MASON MEDIA NEWS and INFORMATION
MORE NEWS THAN ANYPLACE ON THE WEB. OPINION, COMMENTARY, AND BROAD OVERVIEW OF THE NEWS. AGGREGATED NEWS IS UPDATED CONSTANTLY
Pages
Search This Blog
News and Information
- MASON MEDIA
- USA NEWS
- FITNESS INFORMATION
- BUSINESS NEWS
- SCIENCE NEWS
- CRIME PREVENTION INFORMATION
- WORLD NEWS STORIES
- POLITICS IN THE NEWS
- GOLD NEWS
- DAILY SOCIAL MEDIA NEWS
- BITCOIN NEWS
- SOCIAL SECURITY NEWS
- DAILY INFLATION NEWS
- DAILY ACTIVISM NEWS
- ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
- SPORTS NEWS
- HEALTH NEWS
- INVESTING - BUSINESS - CRYPTOCURRENCY - MONEY - GOLD - STOCKS
- REAL WEATHER NEWS
- Outer SPACE News
- Christian News - God and Jesus
- Veterans' Affairs and News
- UFO/ALIEN NEWS-A LIA PINSON DEAN PRODUCTION
- MASON MEDIA PODCAST
- Whistle-blower News and Updates
- BIDENOMICS SUCKS!
- CHICAGO CRIME STATISTICS
NEWS ON TWITTER/X
- Home
- HOT AIR BLOG on TWITTER
- NEW YORK POST on TWITTER
- NEW YORK TIMES on TWITTER
- REUTERS on TWITTER
- THE FEDERALIST on TWITTER
- WALL STREET JOURNAL on TWITTER
- JUST THE NEWS on TWITTER
- AL JAZEERA (ENGLISH) on TWITTER
- BBC NEWS on TWITTER
- VICE NEWS on TWITTER
- AP NEWS on TWITTER
- OAN on TWITTER
- NBC NEWS on TWITTER
- CBS NEWS on TWITTER
- CNN on Twitter
- MSNBC on TWITTER
- NPR on TWITTER
- FOX NEWS on TWITTER
- ABC NEWS on TWITTER
- LA TIMES on TWITTER
- REBEL NEWS on TWITTER
- FOX WEATHER on TWITTER
- ESPN on TWITTER
- THE WEATHER CHANNEL on TWITTER
- RED CROSS on TWITTER
- SAVANAH HERNANDEZ On TWITTER - (INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST)
- FOX WEATHER on TWITTER
- MIRANDA DEVINE on TWITTER
- MASON MEDIA PODCAST
- NCAA Football on Twitter
- NFL on Twitter
- Retired General Jack Keane on Twitter
- Dan Bongino on Twitter
- Catherine Herridge On Twitter
All Things This and That...
NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
| United States National Debt | |
| United States National Debt Per Person | |
| United States National Debt Per Household | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities | |
| Social Security Unfunded Liability | |
| Medicare Unfunded Liability | |
| Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability | |
| National Healthcare Unfunded Liability | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household | |
| United States Population |
Copyright 1987-2024
(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )
Market Indices
Market News
Noble Gold Investment Vehicles
Stocks HeatMap
Crypto Coins HeatMap
The Weather
Conservative News
4/22/26
4/21/26
The 2026 NFL Draft Hits the Steel City: A Fan's Guide to the Top Prospects
The 2026 NFL Draft Hits the Steel City: A Fan's Guide to the Top Prospects
Islam: Peace, Tolerance, and the Question of Violence—A Conservative Assessment
Islam: Peace, Tolerance, and the Question of Violence—A Conservative Assessment
The question is often framed in stark binaries: Is Islam a religion of peace, or is it a religion of war? Does it tolerate other faiths, or is it inherently supremacist? Does it honor women, or subjugate them? And perhaps most disturbingly, why does the modern face of radical Islam so often wear a suicide vest? For a conservative mind, which tends to view the world through the prisms of order, tradition, and a healthy skepticism of utopian claims, the answer is rarely a simple yes or no. It requires a candid examination of texts, historical context, and contemporary behavior without the gloss of political correctness or the vitriol of bigotry.
The Problem with "Peace" as a Slogan
For decades, Western leaders from George W. Bush to Barack Obama have insisted that "Islam is a religion of peace." While politically expedient and partially true for millions of devout adherents, this mantra functions more as a moral aspiration a statement of what should be than an empirical description of what is across the entirety of the Muslim world . From a conservative perspective, the reality on the ground cannot be ignored in favor of abstract theology. The late Christian sociologist David Martin noted that while most Muslims are peaceful, Islam has historically maintained a "military psychology" and places a high premium on victory, which provides a reservoir of justification for those who turn to violence .
It is intellectually honest to acknowledge that the Islamic tradition, like many ancient faiths before the rise of modern liberalism, does not contain a doctrine of absolute pacifism akin to the Amish or Quakers. The sacred texts contain passages of profound mercy and others of severe judgment, often depending on whether the community is in a position of strength or weakness. To the conservative realist, a religion that emerged from the crucible of 7th-century tribal Arabia naturally retains frameworks for war and conquest. The concept of *jihad*, both the internal spiritual struggle and the external martial effort, is a genuine and historic pillar of the faith. To deny the existence of these "sword verses" or the martial history of the Caliphates is to engage in historical revisionism. The more pertinent question is not whether the text contains violence most ancient scriptures do—but how those texts are interpreted and applied by living communities today.
Tolerance or Hierarchical Coexistence?
When addressing the treatment of religious minorities, the conservative lens distinguishes between *toleration* and *pluralism*. Modern Western pluralism demands that all belief systems be treated as equally valid in the public square. Islam, classically, operates on a different framework. It has a long history of toleration specifically of "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) but this is often a hierarchical toleration codified in the dhimmi system. Under this traditional pact, non-Muslims were granted protection of life, property, and freedom of worship, but they were required to pay a poll tax (jizya) and accept a subordinate social status, recognizing the primacy of Islamic rule .
From a conservative standpoint, we must be fair in our assessment. Compared to the European Wars of Religion or the Spanish Inquisition where the only choices were conversion, expulsion, or death historical Islam often provided a more stable, albeit unequal, space for minorities. The Qur'an explicitly states, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), and Al-Azhar, the preeminent seat of Sunni learning, cites verse 60:8-9 to clarify that God does not forbid Muslims from being righteous and just toward those who do not fight them on account of religion. However, conservative honesty also demands we recognize that in many contemporary Muslim-majority nations, this toleration is under severe strain. The escalating persecution of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria, and the near-elimination of ancient Jewish communities across the Middle East, suggest that the modern application of "toleration" frequently fails the most basic test of religious liberty: the freedom to build a church, ring a bell, or switch faiths without fear of state or mob violence.
The Status of Women: Culture, Text, and Agency
The treatment of women is where conservative and liberal criticisms of Islam often converge, albeit for different reasons. Traditional conservatives value the nuclear family and recognize natural differences between the sexes. The problem is not that Islam asks men and women to inhabit different roles—many traditionalist Christians and Jews agree with this principle. The problem is the manifestation of those roles in law and custom.
The search results highlight a crucial distinction: the chasm between normative Islamic ideals and the "strongly patriarchal" reality of lived history. Riffat Hassan, a prominent Islamic feminist scholar, points out that the Qur'an itself describes the creation of humanity in "completely egalitarian terms". The story of Eve being created from Adam's rib often used to justify female inferiority is a biblical import found in *Hadith* (oral traditions), not the Qur'an itself. The spiritual and ontological equality of men and women is arguably a feature of the text.
Yet, the tradition has been filtered entirely through male exegesis, and the legal schools (fiqh) have codified female subordination on matters of inheritance, testimony, and marriage. The conservative observer notes a tangible "anxiety" in many Muslim societies regarding modernity and female emancipation. The veil and the push to confine women to private space are often not merely about piety but about resisting Westernization. As noted in the analysis of Islamic feminism, even in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, where women's education has been robust, there is a discernible trend toward greater conservatism and stricter veiling. This suggests that the "treatment of women" is not a monolith; it varies wildly from the boardrooms of Dubai to the valleys of rural Afghanistan. A conservative critique would hold that while Western feminism's excesses should be rejected, the denial of basic education, freedom of movement, and legal standing to half the population represents a civilizational deficit that cannot be excused by appeals to cultural relativism.
The Enigma of the Suicide Bomber
Why the suicide bombers? From a conservative security perspective, this is the most pressing question. It is insufficient to simply say "this is not Islam" and leave it at that, because the perpetrators clearly believe it is. The phenomenon of "martyrdom-seeking operations" (*istishhad*) represents a distinct and modern theological innovation, a break with classical Islamic law which strictly forbids suicide and the killing of non-combatants.
The academic literature demonstrates that this tactic is not a natural outgrowth of mainstream Islam but a deliberate construction of late 20th-century Jihadi-Salafism and revolutionary Shi'ism. The scholar Nathan S. French explains that these movements re-engineered the concept of martyrdom, distinguishing a "martyr's intention" from mere suicidal ideation by requiring the act to be entirely for God, devoid of worldly fear or desire. This is a radical departure from 1400 years of jurisprudence, and it has been fueled by the post-colonial grievances and political failures of states like Iran and Lebanon, where groups like Hezbollah and the Iranian Basij forces fused the Shi'a narrative of Husayn's martyrdom at Karbala with modern guerrilla warfare tactics.
A conservative analysis must conclude that the suicide bomber is the product of a lethal cocktail: a fanatical, utopian political ideology dressed in the language of sacred religion, operating in a vacuum of political order and economic opportunity. When the earthly kingdom (dunya) offers only humiliation and occupation, the promise of a divine kingdom and eternal reward becomes a powerful recruitment tool for those who believe the world is a battlefield of "us versus them" . It is a perversion of faith, yes, but it is a perversion that draws from the well of an authentic (if minority) interpretation of the faith's call to struggle.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, insisting that Islam is only a religion of peace requires a willful blindness to text and history. Conversely, insisting it is only a religion of the sword requires a willful blindness to the lived piety and pluralism of almost two billion people. From a conservative perspective, the most prudent approach is one of clear-eyed realism. We should respect the sincere faith of our peaceful Muslim neighbors and allies while unapologetically defending the Western traditions of liberty, free speech, and legal equality. We must resist the secular progressive impulse to declare all cultures equally valid while staying neutral and non biased.
#Islam #Peace #Religion #Muslims #Christianity
The Great Fiscal Migration: Why Red States Are Booming as Blue States Bleed Population and GDP
Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DON'T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY
Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY:
I hate to beat a dead horse. However, everytime I hear a Democrat say the word 'DEMOCRACY' or 'Our DEMOCRACY is at stake' I want to go 'AAARRRRGGGHHH'. We don't live in a DEMOCRACY. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC by design.
When they say DEMOCRACY that is code for POPULAR VOTE. Even though Trump won the POPULAR VOTE in 2024 they are fighting to keep ILLEGALS in the country and fighting against the SAFE ACT. They want the future votes from the anchor babies. They also are pushing for ILLEGALS to vote in National elections, as they are already allowed to vote in Municipal elections. I saw it in Los Angeles County. I remember when they passed that Legislation.
They hate the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. If they can remove it's Angeles, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, Portland, and Detroit would decide every Presidential election. Those are the POPULATION BIG CITY BLUE CITIES. If we just used the POPULAR VOTE Republicans would probably never win the Whitehouse again. States like Wyoming, North Dakota, or South Dakota, and the like would never have a say In a Presidential election again. They don't have enough people to have a voice. You don't want BLUE CITIES running AMERICA.
The Reason The Forefathers Added The ELECTORAL COLLEGE:
The Forefathers added the ELECTORAL COLLEGE because they were afraid VIRGINIA would or could decided every Presidential election (In a 13 State country at the time.) Virginia was the most populous State at that time. Virginia had enough people to drown out all of the other States. And they weren't having that.
Thank God the Forefathers, although some were slave owners, were smarter than the MODERN DAY DEMOCRATS. However, remember, DEMOCRATS were the Party of Slavery. Go after THEM for your REPARATIONS CHECK.
#ElectoralCollege #Democracy #Voting #Forefathers #ConstitutionalRepublic #Constitution
Parallel Law and the Retreat from Integration: The Sharia Court Dilemma in Britain
Parallel Law and the Retreat from Integration: The Sharia Court Dilemma in Britain
The United Kingdom's relationship with Islamic law has reached a critical juncture. Official government responses continue to insist that "there are no sharia law courts" operating in the country. Yet this technical denial collapses under scrutiny. Estimates suggest approximately 85 Sharia councils currently operate across Britain bodies that frequently refer to themselves as "courts" on their own websites and issue binding religious rulings on marriage and family life. For conservatives concerned with national cohesion, equal treatment under law, and the preservation of Western liberal values, this parallel quasi-legal system represents a troubling abdication of the state's duty to uphold a single standard of justice for all citizens.
The existence of these tribunals is not a sign of healthy multiculturalism. Rather, it reflects a failure of integration policy and a naive, bureaucratic accommodation of practices that often conflict fundamentally with British common law and the principle of equality before the law.
What Sharia Law Actually Means
To understand the gravity of this situation, one must first define Sharia. It is not merely a set of spiritual guidelines or optional religious rituals; it is a comprehensive legal-moral framework derived from two primary sources: the Qur'an (the holy text of Islam) and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad).
In orthodox Islamic jurisprudence, Sharia is considered divine, eternal, and immutable. Its reach extends far beyond the private sphere of worship (ibadat) to govern civil transactions, criminal punishments (hudud), family relations, and even dietary restrictions. Crucially, Sharia is not a codified system like British statutory law. It is interpreted by jurists through a process called ijtihad (independent reasoning) and is subject to different schools of thought (madhahib), leading to significant variation in rulings .
However, despite this variation, core tenets of classical Sharia stand in stark opposition to foundational Western principles:
Gender Inequality:
In matters of inheritance, a daughter typically receives half the share of a son. In legal testimony, the witness of two women is often equated to that of one man .
Marital Dissolution:
Within many Sharia councils in the UK, men can unilaterally dissolve a marriage through talaq (triple repudiation), while women must navigate a complex, often humiliating, process of khula to obtain a religious divorce.
Criminal Justice:
While not implemented in Britain, the classical Sharia framework includes hudud punishments fixed penalties for offenses like theft (amputation) or adultery (stoning) which are anathema to modern concepts of human dignity and proportionality in sentencing .
It is this legal framework that British authorities have allowed to metastasize in the shadows of civil society.
The Myth of "Voluntary Arbitration"
Defenders of the Sharia council system, including the UK Government, argue that these bodies are simply arbitration tribunals whose rulings are only binding if both parties consent. They frame it as a matter of religious freedom a private agreement akin to a Jewish Beth Din or a Christian conciliation service.
This analogy is dangerously misleading. As critics note, Sharia councils routinely handle cases that are not merely contractual but involve status specifically whether a woman is still married according to God. For a devout Muslim woman, a civil divorce granted by a British court is insufficient to remarry within her faith community. She must obtain a religious divorce from the Sharia council.
This creates a coercive dynamic. A woman trapped in an abusive marriage may face a "get-out" fee demanded by the council or be pressured into returning to a violent spouse because the community and the parallel law they follow does not recognize the state's protection. This is not voluntary arbitration; it is a separate, theocratic jurisdiction operating with the implicit threat of social ostracism and communal excommunication. It creates precisely the "two-tier" justice system that conservatives have long warned against .
The Flawed Premise: Why Arabs and Muslims Are Not Assimilating
This brings us to the second, more uncomfortable, question raised by the original article: Why are Arabs and Muslim communities in the West, particularly in Britain, not assimilating in the way previous waves of immigrants did? The answer lies in the intersection of postmodern Western guilt and a strain of Islamic theology that is actively hostile to secular integration.
Glenn Loury's analysis in UnHerd touches on this dilemma, arguing that the demand for "assimilation" is often seen by progressives as a form of cultural erasure or coercion. He suggests that societies require a "shared civic order" and "mutual trust" to function, and that pluralism without convergence inevitably creates friction. This friction is evident in Britain's towns and cities.
From a conservative perspective, assimilation is not about forcing individuals to eat pork or abandon prayer. It is about primacy of allegiance. It is the acceptance that the laws, customs, and democratic traditions of the host nation supersede the tribal or religious codes of the land of origin.
Yet, the very existence of Sharia councils is a *demand* to not assimilate. It is a statement that the laws of England are not good enough for the regulation of Muslim family life. When the state actively advertises roles for Sharia law graduates to assess Islamic councils, it sends a signal that the government views its own common law as optional a toolkit from which one can pick and choose based on faith .
The course catalog description from a Western university highlights that the social and political inclusion of Muslim immigrants is "contentious" because the experiences are often defined by a "particular set of discourses on Islam" rather than a shared British narrative. This is a self-inflicted wound. Multiculturalism as a state ideology has emphasized retention of difference rather than acquisition of commonality. Instead of telling new arrivals, "You are now British, and these are the rights and responsibilities that come with it," the British establishment has said, "Stay in your community, govern yourselves, and we will adjust our laws to accommodate your sensibilities."
Conclusion
The proliferation of Sharia councils in Britain is not a benign exercise of religious freedom. It is a symbol of the West's loss of confidence in its own cultural and legal heritage. No conservative denies the right of individuals to worship as they see fit. But when a parallel system of law emerges that systematically disadvantages women and undermines the authority of the state, it is not bigotry to object it is a duty to the principles of the Enlightenment.
The answer to the assimilation question is not complex: it requires a reassertion of national sovereignty and legal uniformity. The government must stop hiding behind semantic distinctions between "courts" and "councils." If these bodies act like courts, issue rulings, and rely on community pressure for enforcement, they should be subject to the same oversight and equality legislation as any other British institution. A nation that tolerates two systems of law is a nation on the path to fragmentation. The only way to heal that divide is to insist that there is one law for all, and that British justice is not up for negotiation.
#Sharia #ShariaLaw #Muslims #GreatBritain England









.png)




.png)












