It would seem Islam’s hijab-wielding fifty-cents army is on the move. Their target this time: ex-Muslims. A few months ago, they struck in Australia with a petition and a grotesque online denunciation of ex-Muslim women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and, perversely, in the US by leading a women’s rights march. Now they’ve topped that with an even more grotesque online stand-up mocking ex-Muslims for being in it for the money.
This hijabi brigade’s role is to use their Western privilege of equality, freedom and high standards of health and education to try to attack ex-Muslims, the only people prepared to put their lives on the line for half the world’s Muslim population: its women. In Muslim lands (and to a lesser extent in the self-imposed Muslim ghettos in Western countries), their hijab-, niqab-, burka- and chador-shrouded sisters are subject to male control, husband-, brother-, police-, and any-random-male-beating, child-marriage, forced marriage, polygamy, testimony- and inheritance-degrading, movement restriction, denial of education, denial of child custody, rape, culpability for their own rape, forced marriage to their rapist, public groping, genital mutilation, acid attacks, “honour” killing, …the list goes on, ending in what Nazik al-Malaika described as Muslim women’s “impulse to suppress” themselves.
In the Muslim world and Western Muslim ghettos, of course, this impulse to suppress is institutionalised in mothers’ ostracising their “too Western” daughters, sending bounty hunters after their escaped daughters, instructing their sons to murder their own sisters, delivering up their baby girls to have their clitorises and labia cut off and their vulvas sewn up, and their baby sons to have their foreskins cut off, instructing their daughters to always obey their husbands, never talk about their husbands abusing them, and never, ever, ever, God forbid, leave those husbands.
It is institutionalised in the women cadre of the various religious and morality police forces that patrol the cities of Muslim lands on the lookout for women transgressing any of the above, ready to arrest and deliver them up to males who will administer the caning, the physical inspections and the verbal abuse as the first step in the judicial process.
It is institutionalised in the judicial systems in which all-male panels of “judges” impose returns to monstrous husbands, removal of children, lashing, flogging, and stoning to death. And the latest addition to this system of brutal female oppression: the free, wealthy, educated, articulate, social-media-savvy hijab brigades of the West for whom all of the above amounts to a scandalous “Islamophobic” fabrication that the divisive ex-Muslims entrench. Such women have enjoyed unrestrained endorsement and support from sycophantic and Islamic-apologist liberals up till now.
But yesterday’s online stand-up, coming a mere ten days after the ultimate passive-aggressive assault on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Muslim reformer Asra Nomani at the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, might have just tipped the scales. Islamic apologists have been mostly silent on the treatment these fearless fighters for extending human rights to Muslim women received at the hands of apologist senators Kamala Harris, Heidi Heitkamp, Maggie Hassan and Claire McCaskill (one wonders whether there was a double-life-size portrait of prospective Great Leader Keith Ellison looking down on them). Islamic apologists may be pathetic spineless cowards, but they are not utterly devoid of reason. They usually rely on something with which to underpin their cognitive dissonance, be it equivalence between religions, colonial or imperialist excesses, political correctness, multiculturalism, identity politics, or some other quasi-rational construct of that kind. But a stand-up hijabi going online to accuse ex-Muslims of being in it for the money does present the Islamic apologist with an intractable problem.
There is no way of rolling back the fact that the only money that can be connected to ex-Muslims is the vast funds available for killing them. All Muslims (not just the Iranian government), wittingly or unwittingly, finance this killing through paying Zakat (between 12.5% – 37.5% of which must be allocated to “fighting in the cause of Allah,” which includes terrorism). Furthermore, it is one thing to ignore the thousands of mass murders that Muslims perpetrate on other Muslims every single month, but quite another to ridicule those known to be on Muslim death lists. Islamic apologists are not actually devoid of humanity; their humanity is simply misplaced.
Claiming that going through the trauma of leaving Islam in full knowledge that the religion requires you be killed is motivated by the prospect of large sums of money is so morally bankrupt that it leaves even the most slavish Islamic apologist with nothing to base an apology on, no straw to clutch at. It gets worse for the apologist in that Muslims pay the jihad-financing Zakat, a religious requirement, while ex-Muslims do not. So Mariam Sobh may just have done society a enormous favour by making it easier for Islamic apologists to rediscover their humanity, by alerting law enforcement and financial regulatory authorities to the hidden activities of Islamic charities, and by making ex-Muslims a topic for mainstream conversation, at long last.