Linda Sarsour, Authoritarian Leftist hero, gives speech in which she praises an odious imam

What do you think when someone who espouses oppressive, religiously based views, and favors the adoption of sharia law, also hates and campaigns against Donald Trump? Well, you can agree with her about Trump but disagree about the other stuff. That, I suppose, is my view about Linda Sarsour, a hijabi who has often praised sharia law and has also called for the (presumably symbolic) removal of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s vagina (apparently not realizing that some of it had already been removed by FGM). But self-proclaimed Leftists go farther and absolutely worship the woman. She was one of the co-leaders of the Women’s March on Washington, and regularly appears as a Leftist icon, despite the fact that if she were President, we’d be living under a very different kind of law. Wearing a hijab doesn’t make you a hero, but the Cntrl-Left sees the garment as a sign of her moral value, because it means she’s oppressed (she’s not). She is the symbol of what I see as a dangerous alliance between the Left and a repressive form of Islam.

Here’s a speech that Sarsour just gave at the convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA):

Though at some point she calls for “jihad” against the Trump administration, I’m not going to make anything of that, for although the word can mean a real battle against the enemies of Islam, it can also mean simply a “struggle” for what are considered good aims, and that’s what Sarsour says she means. The word in this speech has been seized upon by the right-wing press as a call for terrorism, which is a huge overreaction and misunderstanding (did they hear what she said?). Rather, I’d point out her repeated praises to Allah, like Republicans praising God (she says Muslim’s top priority should be “to please Allah, and only Allah,” something that scares me); her statement that the Muslim community should be “perpetually outraged every single day” (18:56, that’s a mindset that led to Muslim riots and murders over the Danish cartoons and Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, as well as to a British teacher’s arrest and imprisonment in Sudan for naming a teddy bear “Muhammad”); her assertions that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”; her call for people to invest in dubious propaganda organizations like CAIR, and her praising her mentor and “favorite person in the room,” Siraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj (born Jeffrey Kearse) is a black American imam (a convert to Islam) at the Al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, New York, where Sarsour lives, and the leader of The Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA). Sarsour describes Wajjah as “a mentor, a motivator, and encourager” who advised her to “speak truth to power and not worry about the consequences.”

Wahhaj is a dubious character, and was listed by prosectors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he denies any involvement and was never charged.

One anti-extremist-Islam website says this about Wahhaj, though it’s hard to check these facts as most of its links are broken:

Wahhaj has long supported every facet of Sharia Law, including its call for brutal punishments like the removal of one’s hands as the penalty for theft, and death by stoning as the penalty for adultery. By Wahhaj’s reckoning, such harsh measures are wholly justified by Islamic scripture. As he proclaimed in a May 1992 sermon: “I would cut off the hands of my own daughter [if she stole] because Allah stands for Justice.” On another occasion, Wahhaj said: “If Allah says 100 strikes, 100 strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it’s the obedience of Allah and his messenger—nothing personal.”

Wahhaj has been a longtime supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization that seeks to create a worldwide Islamic caliphate, or kingdom, governed by Sharia Law. In the summer of 1994, Wahhaj attended a Hizb ut-Tahrir conference in London, where Islamists openly called for jihad, denounced democracy, and declared that “the Islamic system is the only alternative for mankind.” Less than a week later, back in the U.S., Wahhaj lauded Hizb ut-Tahrir’s “scholarly brothers” for their “good insight” and “their pushing for the Khilafah [Caliphate].”

In 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Wahhaj as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Soon thereafter, Wahhaj stated during one of his Al-Taqwa sermons, “I’m not frightened by no list, by no government! I thank Allah. I’m honored that they thought enough of me to put me on a list.”

Wikipedia says this, with supporting links:

Wahhaj has made statements in support of Islamic laws over liberal democracy. He also supports capital punishments such as stoning for adultery and cutting off of hands for thievery. He has said: “Islam is better than democracy. Allah will cause his deen [Islam as a complete way of life], Islam to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen.”

He has also said: “If Allah says 100 strikes, 100 strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it’s the obedience of Allah and his messenger—nothing personal.”

And here are some quotes by Wahhaj provided by the Clarion Project:

“If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir and give allegiance to him. Take my word, if eight million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us,” Wahhaj said in 1992.[5]

“As long as you remember that if you get involved in politics, you have to be very careful that your leader is for Allah.  You don’t get involved in politics because it’s the American thing to do.  You get involved in politics because politics are a weapon to use in the cause of Islam,” he said in 1991.[6]

“The trap we fall into is having a premature discussion about Sharia when we are not there yet,” he said in 2011.[7]

You can hear the rest of the talk—much of it is unobjectionable—and judge for yourself. My impression is that Sarsour isn’t all that smart, but she’s canny and good at organizing. That, of course, applies to a lot of politicians—perhaps even Trump (except for the “organizing” part). But she’s canny enough to gull a lot of the Left into thinking she’s a beacon of feminism, all the while covering herself out of modesty and making approving statements about sharia law. She favors a one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, a “solution” that she knows would destroy Israel as it is today, and she’s a BDS supporter. She is an expert at leveraging Leftist guilt to achieve her own ends.

She’s a queer duck, though I think that’s an insult to ducks. I feel about her the way I feel about Pamela Geller: I agree with some of what she says but disagree profoundly with her underlying aims and bigotry. Sadly, while Geller is a hero to the right, Sarsour is a hero to the Regressive Left. If we should take any Muslims as leaders of true progressivism, it should be someone like Maajid Nawaz. I’d also mention people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sarah Haider, but, like all Muslims who are rational and can’t abide the faith’s dictates, they’ve become ex-Muslims, apostates singing with the choir invisible,

56 Comments

  1. Posted July 7, 2017 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    … a British teacher’s arrest and imprisonment in Sudan for naming a teddy bear “Muhammad”

    She didn’t even pick the name herself. She simply asked her class of six-year-old’s to pick a name for the class teddy bear.

    The class then named the bear after one of their number, a boy who happened to be called “Mohammed” (apparently it’s ok to name a boy “Mohammed” but not to name a teddy bear after a boy who is named Mohammed).

    For that she was put in jail, and a mob of thousands marched through the streets asking for her execution.

    And Islam is the Religion of Peace.

  2. Kevin
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Sarsour is a harbinger of abrasion and upsetness—at the whole of the universe.

    History will look with sadness upon those who espouse liberty underneath an Islamic Confederate flag of oppression.

  3. BJ
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    “Wearing a hijab doesn’t make you a hero, but the Cntrl-Left sees the garment as a sign of her moral value, because it means she’s oppressed (she’s not).”

    I don’t think this is quite correct. The Ctrl-Left sees her as oppressed because she is female, Muslim, and doesn’t have white skin (the only things that could possibly get her higher on the oppression hierarchy are being trans and disabled), and see her hijab as a symbol of her moral value because they view the garment as, however paradoxically, a sign of feminist liberation.

    With regard to the rest, she’s doing exactly as I’ve thought all along: first she managed to infiltrate the Ctrl-Left because their system of evaluating people is set up to allow her access to the highest levels, and now she is using her access to spread her pro-Sharia, antisemitic poison. And the regressives are eating it up gladly. I think this was her goal all along. She’s a terrible person, but I have to give her credit for exploiting regressives and their systems of moral evaluation so well. She is a shrewd operator, even if she isn’t particularly intelligent. Her support of Imams like this, her attempts at further destroying the reputations of people like Hirsi-Ali, and all her other reprehensible words and deeds just show how open the Ctrl-Left is to being co-opted into supporting things they should be against (if they actually did care about oppression, other people, etc.).

    • Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      “…and doesn’t have white skin…”

      Her skin looks pretty white to me. Much in the same way that Steve Jobs is considered “white” because he had a lot of money and wasn’t Muslim, Sarsour’s “whiteness” or lack thereof, has little to do with the actual amount of pigment in her skin.

      • Posted July 7, 2017 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

        Right. As one progressive friend told me, “whiteness is a fluid concept.” Living up to what they perceive as WASPY norms is white.

    • Craw
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      I in turn don’t think you are quite correct.

      “[They] see her hijab as a symbol of her moral value because they view the garment as….a sign of feminist liberation.”

      No. They see the garment as a sign of liberation because she, an “intersectional”, tells us it is and because conservatives tell us it is not. They really believe she is advocating the hijab for its value as push-back against Islamophobia.

      They are showing tribal loyalty, not thought.

    • nicky
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

      Look, I live in South Africa for nearly 2 decades. We are sadly -due to our history- experts in shades of skin colour.
      Linda Sarsour is lily-white, no way around that and nobody here, be it white, coloured or black, would contest that.
      [We do not see her hair, but I’m sure if you stick a pencil in it it would not fall out (this is for those in the know only)].
      She is a white Muslim supremacist (Islam is the most supremacist extant ideology we have). Sheis a blatant apologist (if not a shill, which I suspect) for the more extremist forms of Islam, as practised in, say, Saudi Arabia.

      • nicky
        Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

        Would fall out, sorry.

      • Craw
        Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

        Sarsour is muslim therefore she is oppressed. Since she is oppressed she is not white QED.

        Being non-white AND muslim she is doubly oppressed. QED.

        • Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

          Nicely put!

        • BJ
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

          Exactly. She is non-white, just as all Jews, regardless of their actual skin color, are considered white by regressives, and just as Asians are now starting to be considered white by many of them as well.

          • nicky
            Posted July 7, 2017 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

            Repeat:
            White Muslim supremacist,
            White Muslim supremacist,
            White Muslim supremacist, etc. etc.

            Maybe it will slowly sink in? Can hardly be less effective than reason.

      • Posted July 11, 2017 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

        + 1

  4. Desnes Diev
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    “On another occasion, Wahhaj said: “If Allah says 100 strikes, 100 strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death[…]””

    Imo, anybody who’s hearing Allah (or God) saying something should first look for medical help. But it may be too late for such a rational option.

    • Posted July 7, 2017 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

      My thoughts exactly. I often say, if God wants me to do something, God can tell me personally…though he’d have to be pretty convincing for me not just to think I was losing my mind.

  5. John Conoboy
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    I never understood why African Americans embrace Islam. It is not a traditional African religion. It was forced on Africans by Arab invaders who also engaged in slave trade.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      Exactly the same story as with Christianity. Except, though most don’t realize it, the Arab Muslims took millions more slaves from Africa than the Christians did. And the reason no one knows is that there was no anti-slavery movement like there was in Christendom right from the start of the trade.

      • nicky
        Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

        And they took a lot of European/American slaves too (estimated to over a million), the very reason for the existence of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean.

      • Posted July 7, 2017 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

        That doesn’t totally make sense to me. African slaves in the Americas took to Christianity mostly because it was imposed on them when they were enslaved. African-Americans (some) embraced Islam in the mid-twentieth century, having never had anything to do with the Arab slave trade.

        • ALe
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

          Incidentally, some took to Islam because they saw it as a viable alternative to Christianity, which they took to be the “white man’s religion.”

          Then in Africa itself, there was the president of Gambia a few years ago declaring Gambia to be an Islamic theocracy and saying he wanted to shake off the legacy of Western imperialism and colonialism. Nothing mentioned at all about how Islam got into Africa.

        • biz
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

          Arabs started the African slave trade, and continued to practice it long after Europeans stopped, and in fact are still practicing it in pockets like Mauretania.

          It is extremely ironic when black Americans convert to Islam supposedly in order to overcome the legacy of a religion imposed via slavery.

      • Jenny Haniver
        Posted July 7, 2017 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

        I don’t know about other North African or Middle Eastern countries, but Tunisia abolished slavery in 1842, over 20 years before slavery was abolished in the US.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

          That was after Britain and the Commonwealth. (1833) The US was very late to abolish slavery compared to the rest of the West. Most Middle Eastern countries didn’t abolish it until the 20th century.

        • nicky
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

          Yes, Ahmed I Bey abolished slavery in Tunisia, still under Ottoman Rule, in 1841-42. (Notably not due to pressure from the predecessor of the US Sixth fleet, the Mediterranean Squadron). It was only imposed in the cities, but not in the more rural areas. The French (who conquered Tunisia in 1881) re-abolished and enforced abolition in 1890.

        • biz
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

          There is still slavery of black Africans by Arabized tribesman in Mauretania today.

    • JonLynnHarvey
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

      Well, in the USA, its the message of self-reliance and the focus on re-uniting the African diaspora that seems to be a major appeal.
      The story of Malcolm X is fairly revealing in this regard.

    • Posted July 7, 2017 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      In general that’s true, but I think the history of the very first Ethiopian muslims might be different.

      As for why, why do they embrace Christianity? That too is “not from Africa” or whatever.

  6. ploubere
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    How depressing that the people we need to resist the republican coup are themselves so easily misled and fooled.

  7. Posted July 7, 2017 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    What do you think when someone who espouses oppressive, religiously based views, and favors the adoption of sharia law, also hates and campaigns against Donald Trump?

    I don’t give Stalin a free pass for being anti-Hitler. My enemies enemy is not my friend. You don’t get credit for despising someone despicable any more than you get credit for not killing someone.

  8. Diana MacPherson
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    It saddens me that many well-intentioned liberals like Sarsour. I have female, left leaning, Jewish friends who like her! Good grief!

  9. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t give her too much cred for opposing Donald Trump. Promoting the right cause for horribly wrong reasons can cause all kinds of havoc and damage of its own accord.

    I was never at all a fan of conservative maven William F. Buckley, but I thought one of his smartest moves was to dissociate himself from both the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand, both of whom he felt would do the anti-Communist cause more harm than good. (But he continued to defend Joe McCarthy!)

    =-=-=

    Wahhaj’s statement that it’s nothing personal has obvious overtones with “The Godfather”. Michael Corleone describes his killing the corrupt policeman as “It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business.”

  10. nicky
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Who is more odious, Trump or Sarsour?

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

      Maybe we could have a “Who Is More Odious” feature with voting.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps a Twitter poll. I think Trump would win in though.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted July 7, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

        She remembered it wasn’t always dark like this. There were times when the sun shone in the sky so long that it dried up the soil and withered the plants. But now there was only the dark. And the wind. A wind that howled across the land they were trying to cross, looking for their next meal.

        It all started because of that poll. Something people did when they had full bullies in the time where the sun shone…on something called Twitter.

        😀

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

          Full bellies. Damn it. I can’t be smart ass without being punished!

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

          😀 !!!!!

        • nicky
          Posted July 7, 2017 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

          😃😃😃

    • Taz
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

      Trump, because he has more power.

    • Posted July 7, 2017 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      That might depend on whether you factor in the “ability to act on it”, which in the case of Trump is pretty close to maximal, since he’s a US president etc.

    • rickflick
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

      Who is more odious, Trump or Pence?
      My stomach is already churning.

      • nicky
        Posted July 7, 2017 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

        Pence, hands down.

    • JonLynnHarvey
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

      It’s a bit hard to compare people’s odiosity when it is for such different reasons.

      It’s a rotten apples vs. moldy cheese comparison.

      • Colin McLachlan
        Posted July 8, 2017 at 5:05 am | Permalink

        Mmmmmm, mouldy cheese [drool].

  11. rickflick
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    The Southern Poverty Law Center should rightfully (if they have to make lists) put her name on it, and remove a few others.

  12. Heather Hastie
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    I noticed that she was very careful not to criticize the misogyny of Islam. She talked of those within Islam who don’t stand with other minorities, and those outside who discriminate against Muslims as a whole. But there was no mention of oppression within the Muslim community, which imo is at its worst when it comes to the treatment of women and LGBT people.

    And she made a point of being unapologetic about her views re Palestine. That’s her right, but means there are some minorities she’s okay with oppressing (Jews of course).

    I also object to her idea about people not being able to proffer advice unless they’re an expert. Obviously, there are situations where the advice of an expert is preferable or holds more weight, but that doesn’t mean others should just shut up.

    However, like Jerry says, I don’t think there’s anything here the Alt-Right can justifiably latch onto. It’s pretty mild in comparison to the usual fare on the Ctrl-Left. Despite her insistence that she doesn’t, Sarsour has obviously tempered her message for her audience. And, actually, that’s the right thing to do which I’m sure she knows perfectly well.

    • Tom
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

      Yes, a different role demands a different script.
      Perhaps beneath that hijab is a rather vague thespian in search of a character?

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted July 7, 2017 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, you could be right. That certainly fits the evidence.

  13. Taz
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Sadly, while Geller is a hero to the right, Sarsour is a hero to the Regressive Left.

    Steel cage match?

  14. claudia baker
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Okay, it’s the end of the day and I’m really tired; too tired to be clever in any way. So I’m just gonna say: Sarsour is a dick.

    • nicky
      Posted July 7, 2017 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

      Dick Chick 😊

  15. Dawn Oz
    Posted July 7, 2017 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    I find her views outrageous, and these are supposed to be her palatable ones!!? Anyone who refers to a magic book (bible, koran, whatever) has nothing to say to me. We have wonderful atheist philosophers including Bertrand Russell who can speak volumes of clarity instead of her nonsense.

  16. jeffery
    Posted July 8, 2017 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    What’s hilarious to me about her (although I find the rest of her appalling, dangerous, and frightening) is the amount of makeup she plasters on herself while supposedly wearing the hijab to demonstrate her “modesty”. I agree fully that the “SJW movement” has been completely hijacked by these Islamists; they assume, from the “get-go”, that they are automatically being “oppressed” by someone, then go searching for just who it is to be this week. It resembles the religious right’s hijacking of the Republican Party, and I see the “hardening” of these extreme stances as very, very troubling.

    • Colin McLachlan
      Posted July 8, 2017 at 5:10 am | Permalink

      What’s hilarious to me about her… is the amount of makeup she plasters on herself while supposedly wearing the hijab to demonstrate her “modesty”.

      A stylish sparkly hijab at that.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: