Niqab-Clad Puffington Ho Shills For Sharia

THANKS to the mighty ATLAS for this,, LOLOL

If the left wins in their blind, deaf and dumb pursuit of an Islamic supremacist triumph, there is an upside to the sharia. Arianna Puffington Ho and the glitterati, gay and straight, will be bitchslapped by the new reality.

Jumping jack flash is a gas gas gas.

The Huffington Post hosts a niqab-clad journalist (heh) deriding the "anti-sharia" movement. Coming from a cloth coffin, no surprise there. I understand the niqab; particularly for very obese, ugly women with beautiful eyes, it makes sense. Other than that, you're a slave.

Sabria the niqab-clothed clown writes,

Muslims may think that Osama bin Laden perverted the true meaning of Islam, but Newt Gingrich, Geert Wilders and their slavish sycophants Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller make Al-Qaeda look like amateurs in the art of deception.

Say what? Gingrich came to the counter-jihad party years after my exhaustive efforts, and he still doesn't get it. If I am a Newt sycophant, than the prophet Moe is a wannabe Jew (actually he was, come to think of it).

You can accuse me of what you like, but a syncophant? Never. Newt's? Ugh. I have railed against Newt's disloyalty as early as March 2006 here. Come out from that black cloth coffin, Sabria -- the water is just fine and so are the facts. Gingrich followed the lead of myself and others, not the other way around.

Gingrich pulled out of our 911 rally of remembrance against the Ground Zero mosque. Why? Beats me. He lacks courage. Newt doesn't get it, and how this silly, subjugated woman makes one of so many outlandish statements indicates the cluelessness of the niqab-clad mouthpiece and the Puff Ho.

Her further extolling of the sharia is downright insulting to free peoples everywhere. Apparently for this slave woman

.....the more sensational aspects of Sharia: stoning, amputations, lashings and taqiyya. Taqiyya, according to Western extremists, means that Muslims can lie with impunity to hide their true agenda of global domination. I must admit that this is a clever tactic because anyone believing in this nonsense can conveniently disregard as a lie any Muslim argument that is contrary the western extremist position. Interestingly, the Robert Spencers of the world insist we denounce terrorism and renounce Sharia. Yet their position is that all Muslims are liars, so what's the point of making these futile arguments?

[...]

... the report can't quite explain why stonings are so rare and the streets of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not filled with one-armed thieves.

Apparently there aren't enough stonings, amputations, lashings, etc., to warrant concern. How many are enough, Sabria?

As for Sabria's jackboot stomping, the niqab doth protest too much. Clearly the attacks on free speech (hate speech, aka islamophobia), sharia financing, mosqueing of the public square, the workplace, and the public school is all incremental sharia, delegitimizing Israel, rampant anti-semitism ....drip, drip, drip.

UPDATE: Spencer gives it a good thrashing:

Jawhar then complains that a recent study of Sharia's spread in America didn't include Islamic scholars. Maybe the organizers of the study didn't want it overwhelmed with fog and detours and diversions from the main point. Then she continues:

These self-proclaimed experts ignore the principles of Sharia that make Islamic values compatible with democratic societies. Indeed, the principles of Sharia are also found in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and predate these documents by more than a millennium. These Sharia principles ensure the freedom of religion, the preservation of human life and family, the guarantee of an education and the pursuit of economic security and justice through commerce.

Freedom of religion for non-Muslims in the Islamic state only if they know their place and accept second-class status. Preservation of human life unless you're deemed a kafir harbi, an infidel at war with Islam. Preservation of the family, including polygamous arrangements in which women are essentially commodities.

Rather than focus on what Sharia has in common with American values, the report gives considerable space to a 19-year-old Muslim Brotherhood document that reportedly seeks to implement Sharia in the United States. Although the authors give much credence to this document, most American Muslims view the Muslim Brotherhood in the abstract with little relevance in their lives. The report fails to address the question of how the Muslim Brotherhood, which struggles for credibility in Muslim countries, can have a foothold in Podunk, Idaho.

Well, I don't think Podunk, Idaho exists, but in reality, while Jawhar tries to obscure the Brotherhood presence in the U.S., virtually all of the major Islamic organizations in this country -- CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA, MPAC, NAIT, etc. -- have some link to the Brotherhood.

The report cleverly addresses the more sensational aspects of Sharia: stoning, amputations, lashings and taqiyya. Taqiyya, according to Western extremists, means that Muslims can lie with impunity to hide their true agenda of global domination. I must admit that this is a clever tactic because anyone believing in this nonsense can conveniently disregard as a lie any Muslim argument that is contrary the western extremist position. Interestingly, the Robert Spencers of the world insist we denounce terrorism and renounce Sharia. Yet their position is that all Muslims are liars, so what's the point of making these futile arguments?

Jawhar is, in a word, lying. I challenge her to produce any statement of mine to the effect that "all Muslims are liars." She can't, because I have never said it. But she is obviously one herself.

Taqiyya refers to a single incident in the Qur'an in which a man concealed his religious faith when forced to renounce Islam while being tortured. If anything, recent history has taught us that anyone will lie under the threat of torture. But we are led to believe that this single incident in this context is the foundation of an Islamic strategy to impose Sharia.

Actually it is not based on an "incident" in the Qur'an at all. It is based on a statement in the Qur'an (3:28) that warns believers not to take unbelievers as "friends or helpers" (َأَوْلِيَا -- a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), "unless it be that ye but guard yourselves against them." This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for "guard" in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan -- hence the increasingly familiar term taqiyya. The great Qur'an commentator Ibn Kathir says that the phrase rendered above as "unless it be that ye but guard yourselves against them" means that "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers" may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection."

While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi'ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi'ites, "it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Qur'an 3:28." The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.

The Center for Security Policy wants Americans to think that stoning and amputations are around the corner, but the report can't quite explain why stonings are so rare and the streets of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not filled with one-armed thieves.

Whoops. And whoops again. And here's one from Pakistan.

The Qur'an never mentions stoning as a punishment and there are conflicting interpretations of the Prophet's involvement in implementing it. The most common interpretation is of a woman consumed with guilt over an adulterous affair that resulted in a child. She pestered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) literally for years for him to wash away her sins with a death sentence. He refused, but when he could no longer find an excuse to send her away, he reluctantly agreed to punish her. What non-Muslim Sharia "experts" fail to mention is that stoning a person who commits adultery requires four eyewitnesses to the actual act of sexual intercourse. This fantastical burden of proof is almost impossible to fulfill. And rightly so. It's designed as prevention, not an actual punishment. Allegations of adultery are easy to make but virtually impossible to prove. Sharia makes stoning extremely unlikely to carry out.

Actually, I've pointed out the four witnesses requirement many, many times, and noted also how it is used against women. I have noted many times that according to Sisters In Islam, a Muslim reform group, there is evidence that most -- up to 75% -- of the women imprisoned in Pakistan are there because of rape. Islamic evidence laws disallow a woman's testimony in such cases, and require testimony from four male witnesses of the act to establish the rape. If such witnesses are not found, as is usually the case, and the accused perpetrator denies the act, as is usually the case, then the woman's very rape charge becomes evidence that she has committed zina -- unlawful sexual activity.

The threat by the Iranian government to stone to death Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani on a conviction of adultery is not based on the evidence of four eyewitnesses, but on a judicial authority determined to inflict fear and intimidation on the Iranian population. It's not Sharia....

Have you ever noticed that whenever a Muslim does something terrible in the name of Islam, Muslims in the West say immediately that he is not a Muslim, although he was to all appearances devout and fervent before he did his terrible deed. And now we have a parallel denial: anything noxious about Sharia is deemed to be not-Sharia -- even Sharia states implementing Sharia punishments.

Of course, non-Muslims may have reason not to believe a word I write. This may be my idea of taqiyya.

The rhetorical tactic at play here is that Jawhar is trying to shame you into thinking that it would be "Islamophobic" to suspect that she is not being honest. But since I know already that she is not being honest, as shown above, this doesn't work on me, and it shouldn't work on you, either. Her hapless Huffington Post readers are another matter.