They explicitly state that their meaning is that it is a place “where the Constitutional law no longer is enforced”, referring to a case in which courts ruled that Dearborn violated the constitutional rights rights of protesters by failing to protect them, and for kicking them out of a public festival, when they were attacked by festival goers in response to their criticism of Islam.
The complete list, which wasn’t cited in the Salon article, did include trivial incidents, which was Hank’s point.
You’re in no position to cast aspersions on the video, given that you haven’t watched it. I have, and I can assure you that the figures they cite are not taken out of context. If you want, you can cross-check the Pew survey (with which I believe you’re already familiar) with demographic data from the CIA World Fact Book and come to exactly the same results.
I’ve done a little bit of the legwork myself in this thread: Why Do So Many Muslims Want To Kill Apostates?
You can run the same calculations for different issues if you like, but they’ll only confirm what the video says. When Muslims are polled worldwide on questions like, ‘Should women be stoned to death for adultery’, or ‘Should thieves have their hands cut off?’ or ‘Are suicide attacks against civilian targets in defence of Islam morally justifiable’, the results are always appalling.
They’re not lying, the video is not random, the Pew Research organisation isn’t “a bunch of crackpots”, and people who cite their poll results to illustrate the fact that hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide hold horrifically retrograde social views, aren’t conspiracy theorists. They’re just pointing out the blindingly obvious. Bad ideas, culled from scripture, lead to bad attitudes, which in turn lead to bad behaviour. As the Danish cartoon riots and the Charlie Hebdo massacre showed, it’s in the best interests of all free societies to debunk these ideas.
Actually, they explicitly state it was a “no-go zone” where “Islam rules and Christians are stoned”, describing these as “places that are effectively off-limits not only to non-Muslims but to the law enforcement and security forces of the country as well” and quoting Muslim-hater Daniel Pipes as saying “the most accurate name for such places is Dar al-Islam, meaning a place governed by Islamic law (sharia)”. Oh, and how “*n the case of Dearborn, the legal system of sharia, in effect, was enforced by default by officers who are sworn to defend American law, not Islamic law.” Which is, not to put to fine a point on it, a blatant pack of absolute lies.
Oh, and they also talk about how there was a “stoning of Christians in broad daylight in Dearborn while local law enforcement officers stood by refusing to protect them”, that police"steadfastly refused to provide even one or two law enforcement officers to defend American citizens who were clearly in imminent danger of physical injury", and that said “Christians” were merely “carrying placards and wearing T-shirts bearing mild statements expressing their Christian beliefs”, which are also blatant lies.
Your attempted spin of their lies is even stupider, because if their definition of a “no-go zone” was really someplace where there was a single incident of the police in a municipality violating the constitutional rights of someone which got overturned by an appeals court (rather than their actual definition of “places that are effectively off-limits not only to non-Muslims but to the law enforcement and security forces of the country as well…a place governed by Islamic law (sharia)” because that’s “what happens when a sovereign nation relinquishes legal control of portions of its territory”), then it certainly couldn’t be true that, as they also claim, “*n this case, the No Go Zone, perhaps America’s first, is located in the 45% Muslim city of Dearborn, Michigan”, because such police violations and appeals court rulings against the police HAPPEN ALL OVER THE PLACE IN AMERICA ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
No, Hank Beecher. What the Clarion Project is claiming is that Dearborn is actually under shari’ah law, a literal “no-go zone” where the laws of the United States no longer apply. And that’s not just false, it’s stupidly, laughably, pathetically false. For one thing, if US law and the Constitution no longer apply in Dearborn, how is it that the Sixth Circuit Court was even able to rule in the case at all, much less rule against Dearborn?
Do you even think through the bullshit you spout, or just parrot what other Muslim-haters say, no matter how patently ridiculous?
And their “criticism” of Catholicism as well (full article reprinted here):
Quite an impressive alliance of all kinds of bigotry there, don’t you think?
And my point was that that has nothing to do with the non-trivial, violent incidents that were cited in the Salon article. Except as a means to minimize and distract from those non-trivial, violent incidents, of course.
I haven’t watched Loose Change, either, but nevertheless feel pretty confident that it’s also full of garbage and lies given who put it together and what else he’s said.
Again, you’re going to have to do a lot better than “watch this video posted by known liars!” to get me to bother with it.
And given the crap that you’ve posted here numerous times regarding Islam, you’re about as reliable a determiner of that as Ed Wood would be as an Oscar judge.
Okay, fine. Tell me exactly what you want and I’ll provide it.
I could say exactly the same about you. You’re basically the Reza Aslan of the SDMB.
Damn, A’isha. You’re even more of a badass than I thought.
Seriously, dude, that’s supposed to be an insult? It says an awful lot about your deeply skewed perspective that you think so.
Yeah, seriously. I don’t exactly agree with him on Christianity, but he’s a great fighter against religious bigotry.
The only insult is that we actually need someone like that here.
That is exactly what happened, and why the court ruled in the protesters favor. You can look up the video and see for yourself. When people end up with bloody faces for trying to express a religious opinion that is a pretty good indication that they were in imminent danger of physical injury. You might object to the phrase “no go zone”, but people in America can be a little hysterical when rights to free speech are taken away. We tend to value our rights to criticize religion and other ideas that some people would rather were treated as holy and off limits.
The content of the message is not even relevant, the First Amendment applies regardless of what it was.
Yes and people critique them all the time for not enforcing laws and protecting people. There is no reason those critiques should stop when the reason that people’s rights were violates was because they were critical of Islam.
Protesters were assaulted as police failed to protect them, and then the protesters were removed, all because they were critical of Islam. The fact that the higher court had to step in to force Dearborn to follow the constitution shows that on that day it was a “no go zone”, since, you know, they could not go there.
I see you are doing every possible dance you can to avoid discussing the contents of Raheel Raza’s video that started this whole tirade you’ve got going on. Here it is again in case you have gotten everything out of your system and are ready to watch it an consider it’s message. Just so you know it is not about Dearborn or no go zones.
You don’t understand how free speech works. There are not exceptions based on how stupid or offensive the message is, the protections are specifically for unpopular or offensive statements. Speech that people do not object to is not the speech that needs protection.
Once again you are doing everything you can to avoid any discussion of the role that Islamic source texts play in Islamist violence, instead choosing only to be critical of those who are trying to have the discussion.
[QUOTE=Big T]
Yeah, seriously. I don’t exactly agree with him on Christianity, but he’s a great fighter against religious bigotry.
[/QUOTE]
I guess, as long as you don’t mind that he is consistently wrong when he objects to criticism of religion, which btw, is most definitely NOT bigotry.
For there to be a better comfort level by most westerners with Muslims in a western country, there needs to be a specific and widespread rejection by mullahs and other Islamic leaders of the principle that sharia supercedes our secular governance for Muslims in their choices of how personally to behave in a western society. Many Islamic leaders (see Muslim majority nations for plenty of examples) are stuck in a non-western, very unelightened paradigm where the best of all possible governance is based on Islam.
It’s fine to encourage women to behave a certain way because that’s what God wants to do. Believers are then free to voluntarily accept or reject that. I think that’s the model most Christian (and other) churches have come up with.
But I think the mullahs need to make it clearer that in a western democracy, sharia has absolutely no standing, and will not be used in any way to coerce behavior. The message from mullahs should be that a woman generally identifying with Islam as her religion can choose to wear a miniskirt and a blue mohawk without concern over any reprisal other than a scolding that the prophet Mohammed did not approve of that for his wives. The message should be that the only sanction of any kind would be whether or not she can worship alongside fellow Muslims in the mosque, and so on.
For the most part Christian churches figured this out some time ago, with only nutcase fringes trying to cult-up control of followers at a practical level for their personal behavior.
Without a clearer message from mullahs that sharia has absolutely no standing over personal behavior in a western democracy, I think there will be a persistent niggling concern that Muslims in the western world hope to press for a de facto (if not de jure) governance of Muslims (at least) by sharia, parallel to what Muslim-majority nations have effected. And that world sucks, from a western perspective.
Reza Aslan is little more than the acceptable public face of ruthless, agenda-driven apologetics. He’s a disingenuous fraud. Virtually everything he says on the topic of Islamism, and on the link between religious belief and behaviour, is either a bald-faced lie or a half-truth designed to play on the prejudices of a liberal audience.
There is an excellent example in the first of Hank Beecher’s links. On the off-chance that A’isha remains true to form and doesn’t deign to read it, I’ll quote it here:
Indonesia (which, incidentally, places 110th on the U.N. Gender Inequality Index) has ‘virginity tests’ for its female police officers, has so-called "modesty bylaws which disproportionately target women and girls, and, in the Aceh province, has instituted a raft of morality policing regulations derived directly from Sharia. Yet Aslan says that Indonesian women are “Absolutely 100% equal to men”. I want to emphasise, there is no possibility that he doesn’t know this is a lie.
I could go on and on, but there are only so many hours in the day. Reza Aslan is nothing more than an enemy of honest conversation.
If you think women are oppressed in Muslim-majority countries (and they are), try a little free speech, where the free speaking hits sharia hard, and Islamic tenets hard.
Islam is very protective of Islam, to put it politely.
No, as the uncut video (not the edited one that Clarion linked to, because they’re lying liars) shows, the police did indeed take action, and the appeals court (the third one, since Bible Believers was ruled against by the first two times) determined that Dearborn was at fault for removing the protesters, not for “standing by and refusing to protect them”.
Which is why police took action during the incident, several times, attempting to keep the two groups separate and even dragging off several of the people who were throwing objects at the protesters (things which Clarion flatly lied about when they claimed they didn’t happen).
Still doesn’t change the fact that Clarion lied about that. Unless you’d like to explain how waving pigs’ heads on sticks because Muslims are “petrified” of pigs and so it “keeps them at bay” constitutes, as Clarion described it, “mild expressions of their Christian beliefs”. Because I can’t seem to find that in any of my books discussion Christian doctrine and theology.
What they don’t do, however, is call those places where that happens “no-go zones” that are “effectively off-limits not only to non-Muslims but to the law enforcement and security forces of the country as well…place[s] governed by Islamic law (sharia)”.
Tell me, Hank Beecher…is Sullivan County and the Village of Liberty a “no-go zone” that is “effectively off-limits not only to non-Muslims but to the law enforcement and security forces of the country as well…governed by Islamic law (sharia)”, “where the Constitutional law no longer is enforced”?
Is New York City a “no-go zone” that is “effectively off-limits not only to non-Muslims but to the law enforcement and security forces of the country as well…governed by Islamic law (sharia)”, “where the Constitutional law no longer is enforced”?
Is Seattle a “no-go zone” that is “effectively off-limits not only to non-Muslims but to the law enforcement and security forces of the country as well…governed by Islamic law (sharia)”, “where the Constitutional law no longer is enforced”?
Is Ellisville, Missouri a “no-go zone” that is “effectively off-limits not only to non-Muslims but to the law enforcement and security forces of the country as well…governed by Islamic law (sharia)”, “where the Constitutional law no longer is enforced”?
Or do those violations of first amendment rights by police that were overturned by courts not count as “no go zones” because them eeeeevil Muslims aren’t involved?
Except that’s your spin-laden definition of what a “no-go zone” means. Is Dearborn a place where the US Constitution is not enforced (again, how then was the Sixth Court able to rule there?)? Is it a place where non-Muslims are afraid to go (surely news to the congregants of the Christian churches that outnumber mosques ten to one)? Is it a place where the police are afraid to go (odd, since the police were right there and took actions against the attackers as well as the protesters)? Is it a place where shari’ah rules instead of US law (perhaps you’d like to warn the proprietors of all those bars in Dearborn and then cite the judgments of a qadi that have superseded any city, county, state, or federal laws)?
In short, do you believe in, not your transparent and pathetic spin definition, but Clarion’s own actual definition of what a “no-go zone” actually is, in the face of every single piece of actual evidence and reality?
Clarion lied about Dearborn and what happened at the Arab Festival. And the fact that they’re straight-up liars apparently doesn’t matter to you because hey, they hate Muslims too and say bad things about them, therefore they’re a totally trustworthy source for you to not just cite, but defend.
Given the Clarion project’s blatant lies about Dearborn, why the fuck should I care about their video?
That violent extremists interpret Islamic source texts to justify their violent extremism isn’t the issue. The issue is whether, as you claim, that they’re justified and correct in doing so.
Yeah, I kind of have a thing about lying liars who lie: I sorta don’t trust them or anything they say. It’s a personal flaw of mine, I suppose.
It seems that when the authors of that nonsense accuse Aslan of “cherry-picking and distorting facts”, they’re engaging in some heavy projection, because they then proceed to do exactly that. For instance, their claim about the female heads of state in Muslim countries doesn’t actually debunk what Aslan said, it’s merely a bunch of special pleading (there are more men from politically-powerful and influential families in those countries, so why were women from those families elected over men? They don’t bother to explain that). And their assertions about FGM/C almost completely ignore the fact that Christians in African countries engage in the practice as much (and in some countries more than) Muslims there. The most they do is try to bury that in a sentence which is basically “FGM/C isn’t just a Muslim problem, but we’re going to put all the blame on Islam anyway”, followed up with a declaration by how “Islamic” the practice is. Unfortunately for them, as Kecia Ali has shown, “The majority of Muslims do not practice any form of female circumcision and where it is common it is generally performed by members of all religious groups; in Egypt, for instance, both Muslims and Christians practice female genital cutting. Kassamali notes that ‘Muslim groups that practice this custom often cite religious justifications…[y]et religion is not a determining factor.’ The severity of the practice - which varies considerably - depends on variables of locale, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status, rather than religious affiliation. In the majority of Muslim societies, by contrast, female circumcision is virtually unknown. In those regions where it is practiced, it almost always predates Islamization.”
Oh boy, Khuldune again. And it basically repeats, virtually point-for-point, the same faux “criticisms” found in your other link (with some laughably stupid additional assertions, like “the fact that the 91% [of women who have undergone FGM/C] in Egypt can’t be put down to ‘African tribal culture’, with the Muslim Brotherhood wholeheartedly endorsing FGM” - that 91% is actually 92% of Muslim women and 74% of Christian women in Egypt…so what’s his explanation for that 3/4 of Christian women undergoing the procedure? They are unlikely at best to be influenced by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood!) so I don’t see any need for me to repeat myself in addressing them.
You really couldn’t have chosen lamer, more useless sources to try and impeach Reza Aslan, could you?
Nothing pleases me more than disappointing you.
As the Al Jazeera article points out, these developments are recent in Indonesia. And Islamophobes love to cite laws and practices in Aceh and pretend that they’re applicable across the entirety of Indonesia. Aceh is a small province (containing just 1.6% of Indonesia’s population) that had fought an insurgent war against the Indonesian government from 1976 to 2004, and as part of the peace treaty ending the revolt Aceh was granted governmental and legal autonomy, which is why more restrictive laws can be passed there, but those laws are specific only to Aceh.
If you enjoy drinking games, every time you see an Islamophobe cite something happening in Indonesia, take a drink if it’s actually something happening in Aceh. Make sure your liver is in proper shape beforehand, though, because you’ll be taking a lot of drinks.
I keep waiting for a specific and widespread rejection of politicians in Alabama (especially the Chief Justice of our state supreme court) of the principle that religious law supersedes our secular governance.
I’m not holding my breath.
So what? Aslan’s claim was “In Indonesia, women are 100% equal to men”. Present tense. If the claim was “Women in Indonesia used to be 100% equal to men until last year but now they’re not”, you might have something approaching a point. But it wasn’t. So you don’t.
It’s a good thing I didn’t do that. Aslan did, albeit in reverse. He took laws and practises across most of Indonesia and pretended they were applicable to the Aceh province, which is dishonest. I’m surprised you didn’t call him out on it.
Oh, wait. No I’m not.
And Alabama only contains 1.57% of the USA’s population but that doesn’t stop you kicking up a stink about that.
So…you agree that Aslan’s claim that “In Indonesia, women are 100% equal to men” is false. Good to know.
As an aside, it’s amusing to see you accuse Hank Beecher of special pleading while in the very next post tying yourself in knots to exculpate Reza Aslan when he’s caught in a bald-faced lie.
Had he written and published that in one of his books, maybe (maybe) the faux outrage from Islamophobes about how he’s a wrongity wrong wrong apologist would have a point. But he made an off the cuff statement on a TV show while arguing with Bill “Vaccines are evil” Maher, so perhaps said Islamophobes are blowing things out of proportion in a pathetic attempt at point-scoring just a teensy wee bit.
I’m surprised that you think generalizing about an entire country from a single province out of 34 and 4 million people out of 237 million is the same as generalizing about an entire country from 33 provinces out of 34 and 233 million people out of 237 million.
But you keep on keepin’ on with your bad self.
That’s because I live here. As in, what our Ten Commandments Judge in charge of the Alabama Supreme Court does and says and the laws passed by our Republican-dominated legislature affect me, personally, rather directly.
I doubt that the people hyperventilating about Aceh even care about what happens there except as it provides them a convenient club with which to try and beat Islam. They certainly don’t actually live there themselves.
Apparently you have not read thedecision of the court(pdf):
After approximately seven minutes of proselytizing, some elements of the crowd began to express their anger by throwing plastic bottles and other debris at the Bible Believers. An officer was captured on video observing the scene without intervening or reprimanding the juvenile offenders. The size of the crowd ebbed and flowed. At one point an officer approached the Bible Believers and commanded that the speakers stop using a megaphone or be cited for violating city ordinances. The Bible Believers relented, but also responded by noting that “these angry kids are a little bit more vicious than the megaphone.” (Id. at 00:16:16). A few minutes later, an officer did ask the kids to back up and subsequently removed one of the teenagers who he saw throwing a bottle. However, all police presence and intervention dissipated after this minimal and isolated intervention.
and
In summary, the Bible Believers attended the 2012 Festival for the purpose of exercising their First Amendment rights by spreading their anti-Islam religious message. When a crowd of youthful hecklers gathered around the Bible Believers, the police did nothing. When the hecklers began throwing bottles and other garbage at the Bible Believers, a WCSO officer intervened only to demand that the Bible Believers stop utilizing their megaphone to amplify their speech. Virtually absent from the video in the record is any indication that the police attempted to quell the violence being directed toward the Bible Believers by the lawless crowd of adolescents. Despite this apparent lack of effort to maintain any semblance of order at the Festival, each time the police appeared on the video—to reprimand the use of the Bible Believers’ megaphone, to suggest that the Bible Believers had the “option to leave” the Festival, to trot by on horseback while doing next to nothing, and to expel the Bible Believers from the Festival under threat of arrest—the agitated crowd became subdued and orderly simply due the authoritative presence cast by the police officers who were then in close proximity. Only once is an officer seen removing one of the bottle-throwing teens. Israel, when faced with the prospect of being arrested for disorderly conduct, observed, “and you would think we would be complaining, but we’re not.” (R. 28-A, Raw Festival Footage, Time: 00:55:16). The Bible Believers were thereafter escorted from the Festival and ticketed by a large group of WCSO officers for removing the license plate from their van.
and
*The Bible Believers attended the Festival to exercise their First Amendment rights and spread their religious message. The way they conveyed their message may have been vile and offensive to most every person who believes in the right of their fellow citizens to practice the faith of his or her choosing; nonetheless, they had every right to espouse their views. See Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 309 (“The record played . . . would offend not only persons of [the Catholic] persuasion, but all others who respect the honestly held religious faith of their fellows.”). **When the message was ill-received, the police did next to nothing to protect the Bible Believers or to contain the lawlessness of the hecklers in the crowd. *Instead, the WCSO accused the Bible Believers of being disorderly and removed them from the Festival. On this record, there can be no reasonable dispute that the WCSO effectuated a heckler’s veto, thereby violating the Bible Believers’ First Amendment rights.
As the court noted, the police failed to protect the protesters. This resulted in both physical injury and the prevention of the expression of the unpopular message.
You don’t have to agree that their views are biblical valid Christian views, in fact your opinion of them is completely irrelevant. What appears to have been described as “mild” was not their beliefs, but their expression of them. They were just standing there expressing their view with their voices and a hand held megaphone, which is reasonably described as a mild expression in comparison to the other ways they could have been expressing their views, like broadcasting them over the TV or radio waves, or setting up a powerful public address system, or following people around or getting in their faces and screaming. The description of their expressions as “mild” certainly doesn’t make them “lying liars who lie”. That sounds more like you are trying to convince yourself, more than anything, not to consider an unrelated message by Raheel Raza that has nothing to do with no go zones or Dearborn.
On the occasion in question the police did allow and assist in the crowd’s enforcement of the prohibition of blasphemy against Islam.
If the authorities failed to protect or assisted in silencing a certain opinion then yes, on those occasions those places were no-go zones for the people trying to express that belief. And your insinuation that a desire to critique Islam, or an acceptance that people’s right to criticize Islam should be protected, means that I think Muslims are “eeeevil” is a particularly viscous manifestation of you defensive ignorance.
In that case it was not enforced, which is why the higher court had to intervene.
Considering that even the guy who coined the phrase admits to “stumbling” when he did so, I would say that they are less than perfectly accurate way of attempting to describe a troubling situatio:
Actually the video that you refuse to watch or comment on is by Raheel Raza. Not only does she not hate Muslism, she is herself a Sunni Muslim.
Limiting opposition of violent Islamists to claims that they are not really Islamic does not seem to be working, which is one of the reasons that I and many others,including many Muslims, disagree with you about what “the issue” is. Excommunicating terrorism
So then I take it you you don’t trust Reza Aslan since he claimed that women in Indonesia are treated “100% equal” to men, which is an obvious lie, since it is something he must be familiar with. He is after all, as he reminds us most of the times he opens his mouth, a “scholar”.
You must not have read his essay very closely, he answered that specific question. He specifically states that FGM is nether a wholly Muslim issue nor a wholly African issue, and makes a straightforward and truthful case for his position. He mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood’s support for FGM to counter the claim that the support for the practice can be attributed entirely to “African tribal culture”, he did not say that all FGM was due to their endorsement of it.
And so we reach the crux of the matter: Religion. :rolleyes:
As we here in the U.S. have managed to keep the fairy tale control freaks in check with our generally moderate views on societal norms, the middle east has not.
Now it’s time to deal with it.
He said it twice, in response to a softball question, and then chided the interviewer for overgeneralising. That’s rather more than an “off the cuff” statement. It was a prepared talking point, and you know it. Moreover, he wasn’t arguing with Bill Maher. He was lecturing a timid talk show host on CNN, so it’s not like he was under fire.
You know who was under fire? Sam Harris and Bill Maher, on the episode of Real Time that Aslan was invited onto CNN to rebut. They had to make their points while Ben Affleck was yelling and screaming at them, but somehow, I doubt you’d be as accommodating of their statements as you are of Aslan’s.
And what Bill Maher’s loony opinions on vaccines have to do with anything is a mystery to me.
I’m not generalising about an entire country. Aslan said, “In Indonesia, women are 100% equal to men”. Period. For that statement to be true, women would need to be 100% equal to men everywhere in Indonesia. They aren’t, as you yourself have admitted. Therefore, Aslan’s statement is false. Given that it’s such an easy thing to check, and given that he clearly went on the show planning to make that statement, and given that he is (allegedly) an Islamic scholar, the only reasonable conclusion I can make is that he lied.
And, by extension, I imagine the women who live in Aceh would be on my side rather than yours, at least on this specific matter.
You’re the only one hyperventilating, here. All I’m doing is pointing out that Aslan’s statement that “Women in Indonesia are 100% equal to men” is untrue, and almost certainly a lie. Your personal opinion of me doesn’t change that.
P.S. - You still haven’t told me what you want to see from me to convince you that the numbers cited in the Clarion video you refuse to watch are true.
The decision also noted that the only video evidence was provided by the Bible Believers themselves. It’s rather notable that at the circuit court level, the level at which the Bible Believers’ were ruled against, both sides filed video evidence, and the court’s decision in that case noted specifically that “law enforcement officials are seen trying to quell the crowd and stem the violent conduct”.
And I’ll note that even the minimal actions taken by the police as described in the district court decision contradicts Clarion’s descriptions.
As the decision you cited notes, the messages on their signs and t-shirts included things like “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder” and “Turn or Burn” they carried a severed pig’s head on a pole, and
“The first speaker told the crowd that they should not follow “a false prophet,” who was nothing but an “unclean drawing” and “a pedophile.” (Id. at 00:01:40). He continued by telling what was by then a group made up of approximately thirty teenagers that “[y]our religion will send you to hell.” (Id. at 00:03:30). Tensions started to rise as a few youths became incensed after the speaker taunted, “You believe in a prophet who is a pervert. Your prophet who wants to molest a child,” and “God will reject you. God will put your religion into hellfire when you die.” (Id. at 00:03:56, 00:04:38).”
That’s “mild” to you, is it? Well, anything to stick up for the liars at Clarion, I suppose.
This is the point where I start laughing at you.
That’s nice. But what does that have to do with Clarion’s definition of “no-go zones” as “effectively off-limits not only to non-Muslims but to the law enforcement and security forces of the country as well…place[s] governed by Islamic law (sharia)”?
Is Dearborn effectively off-limits to both non-Muslims and law enforcement officials? Is it governed by shari’ah? Yes or no, Hank Beecher?
Does that mean the ruling of the circuit court (per their legal and Constitutional authority) still meant that Dearborn was a place “where the Constitutional law no longer is enforced”? Or does the rule of the Constitution only return when a court rules the way you want them to despite the case having made its way through several levels of the standard judicial and appeals process, the way all such cases do?
Had the District Court ruled the other way, would Dearborn still be a “no-go” wasteland where shari’ah rules and the Constitution no longer applies at all? If Dearborn appeals and the District Court decision gets overturned by the Supreme Court, will the rule of the Constitution suddenly be stripped away from Dearborn again and it’ll be returned to said “no-go” wasteland where shari’ah rules and the Constitution no longer applies at all?
Or maybe, just maybe, Dearborn is and always has been subject to the exact same US laws and Constitutional protections as everywhere else in the country, as shown by the fact that the legal, judicial, and Constitutional process established to decide such matters was fully applied in Dearborn and to both plaintiffs and defendants since day one, making Clarion’s assertions a gigantic steaming load of crap and your defense of their lies arrant nonsense?
A) I note that he only publicly backtracked from his characterization after attention was brought to the fact that it was a bunch of bullshit, B) he still doubled down on the claim, only modifying it from places non-Muslims and police can’t go to places they don’t want to go, then as “evidence” cites non-evidence like Rotherham, and C) perhaps you can link to Clarion’s own withdrawal of their characterization of “no-go zones” in light of Pipes’ own “clarification” of the term.
He actually doesn’t explain it - not only his only mention of Christian FGM/C was in Eritrea and Ethiopia (and he never once acknowledges that 3/4 of Christian women in Egypt undergo the process), his only suggested explanation for Egypt’s high FGM/C rate after dismissing “African tribal culture” is the endorsement of the Muslim Brotherhood of the practice. Which, as I said, may explain why Muslim women there undergo FGM/C, but certainly doesn’t explain a single thing about its prevalence among Christian women.