By Edward Cline ~
Lingchi língchí; ling-ch’ih, alternately transliterated ling chi or leng t’che), translated variously as death by a thousand cuts, (shā qiān dāo/qiāndāo wànguǎ), the slow process, the lingering death, or slow slicing, was a form of torture and execution used in China from roughly AD 900 until it was banned in 1905. It was also used in Vietnam In this form of execution; a knife was used to methodically remove portions of the body over an extended period of time, eventually resulting in death.
Death, in the context of this column, means Islam. Islam is a death worshipping cult. Death is the end of Islam for anyone who encounters it, Muslim or non-Muslim. One exists and lives for the sole purpose of dying to meet Allah in Paradise. Allah owns your life and it is your duty to obey his every command and whim, even if it means….death.
“Death to America!” is the familiar chant of Muslim demonstrators, from New York City to London to Berlin and Cologne, from Cairo to Gaza to Damascus, from Kuala Lumpur to Sydney and Kabul. Death is what is intended by the Muslim Brotherhood. It states that quite explicitly in the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Brotherhood in North America. Here is what it says:
- In order for Islam and its Movement to become “a part of the homeland” in which it lives, “stable” in its land, “rooted” in the spirits and minds of its people, “enabled” in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established “organizations” on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a “Civilization Jihadist” responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.
- The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.
So, how is Islam “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”? By working every little gambit to dissolve Western institutions, principles, traditions, and norms, and replace them with Islamic ones, first as “co-equals,” and eventually as the dominant ones
By applying a thousand little, barely noticed and hardly earth-shattering concessions by the West to Islamic demands for “respect” or the enforcement of Islamic religious observation or deference to Muslim sensibilities and prejudices, the Brotherhood agenda is on schedule. There will always be the spectacular, headline-grabbing massacres to remind us that Islam declared war on the West long, long ago and that the bombings and beheadings and stabbings are not forgotten as the end-all of life for infidels and those who do not submit to Islam. Islam means, after all, submission.
But it isn’t those which are rotting the West “from within.” The West is definably “miserable” because it will not stand up for itself, will not take the steps necessary to preserve its existence as a life-loving as opposed to a death-worshipping political system. Whose hapless “hands” are aiding and abetting the incremental assaults? They are many and legion. CAIR simply advises the EEOC of a case rich in conflict, presumably because it knows that CAIR in an unindicted co-conspirator with terrorist organizations and refuses to condemn Hamas. Better these stupid Americans give other Americans the hot foot.
We can start with the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which works hand in glove with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to ensure that employers conform to Muslim expectations and prejudices, and also inures American employers to Islamic religious dress “codes.” The EEOC will agree with CAIR that a Muslim has been “discriminated” against and penalized (either fired or not hired) because of his “religion.” Case in point: Abercrombie & Fitch vs. a Muslim woman who wanted to violate the store’s dress code for employees by wearing her hijab.
The Muslim teen worker who scored a legal victory in an anti-discrimination suit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which cited its dress code in insisting she not wear a hijab to work, says the retailer’s policy is “very unfair.”
A federal judge issued the ruling last week that Abercrombie & Fitch discriminated against Hani Khan, 18, when she was fired from its Hollister store in San Mateo, Calif., in 2010 because she refused to remove her head scarf on the job…..
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on Khan’s behalf in 2011. A trial on the company’s liability and punitive damages is scheduled for Sept. 30.
Another nijab case went to the Supreme Court. In June 2015, the High Bench ruled in favor of the Muslim and against Abercrombie & Fitch. The Guardian reported:
The US supreme court on Monday ruled in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a headscarf for religious reasons.
The justices decided the case, which united Christian, Muslim and Jewish and other religious organizations, with an 8-1 vote, ruling in favor of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which sued the company on behalf of Elauf.
“The EEOC applauds the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that employers may not make an applicant’s religious practice a factor in employment decisions,” said EEOC chair Jenny Yang, in a statement.
“This ruling protects the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices.”
Next comes the Islamic assault on The Citadel, a military school in South Carolina with a strict dress code for its cadets, on and off school grounds. A Muslima applied to the school and insisted that she be able to wear her nijab with her uniform. On April 22, the Washington Post reported:
When news spread that The Citadel was considering the first-ever exception to its strict uniform requirements to allow an admitted student to wear a hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith, reaction was intense. Some welcomed the possibility as an important symbol of religious freedom, but for many in the tight-knit community of cadets and alumni, the very idea of an exception was anathema because the ideals of loyalty, uniformity, and corps-before-self are so central to the storied public military college’s mission and traditions….
On Friday, Brett Ashworth, a Citadel spokesman, said the school is considering two specific requests from the student: That she be allowed to wear a hijab and that she be allowed to cover her arms and legs.
The school is still mulling over whether or not to grant the Muslima’s wishes (the hijab in uniform, her own separate room, special clothing during physical exercises, etc.; I wonder if she gets to break classes and drill to bow to Mecca and has special meals prepared for her in the mess hall). The cadet who leaked the story to the press, was punished.
Citadel Cadet Nick Pinelli, the cadet who leaked the story of the school’s consideration of a Muslim student’s request to wear a hijab, was reportedly punished with 33 hours of marching according to a post on Jihad Watch….
According to an article in the Post and Courier The Citadel spokesman, Col. Brett Ashworth, declined to confirm whether or not Cadet Pinelli was being punished over leaking the story citing FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act).
Next up is our court system. CAIR issued a press release about a Louisiana traffic court judge who ordered a Muslima to leave the courtroom unless she removed her nijab. The Florida Family Association reported in late April:
CAIR issued the following press release:
CAIR Asks Louisiana Judge to Ensure that Courtroom Hijab Ban Not Be Repeated
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 4/28/16)- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on a Louisiana judge to ensure that the recent removal of a Muslim woman from court because she wears an Islamic head scarf, or hijab, not be repeated.
CAIR said the Muslim woman, who does not want to be identified, says she removed from Jefferson Parish Traffic Court on Tuesday after a bailiff asked her to remove her hijab and she refused. The woman stated: “I started to cry because I felt so embarrassed and humiliated.” Judge Raylyn Beevers, who admitted that she asked the Muslim woman to leave the courtroom, now says she did not realize the head covering was worn for religious reasons.
It is not known if Judge Beevers relented and allowed the Muslima into the courtroom wearing the nijab. The CAIR letter to the judge implies that she regretted her decision to ask the woman to leave, and hoped the “misunderstanding” was not repeated.
Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol.
A trucking company may be obligated to accommodate religious observance by providing time off for holidays or prayers. It is not obligated to excuse employees from doing their actual job. And delivering alcohol is part of what being a truck driver means. If it’s against your religion, find a job that doesn’t involve delivering large quantities of foods and beverages.
In fact there is no actual prohibition that bars Muslims from driving a truck full of alcohol. There are prohibitions on drinking alcohol. Every Muslim corner store I have ever seen sells alcohol, alongside smuggled cigarettes and lottery tickets. Many Muslim countries allow the sale of alcohol.
And, the Muslim truckers won the suit. The Washington Post reported on October 23rd:
One more data point on the “When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?” question – like it or not, under American law, employers sometimes do have to excuse employees from tasks that the employees find religiously objectionable. Tuesday, two Muslim truck drivers who were fired for refusing to deliver shipments containing alcohol were awarded $40,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages by the jury in their discrimination claim.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit on their behalf (EEOC v. Star Transport Co., Inc. (N.D. Ill.)), arguing that the employer had failed to provide “reasonable accommodations” to the employees – i.e., accommodations (including an exemption from job duties) that could be provided without “undue hardship” to the employer or others. The court noted that Star Transport had indeed often “swap[ped]’ loads between drivers,” and Star Transport conceded that it could have easily accommodated this request, too, but argued (unsuccessfully) that it shouldn’t be liable for punitive damages.
It’s now doubtful if the Muslim non-truck-drivers will ever collect their award. The Post article concludes:
But as the Peoria Journal Star (Andy Kravetz) notes, “Whether the men collect their money is another story. Star Transport went out of business earlier this year and it’s unknown who is now responsible for the judgment….
To underscore the assertion that Islam is a death cult, Daniel Greenfield also writes about what Muslim women who hanker for Paradise can expect upon expiration of their worldly existence. They would be no contest with “90 Foot Islamic Virgins” awaiting the male Jihadist “martyrs.”
The 90-foot-tall transparent creature with visible bone marrow and none of the functions of life is a giant skeleton. The love that Muslim terrorists have for it is a love for death.
ISIS is recreating the Islamic paradise on earth by capturing and handing out girls of “tender age” to the Jihadists. It forces them to take contraceptives and conducts forced abortions so that, like the 72 virgins, the captured girls will never actually have children. It even conducts reconstruction surgery after the rapes so that their victims will more closely resemble the eternal virgins of Islamic paradise.
The Islamic State isn’t just Islamic. It’s a hellish attempt to create an Islamic heaven on earth.
Finally, there is this unkind cut from our House of Representatives, as first reported on Gates of Vienna December 29, 2015 and reprinted in the Counter Jihad Report on the 30th, “HR 569: CAIR’s Standard Operating Procedure” for applying the scalpel to America.
The author of the Gates of Vienna piece argues that HR 569 will not pass; the numbers are against it. After reprinting the pious language of the Resolution, he remarks:
Once again, this will not pass. However, the fact that 82 Democrats have co-sponsored it will be used to validate the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc. etc.) claim that hate crimes have increased (and of course they haven’t for Muslims, although they may have increased against Jews in America, who are historically identified in FBI statistics as victimized in hate crimes five to ten times more frequently than Muslims in America)….
So it won’t pass, but it’s still useful to the Muslim Brotherhood to validate their claims among their own constituency, as well as to the media and the Low Information Voters, or those who just respond to any kind of “virtue-signaling”. And it’s useful to the 82 co-sponsoring Democrats, and the Democratic National Committee as a whole, to claim that all Republicans who did not co-sponsor are therefore, by definition:
- engaged in hate speech, by the sin of omission of not cosponsoring; and
- engaged in incitement to hate crimes, by the implied sin of hate speech resulting from the sin of omission of not co-sponsoring.
It’s also worth noting that there are 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives, and 246 Republicans. So unless this gets a lot of new co-sponsors in 2016, a counter-argument against the DNC on this Resolution would be that it has met with overwhelming bi-partisan opposition from the majority of Democrats (106) and all Republicans in the House.
But yes, it is a successful effort for the target audiences at which it is aimed, including the foreign funders for CAIR, ISNA etc., all of whom will be tickled pink that this bill has 82 co-sponsors. As will the OIC, who might have helped a bit in drafting the Resolution.
There are dozens of pages of the “cuts” that have been inflicted on this country, many, if most, aided by the eager interference of a Federal agency, the EEOC. I could go on for twenty more pages just to list them. The country is being bled dry, and the wounds will not heal until the EEOC is defunded, Americans see Islam as the death cult it really is, the ISNA, the ICNA, the MSA, and all its terrorist-affiliated ilk are booted out of the country, and the current principals of CAIR are finally indicted, tried, and sent to jail with bread and water as their only solace. All Muslims currently living in this country – legally or illegally – should be disenfranchised, so as to not provide our native statists with an extra power base.
Until then, the cuts will continue in furtherance of the pursuit of death.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk series of novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and suspense novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all available on Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.