Family Security Matters, a group started by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy that includes a number of prominent anti-Muslim pundits and activists on its board of advisers, published a particularly vituperative article today railing against Ibtihaj Muhammad, the U.S. Olympic fencer who competed in a hijab, suggesting that her choice of sport is related to violence in the “Muslim DNA.”
In an article titled “Political Correctness Taints the Olympics,” Paul Hollrah, a contributing editor to Family Security Matters and senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute, claims that Muhammad chose fencing as her sport because she risked being the victim of an “honor killing” if she participated in a sport that required skimpier clothes. Fencing, he writes, was more appealing to Muhammad because “hacking, stabbing, or slashing non-Muslims with knives, axes, machetes, and other sharp instruments” is in the “Muslim DNA”:
It was also interesting to ponder the nature of Ms. Muhammad’s sport. Was she a swimmer, a diver, a volleyball player, or a gymnast? We could quickly reject all of those possibilities because of the skimpiness of the costumes worn in those events. Participation in any of those sports would have made her an immediate target of Muslim religious police who might have had her stoned to death for exposing too much of her body. Or they might have ordered her father or a brother to kill her in an “honor killing” for bringing shame upon her family name.
As it turns out, Ms. Muhammad’s sport of choice is fencing. This is understandable because, given the penchant of Muslims for hacking, stabbing, or slashing non-Muslims with knives, axes, machetes, and other sharp instruments, it’s only natural that Ms. Muhammad would gravitate toward the fencing competition. Fighting and attacking others with knives and other sharp objects appears to be in the Muslim DNA.
Hollrah also attacks Muhammad for telling a reporter that she wished “the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States” and that she hoped her appearance at the Olympics would help change “the rhetoric around the Muslim community.”
While Muhammad was born in the U.S. to parents who converted to Islam, Hollrah writes that she needs to learn how to assimilate to American society or should leave the country.
“If Ms. Muhammad is unhappy in America, or made to feel ill at ease, one wonders why she continues to live here,” Hollrah writes, adding that “Most Americans would be happy to help defray the cost of a one-way plane ticket to the destination of her choice.” He claims that “[l]ike most Muslims in the U.S., Ms. Muhammad appears to be upset that she is expected to fully assimilate into American society” and that Muslim immigrants believe “that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. federal and state law should be superseded by Sharia law.”
He then declares that both Newt Gingrich’s suggestion that the U.S. deport Muslims who believe in the wide-ranging theological concept of Sharia law and Donald Trump’s plan to stop Muslim immigration could be carried out right now by politicians with “courage”:
What critics fail to understand is that we already have sufficient statutory authority to do exactly as Trump and Gingrich suggest.
Not only is Islam completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, making it impossible for a devout Muslim to hold full allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, Islam is the only “religious” movement on Earth that proposes to extend its dominion to every corner of the globe by rape, murder, terror, and oppression. Speaker Gingrich warns, “We better rethink the rules, or we’re going to lose the war.” I disagree. There’s no need to “rethink the rules.” The necessary laws are already on the books. What we lack is the courage to enforce them.