practice which is now common in Iran? Female domestic workers in Saudi Arabia are routinely raped by their employers as well as held hostage, underpaid, or never paid.
In other words, poor Rachida Benamed has scarcely a fig leaf to cover the enormous nakedness of Muslim men when it comes to the subject of polygamy, concubinage, and prostitution. I would not recommend trying to justify such misogyny no matter what religion the john may practice.
As I have said: Follow the Islamic veil and you will find many other improprieties and immoralities in the West.
I wish to acknowledge the fine work of Esther’s Islam in Europe blog.
Cherchez La Femme (Follow the Woman) Wearing the Islamic Veil: Polygamy and Lawsuits in France
Anne and Liès Hebbadj
It gets even better.
Remember the French woman who was fined for wearing a face mask (niqab) when she was driving? She turned out to be one of four wives who collectively had twelve children, all of whom were being supported by the French government; their father, the polygamist, was also on the public dole.
Whatta guy. read more…
All across Europe, government leaders are deciding whether to fine, restrict, or ban the Islamic veil. France’s Prime Minister Sarkozy wants a full ban—one that will also apply to Muslim tourists. Belgium wants one too—although it has been warned that doing so “will violate the rights of those who choose to wear the veil and do nothing to help those who are compelled to do so.” (That vote has not taken place due to the collapse of the government). Recently, a Madrid school expelled a girl for wearing hijab; the government is backing the school, but four of the girl’s classmates have been coming to school wearing hijab “as a sign of support for her.”
What’s the fuss all about? read more…
“Once, there was a time” when I believed in National Geographic and in the British medical Journal The Lancet. I did not think they traded in propaganda, but in science and nature photography. But that was back in the era of the musical Beatles. Now, my views have changed. Reality has forced my hand. National Geographic cannot be trusted about Israel or about Christians in the Arab world. And, The Lancet leaves much to be desired on many subjects. read more…
I have gone on record, many times, about how hazardous the Islamic Veil is to women’s health in both medical and psychiatric terms. There are other kinds of health risks involved in adopting Islamically “modest” dress. For example, in England, Muslim nurses are now refusing to leave their arms uncovered below the elbow which can potentially lead to spreading hospital superbugs and to the death of patients. The British National Health Service has given in to this demand—but has prohibited short-sleeved nurses from wearing crosses.
Two days ago, a Muslim woman was killed when her Islamic Veil (one account describes it as her burqa) got caught up in the wheels of her go-kart at a recreational park in New South Wales, Australia. Why was she wearing a burqa in a go-kart? Let me guess: Her Wahabi-Salafi oriented husband, father, brother, expected her to do so? read more…
Contrary to myth, Islamist female suicide bombers are neither “liberated” nor empowered women. They are not driven by feminist or nationalist ideologies. They are not always “black widows”—women, (most recently in the Moscow train bombings), who have lost terrorist husbands to the enemy and who want revenge.
Some female (Palestinian suicide bombers) are clinically depressed after years of family abuse, or upon discovering that they are infertile and that their husbands are divorcing them. Some female (Iraqi suicide bombers) are desperate for “mothering,” and are easily indoctrinated by an older woman figure who “mothers” them into martyrdom. Some female (Palestinian suicide bombers) are trapped by male indoctrinators who seduce them, then threaten to tell their husbands or families if they do not go out in a redemptive blaze of glory; otherwise, they will be honor murdered. read more…
A Parliamentary committee in Belgium has just voted to ban the burqa. The language of the ban is strategically neutral in terms of religion and ethnicity: It bans “face coverings,” not “niqab” or the “burqa.” This is the only approach that might work but I doubt that the full Parliament will approve it; and, if they do, I predict that Muslims, both men and women, as well as their western accomplices, will don burqas as a form of “resistance” and sit in jail for a week or pay their fines. No doubt, the European Union will ultimately find that such a ban violates human and religious rights. read more…
