Islamists upset with topless feminists of Femen

The values of Islam and those of the western world are in many ways in stark conflict with each other.

It explains a lot of why contemporary Islamists and Marxists often make common cause. Both have disdain for individual rights and freedoms, no respect for free speech (other than their own), and of course there's the whole 'killing people who don't agree with you' thing, of which those two totalitarian ideologies have long and storied histories.

In fairness, Islam isn't the only religion to have gone through such a phase. Christianity was much the same during the Middle Ages. But of concern is the fact that Islamists today are behaving the way The Inquisition did five hundred years ago.

If criticism of the totalitarian aspects of Islam is "Islamophobia", then Islamophobia is going to be a growth industry. But like Nazism and Marxism, Islamism is going to have its advocates. What makes Islamists particularly disgusting is the way they claim to be victims when they are criticized for seeking out and victimizing innocent people.

A "Muslim feminist," if that isn't too much of an oxymoron to grasp, has written a condemnation of the theatrical and rather ridiculous feminist group Femen. There is much to criticize Femen about in the idiotic way they behave during their protests, but the issues they address are legitimate concerns about women's rights. And nowhere are women's rights given less status than in countries ruled by Islamic law.

Hajer Nali's article Femen's Islam-Bashing Disregards Muslim Feminism in Women's Enews makes the disingenuous apologies for Islamism under the guise of "Muslim feminism" all the more apparent. Tunisian Islamists have called for the death of Tunisian Femen activist Amina Tyler for posting a topless picture of herself with "My body in mine, nobody's honor" written on her torso. What stood out in Nali's article about this was her comment, "Extremists called for her to be stoned to death, which is condemnable."   

Those last three words are indicative of Islamists' perfidy; "which is condemnible." In civilized countries, we don't need to make a special point that it is wrong to want to stone a women to death, particularly just for posting a topless picture of herself with a slogan asserting her own rights.

Why would Ms Nali feel compelled to add that, especially in a western publication?

Did she want to reinforce that, unlike other Muslim feminists who thought it was fine to stone Amina Tyler to death for her topless statement, she didn't agree with that sentiment? Was it to instruct those of us, or perhaps her co-religionists, who want to kill Tyler that we should not? Or was it an insincere but perfunctory nod to western, liberal sensibilities?

What is more of concern is that in a publication in a country where Sharia Law is practiced, "which is condemnible"  would likely be replaced by ":which is demanded by the honor of Islam, and should be carried out immediately."

That is something we should be afraid of, and we should do everything in our power to prevent from spreading over here.