Are Muslim Women Apostates the Same as Sharia-touting Muslims?

Stills from Shirin Neshat's videos: Rapture and Turbulence, from
my article "Islam's Missionary Women"

Jihad Watch (Robert Spencer), Altas Shrugs (Pamela Geller), Frontpage Magazine (Phyllis Chesler), and other anti-jihad sites have been covering extensively the death threat that is hanging over the head of the young Muslim apostate Rifqa Bary, who converted to Christianity. This is, of course, strictly within the mandates of Islam – "Kill the Apostates," it declares, and will do it.

More interesting to me is how Muslims apostates especially in the U.S. and Canada are reacting to this.

Nonie Darwish is a convert from Islam to evangelical Christianity, who emigrated to the U.S. from Egypt. She has an article at the Hudson New York with stringent demands that "The US government…protect its citizens not only from the terrorism of jihad, but also from Islamic Laws condemning Muslims to death and that encourage vigilante street justice."

Here are more quotes from that article:

There is no peace for the apostate, not even in the West. The above threat [on Rifqa Bary's life] is real and will increase exponentially with the growth of the Muslim population and those who demand Sharia as a religious right...

In Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and so on, the majority of the population believe that apostates must be killed and that jihad against non-Muslim countries a badge of honor. I do not wish to see the same desensitization happen in the West, but the silence of Western media is deafening.

Former Muslims need protection now from the US government and court system. We need protection from Sharia Islamic Law.

Notice how Darwish mentions in passing the growing Muslim population in the West, which is directly responsible for the increasing Muslim-related problems, but never mentions it again, let alone propose measures to solve it.

A while ago, before I started Our Changing Landscape, I was writing full-length articles for Camera Lucida, to include more detailed, researched information (and longer posts) that I didn't think a blog was good for.

Here is what I said in 2006 in my article "Islam's Missionary Women" for Camera Lucida (now a revised version of this article is on Camera Lucida and Our Chaning Landscape):

With their frenetic and wholehearted immersion into Islamic reform, these Muslim women are actually changing the laws and regulations which have served their adopted countries for decades, if not for centuries. They have expanded their original intention of culling allies, and instead appear to be ready for a takeover. Since they are beginning to realize that the West’s apprehension toward Islam is very different from theirs, they seem to think that one expedient option might be to usurp the institutions and organizations into performing their mission for them.

This article was later revised for Chronwatch, and published in October 2008.

I revised the above strong words from my 2006 article for the one in Chronwatch to:

But our duty as Westerners is not to reform Islam, nor to accommodate Muslim women - those very women who will have male and female Muslim off-spring, thereby turning our countries into what they left behind. Our responsibility is to make sure that Islam is kept at a distance, which includes Muslims. This may be a harsh rejection of the pleas made by the Hirsi Alis and Wafta Sultans, but they more than anyone else should understand our predicament. And if they don’t, how different are they from their male counterparts, who are aggressively pushing into our societies to change the West into an Islamified entity? We can never be sure if our assistance to these multitudes of Muslim women would alleviate their plight, but making drastic changes in our own societies in response to their grievances will only damage us.

My point remains the same now in 2009. The more Muslims we let into our countries, the more they, in their righteous and often correct indignation, are going to make demands on our systems to accommodate their needs.

This holds equally true for sharia proponents as well as for Muslim apostates and "moderates," who want to change laws and policies for problems that have nothing to do with Canada or the U.S.

Hate Crimes Bill Coming To A Country Near You. Wait, It's Already Here!

Ezra Levant and his conservative colleagues are staying mum about the Hate Crimes Bill that is underway in the United States.

Well, Canada has its own Hate Crime Code. From Wikipedia:

Since 1966 the Canadian Criminal Code has included a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on racial group, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor."...

Section 319, adopting the same definition of 'identifiable group,'...defined to mean 'any section of the public distinguished by skin color, racial group, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation'... punishes the incitement or expression of hatred against such a group.

The difference between the HRCs’ method and the courts’ method is that the HRCs are fraudulent, and the courts will go through "due process." But due process for “hates crimes?" Doesn't that make a mockery of the courts?

As I've said before, it is not enough to dismantle the HRCs. There is a depth of problems to address, including the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, which both feed into the HRCs, and would function in a similar manner as the HRCs without the HRCs.

And I maintain that these days, it is the high levels of immigration that is sustaining the HRCs, and, the two Acts mentioned above in turn sustain the HRCs (please see the side column titled “Issues” to have a comprehensive list of topics on immigration and the HRCs).

Now, back to the United States. Without a Multiculturalism Act, a Human Rights Act, or an established Human Rights Commission, law makers and politicians have still found a way to install (or try to install) a Hate Crimes Bill.

Here is what Attorney General Eric Holder has to say about the proposed Hate Crimes Bill:

Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc.

And even more insidious:

Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.

The HRCs aren't the problem, they are the symptom. This is what I'm trying to get Levant and Canadian conservatives to see.