Daily Archives: May 11, 2022

Police beat: The Growing Attacks on Cops

Per Fraternal Order of Police data, the number of US law-enforcement officers shot in the line of duty this year through May 1 hit 123, a 35% increase over 2021, reports City Journals Charles Lain Lehman. Long-run data also suggest that policing has indeed gotten more dangerous since 2020, reversing its dramatic decline since the 1990s. And the surge in ambush-style attacks on cops suggests offenders are not only more violent but also feel less inhibition in attacking officers, thanks to increasing hostility toward police from civilian leadership. This rising prevalence of officer injuries and deaths augurs poorly for efforts to curtail the national violent crime spike.

From the right: Orwellian Erasure of Women

During my recent treatment for breast cancer, a nurse assured me that my chest cancer prognosis was promising, notes Patricia Posner at The Wall Street Journal. It was the first time I had personally encountered the effort to degender medicine. Its now widespread: Since 2020, Harvard Medical School has been declaring that not all who give birth are women. But certain biological and physical differences . . . affect only women. I am sorry if this offends anyone, but men dont menstruate or give birth. Women are incrementally being erased in a rush of political correctness to ensure no trans person is offended, yet most women are quiet for fear of being attacked as bigots. But Its Orwellian that today many of us feel compelled to remain silent about our female bodies, motherhood and our health as women.

Conservative: Dems Promised Calm, Deliver Rage

The Democratic Party sold itself in 2020 as Americas choice for calm, cool and collected, recalls The Federalists Eddie Scarry. Yes, the people who whipped up mass COVID hysteria and instigated months of violent Black Lives Matter rioting were the same ones who insisted theyd settle everything down. Two years on, the left is as obnoxious and bitter as ever. Winning the White House and taking full control of Congress only made them worse. When a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion leaked, Democrats immediately began reminding us how uncomfortable things can be when they dont get their way. Mobs have protested at justices homes, and left-wing pundits say of the court, Lets burn this place down. It seems the angry, vindictive left is here to stay.

White House watch: Joes Anti-Israel New Spox

The new White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, reports National Reviews David Harsanyi, authored a 2019 Newsweek piece urging Democrats to skip the AIPAC conference. It doesnt openly contend that Israel shouldnt exist, but her regurgitation of BDS talking points says just as much. She claims that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee fails to uphold progressive values by inviting a prime minister from the only nation in the Middle East where Muslim votes count. She slams AIPACs severely racist, Islamophobic rhetoric but, Harsanyi notes, doesnt offer a single quote or hyperlink substantiating the contention. She cant, since AIPAC is one of the most milquetoast organizations in D.C. Its so sensitive to partisan criticism that it supported a trip to Israel for antisemites Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

Legal desk: Fall of a Dem Superlawyer

Democratic superlawyer Marc Elias, notes The Washington Free Beacons Kevin Daley, is having a bad run. He was laughed out of court over his defense of NYs legislative gerrymander and slapped by special counsel John Durham for an attempt to shield [his firms] communications on Russiagate with smear-merchant Fusion GPS. Elias tactics are now drawing rebukes from judges, prosecutors and even fellow Democrats. All this after blundering into a major defeat in the Supreme Court in 2021 on voting rights. And now Durhams submitted a second filing on Elias relationship with Fusion a sure sign that the special counsel isnt letting the matter lie, and a request for sanctions could be near.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

More:

The growing attacks on cops and other commentary - New York Post

The Pitch:Amidst the post-SNL sketch show boom of the 80s and 90s, The Kids in the Hall stood head and shoulders above the pack. The fivesome of fresh-faced Canadian absurdists Dave Foley, Bruce McCulloch, Kevin MacDonald, Mark McKinney, and Scott Thompson felt fresh, new, and exciting; their material was edgy and provocative in a way that still leaned into Pythonesque silliness, ruffling feathers without the pain of plucking them.

While the five have worked together off and on since the Lorne Michaels-produced shows cancellation (most notably, in their film debut flop Brain Candy, plusheaps of touring shows across North America in recent years), it took Amazon to bring them back from their 17-year hibernation from sketch television.

And here they are, not as young as they used to be (as theyll be the first to tell ya) but with their comedic sensibilities as sharp as ever. They may not be kids anymore, but in a lot of ways, their comedy feels ageless.

These Are the Daves I Know, I Know:In a lot of ways,this newKids in the Hall is playing straight to their existing cult of core fans, digging (in some cases literally) their old material from the graves in which they sat for nearly two decades. The opening sketch bears out that sense of world-weariness, that furtive step back into the limelight for five white Canadian dudes nearing their sixties: a Lorne Michaels type (McKinney) commissions the revival of the Kids after a garage salefinally makes Brain Candy a profitable film.

The Kids are dug back up from their mass grave; they balk at their wrinkled, sagging bodies. Am I still the cute one? Foley asks feebly. Its fantastically dark stuff, goofy and fatalistic in the way only the Kids can really pull off this time elevated with Amazon-level production values and more localized Canadian references than you can shake a loony at.

Honestly, the smartest move the Kids make is in leaning into their status as legends and, in some ways, relics. Theyre old white men, after all, and they know theyre hardly the freshest voices in comedy anymore; but paradoxically, that gives them the license to poke fun at their own out-of-touch-ness without it reading as acquiescence.

One extended sketch about post-Toobin Zoom etiquette quickly morphs into an extended workplace group masturbation session; another sketch touches on cultural appropriation through the lens of literal clown shoes. There are just enough layers of absurdism slathered on top to keep the digs from feeling reactionary, instead positing a world where all the rules and stipulations of so-called political correctness were taken onlyto their most cartoonish conclusion.

The rest is here:

30 Helens Agree Amazons Kids in the Hall Revival Is Hilarious: Review - Consequence

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The strangest thing about the debate over parents roles and rights in their childrens education is that there is a debate at all.

As former teachers ourselves, we know firsthand that nothing is more valuable to a classroom or school let alone to individual students than parental involvement. Of course they should have access to instructional materials teachers use in class. Of course parents should decide when and how morally complicated issues are introduced into the classroom if at all.

RHODE ISLAND PARENTS ENRAGED AT SCHOOL BOARD FOR REMOVING HONORS CLASSES IN EQUITY OBSESSION

Parent speaks at March 30 Barrington Public Schools meeting. (Barrington Public Schools)

The idea of public school personnel laying claim to children independent of and even confidential from their parents would be laughable if it werent so frightening. Good teachers bend over backwards to be transparent with their students moms and dads. They want parents to be in the loop, part of a team helping each student develop the skills necessary to succeed.

Adults who try to hide what they do with other peoples children for hours at a time, by contrast, have no business in a classroom. Yet somehow a large proportion of Americas school boards, school administrators, and teachers unions apparently take as a given this subverted idea that government officials, not parents, are childrens primary educators.

Sadly, this isnt a new development. Like so many other once-respected public institutions, Americas schools have been breaking down for years now. Declining test scores and political correctness attest to just how far public schools have descended into academic mediocrity and "woke" indoctrination. It took remote learning during COVID-19 to alert parents to the dangers and failings of our school systems.

American students are not just taught critical race theory and other Marxist claptrap, theyre steeped in it. In classes ranking themselves according to their identity privilege, little kids are being forced to celebrate communism. This really happens.

Trans activism in schools, too, has progressed far beyond affirmations of respect and tolerance for all people. On the contrary, in Virginia, one school board shamelessly covered up a sexual assault committed by a trans girl to protect their narrative, and then had the victims father arrested when he called them out. Schools are helping children "transition" and keeping it a secret from their parents.

Meanwhile, our students actual educations are a punchline. Even before COVID, only about one third of students were at grade proficiency or better in reading, and only about 40 percent in math. After two years of anti-science school closures, those unacceptable numbers are only getting worse, and theyll leave poor, minority communities long neglected by our education status quo even further behind.

And yet, caught red-handed in their extremism and negligence over countless Zoom classes, the left doubled down!

They denied CRT is taught in schools. Democrats Virginia gubernatorial candidate said at a debate, "I dont think parents should be telling schools what they should teach." President Bidens advisors orchestrated a contemptible campaign directing the FBI to investigate and label protesting parents as "domestic terrorists."

And now, were witnessing the lefts fury at a new Florida bill that merely delays public school instruction about sexual orientation and transgenderism until fourth grade. The outrage and misrepresentations of the bill reveal that the left isnt interested in teaching, but rather in pushing a woke agenda on our kids that is anti-God, anti-America, anti-free enterprise, and especially anti-Western civilization.

Legislation guaranteeing school transparency and restricting woke content are proliferating in state legislatures across the country, including in Alaska. They represent lawmakers essential first acts of self-defense against theanti-family theories now running too many school districts.

We got the jump on parental rights in Alaska back in 2016 when as a state senator, I (Mike) teamed up with Rep. Wes Keller on legislation that codified the recognition of parents as the authority in their childrens education. It gives parents the right to review any class, activity, assessment, or program and to withdraw their child if requested without penalty. It also requires two weeks notification about any curriculum covering sexual activity or reproduction with the same power to review.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

But public policy alone cant fix whats wrong in our schools. Americas moms and dads are the "sleeping giants" who will mend our broken education system. At the end of the day, parents must decide what gets taught and who does the teaching at their kids schools and for that matter, which schools their kids attend.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Public schools today willfully encourage child ignorance and family dysfunction. Conservatives must redouble our efforts to serve parents sacred right to direct their childrens education not because its politically advantageous(though it is), but because Americas boys and girls are worth it.

Kevin Roberts is president of The Heritage Foundation.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GOV. DUNLEAVY

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM KEVIN ROBERTS

Link:

Parents are 'sleeping giants' who will fix American education - Fox News

A security guard is framed inside a coat hanger as demonstrators protest outside of the US Supreme Court, Tuesday, May 3, at dusk in Washington. A draft opinion suggests the US Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a Politico report released Monday. Whatever the outcome, the Politico report represents an extremely rare breach of the court's secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance. [AP]

A decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide would resemble a historic turning point. The courts rulings are usually an indication of how the countrys political pendulum swings; and few issues are more sensitive to the American public than abortion. The planned overturning of the Roe vs Wade ruling is a sign of what we should expect in the coming years from the federal judges appointed by ex-president Donald Trump. These are not conservative, well-informed judges but ultraconservative activists who aim to change the American paradigm and push society in the direction of deep conservatism.

The Supreme Court ruling could, in fact, help the incumbent president, Joe Biden. Large chunks of American society may well be conservative but they are nevertheless against restricting abortion rights. Such a move might mobilize these masses ahead of crucial congressional elections in November, potentially stopping the Republicans from scoring some all-but-certain victories.

An important issue of course is, how did we get here? How did conservative fundamentalism sweep such large parts of American society? The wave of ultra political correctness that appears to have gotten hold of the Democratic Party in recent years (for example the debate over defunding the police or the debate over gender-neutral language) certainly has not helped.

Excessive behavior usually leads to more excessive behavior, particularly when financial conditions are tight and when people question the status quo.

American history shows that the country tends to swing from one extreme to the other. These days the pendulum tends to accelerate in a more violent and unpredictable manner. It also swings higher. The issues which cause the pendulum to swing are almost always identity-related; they have to do with religion, with migration, with peoples right to self-determination. They often veer beyond the classic political diving lines. At times of crisis dormant faults are reactivated. Meanwhile, social media give voice, and power, to those who want to make a fuss on either side. In the middle, the great majority is guided more by reason and moderation. It usually results in developments that pull it back to the center court of politics, as will likely happen again with the abortion rights case.

See the rest here:

Abortions and the pendulum - Kathimerini English Edition

On a filthy night three days before Christmas in 1978, I was sitting on a rather ancient coach travelling across the Pennines towards Lancashire, along with about 50 other football supporters. The Bradford branch of the Manchester United supporters club catered largely for a collection of brickies and other manual workers and that evening we were all on our way to watch a dismal 0-3 defeat at Bolton. As torrential rain poured down on the M62, the bloke sitting immediately in front suddenly turned and, with a hint of menace, said to my brother and me: Youre not really the same as us are you?

It may have been the drink talking after some seasonal revelry during the day, but his analysis was on the money. The sons of an academic and a teacher, Paul and I read different papers, watched different stuff on TV and spoke in a different way. But as aspiring young lefties in the late 1970s, we imagined, or hoped, that this divergence in terms of social class would be redeemed and erased by politics: after all, it was only 10 years after 1968, when radical students and workers attempted to dream a revolutionary alliance into being. So it was mortifying to my teenage self to realise that, even in the context of supporting the same football team, there might be an underlying suspicion towards the middle-class interlopers on the bus.

This uncomfortable moment was a minor lesson in the tricky social dynamics of class and status. Almost half a century later, the future of progressive politics in Britain may depend on a similar kind of learning process writ large. The usual caveats (low turnout, protest voting, local factors) apply to any analysis of last weeks council elections. But in England, the broad picture appears to confirm a changing political landscape that, while it potentially poses deep problems for the Conservative party, also confronts Labour with challenging truths. To quote the Oxford University election analysts Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings: The urban south is becoming more Labour as the north hangs on to its post-Brexit attachment to the Tories but there is evidence too of a new demographic cleavage. Areas where more than a third of the population are university graduates swung sharply to Labour, those where graduates are thinner on the ground moved almost as much the other way.

Two demographies, two economies and, increasingly, two sensibilities. On one side, liberal-minded, Labour-voting urban professionals and young graduates clustered disproportionately in the cities; on the other, elements of the post-industrial working class (some of it retired) who mourn the loss of something that has disappeared in towns that are steadily getting older.

If it cannot do much better among this second group, Labour will not win a majority in the next election. Even the success of a progressive alliance with the Lib Dems and the Greens depends on Labour doing its job in the red wall. But despite notable successes, such as its victories in Cumberland and Kirklees, the hoped-for revival in the north and Midlands stuttered and stalled last week to an extent that allowed Boris Johnson to brazen out an otherwise terrible night.

Viewed through a purely economic lens, some of the results might appear inexplicable. Polls indicate that a majority of the public views the governments response to the cost of living crisis as woefully inadequate. But in one of the most deprived wards in Walsall where one in five households are fuel poor there was a 35% swing to the Conservatives. While red wall type areas will suffer disproportionately in the hard times to come, it would therefore seem unwise for Labour to rely on attacking the government to solve the problem of its soured relations with the traditional working class. Instead, perhaps the left should widen the horizon of its analysis to address the kind of question that my fellow United fan put to me on the coach to Bolton. Why do substantial numbers of former Labour voters sense a cultural gulf between themselves and what they think the party now represents? Why do they feel Labour is not the same as them any more?

Last year, the UK in a Changing Europe thinktank published an important paper co-written by the sociologist and social mobility expert John Goldthorpe. Entitled Meritocracy and Populism, a section of it summarises two main findings from red wall focus groups convened by Deborah Mattinson (now Labours director of strategy). The first was that these (predominantly leave) voters felt that good jobs and opportunities for younger people were no longer available in their communities. A sense of grievance at this was compounded by the perception that, as old industries had faded away, the world now belonged to new generations of degree-holders who, bluntly, looked down on them. Politically, write Goldthorpe and his co-author, Erzsbet Bukodi, such views translated into a deep disillusionment with the Labour party. This was seen as now dominated by graduate, metropolitan elites whether Blairite or Corbynite obsessed with political correctness and more concerned with telling the people they were supposed to represent that they were wrong than with trying to understand the conditions under which they were living. Depending on how things play out, Keir Starmers current woes over Beergate feeding a narrative of elite hypocrisy could prove particularly damaging in this regard.

This alienated perspective, which is almost certainly shared by large numbers of lost Labour voters, may be an unfair caricature. But if Labour is to bridge generational and educational divides in an era of culture wars, it should admit that there is a kernel of truth here. The mass expansion of higher education has helped Britain become a far better place when it comes to addressing, for example, race and gender inequality. But the widespread characterisation of Brexit as a purely xenophobic, reactionary project demonstrated that highly educated liberals are also capable of myopic intolerance. To reconstitute a relationship with leave-voting constituencies, Labour needs to do more than move on from 2016 and its aftermath, as Starmer has understandably but mistakenly sought to do. It needs to re-engage with why so much of its working-class support voted the way it did.

A starting point for that exercise might be the seminal essay Culture is Ordinary, written by Raymond Williams in 1958. In it, Williams describes the postwar blue collar environment in which he grew up as defined by commitment to neighbourhood, mutual obligation and common betterment. Mattinsons leave voters were evidently preoccupied by the perceived loss of this sense of solid community, and clearly ill at ease in an age of more freewheeling individualism. These are not in themselves reactionary sentiments; in fact they belong to a venerable Labour tradition that includes RH Tawney and William Morris. But in the context of Brexit, they were far too easily dismissed and misrepresented, and the scars from that are still there. If they are to be healed in the places where Labour so badly needs to reconnect, the modern left needs to travel outside its cultural comfort zone with an open mind, listen properly to the messages it receives, and admit that it can learn from the red wall as well as lecture it.

Read this article:

Labour may think its moving on, but working-class voters arent following - The Guardian

Grace Hyland primarily sees being transgender as a medical condition, but if you asked some of those vying for Australia's top jobs, they might not agree.

The 21-year-old Melburnian came out as transgender when she was 12, but she knew she was in the wrong body from when she was four.

Hyland, alongside her father, Australian actor Mat Stevenson, has been extremely vocal about her journey and is a passionate trans rights activist and one thing she is tired of seeing is the right for the transgender community to exist being debated for political sport.

READ MORE: Why thousands of Aussie avocados are being left to rot

"Being trans is a medical condition," Hyland tells 9Honey via Zoom.

"And being trans is something that is now being politicised into a left or right issue. I'm sorry, it's not a left or right issue. It's a medical issue. No matter what side of the spectrum you sit on, people deserve treatment for their health," she says, comparing it to how someone living with diabetes would not be subject to an ongoing, public debate as to if they deserve insulin.

"If there's one thing I hate, it's being politicised, because in my mind, it's the antithesis of a political issue."

On the campaign trail in Sydney, Tuesday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison doubled down on his support for Katherine Deves, the Liberal candidate for Warringah, who has come under fire for claiming that "mutilation" is the "correct medico-legal term" for gender reassignment surgery although Morrison did say that term is not one he would necessarily use.

Deves also insisted that her significant role in advocating against trans women in women's sport was like standing up against the Nazis during the Holocaust, and allegedly claimed in deleted Twitter posts that half of trans women are sex offenders.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese has questioned Morrison's support of Deves, and said that her "mutilation" comment is not one he believes is appropriate.

"Vulnerable people, in particular, are deserving of respect," Albanese said in Melbourne Tuesday. "Every human being deserves respect. What we need to look for from our national political leaders is ways to unify the country and bring people together, not play politics in order to divide people."

Contact Bronte Gossling at bgossling@nine.com.au.

There's no argument to be had about the fact that the transgender community is, in fact, a vulnerable one a 2021 peer-reviewed study found that 43 per cent of transgender Australians had attempted suicide, which is a rate significantly higher than that of the general population. That same study found that wanting but not having gender-affirming surgery is correlated with a 71 per cent higher chance of a lifetime suicide attempt.

Last year was also the deadliest year since records began for the murders of transgender people, with more than 375 reported killings worldwide.

Hyland, who herself told The Project that if she was forced to go through male puberty, she "genuinely [doesn't] think [she] would still be here," tells 9Honey that she feels the politicisation of the transgender community directly contributes to making people understand "what trans actually is" an "even harder" process. She says ignorance can have catastrophic consequences in this context.

She highlights how, when she came out as trans almost a decade ago, there wasn't a lot of information easily accessible online, and mainstream media and entertainment offerings belittled the transgender community as "a joke, a man in a dress, a fetish, a costume, a lifestyle."

"This whole politicisation of trans right is what leads to the lack of education," Hyland says.

"I have a saying that a lack of education leads to a lack of knowledge and wisdom, and a lack of knowledge and wisdom leads to ignorance. And then ignorance leads to transphobia, and I think the cause of that is the politicisation of trans issues."

READ MORE: TV host's blunt advice to couples who fight

Hyland's transition was one that was not done without thought or care, if that was even possible in a context where she had to go to court to be able to undergo hormone replacement therapy.

In fact, it was heavily supported by The Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne's Gender Service, which diagnosed her first with gender dysphoria, and, after a year, it was decided with Hyland and her doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists that she could go on testosterone blockers. By 14, she had grown her hair out and was publicly presenting as Grace.

"The Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne wouldn't have a whole entire clinic if this wasn't a medical condition," Hyland says. "[Politicisation] makes me feel like the understanding of what it truly is to be trans, it's going to take even longer to reach that fact. And the reason why it's so important for people to understand what it is, is because we need the proper treatment."

READ MORE: How the Queen broke new ground in Australia and paved the way for future royal visits

Inextricably linked with the concept of belonging when it comes to the transgender community's gender identity is, in public discourse, the concept of biological sex.

During Sunday's debate, when radio host and television presenter Deb Knight asked Morrison and Albanese how they define a woman, Morrison said, "A member of the female sex."

Albanese, meanwhile, said "an adult female," a definition he said he did not think was "confusing."

Among feminists and the LGBT+ community, debate exists as to the correct contexts when it comes to using the terms "woman" and "female".

Some argue that it is dehumanising as "female" is the scientific term that refers to the biological sex of any species and, by extension, reduces a person to their sex organs, whereas "woman" refers specifically to human people.

Similarly, "female" can be seen as a term that erases gender non-binary and some transgender identities, as it's a descriptor linked to biological sex.

For Hyland, it's a complicated issue. She highlights studies that, after analysing brain scans, determined that brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles that of their desired gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.

She also points out how, in the womb, everyone starts out with a vagina that either gradually develops or changes into male sex organs depending on if the Y chromosome is expressed at six to seven weeks' gestation.

"I would argue that transgender women are females in their own right who just need medical steps to help them come into that," Hyland says.

READ MORE: World's first fashion designer with quadriplegia, Carol Taylor, to debut at Australian Fashion Week

"However, I feel like saying the definition of a woman is a female in that [nationally-televised debate] space is... It's alluding to something that doesn't include trans women," she says.

"In this current climate of political correctness, if they wanted to include trans women, they would have said people who identify as [women]. They would have made it abundantly clear."

Being the face and outspoken voice of the transgender community in mainstream media as well as on Instagram and TikTok is something Hyland, who says she is a "tough cookie," can handle, but constant politicisations of her identity by people in power gnaw at her.

"I feel as though I have to be perfect because I have to constantly present the idea of like the model Australian, to prove that trans women are just like everyone else," she says.

"I shouldn't have [to do] that, I should be able to just fully be myself. But I do feel like I do have to almost be perfect in a way, just to prove that trans women are normal people."

She looks forward to a day where she doesn't.

If you or anyone you know needs immediate support, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or via lifeline.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.

For a daily dose of 9Honey, subscribe to our newsletter here.

The best mind-bending optical illusions

Read this article:

Grace Hyland says she 'hates' being politicised as the transgender community is 'the antithesis of a political issue' - 9Honey

NPR is such an absurd organization these days. I cannot wait until some future Congress and president remove all federal funding from it, given what it has become. As far as I know, this major player in the Cathedral (the neoreactionary term for the informal system of American elites) have never paid a bit of attention to Orthodox Christianity in America. But now theyve come out with a hit piece on how Orthodoxy is attracting far right converts.

Heres how it appears on the website:

This is a biased article, even by NPRs standards. Reporter Odette Yousef begins by talking about right-wing converts to ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia the exile church, though it reconciled in recent years with the Moscow Patriarchate) in a single West Virginia congregation. More:

The case study that Riccardi-Swartz provides adds detail and color to a trend that a handful of historians and journalists have documented for nearly a decade. In publications mostly targeted toward an Orthodox Christian audience, they have raised the alarm about a growing nativist element within the church. Despite Orthodoxys relatively small imprint in the U.S., they warn that, unchecked, these adherents could fundamentally alter the faith tradition in the United States. They also warn that these individuals are evangelizing hate in the name of Orthodoxy in ways that could attract more who share those views.

Its an immigrant faith. Its now being sort of colonized by these converts in many respects, said Riccardi-Swartz. Theyre vocal in their parishes. Theyre vocal online. Theyre very digitally savvy and very connected to other far-right actors in the United States and across the globe. And thats really changing the faith.

Now, before I begin to deconstruct this ridiculous propaganda piece, I concede that it is based on a kernel of truth: some outsiders are finding their way to Orthodoxy, thinking that it will be the far right at prayer. A friend who attends a large parish told me last year that they are seeing some young men showing up with that in mind, only to find out otherwise. Let me be clear at the start of this essay that I concede that this phenomenon is not invented out of whole cloth.

In my own small parish, we have seen a surge of young inquirers, but they are coming not with far-right politics in mind, but because they are looking for something more stable and deeper than the churches they had been attending.And yes, it is true that some come because they correctly sense that Orthodoxy is much less likely to surrender to the wokeness that is infesting many Protestant and Catholic congregations. Note well, though, that to NPR, all of this is far-right.

This Riccardi-Swartz talks about how these people are really changing the faith. Are they? In my experience of being within Orthodoxy for sixteen years, these leftists like those quoted in Yousefs story are angry at converts like me because they want to change the faith to make it more compatible with American liberalism. Converts like me come into the Orthodox Church warning the unsuspecting cradle Orthodox what people like these activists within the Church are really doing and how if the Orthodox congregations dont wake up, they will find themselves turned into Baklava Episcopalians.

The NPR story focuses mostly on ROCOR, which is a tiny jurisdiction in America. There are single megachurches in Texas with more members. From the piece:

This is in line with American mainline religion, [where] everyone is shrinking in size except nondenominational churches, Krindatch said. But ROCOR, which Krindatch estimated in 2020 to have roughly 24,000 adherents, experienced a striking shift. While the number of ROCOR adherents declined by 14%, Krindatch found that the number of parishes grew by 15%.

So what it means [is], we have more parishes, but which are smaller in size. And if you look at the geography, those parishes were planted not in traditional lands of Orthodoxy, said Krindatch. The growth occurred in less populated areas of the Upper Midwest and Southern states, places with fewer direct links to Russia.

So for me, those are a bunch of new ROCOR communities which are founded by convert clergy or by convert members, Krindatch said.

OK, but why should we assume that these converts are far rightists? I worshiped in a ROCOR church from 2012-16, and my priest, a convert, was especially vigilant against far-right infiltration of Orthodoxy. He was a former cop, and understood that this was a potential threat. He was instrumental in educating Orthodox bishops, who were clueless. Again: this was a ROCOR priest who took the lead to fight racist infiltration of the Church by radical converts. And in our church, we founded a mission within ROCOR because it was the only Orthodox jurisdiction willing to send a priest into a mission in south Louisiana. Nobody cared about politics at our parish well, except for this one elderly man, who seemed perpetually disappointed that nobody wanted to talk politics with him. My experience is subjective, of course, but I have had nothing but warmth, kindness, and normality in my interactions with ROCOR people.

Anyway, these tiny little ROCOR mission parishes within a small and shrinking jurisdiction so alarmed NPR that it decided to do a big story on it. And by implication, the bullying liberals of NPR who just love diversity, as long as diversity goes one way smear all of American Orthodoxy, as youll see if you read the whole thing.

More:

Aram Sarkisian, a postdoctoral teaching fellow at Northwestern Universitys Department of History, said this new growth from converts has helped some branches of Orthodoxy offset a decline in multigenerational families in the church. Sarkisian said these converts often find their way to Orthodoxy because they seek a haven for what they consider to be the most important cultural issues of the day.

Theyre drawn to what they believe to be conservative views on things like LGBTQ rights, gender equality. Abortion is a really big issue for these folks, the culture wars issues, really, Sarkisian said. And so they leave other faith traditions that they dont believe to be as stringent about those issues anymore.

Thats true. If you want a more traditionally Christian church, youll want to investigate Orthodoxy. But look, Sarkisian is a left-wing smear artist, as I wrote last year when he attempted to demonize Southern converts to Orthodoxy as neo-Confederates.

He focused in part on my praise for the proposal that St. Vladimirs Orthodox Theological Seminary relocate from Yonkers, NY, to Dallas this, because Orthodoxy is dying in its historic American heartland (the Northeast), but booming in the South. And, unlike in New York state, legal protections for actually orthodox institutions are likely to be greater than in a hostile woke state like New York. I wrote:

The historic regions where Orthodoxy was first planted in the United States are turning away from God. Nobody can deny that. You might want to make an argument that a seminary should be in a place where the need for proclaiming the Gospel is greatest, but that fails to address the concern that St. Vladimirs board has over the legal and regulatory environment in the New York area.

It is a very, very serious concern for any faithfully Orthodox Christian institution, particularly when it comes to LGBT-focused legislation and cultural norms. For now, the First Amendment protects the rights of seminaries to teach according to religious orthodoxy, even if it contradicts the law governing homosexuality and transgenderism (of which New York is one of the most progressive states). But that says nothing about rules for academic accreditation. It is entirely possible that if SVOTS remains in New York, or another deep blue state, that it could face uphill accreditation battles that could put the very existence of the seminary in jeopardy. Relocating to a red state would mean going to a place that is both more culturally conservative, and, being more religious, better understands the importance of religious liberty.

Naturally this upsets the people atPublic Orthodoxy, who are eager to liberalize including to queer the Orthodox churches in our country. It appears that these theological progressives fear that they are losing influence over the direction of Orthodoxy in America, and are resorting to neo-Confederate smears to justify their anxiety. The Fordham Orthodox guys helped lead the charge to get my Schmemann lecture at SVOTS cancelled, but they failed. I talked aboutLive Not By Lies,and the crisis all small-o orthodox Christians and especially Orthodox Christians are facing in this post-Christian culture. I know exactly why they hated having me speak there: because I have their number. You rarely if ever hear progressive Orthodox voices complain about the rising soft totalitarianism against moral and theological conservatives because they themselves think oppression of the orthodox Orthodox by the state and by other institutions is a good thing. What these people cant do within the institution move it leftward they are hoping that the state will do for them.

You want to talk about those trying to change the church? NPR quotes Inga Leonova, a lesbian[a reader says she is not necessarily lesbian, but a divorced straight woman who writes about LGBT all the time; Im seeking to confirm this, but retracting lesbian until I verify; I was under the impression that she was an out lesbian RD] activist trying to queer the Orthodox Church in America. It quotes the militantly leftist academic Aram Sarkisian. And it quotes one of the two founders of the Orthodox Study Center at Fordham, the most important center of the attempt to liberalize and queer American Orthodoxy.

The frustrating thing about this NPR piece is that most people in America have never heard of Orthodox Christianity, or if they have, associate it with Greek food festivals. Now, though, NPR has brought all of us Orthodox under suspicion. From the piece, way down:

Those who have followed the influx of extremists into American Orthodoxy agree that those individuals are fringe within the church and are mostly concentrated in newly founded ROCOR parishes. But they also warn that it would be foolish to ignore them.

They are fringe people in one of the smallest jurisdiction of American Orthodoxy, representing only three or four percent of all Orthodox in the US! But NPR devoted ten minutes to sounding the alarm about their supposed threat. Sarkisian told NPR:

This is how people are finding Orthodoxy now. Theyre finding Orthodoxy through these YouTube shows. Theyre finding it through these podcasts. Theyre finding it through these blogs, said Sarkisian. Theyre being radicalized by these folks on the internet, and thats really dangerous.

Is that really how people are finding Orthodoxy now, through far-right videos? I hear all the time from people who have found Orthodoxy through reading my blog or my Substack, where I talk not at all about Orthodoxy and politics. Undoubtedly, some people do find Orthodoxy through extremist videos. But the idea that the people coming into Orthodoxy through this narrow gate is significant is not demonstrated at all in this article.

So what is its point, other than to tar a Russian church, in a time of Russophobia, as an anti-American menace? Let me give you a little more background on the kind of Orthodox people Odette Yousef quotes. The two Fordham Orthodox guys are George Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou. Back in 2014, the Orthodox theologian Vigen Guroian wrote a negative review of a book about Orthodox political theology by Papanikolaou. Excerpts:

In the end,The Mystical as Politicalis not about theology. The book makes much of theological concepts liketheosisbut deploys them as tropes or gestures to smooth the way for the Orthodox faith to be put in service of a distinctly American religious project, one launched principally from within the academy.

In a telling admission, Papanikolaou writes that, when it comes to political theology I do not think the transcendent referent need be to the divine, but can take the form of a common good. In other words, whatever conduces to democracy and justice is of God. The sacramental realism and eschatological maximalism of Orthodoxy evaporates and is replaced by a consecration of the democratic communion of the secular liberal state.

More:

Papanikolaou asserts that in relation to the democratic form of the common good, the church must accept its own limits and recognize that the goal is not the formation of a eucharistic community through persuasion. This is an astounding pronouncement. The Church must renounce not only the use of the states coercive power, something Orthodoxy often depended on in past centuries, but also her ambition to draw the world into the eucharistic celebration.

In the place of this ecclesial vision of transformation, we are served the claptrap of diversity and political correctness. The goal of Orthodoxy, according to Papanikolaou, is the construction of a community in which diversity and cultural difference must be affirmed and protected and in which the recognition of such diversity must be enforced if they are not voluntarily accepted. Enforced? Does this not imply that the liberal state has a responsibility and right to coerce the Church when the Church does not affirm diversity and cultural difference? Surely, Papanikolaou knows that these terms are the property of the progressive left that insists on same-sex marriage, among other things Orthodoxy refuses to recognize.

And:

Weve sadly seen this within contemporary mainline Protestantism and liberal Roman Catholicism. In those contexts, talk about justice (or social justice) has displaced the language of holiness. This has been accomplished at immense cost to the eschatological dimension in both Protestant and Roman Catholic social ethics. In the effort to insinuate the Churchs mind into public policy, weve seen the Churchs singularly biblical and Christian speech stripped away. Papanikolaou would do the same for Orthodoxy.

None of this is meant to minimize the threat, such as it is, from a handful of far-right nativists infiltrating a tiny jurisdiction of Orthodoxy. But it is to point out for non-Orthodox readers that NPR aligns itself with an academic faction within American Orthodoxy that really and truly does want to change the Church to make it more like, well, NPR.

I do give the Fordham guys credit, though, for publishing this essay from Sister Vassa Larin, a well-known Russian Orthodox nun who explains why shes not leaving ROCOR. Excerpt:

In conclusion, let me say a few words in support of sticking it out within ones own church community, at this Time of Troubles.I, for one, am not going anywhere, from my jurisdiction, which happens to be the ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), also known as ROCA (the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad). Why am Inotleaving, even while we commemorate Patriarch Kirill, and many of our clergy sympathize with Putinism?Because I love my Church.Thats my best answer. And as Ive said jokingly, you cant take the broad out of the Russian Orthodox Church A-broad, just like you cant take the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad out of the broad. I do feel quite devastated by the whole situation, and I do feel betrayed by the utter failure of some of my fathers to discern the truth of this horrible war in Ukraine. I have not been able to post my usual reflections on Scripture on social media, nor have I updated our coffeewithsistervassa.com website, since the war began. I have been at a loss for words, frankly, and instead Ive been focusing on helping a Ukrainian refugee family here in Vienna, which has been a great blessing to me; this opportunity somehow to help the situation has been healing to me.And as I move forward, I see my now more-difficult vocation as witnessing to the truth within my beloved Church, however insignificant that witness is, or how uncomfortable for me, or whether it matters to anyone. I could just leave, but I dont think, in my case, that leaving my marriage to this Church is warranted. I think that God calls me to love, and to truthful witness, to my church family, and thats where I will remain.I also embrace the promise of St. Paul, quoted at the beginning of this post, that I might become one of the approved or in Greek thedokimoi, if I stand in truth at this time of divisions.Thank you to those of you who have read this to the end.Let us love one another, that we may with one mind confess, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

I wonder if NPR has any interest in ROCOR people like Sister Vassa who deplore Russias war on Ukraine, and the feeble response of many Russian hierarchs to it, but who stay anyway. Do they think Sister Vassa is a closet Putinist? Actually I dont think NPR cares. I think theyre just slinging snot at the Orthodox Church to see what sticks.

Well, look, if NPR hates an institution, that might be a recommendation for it. I hope you will go find an Orthodox Church this weekend and see what it has to offer. You will almost certainly not find politics, far-right or otherwise, despite what youve heard on taxpayer-funded state radio. Allow me to finish by quoting once again this line from Odette Yousefs report:

Those who have followed the influx of extremists into American Orthodoxy agree that those individuals are fringe within the church and are mostly concentrated in newly founded ROCOR parishes.

So by NPRs own admission, these menaces to society are a handful of people who are even on the margins within their marginal Orthodox jurisdiction (our word for denomination within Orthodoxy). Yet they gave ten minutes on Morning Edition to this story. How do you think NPR would have handled it twenty years ago if a fringe number of Islamic extremists were attending mosques belonging to a tiny conservative Islamic fellowship of mosques in America? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Yall better all get used to it, you Christians from non-tame churches. This is what its going to be like going forward. Dig deep, pray hard, and never surrender.

View post:

The Cathedral Vs. The Orthodox Church - The American Conservative

More than a century ago, when the fledgling Mumbai-based Hindi cinema industry attempted a full-length feature film, it chose the subject as life of the legendary king Raja Harishchandra.

It is said that filmmaker Dadasaheb Phalke was inspired after watching 1906 French film The Life Of Christ.

Within a few decades, the industry was firmly in the grip of communists and Islamists. That grip didnt loosen even after partition of the country.

Hindu Resistance Against Invaders Missing From Cinema

The themes in the industry changed drastically, and so did the language, which was no longer Sanskritised Hindi as envisioned for India in the Constitution, but Urdu, which Pakistan, after a brutal separation from India, had adopted as its official language.

While the industry produced films and television series on Muslim aggressors against native Hindus such as the Mughals (Mughal-e-Azam, 1960) and Tipu Sultan (The Sword of Tipu Sultan, 1990), hardly any work of a similar scale was made on the Hindu military resistance against Islamic invaders.

Instead, the industry produced a large number of social dramas criticising Hindu society as being ridden by social evils while showing Muslim society as just and inclusive. The films also censured the Hindu religious beliefs and ways of worship and were often made by Muslims such as Mehboob Ali (Mother India), Sultan Ahmed (Ganga ki Saugandh), Salim (Aakhri Ghulam), A K Nadiadwala (Izzat) and Hindus from West Pakistan.

It is only in the last few years that have coincided with the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party at the Centre, that the industry has ventured into this area.

In 2015, a film titled Bajirao Mastani was released, which was based on Maratha warrior Peshwa Bajirao who fought the Mughals (though the film was a love story between Bajirao and a half-Muslim woman named Mastani). By the same filmmaker, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, 2018 film Padmaavat depicted the resistance of legendary Rajput queen Padmawati against the lust of Sultan Alauddin Khilji.

Kesari (2019) was based on the 1897 battle of Saragarhi between soldiers of a Sikh regiment and Muslim Afghans. In 2020, Tanhaji: The Unsung Hero told the story of Maratha warrior Tanaji Malusare who, too, fought the Mughals.

The films received severe backlash from liberal film critics for anti-Muslim themes even though they did well commercially.

Interestingly, all these films had taken special efforts beyond historic evidences to create benevolent Muslim characters. Bhansali, the producer-director-screenplay writer of Padmaavat, cast Deepika Padukone as Maharani Padmavati and Ranveer Singh as the villain, Khilji. This was baffling to many, particularly the Rajputs of Rajasthan, because Deepika and Ranveer were rumoured to be romantically involved that time (later, they indeed married). The two were already a hit romantic pair on-screen, having played the lead roles in Bhansalis other major films such as Bajirao Mastani and Ram-leela.

Many questioned the choice of Ranveer to play a character that Maharani Padmawatis admirers hate the most.

This gives credence to allegations made by some Rajput groups that Bhansali was planning to shoot a romantic dream sequence between the two before they got it shelved. After Rajput groups protests, Bhansali told the media that such a dream song was never on the cards.

We would never know the truth. What we do know is that Bajirao Mastani featured a song where it was implied that the Maratha warrior was making efforts to learn verses of Quran as an expression of his love for Mastani, even though Mastani is documented to have been a follower of Pranami Sampradaya.

Kesari had a scene that showed members of the Sikh regiment building a mosque. It was based on no historical record. On the other hand, records say that Sikh regiments in their mission destroyed a few mosques as they were being used by Pathans for purposes of battle.

Tanhaji avoided a direct Maratha-Mughal conflict and instead focused on Maratha-Rajput conflict, with a patriotic Muslim character introduced for political correctness.

Will The Film On Prithviraj Show The Reality Of Chishtis Role?

At long last, the industry has made a film on famed Rajput warrior Prithviraj Chauhan, who defeated Mohammed Ghori of Ghurid dynasty in the 12th century before being killed by him in a later attempt.

The trailer of the film, produced by Yash Raj Films, was released yesterday (10 May). The titular character is played by Akshay Kumar, with Manushi Chhillar, Sanjay Dutt and Sonu Sood in supporting roles.

Mohammed Ghori, or Shahabuddin or Mohammed of Ghor, was a Muslim ruler of suspected Persian origin who conquered parts of the North Indian plain and laid the foundation for subsequent Islamic dynasties in the Indian subcontinent.

From the trailer of the film, it is clear that the hero of the film is Prithviraj while the villain, Mohammad Ghori.

It remains to be seen if the film would portray the role of Muslim Sunni preacher and saint Moinuddin Chishti, who is also called Gareeb Nawaz and Khwaja Sahib of Ajmer, in the defeat and killing of Prithviraj by Ghori, as documented in books endorsed by no less than top government officials.

Several biographies of Chishti, along with folklore, credit him for making Ghori re-attack Prithviraj after a humiliating defeat.

The film may skip this part, but Akshay Kumars passionate demands of increasing space for the valour of Prithviraj in school textbooks ahead of his films release, calls for a telling of that story.

With this story around Prithvirajs death forgotten, the grave of Chishti is visited as a holy site by not only Muslims but, in large numbers, also the Hindus.

Just like Akshay Kumar, who is a frequent visitor to Chishtis grave in Rajasthans Ajmer, lakhs of Indians pay obeisance to the Islamic preachers tomb while also venerating the Rajput king.

This is because of a myth associated with the preacher that he had magical powers.

Many of Chishtis followers believe he miraculously turned an immature cow to a milch one, transcended time and space to be at two different places at the same time, restored life in a dead human, dried up an entire river, made his enemies lose eyesight without even touching them and so on.

To tell this story, we have chosen to quote from the most prominent English biography of the preacher. Titled Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Hasan Chishti, it was written by Mirza Wahiduddin Begg and published in 1960.

The books introduction was penned by Humayun Kabir, then Minister for Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs, Government of India. Forewords for the book were written by B P Beri, an advocate for the Supreme Court of India who later became a judge in the Rajasthan High Court, and Syed Mahmud, a member of Parliament.

The biography dwells at great lengths on the miraculous powers of the Sufi saint, and his persecution by Raja Prithviraj when he set up base in Ajmer with a few followers.

The story, as told by Begg, goes like this (not quoted verbatim from the text):

Raja Prithviraj repeatedly tried to ouster Chishti from Ajmer at the behest of Brahmins, but to little success. Once, he sent Ajaipal, a black-magician and his loyalist, for the job but Chishti managed to defeat him in his craft. Chishti managed to convert Ajaipal, renamed him as Abdulla Bayabani and gave him a tour of the seventh heaven. His spirit still wanders in Ajmer and helps people who lose their way in jungles and hilly tracts. One only has to call out the name of Abdulla Bayabani for help; he not only helps with the route but also with food and water. Before the partition of India, there were many people in Ajmer who testified to this unique experience, the book says.

Chishti offered Prithviraj to convert to Islam. Prithviraj refused and, instead, told his durbar that the fakir by means his fake jugglers and prophesies was not only polluting their religious beliefs but also inciting people in order to gain influence in their political affairs. When Chishti came to know of Rajas words, he exclaimed these 15 words: We have arrested the Raja alive and headed him over to the army of Islam. The utterances were strange to his followers as Chishti had no army or resources to capture Prithviraj.

The same day Chishti uttered the words, Sultan Shahabuddin Ghori, sitting in his chamber in Ghazni and pondering over his defeat at the hands of Prithviraj a year earlier in the first battle of Tarain, felt giddiness and fell asleep. In his dream, he saw a venerable personality standing before him and commanding him, Get up, the land of India is yearning to kiss your feet and the throne and crown are awaiting you there. Ghori began preparations for war.

When the time for battle arrived, Ghori sent word to Prithviraj that the latter must wait till Ghori hears from his brother. Ghori concocted a story that he had come to battle at the behest of his brother. Prithviraj laughed at Ghoris letter, decided that he had backtracked, but sent a reply that he would wait. Ghori carried out a surprise attack before dawn. Prithviraj and his army resisted this attack and a full-scale battle began. When Ghori found himself losing, he pretended to retreat from the battle, but attacked Prithvirajs forces from behind. Prithviraj died.

The book says, The grave words of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishtiwere fulfilled at lastAnd that was the end of a most historic chapter in the annals of India and Hazrat Sahebs mission in the country.

This chapter in the book is titled "Shahabuddin Ghauri carries the day at Tarain with the blessings of Khwaja Muinuddin".

On page 67, the book says, After the fall of Prithviraj, there was no restriction in the way of Khwaja Saheb [Moinuddin Chisti] to carry on his mission peacefully all over IndiaUnfortunately, it was Prithvirajs own persistent obduracy, arrogance and intolerable persecution of the great saint and his innocent followers that were responsible for downfall of the Raja.

On the mission of Khwaja Saheb, the book says, The Khwaja Sahebs only object in Ajmer was to banish ignorance, darkness, superstition, oppression and corruption from soil of India.

The text makes clear the preachers agenda for the native Hindu society.

This biography, expectedly, is a most sanitised version of Chishtis life that skips the narratives that he indulged in cow slaughter that infuriated Prithviraj in the first place, and that he had entered India along with Ghori to wage jihad against infidels.

In his book Islamic Jihad: A legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery, author M A Khan writes:

Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti (1141-1230), probably the second-greatest Sufi saint of India after Nizamuddin Auliya, demonstrated a deep-seated hatred toward Hindu religion and its practices. On his arrival near the Anasagar Lake at Ajmer, he saw many idol-temples and promised to raze them to the ground with the help of Allah and His Prophet. After settling down there, Khwajas followers used to bring every day a cow (sacred to Hindus) near a famous temple, where the king and Hindus prayed, slaughter it and cook kebab from its meatclearly to show his contempt toward HinduismChisti also came to India with his disciples to fight Jihad against the infidels and participated in the treacherous holy war of Sultan Muhammad Ghauri in which the kind and chivalrous Hindu King Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated in Ajmer. In his Jihadi zeal, Chisti ascribed the credit for the victory to himself, saying, We have seized Pithaura (Prithviraj) alive and handed him over to the army of Islam.

Will the film tell this story? Its highly unlikely.

The Myth Around Jaichand

Whats also waiting to be seen is whether the film would bust the myth of a 'traitor' Jaichand or further it.

Few readers know but there is no reliable historical evidence of such a claim around King Jaichandra of Gahadavala dynasty of northern India.

The popular fictional tale around Prithviraj, Sanyogita and Jaichand is based on a spurious text named Prithviraj Raso, at least four different versions of which exist today. None seems to be older than the time of Akbar, which was at least 400 years after Prithvirajs era.

On the contrary, several historical records say that King Jaichandra died fighting the Ghurid Army led by Ghoris loyalist Qutb-al-Din-Aibak.

History of The Gahadavala Dynasty by Roma Niyogi (1959), the foreword of which was written by R C Majumdar, says, Jayachandra who was fighting on an elephant was killed in the battle, according to Firishta, by an arrow shot by Qutb-ud-Din himself.

With Chandra Prakash Dwivedi at the helm of research for this film, it is hoped that this historical blunder that defames a warrior as well as an entire clan of Rajputs is finally corrected.

Controversies Related To The Tomb

Until 2018, the official website of the Ajmer tomb said this about Chishti, In 1193 ADa devotee of Hazrat Khwaja Saheb had captured a Rajas daughter in an encounter who had embraced Islam and Khawaja Saheb, in response to the above reminder, married her giving her the Islamic name of Bibi Ummutulla.

When some social media users highlighted and criticised this portion for glorifying the act of marrying and changing the religion of a child [the daughter was quite young while Chishti was 55 years old), the website edited the line to gave his sister Bibi Ummutulla to marry him [Chishti].

However, the biography by Begg that we have cited above, supports the websites earlier version.

The book says (Chapter 11 titled Khwaja Muinuddins married life and death):

When he had settled down in Ajmer, the Khwaja Saheb had a special reminder about his marriage through a basharat (prophetic dream from the holy Prophet sometime in 591 AH or 1193 AD). The Prophet said: O Muinuddin, you are a great preceptor of our religion. You have followed strictly all our traditions except one. You should not depart from our sunnah (meaning here marriage which is incumbent upon every Muslim under the laws of Shariat). Coincidently that very night Malik Khitab, a devotee of Hazrat Khwaja Saheb, had captured a Rajas daughter in an encounter who embraced Islam and the Khwaja Saheb, in response to the above reminder, married her giving her the Islamic name of Bibi Ummutulla.

Talking of Chishtis tomb, it must not be forgotten that in the early 1990s, a major scandal rocked Ajmer where Hindu women became target of large-scale sexual exploitation and religious conversion. Many accused were khadims of, or held other posts at, the Ajmer dargah.

Last year, a current khadim of the tomb, Syed Sarwar Chishti, who claims descent from Moinuddin, addressed his followers outside the tomb over the issue of blasphemy of Islams founder Mohammad. Sarwar ended up issuing covert threats to Hindus, saying We [Muslims] ruled over you [Hindus] for centuries and the community should not be pushed to a limit that they begin to want to rule again. We were not subjects, we were rulers, he said.

Offering chadar at the grave of Chishti and venerating Prithviraj, the king who fought the invader brought upon the North Indian plains by Chishti, cannot go hand-in-hand.

One must choose.

The rest is here:

Chadar At Ajmer Sharif And Praises On Prithviraj Chauhan Cannot Go Hand-In-Hand; Chishti Blessed Ghori To Defeat Prithviraj, As Per His Biography -...