The most recent attack from within is a seemingly benign story about a Muslim woman who just wishes to be treated fairly in America. In reality, this is just another example of the slow Jihadists’ deliberate, Trojan horse-like tactics.
Meet Ms. Imane Boudlal, a moderately devout Muslim woman allegedly claiming discrimination in a lawsuit against the Storyteller’s Café, a Disney property in California. Ms. Boudlal has been working at the café for two years and only recently requested that she be permitted to wear a traditional Muslim headscarf known as a hijab. She made this appeal some two months ago, but never received an official answer to her inquiry.
On August 19th, Boudlal decided to arrive at work in her hijab — along with an entourage of photographers, camera crews, and reporters to accompany her to the café. Disney claims it repeatedly tried to accommodate Ms. Boudlal by suggesting that she wear her hijab with a Disney character hat over it, work in a number of backstage roles until a permanent position could be established for her, or remove her hijab and continue her job in accordance with the dress standards she had accepted for the two years prior to drafting her letter.
She would have none of that. Clearly, Ms. Boudlal is less interested in working and more interested in moving the ball forward on advancing the place of Islam in America. With this in mind, Ms. Boudlal represents another example engaging in the popular and growing activity of how non-violent Jihad operates—it’s a lot like playing a game of “chicken,” as the loser is the one who turns away first.
Over the last several years, Americans have been extremely poor chicken players; we always flinch first when threatened with the politically incorrect label of bigotry, which occurs every time we try to defy this slow variety of Jihad. Here again, we have what appears to be a relatively appealing Muslim person who feigns cultural or religious insult in order to introduce some kind of Islamic privilege into a western nation. The phenomenon has become so prevalent that it has been given a name: “lawfare.”
What are some of the examples of Islamic lawfare so far? For starters, there’s the now-infamous and appallingly triumphant Islamic Center and mosque at Ground Zero in New York, the elimination of pork products from all school cafeterias in Denmark, the exemption of Muslim cab drivers from servicing patrons who use or carry Islam-prohibited alcohol in Minneapolis, and the allocation of private time exclusively to Muslim women in public facilities, as was the case with basketball courts at Harvard University and a public swimming pool in Mississauga, Canada.
Perhaps one of the more horrifying examples of recent lawfare is the case of a Muslim man who was considered guilty in a New Jersey court of raping his own wife, but the charges were dismissed by the judge because he felt that the man’s belief in Shari‘a law (which subjugates woman to “their men”) trumped her constitutional privileges under the laws of the United States. The appellate court did finally overturn this atrocity, but if this outrage fails to raise one’s ire, nothing else will.
Ms. Boudlal is demanding that she be exempt from the terms of her own agreement with Disney—an agreement that she signed willingly two years prior to her feigned indignation and claims of religious persecution. Unlike every other Disney employee, she says she should be exempted from being held to the dress code that helps Disney maintain its unique and magical identity. In translation, Boudlal is claiming that Islamic law should have the power to tell American businesses what they can and cannot do.
It should surprise no one that a staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Ms. Ameena Qazi, represents Boudlal. The FBI, many US Representatives, and virtually all moderate Muslim-American leaders considerCAIR an Islamist organization which practices deception (Al-Taqiyya in Arabic) and lawfare to wield our own tolerance and civil liberties against us. CAIR famously attempts to lull Americans into the trap of conciliation in the name of “religious understanding” as they support nearly every effort to Islamicize us.
Let’s not turn away so early in this new round of chicken. Instead, I say we bring on the debate, as this insidious and painstaking type of jihad represents a far greater long-term danger to America than a violent terrorist strike. I am optimistic that with the veil lifted—pun intended—in the light of day we will defeat these tactics through honest, didactic, and respectful debate.