Reflections From a Murky Pond

Freedom, especially women’s freedom from the vile and utter degradation, exploitation, and enslavement of Islam, is always a beautiful thing. Sometime though, that freedom and individuals’ bids to achieve it are more beautiful than others.

A particularly poignant case in point is the Turkish-German daytime television star, Sila Sahin’s extraordinarily beautiful bid for freedom from the constraints of Muslim “society.”

She has given her all to achieve a freedom.

Sila Sahin, who plays Ayla Özgül in the German soap opera, Gute Zeiten, Schlechte Zeiten (Good Times, Bad Times) posed for the German edition of Playboy in a bid for freedom from the constraints of Muslim “Society” and the Shari’a-based oppression of her family.

And it was truly a bid for freedom and a protest against the repression and misogyny endemic to the Muslim World.

Posing provocatively on the cover of German Playboy magazine with one breast exposed, Sahin seems to be sending a clear and deliberate message to her conservative Turkish family.

“I did it because I wanted to be free at last. These photographs are a liberation from the restrictions of my childhood,” she said.

Her family has, unsurprisingly, reacted with horror, and her mother has cut off all contact with the actress.

“My mother is still angry. It will be even more difficult with my grandparents, my aunts and my uncles,” she said on the website devoted to her television soap.

She has, however, managed to talk to her actor father, who expressed concern over the pressure she will inevitably face from the Muslim community.

Frankly, I’m unsure of Sahin’s father’s motivation for his apparent moderation. It could be – and I hope it is so – that he truly is evolved enough to support his daughter’s choice of freedom, or it could be that disowning her would lose him access to her income, something that he would control under Shari’a until Sila’s marriage.

He’s absolutely right about one thing though; Sila Sahin needs to be worried about the response of the Muslim “community.” They have a long and brutal history of violent reprisals against women who behave in any manner other than utter subservience. Those women who aren’t murdered often wish that they had been.

I’d like to think that, living in the Civilized World, Sila Sahin would be safe from the more savage forms of Muslim reprisal. That’s hardly a foregone conclusion though, as women such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali can attest. Hence, the twenty-five year old actress has placed herself at risk.

Sila Sahin’s choosing to pose for Playboy was certainly a brave and extremely beautiful bid for freedom. We must all just hope that she doesn’t pay too high of a price for it.

Related Reading:

Rick Santorum has once again infuriated America domestic enemies by speaking unpleasant truths. This time the former House Representative (PA 18) and Senator (PA) unequivocally declared that Jihadism was evil and that Shari’a was incompatible with both America’s laws and our Constitution.

Naturally these truths have infuriated the Left, who are quick to equate truth with racism and/or fascism when it is unapologetically spoken by an American, especially a White, Christian American.

Rick Santorum speaking at Strafford County Lincoln-Reagan Dinner in Durham, NH said:

DURHAM, N.H. — Rick Santorum on Friday asserted that Sharia law has no place in America.

“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” he said at the Strafford County Lincoln-Reagan dinner, remarks that show how the former Pennsylvania senator continues to establish himself as the candidate most-aligned with the Republican Party’s conservative base.

“We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”

Santorum, invoking New York Rep. Peter King’s hearing this week on the alleged radicalization of American Muslims, said that the “vast majority” of Muslims don’t want to it either.

“They left because of Sharia law,” he said, referring to why he believes Muslim immigrants left their home countries to come to the United States.

Santorum added, “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”

The audience loudly applauded.

Jihadism is evil; that is an incontrovertible truth within the context of the modern age. Whether it is the violence and terrorism of Jihad as-Sayf or the words of Jihad bi-al-Lisan and Jihad bi-al-Qalam which inspire it and/or seek to use the laws and courts to further Muslim goals when those goals are contrary to Americans’ goals.

Shari’a is more than just religious tenets and obligations. It is both civil and criminal law, as well as regulating individual conduct of both personal and moral natures, and the specifics of those laws are not just incompatible with civil code of the United States; they are often antithetical to it and the core values of America.

That so many Liberals decried Santorum’s speaking of clear truths shows America – once again – what side the Liberals are on.

Where Santorum Is Wrong

On one point Mr. Santorum is wrong. That point is the common mistake born of hubris of believing that Muslims immigrated to America to be free of Shari’a. Most Muslims came to the United States, just like all the other immigrants, seeking our wealth and economic opportunities and they brought their desire to live under Shari’a with them.

On another point Mr. Santorum is, while not wrong, too limited in his thinking. Shari’a is not just incompatible with America’s civil code. It is incompatible with Democracy, as even the European Court of Human Rights realized a few years ago.

The Court concurs in the Chamber’s view that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, as set forth in the Convention:

Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. The Court notes that, when read together, the offending statements, which contain explicit references to the introduction of sharia, are difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of democracy, as conceived in the Convention taken as a whole. It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts. … In the Court’s view, a political party whose actions seem to be aimed at introducing sharia in a State party to the Convention can hardly be regarded as an association complying with the democratic ideal that underlies the whole of the Convention.

– Refah Partisi v. Turkey
European Court of Human Rights, February 13. 2003

Shari’a is incompatible with democracy and human rights! To allow it to be enacted or practiced in America would be a gross injustice and an act of indefensible and unassuageable evil – even if it was only practiced by- and enforced upon Muslims within our borders.

Related Reading:

Three particularly vile Jihadi vermin are, according to British and American sources, planning on entering the border of America to speak at a protest in front of the White House on Tuesday, March 3, 2011. They are Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadeen, and Sayful Islam and the organizers of the event are the Muslim Extremist group, the Islamic Thinkers Society.

Choudary, ever the jabbering pig-fucker, has described the protest as, “a rally, a call for the Sharia, a call for the Muslims to rise up and ­establish the Islamic state in America.”

These Three Plan In Washington DC  On March 3, 2011

Given their track records – and criminal records – there’s some doubt as to whether any or all of them will actually be allowed within our borders. If they do manage to enter America however, American patriots must give them exactly the reception that they deserve.

And, if the consciences of any Americans demand these vermin’s exterminations as that reception, what loyal American who truly loves this country and understands in their soul that it’s each and every citizen’s solemn and nigh on holy duty to provide for the common defense of the nation and their families find moral fault with those Americans’ actions?

Truly, how could one find moral fault with this, even though it would be patently illegal? After all, what is morally right and what is currently legal are often not the same thing, as our nation’s history has shown us time and time again.

Think About It Objectively

Leaving aside the possibly that our government would let these foreign enemies into our country willingly for one reason or another, they might actually be constrained to do so in, at least, Choudary’s case because of how our laws are written – and such constraints upon the government are needed to protect American’s liberty and rights.

But rights always come with responsibilities. Since we have needfully constrained our government in some ways, if we are to avoid those constraints being a “suicide note,” is it not required in extremis that the citizenry do what must be done to defend the nation even at the expense of their blood and treasure and even if that defense violates the law?

~*~

I would certainly find no intrinsic moral fault in such actions and, frankly, defy any American – except those very few pacifists who feel that lethal force is always immoral – to do so.

Related Reading: