Feminists For Toxic Muslim Misogyny

 

Per the Daily Caller:

“Self-described feminists protesting strikes against Iran in Washington, D.C., are making common cause with a mosque backing the repressive Islamic regime. Code Pink, which calls itself an anti-war ‘feminist grassroots organization,’ collaborated with the Virginia-based Manassas Mosque and other allies for D.C. demonstrations on Feb. 10-11 and Monday against military action in Iran, Instagram posts show. The mosque called Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ‘our leader’ in a now-deleted Sunday Instagram post, announcing a Ramadan meal in honor of his ‘martyrdom’ after U.S.-Israeli attacks killed him on Saturday.”

The Shia mosque honored the legacy of the twisted bloodthirsty monster responsible for the deaths of countless Americans and hosted a remembrance service for him the day after he was furloughed and sent to Paradise? In Manassas, Virginia where thousands upon thousands of Americans died in the First and Second Battles of Manassas during the Civil War in an attempt to free a people and keep the Union together? Despicable.

The mosque is closely tied to the regime in Tehran-- or was when there was one. It describes itself thusly: “a community of pious, educated, socially conscious, and active Muslims.” Socially conscious you say? Well, historically, the more “active” the Muslim, the worse for everyone else, otherwise known as “infidels.”

One of the mosque’s (since-removed) blog posts lauded Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general killed in a 2020 U.S. drone strike, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American service members. Moreover, a video taken inside the mosque a few years ago showed that it was adorned with photos of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps “martyrs” (though the IRGC is a U.S. designated terrorist group), a life-sized cutout of Khameini, and various Iranian flags and slogans.

“Feminists for Islam” is an oxymoron if ever there was one, emphasis on moron. It is akin to “Jews for Hitler,” “Distilleries for Prohibition,” or “Democrats for Sanity.” It makes less than no sense. Do feminists really want to be forced to be clad head-to-toe in black apparel and be unable to leave the house without a man’s permission and presence? If so, that is a different kind of feminism than any that came before.

But, on second thought, it would be perfectly in keeping with the staggering irrationality of the era.

Consider this: progressives say that being gay or lesbian isn’t a choice, that a person is absolutely born that way and has no say in the matter. Okay. And they also say that no one is born male or female, rather they are simply “assigned” a sex at birth by an old school doctor and/or a cis trad parent. But those notions are mutually—definitionally—exclusive. If one isn’t either male or female at birth, it is impossible for them to be gay or lesbian at birth. As Charlie Kirk might say, prove me wrong. Can’t.

So, remember, abortion is “women’s health care!” And “feminism” is your Muslim husband slapping you around just a bit. Right?