Devin Saucier

I like watching Glenn Beck. His focus on analysis makes the show more stimulating than typical evening news programs. I also like his willingness to focus on history and the totalitarian ideologies of the past century and how they relate to us today. That said, Beck completely blew it last night and lost quite a bit of credibility in my book. Watch the clip below and see what I mean.

Expand Video Embed Embed this video on your site

In the clip, Beck says

Also, you have far right Dutch M.P. Geert Wilders. Last year, he was banned from the U.K. They said his presence could threaten community a harmony and therefore public safety. Last week, not only was he allowed into England, he was at the House of Lords, where he screened a film on the Quran.

The right and left are growing again in Europe. The left — listen carefully — the left in Europe is communism. The right is fascism, in Europe.

Clearly, Beck equates Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party with fascism, which is too absurd a claim to even warrant disproving. What is even more significant, in my view, is the tone with which he lamented Wilders’ being allowed in Britain to screen his documentary in the House of Lords. This is the same Glenn Beck who, just one year ago, had Wilders on his program to discuss infringements on free speech in Europe and to condemn the UK for banning him from screening the very same documentary in the very same chamber. The hypocrisy doesn’t seem to add up.

If something like this came from Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But when it comes from a commentator who is supposed to be fighting in our corner, it’s unacceptable.

If you detest Glenn Beck’s sorry mischaracterization of this courageous, forthright politician and his objection to Wilders’ appearance at the House of Lords, contact him here and let him know how you feel. We have enough media personalities spreading lies and criticizing our freedoms without typically conservative commentators doing the same.

Read more at Atlas Shrugs.

An interesting confrontation recently took place a couple of days prior to Dutch local elections. All the candidates of the leading political parties of the Netherlands met on national television for one last debate before voters headed to the polls. Out of the seven or so political leaders on stage two were chosen to go head to head on a question that a decade ago could not even have been raised but has since come to dominate Dutch political discourse: Is Islam a threat to Dutch society?

The two men chosen for this debate truly represented polar opposites of Dutch society. On one side was Wouter Bos, former vice-premier and leader of social-democratic Party of Labor, a party that has been in power in some form of coalition or another for the majority of years since 1945. The party is credited with helping rebuild the Netherlands after the war and reshaping it into all of what the post-war Netherlands has come to represent: social liberalism, the welfare state, tolerance, and of course, multiculturalism. This is the establishment.

On the other side was Geert Wilders, a man currently under indictment by the Dutch government. A man who lives under twenty-four hour protection due to death threats and is routinely vilified by politicians and major press as a "fascist." A man who until recently was banned from even entering the United Kingdom. In other words, the anti-establishment.

Wouter Bos predictably answered that Islam poses no threat to Dutch society; there is room enough for everyone in the Netherlands.  Wilders retorted that Islam is indeed a threat, arguing that with it have come extremism, criminality, and lack of respect for western values. He called for a moratorium on immigration and for foreign criminals to be punished with lengthy prison sentences followed by deportation. "Enough is enough!" exclaimed Wilders to a mixture of cheers and boos.

The majority of the rest of the debate featured the other Dutch politicians bashing Wilders.  From the political left to the right Wilders was called and "extremist" and "dangerous." There was a call from one party to exclude Wilders from the political process. Then, at the end of the debate the moderators made known the result of a poll asking 'Who won the debate?' There was hushed silence followed by loud shock when it was announced that Wilders was voted overwhelmingly the winner. It seemed the Dutch politicians and Dutch people were of two completely different mindsets.

The results of the elections two days later are well known. Wilders’ party, the Party for Freedom, performed very well, becoming the largest party in Almere and the second biggest party in the capital of The Hague.  The media immediately proclaimed it a victory for the "far-right." The international media in particular reported the results with a sense of alarm, asking how such an "extremist" as Geert Wilders could possibly have widespread support in such a tolerant country as the Netherlands?

It is a valid question. Of course, Geert Wilders is really neither "far-right" nor an "extremist", but media regularly portray him that way and I would wager the majority of Dutch public believe it. So why do so many support him?

It is because they are reacting to extreme conditions. By extreme conditions one may be inclined to think I mean the murder of Theo van Gogh in broad daylight for being critical of Islam, the Hofstad terrorist network, or the fact that a Dutch politician is forced to live under constant security for fear of his life.  That is all true, but what I really mean are the fear and injustices many Dutch must face on a daily basis.

Dutch women are harassed and called whores when walking through Muslim neighborhoods. Dutch who have contributed through high taxes their whole lives to social services are put last in line behind immigrants. Dutch who are attacked by gangs of immigrant youth for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Dutch who must fear their house being broken into or car stolen because criminals are given a slap on the wrist and released back on the streets. I could go on and on. This is what creates true terror for many Dutch citizens.

Naturally, critics would be quick to point out that not all Dutch suffer these injustices. This is true. The Dutch working and middle class suffer them but those who drive to work, live in rich neighborhoods, and only travel in exclusive circles have little to fear. They don’t live near asylum centers, ride the tram through sketchy areas late at night, or attend “inclusive” schools. They live in a different world. Therefore it is little wonder that this elite class which comprises the Dutch political establishment is amazed and dumbfounded by the popular appeal of Wilders.

The political establishment may not understand the problems of ordinary Dutch but they have come to realize that Dutch voters want to hear about immigration and law and order. As a result, many parties such as the Christian Democrats have recently come to adopt Wilders-style slogans about crime and immigration. Even the social-democrat Wouter Bos spoke during the debate about the need to crack down on crime and the problem of criminality among foreigners.  Unfortunately for them, however, the Dutch are not as stupid as they think and easily recognize insincerity. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if the Christian Democrats and Party of Labor really wanted to do something about crime and immigration they'd have done it during their past four years in the ruling coalition government.

Therefore the people turn to Wilders because they’ve had enough. Enough of the unresponsive political establishment.  Enough of living in fear. Enough of paying for social parasites. Enough of living as foreigners in their own country. That is why when Wilders yells “enough is enough!” a million Dutch voices join him.

Original article by Hugh Fitzgerald published at Jihad Watch. To see the video in question and my take on the whole affair, click here. 

At Jihad Watch, less than a week ago, on January 28, a YouTube video of Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.D., was put up.

The tape shows one Awadh A. Binhazim being subject to questioning by a persistent questioner. The tape received a good deal of comment (a heinzian 57, at last count) here. Many rightly deplored what they described as Binhazim's attempts to avoid stating what, in the end, he was forced to admit. That is, - under a questioner's relentless refusal to give up, and that questioner's insistence on receiving a straight answer to the question "does Islam proscribe capital punishment for those who are practicing homosexuals and do not renounce their homosexuality?," Awadh Binhazim, Ph.D., Professor of Pathology at Meharry Medical College and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Adjunct Professor of Islam at the Divinity School, Vanderbilt University, Adjunct Professor of Africana Studies at Tennessee State University, most reluctantly and begrudgingly, finally answered: "Yes."

But despite being put up just a few days ago, I think that tape is worth a rewind, and then replay, stopping here and there along the way to observe those few minutes of meretriciousness on display. And together we can observe, and analyze, the usefully distinct stages of Awadh Binhazim's effort to dodge and weave as best he can. He clearly is perfectly aware of what Islam teaches. He did, after all, attend a madrasah as a child in Kenya, then was a student of Islamic studies in Saudi Arabia, and for years has been an "explicator" of Islam to the Infidels, whenever he can inveigle an invitation, or invite himself, to present - why, practically as a public service - his exposition on Islam. He has even offered to give "free courses" on Islam - in short, a solid Muslim citizen, ready to mislead here and there and everywhere, even as he conducts his Da'wa for the Unwary. Awadh Binhazim is not one of those Muslims who is a bit hazy on what Islam teaches, someone who can claim "he didn't know." He knows.

Remember that Awadh A. Binhazim begins by saying that there is no room in Islam for questioning. The rules are laid down. You are not to challenge them, not to ignore them, and not to ask if, morally, they make sense. You are only to ask what those rules - on What Is Commanded and What Is Prohibited - and to slavishly follow those rules. What Islam says, Awadh A. Binhazim agrees that he, and all other Muslims, have a duty to accept. That's a useful admission, though of course he will now dodge and duck and try not to be held onto, as he attempts not to answer a simple question about Islam, capital punishment, and homosexuality.

But the questioner would have none of it.

So what is the first thing that Binhazim attempts? It's Tu Quoque. It's this: an immediate refusal to answer the question, and instead, a shifting attention to Judaism, to Christianity, to "other religions" that "condemn homosexuality." We do it, You do it, Everybody does it. Well, he, Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.d. (Professor Pathology at Meharry College, and Adjunct Professor, no doubt hoping and scheming for more, at Vanderbilt), ignores the precise question, eliminates the part about the death penalty, and simply reduces it to "disapproval of Islam" and then, quickly, alludes to what he would have his questioner and the larger audience believe is identical "disapproval of homosexuality" in other religions, in all of them, in fact. At this point the most obvious thing must surely come to mind: well, some religions do condemn homosexuality, but which of them, in doctrine or in present-day practice, condemns homosexuals to death? And do we have reason to believe that, at least in the Western world, the entire direction of things has been toward greater and greater tolerance, even acceptance, with both the tolerance and the acceptance often comically ostentatious, while society's new norms cause some to express their doubts or lack of shared enthusiasm circumspectly? Think of those SNL skits, or the Stewart-and-Colbert mick-mockeries, when they imitate a speaker nervously and incessantly, when discussing the topic, constantly reiterating "not that there's anything wrong with that."

The Tu Quoque at this point falls flat. The questioner, who will not be deflected, fails to be satisfied with it, and most in the audience no doubt recognized its ridiculousness, even if they haven't themselves seen the online pictures of homosexuals subject to judicial murder in Iran, or read the reports on the murder, by Muslims, on their own, applying the Shari'a punishment of death to homosexuals in Gaza, or the West Bank, or Iraq, or other places in the Arab-dominated countries where such news sometimes gets out.

No doubt the failure of this was a disappointment to Awadh Binhazim, and he quickly grasps at another rhetorical straw, in his attempts to avoid answering the question.

This time it is not Tu Quoque - "you do it too (and probably worse)" -- but rather, an attempt to confuse the questioner, and the rest of the audience. Ah, says Binhazim, we really can't answer that question, can we, because there is no country in the world where the law is the pure Shari'a, and if we have no country where the law is identical with Shari'a, then how can we give an answer as to what the Shari'a would say? We just don't have any example, in reality, of such a legal code now being enforced. But this is nonsensical. The Shari'a exists independently, in the ether of Islam, and the question was not what does Saudi Arabia do, or Pakistan do, by way of punishing homosexuals, but what does the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, mandate? Binhazim knew perfectly well that the hudud, or criminal punishment, exists in forms, more or less diluted, in a number of Muslim countries, and he also knows that there is great hypocrisy in the application of the law in those countries, so that the fantastic sexual decadence of the Al-Saud (see, for example, Robert Baer's book on the Saudis), no doubt makes them less likely, given the proclivities and experience of members of the Al-Saud, to administer fully the Shari'a when it comes to what are regarded, in the Shari'a, as prohibited acts and attitudes. To give an answer that says, in effect, nowhere in the world is the Shari'a completely identical to the law of the Muslim land, so therefore we cannot say anything at all about the contents of the Shari'a, is self-evidently nonsensical.

That too, does not dissuade the relentless questioner.

And so, finally, mentally squirming and most unhappy, Awadh Binhazim - who, after all, also was aware that in his audience were Muslims who knew the rule, and perhaps even among them converts to Islam who had learned the rule from him, Awadh Binhazim himself, in his local efforts at Da'wa - says, quickly, as if rapidity of delivery would somehow allow his admission to avoid attention, says: Yes. Yes, in Islam homosexuals who do not abjure their behavior are sentenced to death.

And there's a lesson there. The lesson is that the behavior of the questioner, the relentlessness of him (and the fearlessness, too, of course), is to be admired and emulated. For there are people like Awadh Binhazim all over this country, giving their little "introduction to Islam" talks, and they have to take questions, they can't avoid taking questions. That's not the American way, after lectures. And when they do, there should always be a handful of determined questioners ready to ask about Islam. But not always, not only, not even mainly, about homosexuality, as here.

They should ask about what Islam inculcates about the status of women. They should ask what Islam says about Art, about sculpture, and about paintings of living creatures, and list ten masterpieces of Western art whose creation would have been forbidden under Islam. They should ask what Islam teaches about Music, and what that might mean for such things as jazz, or gospel music, or any kind of music at all - with perhaps the kind most important to other members of the audience carefully mentioned. ("So you're telling us that Mozart, and Louis Armstrong, and the dancing of Fred Astaire with Ginger Rogers, and Johnny Cash with June Carter, would all be banned? You're telling me that Beyonce would be locked up?") They should ask about the Muslim attitude toward free and skeptical inquiry, and whether or not Muslims are allowed to question in any degree, at any point, what Islam teaches, and if they are allowed to discuss the morality of this or that rule, especially the rule as to what Muslims should think of, and how they should behave toward non-Muslims, and whether they agree that non-Muslims everywhere should have the exact same rights, be treated equally to, Muslims, in Muslim-ruled lands, including of course the right to build their own religious structures, and the right to freely proselytize.

And in every case, about these and other topics, the questioners (an attractive girl, for example, would not be out of place among such prepared questioners) should come prepared. They don't have to have a lot. They don't have to come with hundreds of passages from the Qur'an or several hundred Hadith. They need, however, to have the most relevant texts - not only from the Qur'an, but from the Hadith (from the "authoritative" collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and Hadith that have by those muhaddithin been assigned to the rank of being "most authentic"). They should be prepared to discuss Muhammad, and the prisoners from the Banu Qurayza, and Asma bint Marwan, and Abu Afak, and the Khaybar Oasis, and little Aisha. You will, of course, have already established that, in the eyes of Muslims, Muhammad is the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana), and the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). And thus, when you raise these matters, this may cause ill-concealed fury and even hysteria on the part of the Muslim you are questioning. And that display of hysteria can be useful, can be instructive for the other non-Muslims, until then perhaps unwary, in the audience. And that is what you are trying to do.

You are trying to take that door into the truth, opened by that intrepid questioner in Nashville, and leave it ajar. And not ajar only in Tennessee.

Muslim student adviser: Death penalty for 'gays'

Vanderbilt religious 'staff' says, 'I go with what Islam teaches'

by Bob Unruh

Original Article on WorldNetDaily

Vanderbilt University is distancing itself from a Muslim chaplain after he told a gathering of students homosexuality is punishable by death under Islam.

"I don't have a choice as a Muslim to accept or reject teachings. I go with what Islam teaches," said Awadh A. Binhazim, who is listed on the Vanderbilt website as "Adjunct Professor of Islam at the Divinity School" and an adviser to the Muslim Student Association. His comments came earlier this week at a diversity event for students.

He was asked directly, "Under Islamic law is it punishable by death if you are a homosexual?"

Binhazim said, "Yes. It is punishable by death."

The school immediately distanced itself from the professor, issuing a statement to WND that denied he was an "employee" and reaffirming Vanderbilt's "non-discriminatory policies."

"Vanderbilt University is dedicated to a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of race or sexuality," said the statement dispatched by e-mail from the school to WND today.

"Awadh A. Binhazim is not and has never been a Vanderbilt employee, and is not paid by the university. He is the university's Muslim chaplain under a working agreement that is similar to those signed with chaplains of other faiths at Vanderbilt. This working agreement requires Binhazim to observe Vanderbilt rules, including its non-discriminatory policies. Vanderbilt does not limit the free speech of its students, faculty, staff or its chaplains in any way."

His profile on the Vanderbilt Dean of Students website explained Binhazim was born and raised in Kenya and studied Islam in a madrassah as a child and later at King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia. He earned a master's degree at the University of Nairobi and his Ph.D. in pathology at the University of Georgia in Athens.

"He is the founder and program director of a series of courses (offered for free to those interested) on Islam held in Nashville, Tennessee. Within these courses as well as at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University, Professor Binhazim teaches about Islamic beliefs, spirituality, and moral code of Islam, monotheism, Muslim cultures, and civilizations," the description continues.

His free course at Vanderbilt called "Introduction to Islam" is to begin Feb. 5:

The questions, at a student event held by the Muslim Students Association and the Army ROTC, were asked by Devin Saucier, president of Vanderbilt's chapter of Youth for Western Civilization.

He told WND it was a "30-minute, roses and butterflies overview of Islam."

Saucier said in a blog he wondered about the "unholy alliance between Muslims and leftists – how could the latter, who fervently support multiculturalism, gay marriage, and gender equality, ally with the former, who support religious and cultural supremacy, traditional marriage, and the oppression of women?"

"When I saw that the Muslim Students Association (MSA) was hosting an event titled 'Common Ground: Being Muslim in the Military' which was sponsored by the Project Dialogue committee, I knew it would be ripe grounds for me to expose the gullibility of leftists who grovel at the altars of tolerance and acceptance," he wrote.

Saucier documented the question-and-answer exchange on video.

The reaction has just started to develop, but Saucier wrote that immediately after the meeting a "rather flustered girl" demanded to know why he asked the question.

"Why would you ask some irrelevant question like that?" she said.

"I think my question was quite relevant, since there are a number of homosexuals in the military," Saucier replied.

"So?" she responded.

"Well let me put it this way. If I was a homosexual in the military, I would want to know if the religion of the person fighting next to me demands my death. That would be significant to me," he said.

"Well I learned in Sunday school that Christianity condemns homosexuality too!" the girl said.

"Yes, Christianity does consider homosexuality sinful, and Christians pray for homosexuals because of it, while Islamic law says they should be punished with death. See the difference?" he responded.

I have often been puzzled about the unholy alliance between Muslims and leftists – how could the latter, who fervently support multiculturalism, gay marriage, and gender equality, ally with the former, who support religious and cultural supremacy, traditional marriage, and the oppression of women? I have concluded that leftists enter this alliance out of naïveté and ignorance, while Muslims quite sensibly enter it for political and social expediency. Leftists can't accept that a group might purposefully deceive them because, deep down, everybody loves each other…… right?

So when I saw that the Muslim Students Association (MSA) was hosting an event titled "Common Ground: Being Muslim in the Military" which was sponsored by the Project Dialogue committee, I knew it would be ripe grounds for me to expose the gullibility of leftists who grovel at the altars of tolerance and acceptance.

The event went as expected, with Vanderbilt Adjunct Professor Awadh A. Binhazim providing a thirty-minute, flowers-and-butterflies overview of Islam, and Captain Darryl Cox explaining how much intolerance and discrimination he experiences as a Muslim in the military, all the while remaining silent on the subject of the Fort Hood Massacre. His talk left you with the same New York Times taste in your mouth that Major Hasan was motivated not by Islamic laws and the Islamic religion (like this man admits), but because somebody told one-too-many Muslim jokes.

While all of this was true to form, the real action happened during the Q&A, when I asked Professor Binhazim if he accepts the Religion of Peace's stance on the punishment for homosexuality:

Expand Video Embed Embed this video on your site

Me: Under Islamic law is it punishable by death if you are a homosexual?

Professor Binhazim: Yes. It is punishable by death.

Shocking, yes?

It shouldn't be.

The death penalty for homosexuality is common dogma throughout the Muslim world, and, as Professor Binhazim reluctantly admitted, it is Islamic law itself, which all Muslims must accept.

"God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Koran."

So spoke Sheikh Khalid Yasin in 2005. Sheikh Yasin is, according to Robert Spencer, "an American-born, England-based Islamic preacher who has been the Muslim Students Association spokesman at universities all over the country, including Penn State, Ohio State, the University of Minnesota, and St. Cloud University."

It is not as if these ideas occur in a void, either. Iranian gay and lesbian human rights group Homan has stated that since 1980, Iran alone has executed some 4,000 homosexuals. Homosexuality is also a capital offense in Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. Robert Spencer has a comprehensive analysis of Islam's treatment of homosexuals here.

So why are leftists not in outrage over this? Why weren't there dozens of leftists asking the same question and exposing the same radical beliefs? As I said earlier, it is because they are blinded by their naïveté. They are unable to grasp basic, irreconcilable civilizational differences. They assume, without reserve, that all cultures are compatible with our basic senses of justice and propriety and that surely no culture really holds that homosexuals should be put to death. In short, the political correctness of the left is a cult of ignorance.

Case in point: after the event, a rather flustered girl came up to me demanding to know why I asked that question –

Girl: Why would you ask some irrelevant question like that?

Me: I think my question was quite relevant, since there are a number of homosexuals in the military.

Girl: So?

Me: Well let me put it this way. If I was a homosexual in the military, I would want to know if the religion of the person fighting next to me demands my death. That would be significant to me.

Girl: (sarcastically) Well I learned in Sunday school that Christianity condemns homosexuality too!

Me: Yes, Christianity does consider homosexuality sinful, and Christians pray for homosexuals because of it, while Islamic law says they should be punished with death. See the difference?

Girl: Well no one really believes that anymore.

Me: Yes they do. Iran, for instance, has put 4,000 homosexuals to death since 1980.

Girl: I still don't see why you asked the question.

Me: Then you are hopeless.

She was so wrapped up in her liberal sensibilities that she wasn't able to see what happened right in front of her face! I can only hope I planted some seed of awareness in her and the other students attending.

As YWC continues to grow and our activists continue raising awareness of radical Islamic beliefs, hopefully those on both sides of the political spectrum can remove the blinders of political correctness and look at things as they truly are, and not as they imagine them to be.