Will the West Please Stop Siding with Criminals? (Women in Islam)

Will the West Please Stop Siding with Criminals?

by Khadija Khan
March 24, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10098/siding-with-criminals

• What is agonizing is that people either enjoyed or criticized the joyful act of a teenager, but no one seems to be noticing that this public trial and her forced apologies only mean further isolation for the young Muslim women.
• Most horrifying is that it seems that even the West has started to buy into the version of "modesty" that these extremists in the Middle East have been forcing on women.
• Why has no one -- especially politicized, self-absorbed women's groups -- come to help? Instead, as in the recent Women's March, they have been advocating for more women's imprisonment.
• It is important for as many people as possible, both in Britain and world-wide, to say how much they love her beautiful spirit and that they totally stand by her right to dance, sing, play or have fun.

The growth in systematic abuse of women, especially by Islamists in the West, requires democratic governments to introduce strong measures to stop this abuse, before abusive mullahs start harassing women of all faiths, to force them to submit to their wishes.

The recent threats and harassment of a British "Hijabi girl" by Islamists in Birmingham, England, merely for a video showing her dance, have re-exposed the ugly face of this autocratic mindset that owes its existence to extremist states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Enslaving women in general and inflicting repressive agendas -- such as domestic violence, sexual abuse, segregation, allowing no say in choosing a partner, education or profession, with abysmal living standards often part of the abuse -- is just a small measure of the jihad that the Islamists have managed to unleash across the globe.

The video of "Hijabi girl" (her name is not known), happily dancing in public, was recorded and uploaded to the internet by bystanders.
The video led to aggressive shaming and harassment of the girl by the local Islamist "morality police": men who ranted against her "impious" act and reportedly made her apologize publicly online.
Sobbing, she admitted how supposedly evil and shameless she was to have brought such dishonor to her family and religion.

It is important for as many people as possible, both in Great Britain and world-wide, to say how much they love her beautiful spirit and that they totally standby her right to dance, sing, play or have fun. These are very normal human activities.
Have things come to such a pass that now. even in Britain, only the most courageous can spontaneously express feelings of fun?

What is agonizing is that people either enjoyed or criticized the joyful act of a teenager, but no one seems to be noticing that this public trial and her forced apologies only mean further isolation for the young Muslim women.

To accept this coercion would be just a call on young Muslim girls to be quiet and submit, rather than ever even to think about showing their normal, lighter side. Most horrifying is that it seems that even the West has started to buy into the version of "modesty" that for centuries these extremists in the Middle East have been forcing on women.

The human rights groups seem to have become so apologetic towards the extremist abusers that they now turn their backs on the victims of these abuses -- the people who need human rights groups the most. Perhaps they believe that supporting the poor girl would mean offending Muslims or the "symbol of Islam" (hijab) -- which means they endorse the extremist version of Islam and the abuses that come with it.

The poor girl was shown no solidarity by any supposed champions of liberal causes. Instead, she was thrown to the hounds and left to face her torment alone.
It is also sad that the girl's family has probably also given up, possibly due to the threats, and possibly out of fear of these extremists.

The massively destructive, wrong-headed political policies of Western governments -- such as keeping silent on the abuses of women by Muslim extremists involving, for example, underage and forced marriages, female genital mutilation (FGM), sharia courts in the UK and accepting the existence of no-go zones where the extremists enjoy impunity and thrive -- are also to be blamed for the increase in violations of women's rights. Politicians and the policy-makers are apparently too scared of being accused of committing some fabricated "Islamophobia" or "infringing on the rights of Muslim citizens", so they choose to keep their eyes shut to the plight of these women.

An image from the video "Right to choose: Spotting the signs of forced marriage - Nayana", produced by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office. In 2013, 1,302 victims of forced marriage sought help from the British government's Forced Marriage Unit.

This is not an isolated incident in which a young Muslim girl was victimized by the extremists just for innocently being herself. In Canada, famous video blogger named Froggy, of Pakistani origin, suffered similar harassment. She was also vilified by puritanical extremists for wearing a hijab but living a Western lifestyle by hanging out with young men and uploading videos of teenage fun.

In Darmstadt, Germany, 19-year-old Lareeb Khan was killed in 2015 by her parents when she decided to take off her hijab and pursue a normal life. Her father, Asadullah Khan, claimed that he had killed his daughter to save the honour of his family. He alleged -- whether it is true or not we do not know -- that the girl was having sexual relations with a boy of whom her family disapproved.
Her mother admitted to being present at the time of Lareeb's murder, but claimed she could not rescue her due to both fear and illness. Lareeb's sister, Nida, however, stated that her mother was an accomplice to the crime, and used to thrash her.

In a pathetic attempt at exculpation, Lareeb's parents claimed that they were victims of the extremist Pakistani state and society. However, they chose, when they were given refuge and protection by a Western state, to impose similar abuses.
Extremists use shaming and harassment as punishment and deterrence for any woman in their communities who tries to break a barrier to regain her life.
This double edged-sword not only silences the victims of the abuse but also sends a message to the other women also not to try to escape their imprisonment.
Why has no one -- especially politicized, self-absorbed women's groups -- come to help? Instead, as in the recent Women's March, they have been advocating for more women's imprisonment.

The notion that a hijab or a conservative lifestyle is a matter of choice for Muslim women might sound sympathetic to Westerners. It is not. In reality, there is no choice. The supposed choice is, in fact, a one-way street from which trying to exit can cost a woman her life.

These extremist Muslims need to be taught by society itself that they must respect individual freedoms and equality -- by law.
Many liberal women, doubtlessly well-intended, seem love to wearing hijabs supposedly "in solidarity"; what they do not understand is that for millions and millions of Muslim women, who dare not say so, it is not a symbol of freedom and "protection" -- like a slave-owner "protecting" his property -- but of repression and imprisonment. It is forced upon women, now even in the West, and, worse, with the wholehearted complicity of the West.

It is also a time for governments purportedly in favour of human rights no longer to sweep these mafia tactics under the carpet.
It is time for politicians, governments, policy-makers, clerics, human rights groups and "liberals" to stop siding with criminals who commit assault, battery, and even murder, and to start protecting their citizens.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist and commentator.

================

Iran's Massacre and Rising Crimes Against Humanity

by Majid Rafizadeh
October 5, 2016 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9062/iran-massacre

• "You [Iranian officials] will be in the future etched in the annals of history as criminals. The greatest crime committed under the Islamic Republic, from the beginning of the Revolution until now, which will be condemned by history, is this crime [mass executions] committed by you." — Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• Intriguingly, all those people whom Montazeri is addressing and warning in the audio, currently appear to enjoy high positions.

Iran's massacre of more than 30,000 people was recently disclosed by Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri's son, Ahmad, a moderate cleric, who posted a confidential audio of his father on his website but was ordered by Iran's intelligence service to remove it.

Born in Esfahan, Iran, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is a human rights activist, an Islamic theologian, and was the designated successor to the Islamic revolution's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, until the very last moments of Khomeini's life. His pictures were posted next to Khomeini's in the streets.
In the recording, Montazeri states:

"You [Iranian officials] will be in the future etched in the annals of history as criminals. The greatest crime committed under the Islamic Republic, from the beginning of the Revolution until now, which will be condemned by history, is this crime [mass executions] committed by you."

While some international human rights organizations, the Obama Administration and the United Nations appear to have turned a blind eye this massacre and other crimes against humanity, several officials have taken steps. A U.S. House of Representatives Resolution condemning the massacres and other executions was introduced by the House Homeland Security Chair, Mike McCaul, and cosponsored by Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member Eliot Engel, and Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions. The resolution was introduced when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who heads a government that is ranked number one in the world for executions per capita, was addressing the 71^st Session of the United Nation General Assembly. During his speech, according to the Associated Press, an unprecedented number of protesters gathered in Dag Hammerskjold Plaza outside the UN -- including Senator Joe Lieberman, and Sir Geoffrey Robertson, former Head of the UN war crimes tribunal for Sierra Leone, who wrote a report on Iran's 1988 massacre that was published on the United Nations Arts Initiative website.
The House resolution states:

Whereas over a 4-month period in 1988, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran carried out the barbaric mass executions of thousands of political prisoners and many unrelated political groups;
Whereas according to a report by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, the massacre was carried out pursuant to a fatwa, or religious decree, issued by then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, that targeted the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK);
Whereas according to a November 2, 2007, report by Amnesty International, "between 27 July 1988 and the end of that year, thousands of political prisoners [in Iran], including prisoners of conscience, were executed in prisons nationwide.";
Whereas according to Amnesty International, "the majority of those killed were supporters of the PMOI, but hundreds of members and supporters of other political groups ... were also among the execution victims.";

The resolution goes on to detail some of the most egregious crimes against humanity and "the greatest crime committed during the Islamic Republic, for which history will condemn us":

... the killings were carried out on the orders of a judge, an official from the Ministry of Intelligence, and a state prosecutor, known to the prisoners as "Death Commissions" which undertook proceedings in a manner designed to eliminate the regime's opponents;
Whereas those personally responsible for these mass executions include senior officials serving in the current Government of Iran;
Whereas prisoners were reportedly brought before the commissions and briefly questioned about their political affiliation, and any prisoner who refused to renounce his or her affiliation with groups perceived as enemies by the regime was then taken away for execution;
Whereas the victims included thousands of people, including teenagers and pregnant women, imprisoned merely for participating in peaceful street protests and for possessing political reading material, many of whom had already served or were currently serving prison sentences;
Whereas prisoners were executed in groups, some in mass hangings and others by firing squad, with their bodies disposed of in mass graves;

In addition: "the families of the executed were denied information about their loved ones and were prohibited from mourning them in public," and more fundamentally:

"The current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was reportedly aware of, and later publicly condoned the massacre; Whereas in violation of its international obligations, the Government of Iran continues to systematically perpetrate gross violations of the fundamental human rights of the Iranian people;"

Intriguingly, all those people whom Montazeri is addressing and warning in the audio -- all of those who were involved in these crimes -- currently appear to enjoy high positions. Mostafa Pourmohammadi was a representative of the intelligence ministry at the notorious Evin Prison, and he was recently appointed by the so-called moderate President Hassan Rouhani to be justice minister. Ebrahim Raeisi was a public prosecutor and was appointed under Rouhani government to be the head of Astan Quds Razavi, which has billions of dollars in revenues. Hussein Ali Nayeri was a judge and is now a deputy of the Supreme Court of Iran.
In his memoir, Montazeri writes that he told Hussein Ali Nayeri to stop the executions at least in the month of Moharram, but Nayeri said: "We have executed 750 people in Tehran so far... once we finish the job with [execute] another 200 people, then we will listen to whatever you say". Montazeri wrote several letters to the Supreme Leader Khomeini as well, warning him.

Jahangir Razmi's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of the execution of Kurdish men and others by the Iranian Islamic regime in 1979.

We should not solely view Iran from the prism of the nuclear deal.
To be on the right side of history and to stand for individual rights, human rights, social justice and liberty, Congress needs to take action, condemn the Iranian government, pressure Iran to provide more information for the families of the victims, and urge the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran and the UN Human Rights Council to open a full investigation, and create a commission, to follow up with this matter.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

===================

Iran's Monstrous Record in 2016

by Majid Rafizadeh
December 27, 2016 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9621/iran-monstrous-record

• Tehran has not become a rational and moderate state. Iran has instead become more empowered and emboldened to pursue its revolutionary ideals of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
• When it comes to the JCPOA nuclear deal -- which Iran never signed -- Iranian leaders violated the deal three times in the past year.
• UN Security Council resolution 2231 is clear. The resolution "calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology."
• Iran also increased strategic and tactical cooperation with Russia to undermine US interests, strengthening the Russia-China-Iran axis.
• Iran ranks top in the world for executions per capita. Iran also became the world's leading executioner of juveniles.

In 2016, Iran reached an unprecedented level when it comes to breaking international laws. It expanded interventionist policies in the region; pursued revolutionary principles of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism; ignored several UN resolutions and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Tehran, which Iran never signed; continued regional hegemonic ambitions, and abused human rights.
With billions of dollars of revenue pouring into the pockets of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Tehran did not become a rational and moderate state. Iran instead became more empowered and emboldened to pursue its revolutionary ideals of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
Iran was listed as the top state sponsor of terrorism -- "providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world."
When it comes to the JCPOA nuclear deal -- which Iran never signed -- Iranian leaders violated the deal three times.
The first violation was reported by Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, in July 2016. The agency stated that the Iranian government was pursuing a "clandestine" path to obtain illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies "at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level." German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Iran, but no action was taken.
According to the nuclear deal, Iran should request permission from a UN Security Council panel for "purchases of nuclear direct-use goods", but Tehran did not. Another report by the Institute for Science and International Security drew attention to Iran's violation as well:

"The Institute for Science and International Security has learned that Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) recently made an attempt to purchase tons of controlled carbon fiber from a country. This attempt occurred after Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The attempt to acquire carbon fiber was denied by the supplier and its government. Nonetheless, the AEOI had enough carbon fiber to replace existing advanced centrifuge rotors and had no need for additional quantities over the next several years, let alone for tons of carbon fiber. This attempt thus raises concerns over whether Iran intends to abide by its JCPOA commitments. In particular, Iran may seek to stockpile the carbon fiber so as to be able to build advanced centrifuge rotors far beyond its current needs under the JCPOA, providing an advantage that would allow it to quickly build an advanced centrifuge enrichment plant if it chose to leave or disregard the JCPOA during the next few years. The carbon fiber procurement attempt is also another example of efforts by the P5+1 to keep secret problematic Iranian actions."

The next violation came in February 2016 as Iran exceeded its threshold for heavy water, used to produce nuclear weapons. In addition, in November 2016, according to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran again violated the deal by holding more heavy water than permitted. Iran was let go free both times with no consequences.
Third, when it comes violating several UN resolutions, in 2016, Iran significantly ratcheted up its production of ballistic missiles.
Iran test-fired at least eight ballistic missiles, capable of carrying multiple nuclear heads, an act in violation of the nuclear deal, as well as United Nations resolutions 1929 and 2231.
The JCPOA states that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missile activity "until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier."
The UN Security Council resolution (Paragraph 3 of Annex B of resolution 2231 of 2015) is clear. The resolution "calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology."
Another UN Security Council resolution, 1929, also states:

"Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities."

It is accurate to argue that if not for the Obama Administration's appeasement policies towards Iran, Tehran would not have received tremendous financial relief. Nevertheless, Iran's Supreme leader Khamenei who enjoys the final say in Iran's domestic and foreign policy, instigated more anti-American sentiments and continued lashing out at the "Great Satan". Iran publicly harassed the US Navy, detained US sailors, and imprisoned several American citizens. Khamenei also repeatedly threatened Israel and made incendiary remarks about wiping Israel from the face of earth in less than 8 minutes. In December 2016, Khamenei stated that Israel would not exist in 25 years. He also published a book laying out a plan on how to destroy Israel.

Regionally speaking, as Tehran became more heavily armed with additional revenues and weaponry, it has increased its military interventions in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and intensified its advisory, financial, weapons and intelligence assistance to its Shiite proxies and Bashar al Assad, bolstering the "Shia axis". Iran also increased strategic and tactical cooperation with Russia to undermine US interests, strengthening the Russia-China-Iran axis.
Finally, and more fundamentally, when it comes to human rights, Iran set some of the worst records since its establishment in 1979. According to the Human Rights Watch, 2016 saw Iran escalating the mass executions of minorities, and the imprisonment of human rights and political activists. Now, Iran ranks top in the world for executions per capita. Iran also became the world's leading executioner of juveniles, according to Amnesty International.
These are only some examples of Iran's disregard for international laws and its human rights abuses.
There is definitely a positive correlation between, on the one hand, Iran gaining more dollars and, on the other hand, breaching international laws, committing egregious human rights violations, spreading its revolutionary values of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, destabilizing the region, intensifying regional conflicts and humanitarian tragedies, and pursing its regional ambitions.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

==============

Majid Rafizadeh : As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals and Leftists

As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals and Leftists

by Majid Rafizadeh
 

March 25, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10091/muslims-liberals-leftists

• It is the fear of this violence, torture and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.
• If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran, which execute people for expressing their opinion? And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them or even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say? They seem, in fact, like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.
• As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.
• Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values.

If you had grown up, as I did, between two authoritarian governments -- the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria -- under the leadership of people such as Hafez al Assad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you would have seen your youth influenced by two major denominations of Islam in the Muslim world: the Shia and the Sunni. I studied both, and at one point was even a devout Muslim. My parents, who still live in Iran and Syria, come from two different ethnic Muslim groups: Arab and Persian.

You also would have seen how the religion of Islam intertwines with politics, and how radical Islam rules a society through its religious laws, sharia. You would have witnessed how radical Islam can dominate and scrutinize people's day-to-day choices: in eating, clothing, socializing, entertainment, everything.

You would have seen the tentacles of its control close over every aspect of your life. You would have seen the way, wielded by fundamentalists, radical Islam can be a powerful tool for unbridled violence. It is the fear of this violence, torture, and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.

My father was brutally tortured -- justified by some of the fundamentalist Islamic laws of the ruling governments in both Iran and Syria. The punishment extended to my mother, my family, and other relatives, who were tormented on a regular basis.
What was even more painful was, upon coming to the West, seeing the attitude of many people who label themselves liberals and leftists, towards radical Islam.

These liberals seem to view themselves as open-minded, but they have a preconceived way of thinking about Islam: to them, it seems, there is no radical Islam, Islam is only a force for the good, Islam can do no evil.

How could they not see the way extremist Muslims exploit some aspects of the religion of Islam to legitimize its acts? How could they not even acknowledge that radical Islam, a force that threatens to destroy the planet, let alone my family, exists?

Instead, many liberals would criticize me or attempt to turn a blind eye, as if I were accidentally making some embarrassing mistake. They seemed instead to love being surrounded by Western Muslim "scholars", those who are apologetic towards radical Islam and -- notably -- have never actually lived in a Muslim country under the strangling grip of the official fundamentalist laws, sharia.

Why do many liberals, who criticize Christianity and religious conviction in general, appear to open their arms to radical Islam so affectionately? Why are so many liberals, who call themselves the robust defenders of peace, social justice, and freedoms, apologetic for all types of fundamentalist Islamist laws?

If, as liberals argue, they support women's and LGBT rights, why, by their silence, do they condone gays executed and women subjugated on a daily basis throughout most of the enormous Muslim world?
If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran that, based on the government's radical, theocratic laws, execute people for expressing their opinion?
And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them before even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say?

Liberals argue that they are in favor of critical thinking, but they do not like anyone challenging their "comfort zone". They seem, in fact, to be just like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.

Even if a person is from a Muslim country, and has direct experience with extremist Islam, many liberals will strenuously avoid this information. They seem not to want their apologetic view of radical Islam to be questioned or contradicted. They apparently have no desire to open their closed minds on the subject. The thought of a question evidently wounds them, as if an answer would mean that they were turning their backs on the ongoing crimes against humanity. How come, then, that so many liberals appear resistant to seeing that the crimes of radical Islam are those crimes against humanity? And at present, the largest?

Second, these liberals -- indulging in faulty, sophisitic, logic -- seem to think that if they criticize Christianity and Islamists criticize Christianity, then Islamists will like them for hating the same thing. In the same vein, many liberals hate the U.S. Republican government and many radical Muslim groups hate the U.S. Republican government, so perhaps many liberals think that Muslims will like them for hating the same government? Sadly, as these liberals will soon find out, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Third, and more fundamentally, sympathizing with all kinds of Islamist practices and radical Islam seems to fit a wider narrative of bashing the West and white people for "imperialism, colonialism, and any sense of superiority". Unfortunately that view fails to take into account that there have been no greater imperialists the Muslim armies; they conquered Persia, the great Christian Byzantine Empire in Turkey, North Africa and the Middle East, virtually all of Eastern Europe, most of Spain, and Greece.

As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet Muhammed or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep either finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.
Many liberals, not knowing the background, buy into this claim. By siding with the "other", they probably feel a moral superiority: they are helping a cause, championing the "other" and rescuing a "victim"! But this moral superiority is both superficial and misplaced. It is more like that of the proverbial boy who murders his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

Maybe that is why, when many liberals hear criticism of radical Islam and the nuances of some aspects it, they refuse to hear it. For them, as radical Islam is not being depicted as a victim anymore, this view does not offer them the comfort of being morally superior defending victims. Ironically, that is the same motive for many radical Islamists: feeling morally superior defending Islam. The liberals then become confused, and do not know how to answer because I am a Muslim, have grown up there -- not a Western Muslim who has never lived in a Muslim society.
I am not even a Western conservative, with whom the liberals are also at odds. Many liberals, like all people happily married to a fantasy, and despite towering evidence, will stick to the fantasy and to their binary way of thinking. It is like trying to tell your friend that the stripper he wants to marry might not want to stay home, make babies and cook. He is so emotionally addicted to his dream that he will do anything to protect it.

Finally, it goes without saying that, as with all of us, liberals too attempt to preserve their financial and political interests. These material and social investments are also threatened by hearing from Muslims who have endured oppression and torture under radical Islam. Those liberals seem to suspect, correctly, that this new information might create some kind of conflict of interest, so possibly decide it might be safer not to hear it in the first place. Instead, again to protect their investment, many liberals and leftists ignore or criticize Muslims such as these.

Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values. In addition, sadly, your view towards radical Islam actually contributes to the violence and the repression of millions of people -- women, children, slaves, and all those people whom you claim you want to protect. These are the true victims. They are subjugated, dehumanized, terrorized, tortured, raped and beaten on a daily basis by the practitioners of radical Islam and the religious laws of sharia, which are at the core of that fundamentalism. It is time to open your eyes and your minds and see what is staring at you.
-----------

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientist and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

====================