BHUTTO’S BODY AND THE FACE OF ISLAM

By Don Feder

Posted January 9, 2008

My reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto?

What did you expect?

Let’s see: Bhutto was a woman who refused to cower behind a veil. She believed in democracy and human rights, and opposed jihad. And she aspired to govern Pakistan again, as she had twice before, in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

So naturally the savages killed her.

Imagine if Alexander Hamilton traveled back in time from the 18^th to the 8^th century, and tried to explain republican government and capitalism to the knuckle-draggers. They would have torn off his arms and beat him to death with the severed limbs. Thus, Bhutto’s fate was inevitable.

Conspicuously absent from commentary on the crime was the word “Islam.” It’s as if the former prime minister could have been whacked by anyone, say deranged Amway salesmen or a roving band of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Not that there was a lack of finger-pointing.

The United States was blamed for backing Pervez Musharraf. Pakistan’s “president” was blamed for not controlling al-Qaeda (whose operations he tolerates, as long as they don’t go too far). Al-Qaeda was rightly blamed for pulling the trigger. (The scum gloated that they had “terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat the mujahadeen.”)

War-on-Terror hawks blamed “extremists,” “radicals”, “militants” and (when they were feeling really daring) “Islamo-fascists” – as if fanatics with armbands had somehow subverted the tenets of an otherwise benign and pacific creed.

Almost no one was willing to cast a critical eye on the religion of peace itself – for fear that logic and the overwhelming weight of evidence would lead to conclusions both politically incorrect and professionally perilous.

As Bhutto could attest, Islam is particularly hard on women. At a 2005 celebration to mark the end of Ramadan-a-ding-dong, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who fits perfectly in the intellectual milieu of Foggy Bottom) declared that Islam was not just the religion of peace -- a la George Bush -- but the “religion of peace and love.”

Hence, the expression: You always hurt the one you love – or decapitate the one you love, or choke the one you love, etc.

Last month, in the Toronto suburb of Mississauga, 57-year-old Muhammed Parvez strangled to death his daughter Aqsa, age 16. Parvez’s homicidal rage was fueled by his daughter’s refusal to wear the prescribed Moslem headgear for females, the hijab.

By all reports, Parvez senior was a good Muslim, a cab driver who took a break from his work four times a day to wail toward Mecca.

The reaction of the Canadian Muslim community was edifying. Sheik Alaa El-Sayyed, imam of a Toronto mosque, helpfully explained, “Women who wear hijabs occupy higher positions in Islam, according to religious teachings” -- and those who don’t have their windpipes crushed.

The Sheik further elucidated: “We can not let culture supersede religion. If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it.”

Adherence to the teachings of Islam also carries a price.

In November, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah magnanimously pardoned a gang-rape victim. No, that’s not a typo. The king pardoned the victim.

The unidentified woman was abducted along with a male companion and raped by six men. One taped the atrocity on his cell phone.

If gang-rape wasn’t enough, the 19-year-old was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for the unspeakable offense of being alone in a car with a man she wasn’t related to.

According to the Malaysian advocacy group Sisters in Islam, in Pakistan “three out of four women in prison … are rape victims.”

And they’re the lucky ones. In the Islamic world, and increasingly in Western countries where Muslims reside in large numbers, women who’ve “shamed their families” (by allowing themselves to be raped, being alone in a car with a non-relation, refusing the hijab, or other shameless and hussy-like behavior) are sentenced to death by male relatives.

Among adherents of the religion of peace and love, these homicides are so common that there’s even a name for them “honor killings.”

Between 1996 and 2006, there were 48 honor killings in Germany alone. The United Nations estimates that there are 5,000 honor killings a year worldwide. Being a woman in an Islamic society, or family, is almost as much fun as being an African-American in the era of Jim Crow – get uppity, and out come the whips and nooses.

Much of this flows from the unique position women enjoy in the religion of love and peace.

Women are expected to submit to the authority of first their fathers, then their brothers and finally their husbands. In this world, women play an exalted role, as objects of lust, breeding stock and slaves.

Now, where do you suppose this tradition comes from?

The Center for the Study of Political Islam analyzed every reference to women in the Koran, Hadith (traditions) and Sira (life of Muhammed). In 91% of these citations, women were described as inferior to men.

The Hadith mentions over 20 times that the majority of those in Hell will be women. Their damnable offense? Insufficient subservience to their husbands. Men earn a place in paradise (plus 70 perpetual virgins) for acts of piety, like killing infidels. Women earn eternal reward by being obedient to the men in their lives.

Sexual violence plays a crucial role in jihad.

In 1971, Pakistani soldiers raped a million women in the war with Bangladesh. While Islam frowns on sex outside marriage, infidels -- especially those conquered in holy war -- are exempted from this prohibition. (Religious authorities had declared the Bangladeshis “infidels.”)

Rev. Keith Roderick of Christian Solidarity International works with Iraqi Christian refugees. He recently met a woman who fled Iraq with her family after the following horrific incident.

After Muslims began moving into her formerly Christian neighborhood in Baghdad, she received a phone call informing her: “You have several daughters. We want you to give one to us (to marry a Muslim man).”

The mother ignored the demand. A week later, her 15-year-old daughter, Vivian, was kidnapped on her way home from school. When she received another call notifying her that her daughter had been taken, she asked how much the kidnappers wanted for the child’s safe return. The reply: “We don’t want your money; we just want to break your heart, because you’re a ‘crusader’ (Christian).”

A week later, Vivian’s naked body was dumped near the family home. She had been repeatedly raped, tortured and mutilated. In the wide world of Islam, there’s a whole lot of lovin’ going on.

If you’re disturbed by that story, don’t worry. In a few years, such reporting will be deemed a hate crime. The jihad lobby has learned well the intimidation tactics of multiculturalists. Under the mandate of sensitivity, they are moving relentlessly to crush any criticism of their delightful faith.

In Canada, an inquisition is underway which could have far-reaching consequences. Author Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine have been summoned to appear before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission on a “hate speech” complaint brought by three Muslim law students.

Maclean’s, Canada’s leading periodical, published an excerpt from Steyn’s book “America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It.”

In the seminal work, Steyn observed: “So it’s not merely that there’s a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.”

Other than the qualifier (“somewhat”), what reasonable person can argue with this assessment?

The complaint alleges that Steyn, and by extension Maclean’s, are suggesting that “Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada’s liberalized Western civilization.” What audacity!

Unfortunately, when hauled before a human-rights star chamber and charged with the high-crime of insensitivity, truth is no defense.

Exhibit #1, your honor, the strangulation of 15-year-old Aqsa Parvez.

Exhibit #2 -- The reaction of Canadian Islamic leaders to same.

Exhibit #3 -- A week before Christmas, an Italian Roman Catholic priest was stabbed in the Turkish city of Izmir. Last year, another Italian Catholic priest was shot dead in the Turkish Black Sea city of Trabzon.

Exhibit #4 -- A September CNN poll of Pakistanis, which showed Osama bin Laden’s approval rating at 46%, compared to 38% for Musharaff and 9% for Bush.

Exhibit #5 – A recent poll of our other good friends, the Saudis, in which 36% supported Saudi citizens fighting against U.S. troops in Iraq and 51% want Muslims to continue fighting Israel until the Jewish state is obliterated.

Exhibit #6 – A Pakistani couple that converted to Christianity went into hiding after credible death threats. The death threats came from Muslim relatives.

Exhibit #7 – Also a week before Christmas, an Egyptian national named Mohamad Sayed was arrested in the southern Philippine city of Catabato, after police recovered an explosive device from his room in the Majad Islamic School. (Isn’t it strange how men named Mohammed – however the spelling – are so often connected to other “m” words, like murder, mayhem and massacre?)

Of course, the prosecution could counter with evidence of all of the explosive devices recovered from synagogues, cathedrals, tabernacles, yeshivas and ashrams.

It could also offer evidence of the Jewish charities charged with funneling money to terrorists, suicide bombers who die with “praise Jesus” on their lips and the injunctions to annihilate unbelievers found in the Bhagavad Gita, the Analects of Confucius and the Book of Common Prayer.

Exhibits #8 to infinity – Anwar Sadat, Daniel Pearl, Theo van Gogh, Rabbi Meir Kahane, Benazir Bhutto, 241 U.S. Marines who died in the Beirut barracks bombing and the 3,000 Americans murdered on September 11, 2001. The Center for the Study of Political Islam estimates that since 9/11 there have 57,749 jihad murders.

It takes a tremendous and sustained act of will to ignore the elephant in the living room – the one wearing a dynamite-belt and shouting “Allahu Akabar!”

But the guys and gals reporting the news are more than capable of that act of willful blindness.

The 9,000-member Society of Professional Journalists has a set of guidelines for covering Muslim murder, which could have been written by the Council on American Islamic Relations, they include:

1. When writing about Islamic terror, be sure to include references to white supremacists and anti-abortionists.

2. Don’t use terms like “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim terrorist.” (Instead, say Religion of Peace struggler or overly enthusiastic Muslim.)

3. Jihad means exertion to improve one’s self or Islam (through bomb-building, sharp-shooting, hijacking airliners, etc.).

4. Get Muslims to vet the articles.

Or get your news directly from Al-Jazeera, and eliminate the middleman.

Reacting to the Bhutto assassination, Sen. Fred Thompson (who has a sound understanding of foreign policy) observed, “This is a war, a clash of civilizations.”

Could you be more specific? “The chance that a secular woman had the possibility of ascending to power in Pakistan drove the more radical Islamic elements in the country to violence.”

“Radical Islamic elements” don’t need to be driven anywhere. The term “radical Islamic elements” implies there are moderate Islamic elements. Who are they -- and where are they both hiding?

Assassinations, honor killings, suicide bombings, rape as a political weapon and the degradation of women -- all are symptoms of a disease, a plague bacillus being carried to the West by immigrants and converts.

Benazir Bhutto, rest in peace – along with honesty, objectivity and the courage to be candid about the greatest threat to civilization since Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

An earlier version of this commentary appeared at GrassTopsUSA.com