Not surprising, given the anally retentive mindset required to adhere to Sharia, those fun-loving Ayatollahs in Iran have deemed Western social sciences as ‘haram’. They are especially opposed to womens studies and the subject of human rights. No mention in the article of gay studies, but I’ll leave that for you to ponder.
As I read this news story I wonder if the American Left has any thoughts in condemnation of this action in Iran or are they singularly focused on the evils wrought by America on the earth.
In Islam, there is no free will, there is no joy. Imagine trying to constantly adhere to Sharia law under pain of torture or death!
Center for Security Policy 15 September 2010
This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as “shariah.” It is designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate “second opinion” on the official characterizations and assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government.
The authors, under the sponsorship of the Center for Security Policy, have modeled this work on an earlier “exercise in competitive analysis” which came to be known as the “Team B” Report. That 1976 document challenged the then-prevailing official U.S. government intelligence estimates of the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union and the policy known as “détente” that such estimates ostensibly justified.
As with the original Team B analysis, however, this study challenges the assumptions underpinning the official line in the conflict with today’s totalitarian threat, which is currently euphemistically described as “violent extremism,” and the policies of co-existence, accommodation and submission that are rooted in those assumptions.
The Contemporary Threat Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as “the path,” shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a “religious” code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere – economic, social, military, legal and political. Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates – figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world’s largest libertarian Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama – whose members embrace the Enlightenment’s veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On this side of the divide, shariah is a reference point for a Muslim’s personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society. By contrast, the other side of the divide is dominated by Muslim supremacists, often called Islamists. Like erstwhile proponents of Communism and Nazism, these supremacists – some terrorists, others employing stealthier means – seek to impose a totalitarian regime: a global totalitarian system cloaked as an Islamic state and called a caliphate. On that side of the divide, which is the focus of the present study, shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offence against Allah. For these ideologues, shariah is not a private matter. Adherents see the West as an obstacle to be overcome, not a culture and civilization to be embraced, or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of governments peacefully to coexist with the end-state they seek.
Complete report can be downloaded as PDF Here
…or maybe Apple’s “iRug”!
hat tip to TheReligionOfPeace -

The Islamic prayer mat comes into the digital age with the e-rug.
(SOURCE: http://www.thestar.com/living/article/425375)
The Islamic prayer is now going digital, with a prototype of a new prayer mat with built-in sensors, lights, and a display screen to show scripture, alert the user to the next prayer time and find the direction of Mecca. “It will increase their understanding of the scriptures and the quality of the prayer,” says the Muslim inventor Wael Aboulsaadat.
How it works…
The sensors embedded in the rug can detect the user’s posture and if the worshipper makes an error (such as missing or adding a step in the prayer sequence) the sensors will vibrate. It’s a subtle way to help correct the error without breaking the user’s concentration, Aboulsaadat says. “It’s important not to interrupt flow, because that interrupts the focus of prayer.” As well, the user can recite and follow along with the scripture on the screen. “You can customize and choose which prayers to read.”
Three modes…
In addition to the eRug’s prayer mode, the device also has a notification mode that alerts the user to upcoming prayer times (devout Muslims are expected to pray five times a day facing the direction of the holy city of Mecca) and important religious holidays. The eRug’s third mode acts like a compass – complete with a 3D model of the mosque in Mecca – so the user can find its direction wherever he or she may be.
Aboulsaadat will be planning to do simular things for people of other faiths, but since he’s a Muslim he started with the e-rug first.
I tried an audio version of the Quran, in Arabic for true context, but can’t understand one darned word of it!
Check out these word definitions of Islamic concepts from Princeton University’s WordNet, a Lexical Database for English. What strikes me is that where Muslims are a minority they are persecuted (my highlight), but where they are the majority there is no persecution. Sure, just ask any dhimmi or Christian living in the Middle East!
Dar Al-Harb – House of War
Noun. areas where Muslims are in the minority and are persecuted
Dar Al-Islam – House of Islam
Noun. areas where Muslims are in the majority
[audio:http://www.shallowthought.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/SNE3.mp3|titles=SNE]
Why does the President and his current crop of cronies avoid expressing the deserved truth about Islamic extremism in the face of clear and continuous evidence? Is it out of concern that “irrational” American citizens will lash out against Muslims due to mistrust and fear? Could they be thinking that terrorist anger will be mitigated by our avoiding accusations and appearing non-confrontational? Is it for fear of angering the majority of allegedly “moderate”, peaceful Muslims? Whatever the reason, watch as AG Eric Holder refuses to acknowledge an undeniable truth.
Or consider the changes in our terminology about the “War on Terror” as espoused by Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration.
Beheading honor killer, Mo Hassan, to cop insanity plea – AtlasShrugs Blog
Insanity plea for Major Nidal Hassan – CBS News
Defendants in New York City terror trials to claim “mental disorder” – Wall Street Journal
The perpetrators in the above listed links are barbaric murderers, to be tried in the United States criminal court system. No surprise here that in the most heinous of criminal acts the clever defense lawyers, recognizing guilt is beyond question, will throw up the insanity defense to immunize the defendants against responsibility, thereby minimizing if not avoiding punishment.
I started thinking about the ramifications of the successful use of the insanity plea in cases where it is clear that a faith in Islam is a common factor. Where the barbaric acts are like so many others we see around the globe attributed to Islamic extremists and jihadists.
Political correctness defends Islam as “the religion of peace” and no matter the result of these trials, guilt or insanity, we would be labeled as Islamophobic for attempting to blame Islam. What might happen is that successful insanity pleas in these cases might then make current and future cases of terrorists and brutal murders done in the name of Islam to be an accepted “mental disease” not attributed to Islam and not the fault of the animals accused. It will be blamed on a personal mental defect and not on motivations of faith.
While these court cases further insulate “moderate” Islam from critique in the event of terrorism, beheadings, and honor killings the attempt will also be made to determine what drove the accused to such acts of madness. Since personal accountability and a belief in Islam are not factors we should expect to see “victimizers” of these poor souls identified and tried, whether in a court or by public opinion with mainstream media at the steering wheel. Little thought is required to see where this goes.
The seed or cause of such mental illness in Islamic extremists would eventually be blamed on oppression and subjugation by Western nations stripping them of their dignity and natural resources, perhaps on Islamophobia, and maybe just having a bad day. Oh, wait….we’re already blamed for this. Now it’ll be official!
(A point of curiosity for me: Do the teachings of Islam, the tenets and requirements for rigid adherence to specific behaviors and beliefs make it easier to slide into extremism and radicalism, and where is the line that separates “moderate” from “radical” in Islam?)
Here is an additional article worth reading: