Having seen two references in the past two days to the Alia Ansari's tragic death, I feel compelled to take note of the speculation that Ansari's death was a hate crime or was due to her wearing hijab. These statements are made with no basis in fact, yet they are repeateded by many so-called Muslim leaders and non-Muslim liberal sympathisers. These speculations are apparently believed by many Muslims (and Harvard student filmmakers). Many Black civil rights leaders (i.e., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton) make a might fine living off the minority grievance industry, but they're being surpassed by the grievance industry of Muslim organizations such as CAIR and MAS. The Alia Ansari case is a perfect example of pimping a tragedy, twisting the truth to score grievance points, and passing off rumor as truth.
"Over the past few years, Harvard
University has received millions in endowments from rich Saudi and
Emirate sheiks. Now it's returning the favor by Islamizing its campus
and promoting the Shariah agenda of its new Arab masters."
"....And this weekend it hosted a
$400-per-person conference on Shariah finance led by officials from
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The goal of the forum —
sponsored by Harvard's Islamic Finance Project — is to 'integrate'
Islamic finance into the mainstream economy."
"...Shariah-compliant investments are monitored by paid Shariah law
advisers who must 'purify' certain returns by donating them to Islamic
charities — including some that promote jihad and support suicide
"With $800 billion already in Shariah assets — and $1 trillion to $2
trillion in Arab petrodollars annually looking for an investment home —
the potential for billions being siphoned off for terrorism is real."
"This, of course, would be a serious criminal violation of U.S. law.
Yet Western bankers, including many on Wall Street who are jumping into
the Shariah finance market, don't know this."
The IBD editorial names names, including local fellow Syed Nazim Ali:
"the Islamic Finance Project of the Harvard University Law School’s Islamic Legal Studies Program will present the Eighth Harvard University Forum on Islamic Finance in Boston, MA. The Center for Security Policy has challenged Harvard on the grounds that this Forum will provide NO information about the serious risks that Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF) poses for U.S. financial institutions, ordinary post-9/11 investors and the national security of the United States of America."
"To counter this silence on the true nature of Shariah, and to expose the risks of Shariah-Compliant Finance, the Center for Security Policy will present a lunchtime panel discussion on Thursday, April 17 from 12:00 – 1:00PM in Pound Hall, Room 107, Harvard University, 1563 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge. Media is invited to attend. Sandwiches and drinks will be provided."
Speakers at the panel discussion will include Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, Manda Ervin of the Alliance of Iranian Women, members of the Harvard community and others. It will also feature an audio statement recorded for the event by psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan, a courageous opponent of Shariah law and Islamist extremism. Dr. Sultan has been forced into hiding in America due to threats against her made by Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council on Fatwa and Research and a driving force behind the 20th Century invention of Shariah-Compliant Finance. A written copy of her statement will also be available at the event.
What a funny, lively, and scholarly talk Camille Paglia gave at Harvard Thursday night! She was the keynote speaker at the Legacy and Future of Feminism, and she was a hoot! If you ever get a chance to see her live, you've gotta go! It was a wide-ranging talk about the history of feminism, the shortcomings of the Second Wave feminists and the "omissions of the standard narrative of the feminist movement", and Paglia's proposals for reform. I'll try to get the audio up ASAP. Some excerpts:
"Feminism is always linked to democracy. It is no coincidence that feminism was born in America and became the early model for British feminism."
"In general, feminist theory has failed to acknowledge how much it owes to Western tradition and civil liberties grounded in Ancient Greece. Second, feminist theory has failed to acknowledge how much the emergence of modern feminism owes to capitalism and the industrial revolution, which transformed the economy, expanded the professions and gave women - for the first time in history - the opportunity to earn their own living and to escape dependency on father or husband. Third, feminist has insufficiently acknowledged the degree to which the founders of the Suffrage movement were formed and influenced by religion. It is no coincidence that many early American feminists were Quakers."
Yeah, all that stuff is usually left out of the "standard feminist narrative," which generally so often criticizes Western culture, the capitalist system and religion.
The predominance of male-bashing among feminists:
"Too many Second Wave feminists extrapolated their discontent to condemn all men everywhere and throughout history."
Snap shot of Gloria Steinem (very funny, listen to the whole thing):
"She was a tireless, peripatetic activist, but virtually from the start, she played the role of strict guardian of a victim-centered ideology that did not permit alternative viewpoints."
Paglia fits an awful lot into one sentence.
Paglia even gives kudos to the abstinence movement and to Wendy Shalit, author of Return to Modesty:
"As a veteran of pro-sex feminism, who still endorses pornography and prostitution, I say more power to all those chaste young women who are defending their individuality and defying group-think and social convention. That is true feminism!"
Paglia had three proposals for reform of the feminist movement:
Science! Science must be made a fundamental component of women's or gender studies. Right now, it is verboten in feminist circles to suggest that there are real biological differences between the sexes (as ridiculous as that seems).
There must be real ideological diversity at colleges, there needs to be conservatives and dissidents teaching at colleges. Otherwise, students are getting indoctrination, not education.
Massive rollback of the paternalistic system of "grievance committees" at college campuses. Paglia says these grievance committees have "turned American campuses into womb-like customer service resorts."
Paglia says that women of her generation fought against intrusive "in loco parentis" rules at their colleges. She notes that college administrators "have no competence whatever to investigate crimes, including sexual assualt." If an offense has been committed, it should be reported to the police, to guarantee the civil liberties of the accuser and the accused can be protected.
Her concluding remark:
"We must stop seeing everything in life through the narrow lens of gender. If women expect equal treatment in society, they must stop asking for infantilizing special protections. With freedom, comes individual responsibility."
Lots of clapping, laughter and support from the crowd.
....with a varied panel of speakers indeed, including Camille Paglia (keynote speaker), Wendy Shalit, Jennifer Roeback Morse, Zainab Al-Suwaij, Christina Hoff Sommers, and many others - what gives? At Harvard?!?!?T The official title is A Genuine Debate with a DIVERSITY of views on the Legacy and Future of Feminism.
The opening lecture is Thursday, April 10 at 8 PM, and there are several panel discussion on Friday, April 11, from 9 to 5. Looks great, and it's open to the public and free. Check out the program here.
Panel discussions on Friday are held at the GCIS South Building, 173 Cambridge Street, Rooms S-020 and S-030, concourse level.
What's going on at Harvard? One can barely keep up with their obsession for all things shariah. Last month, there were four lectures there on shariah law, two sponsored by the Harvard Divinity School, one by Harvard Law School, and one by the Harvard Islamic Society. There were probably more, but who can keep track? There are write-ups about the lectures and lecturers here and here. The criticism of shariah at these events seems to come from Muslim professors and activists who've lived in countries where shariah law is practiced. The supporters for shariah seem to largely come from American-born Muslims, converts, and their so-called progressive supporters. How do the "progressives" manage to overlook the illiberal and regressive aspects of shariah, in inheritance, child custody, divorce, testimony, religious freedom and individual rights? I suppose the same way that international banking firms are overlooking it too.
The project director of Harvard's Islamic Finance Project is S. Nazim Ali. Interestingly, Nazim Ali is not an economist, his background is in computers (photo below from Harvard University Gazette article). Ali is also active with the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) and
the Islamic American University (IAU). The IAU was started by Salah Soltan in Columbus, Ohio, and is a subsidiary of the Muslim American Society. Basyouney Nehela of the ISB opened an IAU branch in Boston last year, which offers online and classroom courses in such subjects as Scientific Miracles in the Quraan and Arabic language. MAS's website states that "The IAU board of trustees
is headed by internationally renowned scholars such as Sheikh
Yusuf al-Qardawi who serves as chairman and Dr. Jamal Badawi
who serves as vice chairman." Jamal Badawi is the newest ISB trustee, brought on about a year ago. Qaradawi is still a proposed trustee of the ISB. Gosh, you just can't talk about any leaders of the Boston area Muslim community without getting into MAS, Muslim Brotherhood, Yusuf Qaradawi, etc, etc. The linkage is pretty amazing. We seem to have many "underground Islamists" in Boston.
Nazim Ali reportedly helped former Worcester imam Hamid obtain a visitors visa to come to the U.S. in 2001 to attend the Harvard's Islamic Financing conference. Hamid (AKA Muhammed Hamid, Hafiz Hamid, Hamid Mehmud, Hamid Mahmud, Hamid Mehmood and Hamid Qureshi) returned to Pakistan after the conference, then came back and was miraculously apppointed imam of the Greater Islamic Society of Worcester. Miss Kelly readers know about Hamid's relatives (Hafiz Saeed, Muhammed Masood, Abdul Hannan), you can read about them all here.Hamid scampered out of the country in June 2007. Little birds have told me that Hamid was being investigated for visa "irregularities" and he decided to high-tail it back to Pakistan before any criminal indictments came his way. Work visa, anyone?
Finally, Syed Nazim Ali filed a lawsuit against the US government on February 20, 2007, because his
naturalization application was delayed. It was filed in California
court Central District court. It looks like the lawsuit was dropped in May 2007 in exchange for
taking care of the application within two weeks (PACER file 8:2007cv00216). Why did he file it in a California court when he lives in Massachusetts? Looks like Syed Nazim Ali is a U.S. citizen now. Who will he bring over next?
Enough about Syed Nazim Ali and our many "underground Islamists," what about shariah financing? Why should we be concerned? It seems to me that Western secular societies have no business promoting a religious-based financial system. Why would we go there? It's contrary to the very core of our society, the separation of church and state. Why would we support a financial system based on a legal system that has institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims and women? The answer, of course, is that there's money to be made, and Western bankers only see green. Short-sighted, to say the least. Deadly too, as shariah financing is no doubt financing terrorist activities.
see sharia finance as a massive subversion campaign by radical Islam
designed to legitimize sharia in the West, to undermine our markets,
and ultimately to imperil our free-enterprise system and national
security — all the while exposing banks to financial risks that make
the sub-prime fiasco look like a walk in the park. For its proponents
and ideological enablers — such as the well known suicide-bombing
advocate, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi — sharia finance is nothing less
than 'Jihad with money.' As al-Qaradawi explains, 'God has ordered us
to fight enemies with our lives and with our money.' Unfortunately for
Wall Street, it’s hard to argue with the good sheikh on that score. Far
from being a guide to ethical investment, sharia finance is
indistinguishable from sharia itself."
There's that rascal Qaradawi again!
from being a legitimate investment vehicle, sharia finance facilitates
religiously sanctioned support for terrorist organizations — as well as
providing radical Islamists with highly paid sinecures as
sharia-finance board advisors in the sanctum sanctorum of capitalism,
all the while that they are pursuing a subversive campaign to destroy
"Predictably, none of this is even remotely disclosed by any of the
dozens of Western banks promoting sharia finance today, which obviously
exposes them to huge non-disclosure risks ranging from fraudulent
misrepresentation, to material support for terrorism."
Now there's a lawsuit I'd like to see: US DOJ versus Dow Jones!