|Home | Articles | News | Blog | About | Mailing List | Resources | Prominent Islamists | Middle East Forum | Keep Us Informed | Donate|
by Johanna Markind • Tue, 7 Jul 2015, 11:51 AM
Last week, the Boston Globe ran a story about the emergence of a younger generation of leadership within the local Muslim community. "The younger leaders grew up in America, unlike many of their predecessors, and appear more willing to raise concerns about counterterrorism efforts targeting their community amid the rise of Islamic extremism and its global online recruitment efforts." A cynic might say they are more focused on demanding their rights than in cooperating against radical Islam.
by Johanna Markind • Mon, 6 Jul 2015, 8:57 PM
There has been some discussion (e.g., here and here) about whether the Supreme Court's June 26 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing gay marriage portends the future legalization of polygamy in the United States.
The majority opinion, by Justice Anthony Kennedy, does not mention polygamy and its language appears to favor monogamy. It cites four principles: the right to marry as supporting "a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," personal choice in marriage as an aspect of liberty, marriage as a safeguard for children and families, and marriage as a keystone of our social order. It concludes that both Due Process and Equal Protection require extending the same marriage dignity to homosexual as to heterosexual couples.
In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts frets that the majority's rationale could apply equally well to polygamous unions. He writes:
by Johanna Markind • Thu, 25 Jun 2015, 9:25 AM
After Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced yesterday, Massachusetts US Attorney Carmen Ortiz gave a press conference at which she hastened to assure us that his crime was "A crime of terrorism, a crime not religiously-motivated... And he couched his comments in line with Allah and Allah's views, which gives it a religious tone and there was nothing – as you heard Judge O'Toole say in the courtroom – there was nothing about this crime that was Islam-associated." Apparently the press wasn't buying it, because in response to an inaudible reporter's question, Ortiz doubled down: "That is a skewed view of the religion of Islam. That is not what Islam is all about... It's a radical ideology which really isn't at the heart of what is truly a peaceful and loving religion."
This is not a new theme for Ortiz, who offered similar views on May 15 following the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. "The defendant claimed to be acting on behalf of all Muslims. This was not a religious crime," she insisted, "and it certainly does not reflect true Muslim beliefs."
We have received similar assurances from others in the current administration, including President Obama, and from President Bush before him. It appears to reflect a desire not to smear all Muslims with the deeds of a few, and that impulse is commendable.
by Johanna Markind • Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 5:06 PM
In an article published by PJ Media and republished today by Islamist Watch, Johanna Markind explores how CAIR's efforts to "Ferguson"-ize the Usaama Rahim shooting only begged the question of where its local representatives were. Although CAIR feigned otherwise, there is no local CAIR chapter in Massachusetts, and possibly never was. In fact, CAIR seems to have lost four or five other chapters since 2007. It has also lost membership support since 9/11. The national organization is almost entirely dependent on large donations from unknown sources.
by Marc J. Fink • Wed, 17 Jun 2015, 2:01 PM
News from Islamist Watch
PHILADELPHIA – June 17, 2015 – Islamist Watch (IW), which protects the West from lawful Islamism, has launched Facebook and Twitter pages, bringing its message to new audiences.
IW's social media provides readers with news, rapid analyses, and updates on its activities. In addition, by liking and following, readers join a community of citizens opposed to Islamic supremacist efforts to exploit Western freedoms to undermine from within.
For immediate release
For more information, contact:
by Johanna Markind • Tue, 16 Jun 2015, 11:39 AM
Today's New York Times print edition carries an article entitled, "Muslims Work to Shed Stigma Tied to Terror." The article can't quite decide what story it's trying to tell: Muslims as victims, external criticism of the community (which it tries to minimize), or Muslim self-criticism. The lack of focus and efforts to gloss over signs of extremism within the Boston Muslim community, even among those calling themselves moderate, result in an article more propaganda than journalism.
It begins with the executive director of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) complaining that after terrorist incidents, the mosque is victimized by phone calls asking what connection it has to the perpetrator. This is a classic tactic of trying to change the subject from Muslims as perpetrators to Muslims as victims in the immediate aftermath of Islamist violence that has appeared very frequently in the media.
It mentions that Boston is one of three locations selected by the Obama Administration for a pilot program in countering Islamist radicalization and recruitment, given the anodyne name "Countering Violent Extremism." Why those three, and in particular, why is Boston one of them? The article, about the Boston Muslim community, does not ask the question directly.
by Johanna Markind • Wed, 10 Jun 2015, 5:48 PM
In three separate items posted online today, the BBC reported about the first prison sentence handed down in the UK under new legislation against forced marriage. In all, the court imposed a 16-year sentence for rape, bigamy, and voyeurism, as well as forced marriage.
Four times in the three articles, BBC refers to culture (cultural traditions, beliefs, and practices) as the problem. For example: "Many say the problem lies in deep-rooted cultural traditions and that young people are reluctant to come forward to the authorities."
What culture is that? The articles do not say, but coyly supply suggestive details. One says: "The code of family honour and shame can run very deep in families with strong roots on the Indian Subcontinent." Another article elaborates: "The FMU [Forced Marriages Unit] was involved in cases covering 88 countries, with most from the Asian subcontinent [emphasis in original] - 38% from Pakistan, 8% from India and 7% from Bangladesh." The sentenced man entered into his forced, second marriage at a mosque. His victim was a "devout Muslim." The story quotes a woman from the Muslim Women's Network UK.
by Johanna Markind • Mon, 8 Jun 2015, 3:31 PM
The New York Times continues its efforts to inculcate Americans with the value of wearing a hijab or scarf and expand their sympathy for Islamic modesty requirements. Today's print edition includes a feature story about a lawyer who started covering when she was in college, against her parents' wishes. The story sympathetically portrays the young lawyer's concerns about potential discrimination in hiring decisions and work assignments, and how she navigated them. It shares her piety, the "comfort and courage" she finds in her faith, and "elat[ion]" about the Supreme Court's recent decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch.
by Johanna Markind • Mon, 1 Jun 2015, 3:12 PM
Today's US Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch illustrates that the American conception of the role of religion differs markedly from that of France and Western Europe. The French Revolution viewed religion as the enemy and strove to create a secular society that dis-established religion by actively pushing it out of the public sphere. The burqa-ban and its progeny (e.g., the current debate over banning the Muslim headscarf at nurseries) are the latest manifestation of this approach, which is gathering steam in Europe – witness the Dutch debate over a partial veil ban.
by Johanna Markind • Wed, 27 May 2015, 11:18 PM
The New York Times appears to be on a campaign to show wearing the hijab/veiling in a positive light, at a time when France is extending its ban on religious clothing and the Netherlands has proposed its own burqa-ban. Yesterday, it posted an article complaining about France's "'preoccupation' with Muslim women's attire." It offered anecdotes and claims from mostly unnamed sources arguing that France's ban on religious symbols in public places is counter-productive of integration and disabling and alienating to Muslim women.
Today, it posted a collection of feedback from Muslim women expressing their views about covering. These two dozen, culled from over a thousand responses, mostly favored covering or veiling, while emphasizing that it was a matter of personal choice. The Times reports, "For almost all of these women, it was a matter of personal choice." Almost. The responses are eloquent in expressing the positive aspects, but counter-arguments are largely missing.