Taqiyya for Kids

January 23, 2012
(How, Big Chief says, “Allah Akbar!”)

Did you know that the Muslims married the Iroquois? If you are a student in Newton Massachusetts this is what your Harvard influenced education teaches you. Blue States… the greatest ignorance in America. The real sign of arrogance and intolerance is how people in Massachusetts think of the rest of our country who do not teach their children that Muslims discovered America.

Janet Tassel, AMERICAN THINKER (Thanks Ted Belman / Docs Talk)

It was the first week in October in Newton, an upscale suburb of Boston, and Tony Pagliuso’s daughter, a sophomore at Newton South High School, was visibly disturbed. When Tony asked her the problem, she showed him a passage from the chapter she was assigned in her World History Class. It was a chapter called “Women, an Essay,” from a supplemental text called The Arab World Notebook. In a paragraph devoted to women “in the struggle for independence from colonial powers,” we find:
Over the past four decades, women have been active in the Palestinian resistance movement. Several hundred have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed by Israeli occupation forces since the latest uprising, “intifada,” in the Israeli occupied territories.
Pagliuso assured his daughter that this was “total propaganda,” and took the matter up with the young teacher, a Miss Jessica Engel, who couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about. The material had been “vetted” and was deemed “appropriate,” she said, “and would stay in the curriculum. After all, she continued, the head of the history department had gotten this material at an outreach workshop of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard!

Thence to the principal, Joel Stembridge, who glared at Pagliuso and asked, “How do you pronounce ‘Pagliuso’?” and dismissing him brusquely with a refusal to apologize, added: “If you’re unhappy with this, you should know that next year we’re planning to teach material that will be even more inflammatory to your sensibilities.” (Where is Ferris Bueller when you need him?) Since Miss Jessica Engel had devoted one day each to Judaism and Christianity while spending 2 ½ weeks on Islam, Tony wasn’t sure how much more inflammatory things could get.
A couple of weeks later, nine stalwart Newton citizens presented themselves at the Newton School Committee meeting, where superintendent David Fleischman, and even the mayor, Setti Warren, were present. The citizens were courteously received, and as it happens Fleishman announced shortly thereafter that indeed the chapter “didn’t meet the learning goals of the class” and had been removed from the curriculum.
“Didn’t meet the learning goals” is Eduspeak for “What the hell is this and how the hell did it get in?” The answer to the latter is, as noted, Harvard, which, as it happens, held a seminar on Israel and Palestine at Newton South in April 2011. And Newton is far from the only community to take its lead on matters Islamic from Harvard. Public and private schools all over Massachusetts send teachers to the Outreach Center at Harvard for guidance and (free) materials. The program, like the Center for Middle Eastern Studies itself, is heavily Saudi-funded.
The answer to what it is can be found in a number of places. In 2005, responding to a complaint from a teacher in Anchorage, Alaska, the American Jewish Committee published a thorough critique of the Notebook (the full report Propaganda, Proselytizing, and Public Education, is available at the AJC website), thanks to which Anchorage stopped using the book. As background, the AJC report explains:
The Arab World Studies Notebook was first published in 1990 under the title Arab World Notebook [apparently Newton was using this edition], but was updated and republished in 1998 with its current title. The funding for the publication was provided by the Middle East Policy Council, formerly the Arab American Affairs Council….The Notebook was published in conjunction with Arab World and Islamic Resources (AWAIR), founded by Audrey Shabbas, who penned many of the articles…as well as the editorial commentary throughout.
Who is this Audrey Shabbas? The moving spirit behind AWAIR, she says all she wants from teachers is to “let you step with me to the inside, to see what a Muslim worldview looks like and feels like, so you can bring it back to your students.” This from an adoring 2002 interview posted, fittingly, at Saudi Aramco World.
A little earlier than the AJC’s report, in 2003, William J. Bennetta, president of The Textbook League, produced a preliminary assessment of the Notebook. He gives a little background:
The Middle East Policy Council, a pressure group based in Washington. D.C…adopted its present name in 1991. The MEPC’s activities include the sponsoring of “teacher workshops” that allegedly equip educators to teach about “the Arab World and Islam. AWAIR, which operates from Abiquiu, New Mexico, distributes printed items and videos for “ALL LEVELS-Elementary to College” and runs the “teacher workshops” sponsored by the MEPC.”
But on to the meat in Mr Bennetta’s scathing report:
The promotion of Islam in the Notebook is unrestrained, and the religious-indoctrination material that the Notebook dispenses is virulent. Muslim myths, including myths about how Islam and the Koran originated, are retailed as matters of fact, while legitimate historical appraisals of the origins of Islam and the Koran are excluded. [Audrey] Shabbas wants to turn teachers into agents who, in their classrooms, will present Muslim myths as “history,” will endorse Muslim religious claims, and will propagate Islamic fundamentalism. In a public-school setting, the religious-indoctrination work which Shabbas wants teachers to perform would clearly be illegal.
Or, in the words of Tony Pagliuso, “total propaganda.” What is striking, though, is how amateurish the chapter on women is. Taqiyya — telling falsehoods for Islam — is a well-known tool of Islamic propagandists, but this shoddy merchandise is so riddled with lies and half-truths that no respectable Arab merchant in the shuk would hang it in his market. Just a sample:
Women’s Rights in Islam. There is no basis in Islam for the subjugation of women or their relegation to a secondary role. Far in advance of women’s emancipation in Europe, Islam made revolutionary changes in the lives of women in 6th-century Arabia.
The alert reader will observe that there was no Islam yet in 6th-century Arabia, Muhammad himself having been born in about 570, and having been tapped by the angel Gabriel no earlier then about 609. Then too we think of the unpleasantries swept under the Oriental carpet — such as permissible rape, clitorectomies, honor killings, child marriage, indeed the whole sorry gamut of women’s trials under Islam, including those specifically decreed by the Koran. As Robert Spencer sums up:
–Women are inferior to men, and must be ruled by them: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other” (4:34).
–It [the Koran] likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223).
–It declares that a woman’s legal testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).
–It allows men to marry up to four wives, and also to have sex with slave girls: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3).
–It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).
–It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65.4).
“Such a verse might have made its way into the Koran,” writes Spencer, “because of the notorious fact that Muhammed himself had a child bride.” That would be Aisha: As the hadith says, “The prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).” Newton’s Notebook chapter mentions Aisha in passing, that she heroically promulgated Islam after the Prophet’s death, but neglects to tell us how old she was when Muhammed found her, as the story goes, playing on a swing.
It turns out, not surprisingly, that most of the Notebook is as slipshod, even farcical, as the chapter on women. But it is no less dangerous for being slovenly. As the AJC report confirms, “Teachers are subjected to heavy propaganda, both in the Notebook and in the teacher workshops sponsored by MEPC and conducted by AWAIR, in which the Notebook is the primary source material….The Notebook critiques other educational materials for being Eurocentric; yet it provides students with a completely Muslim-centered perspective.”
Worst of all, educationally speaking, in addition to inventing history, the Notebook is guilty of two cardinal sins, according to the AJC: “It uses no qualifiers to differentiate between fact and interpretation; and it fails to clarify that, like the stories behind many other religions, some of the stories within traditional Islam are disputed or unverifiable.” The all-important qualifier, “Muslims believe,” or “Islam teaches that” is entirely eliminated. Imagine all the Miss Engels in the world preaching to the class, “And God chose Abraham.” Or “Jesus performed miracles.”
Other innovations from the Notebook, these concerning what the author calls “the Israeli ‘fetish of Jerusalem’”:
When people talk of Jerusalem and consider the historic rights over the city and claims to it, they are not talking about the European-type colonial suburb-turned-city which foreign Jews built next to the historic religious city-shrine, even though they called it Jerusalem too. They are talking about the walled city, fully built up, containing a small Jewish quarter, it is true, but almost exclusively a home to Christian and Muslim Palestinian Arabs.
Yet the “Old City,” the Jerusalem that most people envisage when they think of the ancient city, is Arab. Surrounding it are ubiquitous high-rises built for Israeli settlers to strengthen Israeli control over the holy city.
Other colonial suburbs were built by foreigners in Arab countries, but today no one suggests that Algiers, Tunis, Casablanca, etc., may be rightfully claimed by the Europeans who settled there during their colonial period of recent history. Only in the case of Jerusalem does colonialist thinking still predominate.
How many high-school students would be able to repudiate “facts” like these? Or total falsehoods such as, “In 1948, between 50 and 70 percent of Palestine’s Christians were driven from their ancestral homes with the creation of the Jewish state”?
Moreover, in an earlier version, we are told “that Yasir Arafat was president of a newly declared State of Palestine, that the United Nations General Assembly had voted to recognize this state in 1988, and that the Canaanites were the ancestors of many present-day Palestinians.” Sandra Stotsky, a professor at the University of Arkansas, deals with these gems and others in her 2004 report for the Fordham Foundation, The Stealth Curriculum, which has now been updated for a new book published by Palgrave MacMillan. She points to one article, ascribed to Audrey Shabbas and Abdallah Hakim Quick, titled “Early Muslim Exploration Worldwide: Evidence of Muslims in the New World Before Columbus.” The article claims that Muslims from Europe were the first to sail across the Atlantic and land in the New World, starting in 889… [and that]West African Muslims had not only spread throughout South and Central America, but had also reached Canada, intermarrying with the Iroquois and Algonquin nations so that, much later, early English explorers were to meet Iroquois and Algonquin chiefs with names like Abdul-Rahim and Abdallah Ibn Malik.
Stotsky interjects, “The idea that English explorers met native Indian chiefs with Muslim names in the middle of the Northeast woodlands sounds almost like something a Hollywood film writer dreamed up for a spoof.” (Mel Brooks, of course.) Interestingly enough, the Algonquin Nation itself demanded a retraction of this “indefensible” farce. But seriously, as Stotsky continues, “What is most astonishing about this ‘historical information’ is that it seems not to have been recognized as fake history by all the satisfied teachers that MEPC claims have participated in its workshops over the years.”
Ay, there’s the rub. Thanks to the Tony Pagliusos of this world, perhaps more parents will rear up on their hind legs and shout, “Who’s teaching my kids? And what in God’s name are they teaching?”

Publisher of The Jewish Week Asks Jews "PLEASE Don’t Piss off Obama"

November 17, 2011

(Yid With Lid) Sometimes it astounds me the extent to which a progressive “journalist” will go to spin stories in their direction, thus putting politics before serving the readers. Sometimes it astounds me the extent to which a progressive Jew will go to promote their favorite politicians thus putting politics before either their home country, America or the Jewish people.

In his latest column in the paper he publishes, Gary Rosenblatt of the Jewish Week astounded me times two, as he talked about the disastrous ADL/Abe Foxman request for Jews to avoid criticizing the POTUS and warned that if American Jews upset President Obama, he might be really bad toward Israel in a second term.

Case in point: There are no more savvy experts on the mood and politics of the American Jewish community than Abe Foxman and David Harris, professional heads of the ADL and American Jewish Committee, respectively, our two leading mainstream national Jewish defense organizations.
But Foxman and Harris seem to have been caught off guard last month by the sharp criticism of their joint National Pledge for Unity on Israel, which they no doubt thought would be widely accepted in the Jewish community — a kind of motherhood-and-apple-pie affirmation of the ongoing power, and need, for bipartisan support in Washington for the Jewish state.
The outcries over the unity pledge, particularly on the right, have underscored just how fractured political activists in our community are over Israel. More specifically, the issue speaks to the debate over the wisdom of criticizing the Obama administration, and especially the president himself, as being Israel’s adversary as he seeks re-election.

Things need to be put in context. In this column a progressive publisher, is supporting a progressive advocate who is supporting a progressive president while not admitting to their political bias, which is a disservice to the readers, in the case of the Jewish Week and the donors in the case of the ADL.
As I pointed out when the “shut up pledge”  was first published, Abe Foxman has been running the ADL as  his own personal progressive activist group. Indeed the organization spends as much time promoting progressive social issues such as abortion and illegal immigration as it does Jewish issues.  So of course Abe will do just about anything he can to get his progressive prophet re-elected.
As for Gary Rosenblatt and his Jewish Week, the paper could be much more profitable if most of the reporters were fired and replaced with press releases from Media Matters, J Street, the DNC, and the Obama White House. And the best part of it all the readers wouldn’t be able to detect anything different. In the interest of full disclosure, let me remind you that I am a columnist for a competitive paper, The Jewish Star.
In supposedly “pure news” articles, the Jewish Week shows its bias by only interviewing people with a progressive perspective, trashing the tea party as dangerous, white-washing the Antisemitism of the Occupy movement, criticizing Jews who disagree with Obama, calling people who fight jihad in America “McCarthyists,” supporting the socialist “Jewish Funds for Justice” in its George Soros-directed attacks on Glenn Beck, and much,much,more. With the exception of one reporter by the name of Stewart Ain, every writer for the paper displays a very strong progressive/liberal bias in their writing, whether the story is about politics in the US or Israel.  And like most progressives, the paper always finds a way to criticize those who are most observant, which is strange because Rosenblatt is a graduate of Yeshiva University.

In his column Rosenblatt supports Foxman and threatens that if the Jews upset Obama, he might take his revenge out on Israel.

….Responding to widespread criticism from the right [Rosenblatt incorrectly assumes that only people on the right are displeased with Obama on Israel] , the AJC’s Harris posted a blog that made the distinction between “slash and burn” partisanship, where the goal is to attack one’s political enemy, and pro-Israel advocacy, which is grounded in “the here and now,” irrespective of which political party is in and which is out. And the ADL’s Foxman issued a follow-up statement saying that some had distorted the idea behind the pledge [I fact-check Foxman’s defense of the pledge here}

He said the original premise was not to discourage debate but a plea “to avoid harsh and personal rhetoric or tactics in the form of attacks on political opponents’ positions on Israel.”
Too late.
Obama has already been described as the worst president ever for Israel, and an enemy of the Jewish state.

He is.

…What Harris and Foxman didn’t say, but what is surely on the mind of mainstream [liberal] pro-Israel groups, is that if Obama is re-elected next year, he will be free to carry out foreign policy initiatives in a second term, without political constraints. So it behooves the American Jewish community to be on good terms with him rather than burn its bridges in seeking his defeat.

Here also Rosenblatt is being political rather than honest. Before the 2008 election many Jews predicted that Obama would be awful to Israel, based on previous statements, actions and who his advisers were.  The progressive publisher is failing to acknowledge that Obama’s anti-Israel presidency proceeded as many of us warned.
Rather than Rosenblatt’s don’t piss off the POTUS scenario allow me to offer a more logical one. Barack Obama has a long history of anti-Israel positions and advisers, except for a brief time in 2008 when it looked as though he might have problems with the Jewish vote.Ignoring the warnings  Jewish voter support was extremely high (78%) and he receive the bulk of Jewish presidential campaign donations.
Despite all of this support, Obama has been the worst president for Israel in American history, worse than Carter and worse than George H.W. Bush. All this time he knew he would need Jewish support in 2012. So does it really matter whether he gets the support or not?  If he was so lousy when he needed the supporters of Israel, if re-elected he will be even worse as he needs no one. That why supporters of Israel should be campaigning hard to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected, because whether he likes the Jews or not, he is bound to be worse than he was during the first four years.
I would invite Rosenblatt to take a look at the economy, and what has undoubtedly happened to the Jewish Week’s ad pages. Part of the reason for the downturn may be that the Jewish Star hired a new political columnist eleven months ago, but  more likely reason is that Barack Obama has not been good to the economy.  This too may get even worse during a second term as the president will no longer have to make voters happy.
But none of this matters to people like Gary Rosenblatt. Honesty with readers may be part of Journalistic ethics, but as we have learned so many times with the progressive media, journalistic ethics are not very important.


"Jews Care About Their Own!" Is Not An Indictment

November 15, 2011
Edward Gilbert, the leader of the Catholic Church in Port of Spain…
EXERCISING THE EMPATHY MUSCLE (h/t Daled Amos) by Rabbi Avi Shafran


Politicians are often subject to derision, often for good reason. Recently, though, a Catholic cleric hurled an unusual and creative insult at local politicos: They are like Jews.
Edward Gilbert, the leader of the Catholic Church in Port of Spain, the capital of the southern Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, made the comparison between elected officials and “the original Jewish people,” explaining that Jews, at least in ancient times, cared only about their own.
“The Jews were compassionate and caring to the people of their nation, to the people of their race…,” Archbishop Gilbert reportedly said during an October 24 religious ceremony commemorating the 225th anniversary of the Roman Catholic presence on Trinidad. Christianity, he proudly asserted, “universalized the concept of love.”
Predictably, the Anti-Defamation League protested the sermon, calling Mr. Gilbert’s statements “a disturbing repackaging of ancient anti-Jewish canards and supersessionist beliefs.” The American Jewish Committee chimed in with chiding of its own, contending that “such prejudicial comments not only reflect personal ignorance, but also ignorance of the teaching of the Catholic Church since Nostra Aetate.” That was a reference to the Vatican II declaration repudiating the centuries-old “deicide” charge against all Jews, stressing the religious bond shared by Jews and Catholics, and reaffirming the eternal covenant between G-d and the People of Israel (though it does not, of course, renounce the essential beliefs of Christianity).
Personally, I wasn’t insulted by the Archbishop’s characterization, even if he meant to include contemporary Jews.

Because caring for one’s own is eminently defensible. In fact, it’s the only way to truly care for anyone.
Not much effort is needed to profess true love for all the world; but to actually feel such love just isn’t possible. Gushing good will at everyone is offering it to no one.
That is because, by definition, care grows within boundaries; our empathy for those closest to us, to be real, must be of a different nature than our concern for others with whom we don’t share our personal lives. Boundaries are what make those beloved to us… beloved to us.
Every person lives at the center of a series of concentric circles, the smallest one (in a healthy dynamic) encompassing parents, spouses, and children; the next circle out, other family members and friends; the one beyond that, members of their ethnic or religious groups. At a distance removed from that is a larger circle of human beings with similar values. And further out still, the circle containing the rest of humanity.
It is perfectly proper that we feel, and demonstrate, our deepest concern for the circle closest to us. More: it is the only way to achieve genuine care, providing us the ability to bestow it, if in a less intense form, upon those in the next circle out, and, in turn, on those beyond it.
Nothing demonstrates the danger of “universalizing the concept of love” better than the religion Mr. Gilbert represents. For all Christianity’s claim to have expanded its affection to all of humanity, early Church history was characterized by the vicious intolerance demonstrated by early “fathers” and emperors; the Middle Ages’ Crusades left swollen rivers of blood; and, a few centuries later, Reformation battles between Catholics and Protestants added millions of corpses to the body count.
Perceptive Jews and non-Jews alike understand how essential it is that ethnic or religious groups show special concern for other members of their “tribes.” They sense what to some may seem counterintuitive: it is precisely the intense empathy we feel and express for our “inner circles” alone that enables us to feel genuine, if somewhat less acute, concern for those in more distant ones. People who focus their deepest feelings on those close to them are those most likely to truly care about their fellow citizens or wider circles still. Exercising the “empathy muscle,” so to speak, provides the ability to feel—less intensely but more genuinely—concern for people who are not close to us.
So while the Trinidadian cleric may have been attempting an insult, he inadvertently provided his listeners—and all who were reached by media reports of his words—something else: a valuable opportunity to ponder how caring works.

this post gets to the heart of why liberal universalism (also meaning Catholicism) is the heart of what is wrong with the world today and how true love does not come from abstract ideas like “the world”, but rather true love comes from loving within boundaries. That means NATIONALISM, and your FAMILY. The real haters think they are in love with Gaia or some material everything. The real lovers have walls. The real haters want to tear down borders. The real haters want to push standards that are not compatible with FAMILY. The real haters want to create universal equivalencies. They want to take away difference. The real haters don’t want to recognize gender. The real haters don’t want to recognize borders. The real haters are what today we consider social liberals… and they have so much in common with the liberals of yesteryear… yes the liberals called Christians.