Sunday, October 31, 2010

U.K.: Visit London And Breed; They'll Pay And House You Well

From Winds of Jihad:

Visit London and breed. They’ll pay and house you well

by sheikyermami on October 31, 2010

Another sequel to our “we will outbreed you with the bellies of our women” series:

Max Hastings on the British Government’s attempts to cut back on a welfare rort that puts welfare recipients with huge families in London houses that most taxpayers could never afford themselves (Andrew Bolt)

“We will outbreed you with the bellies of our women”- how the …

‘We will outbreed you with the bellies of our women’- update …

“We will outbreed you with the bellies of our women”- P1

“We will outbreed you with the bellies of our women…” — Winds Of …P2

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Palestinian Muslims Are Building A Wall On Top Of the Garden Tomb And Desecrating The Church Of The Nativity

From Bare Naked Islam:

Palestinian Muslims are building an illegal wall over Jesus’ Garden Tomb

They are also building on top of Golgotha, an important Christian holy site.

This, in addition to destroying traces of Jewish history around the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and desecrating the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Ground Zero Victory Mosque, here they come.


The One In-Controvertible Problem With Islam

From Middle East Forum:

Offensive Jihad

The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam

by Raymond Ibrahim

Pajamas Media

October 28, 2010

Send RSS Share:

A recent MEMRI report titled "Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad," alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad, or jihad al-talab — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying "One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels." It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to suppress Muslim talk of offensive jihad.

One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the "wiser" supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims "must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns." In the meantime, according to these Muslims, "there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe." Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively "on the assumption that the world doesn't read, doesn't monitor… and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading."

Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: "Today, the Muslims' circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught," since discussing offensive jihad "arouses the enmity of people"; thus, "there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles."

These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam's imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.

Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. —are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility; for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside "help" or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia's mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims have no legitimate grievances.

And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as "right" and "normal" for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong. After all, the age-old argument that "we must supplant your ways, with our better ways, for your own good," works both ways, and in fact has been an oft cited justification for offensive jihad since the 7th century. Or would the reader be surprised to learn that jihadists (i.e., terrorists) regularly posit their war as an expression of altruism to "liberate" Westerners from their self-imposed "delusions"? Even Al Qaeda partially justifies its jihad against America for being "a nation that exploits women like consumer products"; for not rejecting the "immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury." In short, if the "white man's burden" is to "civilize" Muslims, the "Muslim man's burden" has long been to "civilize" Western man, namely, by enforcing sharia law. To justify the one is to make allowance for the other.

Yet while civilizations continue to quarrel over the philosophical position of man, one fact remains: all humans — secular or religious, Muslim or non-Muslim, from antiquity to today — agree that being forced to uphold a particular lifestyle against their will is wrong, bringing us right back to our topic: the purpose of offensive jihad is to do just that — forcefully impose a particular way of life on non-Muslims, culminating with dhimmitude for those who, after being conquered, refuse to convert.

Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam's Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated." Scholar Majid Khadurri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that jihad "is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community."

Even that chronic complainer Osama bin Laden makes it clear that offensive jihad is the root problem: "Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue… Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam... Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die."

Clearly, then, it is in the Muslim world's interest to keep the West ignorant of the fact that, irrespective of all Muslim grievances — real or feigned — nothing less than Islamic law itself mandates a state of constant hostility. Indeed, if the implications of offensive jihad were fully embraced, humanity might be compelled to view the Muslim world as a perpetual, existentialist threat, in need of preemptive containment. That said, and considering the willful ignorance of the West's political elite — who are guided less by objective facts and more by their "feel-good" ideals — Muslim talk of offensive jihad, no matter how loud or ubiquitous, will likely continue to fall on deaf ears.

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

Related Topics: Raymond Ibrahim

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Moderate Islam?

From The American Thinker:

October 30, 2010

Moderate Islam?

Jerry Philipson

Every time anything even marginally critical of Muslims or Islam appears in the media apologists, Muslim or otherwise, respond by saying 'moderate voices must be heard' or 'misconceptions about Islam are widespread' or 'Islam is really a religion of peace and tolerance' or other such platitudes.

These pronouncements are dead wrong. What we must look at is how and why Islam manifests itself the way it does and what we must listen to are the cries of its victims, those that are still alive that is. If we did we would realize that Islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance and that Muslims constantly commit heinous acts in its name everywhere on earth, the United States and Canada included. We would realize that it is in fact not merely religion, it is a completely proscribed way of life which requires true believers to act in ways that are fundamentally at odds with free, democratic, secular, Judeo-Christian, Western societies like ours. We would realize that Islam is expansionist and demands that non believers submit to its imperatives, with horrific consequences if they don't. We would realize that the Koran is full of hatred and intolerance and misogyny, that Islam really hasn't changed since its inception, that its very nature makes change virtually impossible and that the term 'moderate Islam' is complete hogwash.

Let there be no mistake. The vast majority of Muslims in the West are every bit as peaceful and tolerant in their daily lives as you or I, but they are not true believers or practitioners even if they think they are. They couldn't be because if they were every single one of them would be out to conquer us and bring us under Islam's sway. Moderate, peaceful, tolerant, integrated Muslims-absolutely. They are all around us. Moderate, peaceful, tolerant, integrated Islam -- no such thing. Every day all over the world people are murdered, maimed, raped, attacked, vilified and humiliated under its aegis and according to its precepts and dictates. We have had 1400 years of this behavior and the evidence is overwhelming and beyond dispute...moderate Islam simply does not exist and never has.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult for ordinary citizens to gain an accurate picture of Islam because the mainstream media is unwilling or unable to show its true colors, out of ignorance, political correctness, fear of retaliation or any number of other such reasons. The media would do us all a huge favor if it did however. Islam is a direct and serious threat to Western civilization in general and must be seen for what it is if we are to keep it from destroying our way of life and forcing us all to live as it requires us to. Including moderate Muslims.

With horrific consequences if we don't.

Posted at 01:01 AM

The Odyssey Of Islam In America

From The American Thinker:

October 30, 2010

The Odyssey of Islamism in America

By Amil Imani

Islamism is a mutation of Islam and is rapidly advancing on two fronts. In every Islamic country, it is cowing the non-radicals while recruiting more and more radicals into its ranks. In non-Muslim lands, flush with petrodollars, Islamism is establishing itself as a formidable force by enlisting the disaffected and attracting the delusional liberals with its promises. For the faithful, there is the added incentive of Allah's heaven and its irresistible attractions.

Wherever Islam goes, so goes its ethos. Throwing acid in the face of women who fail to don the hijab (or who just go to school), flogging people for sporting non-Islamic haircuts, and stoning to death violators of sexual norms are only a few examples of a raft of daily barbaric acts of Islamists in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Other forms of Islamic brutalities such as honor killing have already found their way to America, Germany, and other European countries with ever-burgeoning Muslim populations

Reading about these religiously mandated horrific acts and even seeing them on television or the internet may momentarily repulse, but the acts do not terribly concern many Americans on the whole. After all, those things are happening on the other side of the world, and those people deserve each other; we are safe in fortress America. So goes the thinking.

But "Fortress America" is a delusion that even the events of 9/11 seem to have failed to dispel. Many prefer to believe that the assault of 9/11 was an aberration, since nothing like it has happened since, and it is unlikely that anything of the sort will ever happen again. So goes the wishful thinking. The reality portrays a vastly different picture. America is far from a fortress, given its vast wide-open borders. It is a nation of laws where all forms of freedom are enshrined in its Constitution; it's where Americans live by a humane ethos diametrically different from Islamist savagery. Sadly, these differences confer a great advantage to the Islamists and place America in imminent danger.

The breach of "Fortress America" from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of many more forthcoming heinous assaults -- unless we abandon our complacency, stop relying on the invincibility of the law enforcement people, and willingly make the sacrifices that will protect our way of life.

Knowing Islam intimately and having experienced its systemic savagery have compelled me to warn repeatedly of the deadly, imminent threat it poses to all non-Muslims ("Why Confront Islamism") attempting to present a comprehensive treatment of the evil precepts and practices of Islamism. I am listing a few facts that should be enough to alarm anyone who cherishes liberty and freedom and to awaken anyone who is comforted by the belief that all the Islamic mayhem is limited to an illiterate gang of primitive Middle-Easterners and has no implications for America. Sorry, bad news is here already.

•Some 26 percent of American Muslims aged 18-29 support suicide bombings "in defense of Islam," according to findings of a recent Pew poll.

According to Pew, there are 2.35 million Muslims in America, 30 percent of whom are in the 18-29 age range. Some claim that the number of Muslims is in fact much larger. Even using the conservative Pew numbers, over 180,000 Muslims in America are bomb-approving. This is an alarmingly large number, given that Muslims, as an article of faith, practice dissimulation in dealing with infidels and under-report their true intentions. How many human bombs and bomb-approving people does it take to wreak havoc on our country?

•The 180,000 Muslims living among us don't define what "defense of Islam" is. It could be anything that they feel constitutes an attack on Islam and Islamic values, such as the reported flushing of the Quran down the toilet, the Danish cartoon, Rushdie's book, a newspaper article, an internet posting, or even women not donning the hijab.

When religious fanatics unreservedly advocate wanton acts of mass murder, they are not likely to shy from coercion and intimidation measures to impose their will on the larger society. In tandem with the cold murder of Theo Van Gough in Holland, for instance, Islamists had been striving to supplant civil laws with the Islamic Sharia in the country. In other lands such as France, England, and Canada, Muslims have also been waging serious campaigns for adoption of the Sharia or some of its provisions, just for starters.

In 2001, the Islamic Society of North America published a brochure that was sent to public school teachers and administrators. "You've Got a Muslim Child in Your School" spells out some of the basics of Islam and specifies some of the restrictions. One section reads:

On behalf of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest organization of Muslims in the United States and Canada, we would like to request that in view of the above teachings of Islam, Muslim students in your school system should not be required to:

1) Sit next to the opposite sex in the same classroom;

2) Participate in physical education, swimming or dancing classes. Alternative meaningful education activities should be arranged for them. We urge you to organize physical education and swimming classes separately for boys and girls in accordance with the following guidelines:

•Separate classes for boys and girls in a fully covered area

•Only male/female instructors for the respective group

•Special swimming suits that cover all the private parts of the body down to the knee

•Separate and covered shower facilities for each student

3) Participate in plays, proms, social parties, picnics, dating, etc. which require free mixing of the two sexes;

4) Participate in any event or activity related to Christmas, Easter, Halloween or Valentine's Day. All such occasions have religious and social connotations contrary to Islamic faith and teachings. We also urge you to ensure that the following facilities are available to Muslim students in your school:

1) They are excused from their classes to attend off-campus special prayers on Fridays (approximately 1:00 to 2:00 P.M.).

2) They are excused for 15 minutes in the afternoon to offer a special prayer in a designated area on the campus. The prayer is mandatory for all Muslims and often cannot be offered after the school hours.

3) All food items containing meat of a pig in any form or shape, as well as alcohol, should be clearly labeled in the cafeteria.

4) At least one properly covered toilet should be available in each men's and women's room.

5) Muslim students are excused, without penalty of absence, for the two most important festivals of Islam: Eid Al-Fitr and Edi Al-Adha, in accordance with the lunar calendar."

Ever since 9/11, and possibly before, America has been concerned about terrorists coming from Islamic lands. For this reason, some people advocated profiling as a safeguard against the 9/11-type mass murderers. But how do you profile hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans who are already here and look and act like other Americans? How can an open, free society such as ours safeguard the individual freedom we so greatly value and protect the safety of its citizens?

The immensely difficult task of safeguarding our freedom while ensuring our safety is seriously and repeatedly undermined by Islamist apologists, pontificating academes, vote-hungry politicians, and the mainstream media, each for their own reasons. Here are some of the comfort pills dispensed by the mainstream media's polls: "Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle" (U.S. Today); "Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds" (New York Times); Poll: "US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook" (Voice of America).

It is said that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The mainstream media's manipulation of statistics goes beyond selective reporting and qualifies as outright disinformation. Is the U.S. Muslims' outlook moderate? All U.S. Muslims? What about the self-reported outlook of hundreds of thousands who support mass murder in the "defense of Islam"?

Even if most Muslims seek to adopt an American lifestyle, a great many Muslims are dead-set on using violence to make America conform to their barbaric way of life. Islamism is cancer. Cancer cells are always few at the beginning, and if they are left unchecked, they keep on multiplying, eventually devouring the non-cancerous.

Why all the fuss about "moderate Islamism"? After all, mild Islamism is not all that bad, and they are coming to power through free elections, the leftists keep preaching. In reality, even coining the term "mild Islamism" is a clear instance of the leftists' treachery. Being mildly Islamist is as plausible as being mildly pregnant. There is no such a thing as mild Islamism. It only starts mildly, just the way Muhammad himself started it in Mecca. Then it builds momentum and settles for nothing less than the total imposition of its dogma and will. Being mildly Islamist is only the head of the camel poking into the tent. Wherever the head of the animal goes, if it is not chopped off, the body eventually follows. And Islam's is a disease-bearing body that will infect the healthy secular societies.

As is the case with cancer cells, it is the malignant minority that is death-bearing.

In the Germany of the 1930s, for instance, very few people were Nazis, and most Germans dismissed them as a bunch of hotheaded fools. Before long, the hotheaded few cowed the dismissive masses, and as a result, millions lost their lives.

Escalations of demands, intolerance of differences, and contempt for non-Muslims are hallmarks of Islam. The deluded liberals as well as the publishers among the leftists are destined to be among the very first victims of mild Islamism as it gathers power.

Mild Islamism may indeed be a minority in America. Yet this deadly cancer has metastasized throughout all fifty states and is attempting to devour Michigan, with Dearborn as its capital. Urgent confrontation of this advancing disease is imperative to stave it off. We must resist the intrusion of this seventh-century mentality into our country and our way of life. We must do all we can to protect our precious freedom. Here is the question: Do we, in America and the West, have the sense and the will to forestall mild Islamism from evolving into a real Islamism?

Just a sobering note: mild Islamism is already here in our country. The Muslim cab drivers of the Minneapolis Airport refusal to ferry passengers with alcohol or even those with seeing-eye dogs. Muslim inmates demand to be served only halal food. Campbell's Soup caters to Islam, Muslim students badger universities for special facilities for their meetings, and the first-ever Muslim congressman assumed office by swearing on the Quran and not the Bible. A New Jersey school district recognizes Muslim holidays, and much more.

Along with Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran-funded mosques, there are other infrastructures supporting sharia law:

Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America

Sharia Academy of America

Sharia Board of America

Islamic Supreme Council of America

Islamic American University

Government agencies at the city/state level have started abiding by sharia law:

Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development Department

The Alternative Financing program provides small Minneapolis businesses (neighborhood retail, service or light manufacturing) an alternative financing to the interest-based system that is in accordance with Islamic law, or Sharia.

"At the federal level, taxpayer dollars to bailout sharia-promoting AIG."

Further, the University of Wisconsin Law School published research that stated, "American judges have been judging Muslim divorces in state courts for years, creating a body of case law that...involves Islamic family law doctrines ..."

"And courts in Texas have referred cases to Texas Islamic Court are just a few examples for the lemmings who are coming out in force to support Islamic sharia law."

Well, mild Islamism is not all that obtrusive, since it is similar to the early stages of cancer. Yet cancer it is. And before long, the full-blown cancer will develop. If we do not want to deal with that beast, we need to take drastic measures to eradicate the disease, no matter how unpleasant and unpopular they may be.

Breaking Their Silence

From The American Spectator:

Breaking Their Silence

By Mark Tooley on 10.29.10 @ 6:08AM

In their tragic slide toward the far left in the 1970s and 1980s, America's Mainline churches and their ecumenical councils largely lost interest in religious freedom and even the plight of persecuted Christians. Engagement with communist regimes and their allies took priority. In more recent years, liberal Protestants often have preferred similar collaboration with Islamist regimes rather open advocacy in defense of their Christian and other minority religious victims.

Of late, there have been some small, refreshing exceptions to the scandalous church silence about persecuted Christians, at least by the National Council of Churches, World Council of Churches, and the United Methodists.

In mid-October, Sudanese church leaders were hosted by the National Council of Churches (NCC) in New York. Not so many years ago, the NCC infamously hosted Fidel Castro, who assured a largely sympathetic church audience there was no religious persecution in communist Cuba. These Sudanese doubtless offered a very different message. Mostly from southern Sudan, which is majority Christian, these church leaders have survived decades of Islamist persecution by Khartoum. The Islamist regime's war against southern Sudan, which the Bush Administration helped negotiate to a precarious truce, killed 2 million. In January, southern Sudanese will vote on potential autonomy for themselves, amid widespread doubts that Khartoum will peacefully respect the result.

American Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, and human rights groups championed southern Sudan in the 1990s and early 2000s, which helped bolster the Bush Administration's focus. But liberal religious groups, especially Mainline Protestants, were usually quiet. In the mid-2000s, liberal religious groups eagerly touted the plight of Sudan's predominantly Muslim Darfur region in the west. Standing with Darfur's victimized African Muslims against Khartoum's more Arabized Islamists evidently did not discomfit liberal religious groups as much as supporting Christians against Islamists. Commonly, Khartoum's Islamist motivation was ignored, and the Bush Administration was faulted for somehow failing to impose a peace in Darfur.

In an NCC news release, NCC chief Michael Kinnamon boasted the National Council of Churches has "for years" campaigned against the killing in Darfur, where more than 300,000 have died from Khartoum's war. Oddly, the news release cited Darfur's struggle between Khartoum-backed militias and "black Christian and animist Africans," obviously confusing Darfur's mostly Muslim population with southern Sudan's mostly non-Muslim people. Kinnamon insisted the NCC's concerns extend beyond Darfur to all Sudan. Referring to the Save Darfur Coalition, which an NCC official now heads, Kinnamon explained: "While this coalition started as a Darfur organization because of the genocide, our mission has evolved into an all-Sudan policy, including…the upcoming referendum." He promised about the Sudanese Christians: "We support our sisters and brothers during this difficult and unpredictable period."

Kinnamon referred to the NCC having passed a resolution about southern Sudan almost a decade ago, which vaguely urged "religious tolerance among Christians, Muslims and those practicing African Traditional Religions" in Sudan, without mentioning that the real problem was Khartoum's Islamist ambitions. Now, the NCC seems more serious in its interest in southern Sudan. The Sudanese church delegation that visited the NCC in October included Sudan's Anglican primate, two Catholic bishops, and the head of Sudan's council of churches. They rightly warned, as the NCC news release noted, that "the safety and human rights (including the right to freedom of religion) of southerners living in northern Sudan [i.e. mostly Christians] are in jeopardy before, during and after the referendum."

Interestingly, the delegation also included Samuel Kobia, a Kenyan Methodist pastor who recently departed as head of the Swiss-based World Council of Churches, which, like the NCC, rarely evinced interest in southern Sudan under Kobia or his predecessor. The WCC's new chief is a Norwegian pastor who is steering in a somewhat different direction. An October WCC news release refreshingly spotlighted the plight of an escaped North Korean Christian who addressed the recent evangelical Lausanne Congress in South Africa.

The 18-year-old North Korean woman reportedly moved her audience to tears when describing how her father, a former aide to Kim Jong-Il, became a Christian and has probably been executed by North Korea on charges of treason and espionage. "This is often the fate of confessing Christians in North Korea," the WCC news release accurately admitted. In previous years, the WCC and other Western ecumenical groups have fawningly visited Pyongyang, obligingly visited its show churches, and blamed America for North Korea's poverty, with nary a word about religious persecution.

"Brothers and sisters here in this place, I humbly ask you to pray that the same light of God's grace and mercy that reached my father and my mother, and now me, will one day soon dawn upon the people of North Korea, my people," the young woman implored, as the spellbound audience erupted into applause.

Meanwhile, the United Methodist Church's lobby office denounced China for banning Chinese Christians from attending the same evangelical conference in South Africa at which the North Korean woman had spoken. "No government should have authority over the church," a spokesman with the United Methodist Board of Church and Society asserted. "Thus, the actions by the Chinese government to restrict travel and intimidate Christians are an offense against the basic rights of all humanity."

The Methodist agency, with the collaboration and probable prodding of a United Methodist evangelical group, even commended the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church. It urged prayers for "brothers and sisters in Christ" who are "suffering through persecution in places like Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, Burma and Iran." Also citing Sudan and North Korea, it noted that Christians in these countries are "economically and politically marginalized, physically brutalized, and even killed simply because they follow Jesus."

Over 20 years ago, purported North Korean Christian clerics dispatched by North Korea's communists were hosted by the United Methodist lobby office on Capitol Hill to gain legitimacy for North Korea's communist tyranny. Today, that office, and other Mainline Protestant agencies that once routinely apologized for North Korea, are now advocating on behalf of persecuted Christians in North Korea and elsewhere where they are imprisoned and martyred by communists and Islamists. The new found interest in religious freedom may be incremental, but it is progress.

Letter to the Editor

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church.

Albany, New York: Hate/Bias Crime--Muslim Assaults Gay Man

From Creeping Sharia:

Albany: Muslim assaults gay man

Posted on October 29, 2010 by creeping

The media runs from such stories. Not even a murmur of a hate crime when Muslims are the attackers. Why not? Hat tip Bare Naked Islam via Man allegedly assaulted in Albany – FOX23

A black eye, six stitches, and possible blindness out of one eye for Vincent Webster, 23, of Albany.

He said a night out on the town turned into a nightmare.

Webster and his best friend, who prefers to not release her last name, stopped by Yankee’s Pizza on Central Avenue after hanging out at nearby Rocks Bar.

Vincent said he spilled some parmesan cheese and that is when a confrontation ensued.

“I went to brush cheese off my clothes and one of employees goes you (expletive deleted), get the (expletive deleted) out of my bar, you are making a (expletive deleted) mess you stupid (expletive deleted),” Webster said.

Webster said as he was getting up to leave an employee punched him in the face.

“He knocked me in the face multiple times and two other employees working were screaming knock that (expletive deleted) out,” Webster said.

“We did not egg them on, we dropped the cheese,” Abby said.

“He provoked me,” sais Jamil Karimi, 20, who works at Yankee’s Pizza.

He said Webster threw a slice of pizza in his face and that is when he reacted.

“I hit him once, that is it,” Karimi said.

Albany Police said they arrested Karimi and charged him with assault.

Police said they are looking to see if it is a biased-related crime.

Webster said he thinks this incident happened because he is gay.

“I don’t hate gay people or no one else…I never called him any names or anything,” Karimi said. “He turned it into, we hate gays this and that and I’m like if we hated gays, we would not open a store near two gay bars,” Javid Karimi, Yankee’s Pizza Owner, said.

On Sunday, the pizzeria was pretty empty.

The owner said they’ve lost business since the incident.

“It’s a big headache because I lost almost half my business,” Javid Karimi said.

America and the West have a big headache too. Gays, as a group, are silent on Islamic sharia law and Muslim homophobia. More evidence below

The muslim Terrorist Dry Run--Suspicious Devices Removed From A UPS Flight At Newark, Philadelphia, And In England

From Fire Andrea Mitchell:

The Muslim terrorist dry run – Suspicious device removed from a UPS flight at Newark, Philadelphia, England etc

But lets remember. Muslims aren’t trying to kill us right progressives? Right Whoopie? Right Joy BeHAG? Suspicious packages have shown up in the streets of San Francisco, Jewish Synagogues in Chicago, airplanes in Newark, New Jersey, and a outside the federal courthouse in Portland, Maine. Some are calling this a terrorist “dry run”, others are calling it just a “fore-shock” of what’s to come. Officials say Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula may have been involved. More from Fox News:

The FBI reported that two of the suspicious packages were addressed to religious institutions in Chicago.

“All churches, synagogues and mosques in the Chicago area should be vigilant for any unsolicited or unexpected packages, especially those originating from overseas locations,” Chicago FBI spokesman Ross Rice said.

Authorities are methodically sweeping and clearing cargo flights that were held at U.S. airports in Newark and Philadelphia after foreign law enforcement agencies reported finding suspicious packages from Yemen in London and Dubai.

Law enforcement agencies are investigating whether packages found on UPS planes at Philadelphia International Airport, Newark Liberty Airport, East Midlands airport in central England and a FedEx facility in Dubai were part of a dry run mail bomb plot, an attempt to get explosives into the United States or an attempt to send materials to third parties in the U.S. for another plot.

Remind me again. Which religion is it that Al Qaeda is comprised of? Was it those “evil Jews”?

Britain: Groveling Alone

From Act! For America:

October 19, 2010

Britain: Groveling Alone

Melanie Phillips

Angela Merkel has got the point. Multiculturalism has failed, she states flatly, as she surveys western Europe going down under the tide of radical Islam. Rather than liberal society creating the utopia of harmonious cultural pluralism, it is being swallowed whole by the giant predator whose voracious mouth it encourages, in the spirit of tolerance, to open ever wider in the unshakeable belief of western liberals that the jaws about to snap shut around their necks are actually stretched wide in a smile.

All over mainland Europe, a few shoes are belatedly – maybe too late -- starting to drop.

France and Belgium have banned the burqa and other countries are debating doing the same.

Switzerland has banned minarets.

Denmark has imposed ferocious limits on immigration.

In the Netherlands the prosecution in the case against the Dutch politician Geert Wilders for allegedly inciting religious hatred -- through his criticism of Islamic hatred -- has thrown in the towel and asked the judges to acquit him of all charges. See here for an authoritative analysis of the significance of this.

And so what of dear old Blighty, the country which in 1940 stood alone against the threat to democratic life and liberty and the values of western liberalism? Is the shoe of reality starting to drop in the UK too?

A report by Quilliam about City University, central London, states that a hard-line Islamist ideology is being promoted through the leadership of the university’s student Islamic Society, leading to increased religious tensions on campus and to the intimidation and harassment of staff, students and members of minority groups by extremists and increasing the risks of students turning to terrorism.

Ahmadi Muslims in south London have been targeted by Islamists in a hate campaign, and a Muslim woman in Bradford has died after being set on fire (via JihadWatch), underlining the fact that Muslims are themselves front-line victims of Islamic jihadis and sharia law.

And in the Sunday Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan continues to chronicle the remorseless takeover of an entire London borough, Tower Hamlets, by the radicals of the Islamic Forum of Europe using intimidation, infiltration and corruption:

According to one of its own leaflets, the IFE – based at the hardline East London Mosque in Tower Hamlets – wants to change the ‘very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam.’ The group is accused by one of the area’s Labour MPs, Jim Fitzpatrick, of infiltrating and ‘corrupting’ his party in a way similar to the Militant Tendency in the 1980s.

The response of other newspapers to what’s going on in Tower Hamlets? As far as I can make out, deafening silence. And what is the response of the rest of the British thinking classes to this and countless other signs of increasing Islamisation and Islamic radicalisation in Britain?

The hitherto resolutely counter-counter-cultural think-tank Civitas, which in the past has produced some outstanding social and cultural analysis, has just published a set of essays on Women, Islam and Western Liberalism in which one author, Alveena Malik, states that the full-face Islamic veil, or niqab, should be regarded

‘ part of a modern British way of life.’

She continued: ‘The wearing of religious symbols, including the full veil, should be a fundamental human right of an individual in both the public and private sphere. The real test for religious symbols in the public sphere should always be: “Does the wearing of a symbol (such as the kirpan, turban, yarmulke, crucifix and the veil) hinder a citizen’s ability to perform their public civic duties?”’ Britain is in a ‘unique’ position to embrace such a public display of faith because of the role the church plays in the affairs of the state and its ‘multicultural diversity’.

To be fair, the Civitas pamphlet contains other views which profoundly disagree with this. Even so, the idea that advocating as ‘part of the British way of life’ the niqab, which presents such an obvious danger to security as well as intimidating non-radical Muslim women, inciting religious subversion by serving as a symbolic call to arms against western values and destroying the equality inherent in human interaction by virtue of the simple act that we can all see each other’s faces – the idea that this is, as Civitas appears to suggest, a contribution towards liberal diversity, is simply grotesque.

And here’s the thing: the Telegraph also tells us:

Mrs Malik was appointed by last government to a panel of faith advisers for the Department for Communities. She has overseen British Council guidance on ‘intercultural dialogue’.

It looks horribly like, seventy years on, Britain is now once again alone -- this time, though, not standing but grovelling on its knees before those bent upon the extinction of freedom.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Faith Without Reason, A Book Review Of The Closing Of The Muslim Mind

From The American Spectator:

Faith Without Reason

By Matthew Kenefick from the October 2010 issue

The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis

By Robert R. Reilly

(ISI Books, 240 pages, $26.95)

Robert R. Reilly has written a book that may offer the key to both understanding and perhaps defeating the ongoing war of terror against the West. The book is entitled The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. As Angelo Codevilla's jacket blurb puts it: "Reilly shows what happens to a civilization when it fails to give reason its due. This book teaches and warns. Read it." Paul Eidelberg describes it as "a book surpassing in depth even the best efforts of Bernard Lewis. You will not only be enlightened, but you may also see how the West might prevent a new Dark Ages."

Reilly is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and a well-published writer with substantial government service, including a stint as director of the Voice of America and senior adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Information in 2003. As a sideline, he is also one of our finest classical music critics.

In this book Reilly explains "why the restoration of reason to Islam is the only antidote to the spiritual pathology driving young men to attempted terrorist acts."

The Closing of the Muslim Mind comes as we ask ourselves what in the world we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan nine years after the attacks of 9/11, spending billions of dollars taken from the American taxpayers and sacrificing thousands of American lives, not to mention the perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan lives. Are we there to save the Arab and Persian world by imposing democracy à la Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush and his advisers (with disastrous consequences so far)? Are we simply acting as a republic intent on defending our own shores? Or are we (as our enemies view us) perhaps an empire trying to extend our power to protect our "interests," whatever they are?

Are we merely trying to exterminate al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all forms of jihadist Islam, or are we, in the tradition of an eye for an eye, seeking payback for the almost 3,000 Americans who died in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Although the answers to questions such as these do not lie in Reilly's work, he marshals convincing historical evidence of the likelihood that the Christian West and the Muslim countries will remain incompatible, because we believe in man's power to reason -- and they don't. And barring some sort of Islamic Reformation (which theologians such as Michael Novak do not rule out as impossible), jihadist Islam and the Christian West will remain in mortal conflict, as we have intermittently in the past. The difference now, however, is that Islamic nationalists may already be capable of using nuclear weapons, or else are on the verge of that capability, whether in war or as instruments of terror. Most worrisome, they have the will and the irrational theology to use them. In short, dialogue is not possible with those who are incapable of religious tolerance.

At the heart of Reilly's book is his argument that the

denigration of dialogue is due to the demotion of reason that took place in the ninth-century struggle between the rationalist theologians, the Mu'tazilites and their anti-rationalist theologians, the Ash'arites. Unfortunately, for those who prefer dialogue, the Ash'arites won.

The Ash'arites' position was that reason is so infected by men's self-interest that it cannot be relied upon to know things objectively. What is more, there is really nothing to be known because all created things have no nature or order intrinsic to themselves, but are only the momentary manifestations of God's direct will. Since God acts without reason, the products of his will are not intelligible to men. Therefore, in this double disparagement, reason cannot know, and there is nothing to be known.

All of this may prompt memories of the Islamic world's outrage when the just-elected Pope Benedict XVI told his audience in Regensburg, Germany, that not only is violence in the service of evangelization unreasonable and therefore against God, but that a conception of God without reason or above reason leads to that very violence. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2005 Subiaco address said:

From the beginning Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the "Logos," as the religion according to reason. In the first place, it has not identified its precursors in other religions but in the philosophical enlightenment which has cleared the path of tradition to turn to search of the truth and toward the good, toward the one God who is above all gods.

Reilly writes, "Ultimately this theological view developed into the realist metaphysics of Aquinas which became the metaphysical foundation of modern science, as Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Hungarian theologian and physicist, explained in his voluminous writings on the origins of modern science. Jaki laid out, as well, the reasons modern science was stillborn in
the Muslim world after what seemed to be its real start." Fr. James Schall of Georgetown University states that "Jaki saw much of the rage in Modern Islam as due to its failure or inability to modernize itself by its own powers."

Reilly asks, "Are [the Islamists of today] something new or a resurgence from the past? How much of this is Islam and how much is Islamism? Is Islamism a deformation of Islam? If so, in what way and from where has it come? And why is Islam susceptible to this kind of deformation?" You will have to read his book to find the answers.

THE CLOSING OF THE MUSLIM MIND also draws on British author Hilaire Belloc, who is increasingly being rediscovered as a prophet for our times in areas including economics, marriage, and family, but most notably here in foreseeing the return of militant Islam.

Belloc wrote in his 1938 book The Great Heresies, "Since religion is the root of all political movements and changes and since we have here a very great religion physically paralyzed but morally intensively alive, we are in the presence of an unstable equilibrium which cannot remain permanently unstable." Later in the book, Belloc writes that "[Islamic] culture happens to have fallen back in material applications; there is no reason whatever why it should not learn its lesson and become equal in all those temporal things which now alone give us our superiority over it -- whereas in Faith we have fallen inferior to it." Perhaps Belloc intuited something like the control of a commodity like oil and the financial power that comes with it, or the possession of some fantastic weapon such as the atom bomb.

Reilly argues that "the denigration of reason and the primacy of force that developed within Islamic thinking after the suppression of the Mu'tazilites are what have produced the dismissal of dialogue." Bin Laden quoted his spiritual godfather Abdullah Azzam in a November 2001 video released after 9/11: "Terrorism is an obligation in Allah's religion." Reilly's analysis is that "the restoration of the status of reason is the only antidote to the spiritual pathology behind this remark; it is also the only foundation in which real dialogue can begin -- dialogue within Islam among its contending factions, and between Islam and the West."

However, Reilly doubts that this restoration is possible or at least likely. Therefore, those who are considered as enemies by jihadist Muslims must act accordingly using their God-given gift of reason. Could it be however, that the question of Faith is even more important than that of Reason? Unquestionably, there are millions of adherents of worldwide Islam willing to die for their faith. In what is left of the once Christian West, are there as many? I have my doubts. 

Letter to the Editor

Matthew Kenefick is an occasional writer from the Washington, D.C. area

Islamists Accuse Egypt's Coptic Christians Of Behaving Like...Islamists?

From The Middle East Forum:

Islamists Accuse Egypt's Christians of Behaving Like…Islamists?

by Raymond Ibrahim

Hudson New York

October 28, 2010

Send RSS Share:

The persecution of Egypt's Coptic minority is taking an ironic, and dangerous, turn: Islamist leaders are now projecting the worst traits of radical Islam onto Egypt's Christians. A psychological phenomenon first described by Sigmund Freud, "projection" is defined as "the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people." As such, consider how the following excerpt from this recent report is a perfect example of projection:

In the last month various fundamentalist groups held ten demonstrations [in Egypt], each after coming out of mosques following Friday prayers, against the 86-year-old ailing Coptic Pontiff, in which he was accused of being a US agent, an abductor and torturer of female Muslim converts from Christianity, of stockpiling weapons in monasteries and churches to carry out war against Muslims, and of plans to divide Egypt to create a Coptic State.

All of these accusations are as ludicrous to apply to the Coptic Church as they perfectly apply to Islamists. Let us first examine the context of these charges:

"Abducting and torturing female Muslim converts from Christianity." Context: The wife of a Coptic priest, Camelia Shehata, was reportedly kidnapped by Islamists, but then returned to her family. In response, Islamist leaders began saying that she had willingly runaway and converted to Islam, and, in fact, has been "re-kidnapped" by the Coptic Church, which has trapped her in a monastery where she is being "tortured" and "re-indoctrinated" to Christianity.

In fact, the opposite scenario — kidnapping Christian women and forcing them to convert to Islam — is a well documented and notorious phenomenon in Egypt. So now the Coptic Church is being accused of behaving identically — not just kidnapping, but torturing, brainwashing, and forcing women to convert. Moreover, that Camelia has appeared on video fervently affirming her Christian faith and denying that she ever converted to Islam has been ignored, no doubt because Islam's ingrained notion of taqiyya, or deceit, is also being projected onto the Copts. Finally, little wonder this charge jibes well with Muslims: their own sharia mandates that Muslim women who apostatize must be incarcerated and tormented until they return to Islam, such as in the recent case of Nagla Imam.

"Stockpiling weapons in monasteries and churches to carry out war against Muslims." Context: On September 15, leading Islamic figure Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa appeared on Al Jazeera and, in a wild tirade, accused the Copts of "stocking arms and ammunitions in their churches and monasteries"— imported from Israel, no less, since "Israel is in the heart of the Coptic Cause" — and "preparing to wage war against Muslims." He warned that if nothing is done, the "country will burn," inciting Muslims to "counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church." Awwa further charged that Egypt's security forces cannot enter the monasteries to investigate for weapons (an amazing assertion, considering that Coptic monasteries are not only at the mercy of the state, but easy prey to Islamist attacks, with monks tortured and crucifixes spat upon).

Needless to say, such charges are preposterous: in a nation and society where Islam is supreme; where sharia (which mandates subjugation for non-Muslims, a la Koran 9:29) is part of the Constitution; where Copts have been conditioned over centuries to be happy just being left alone — is it reasonable to believe that these selfsame, down-trodden Christians, who make up 12-15% of the population, are planning a violent takeover of Egypt? It is easy to see, however, why such charges resonate with Muslims; after all, Islamists are constantly arming and stockpiling weapons — a Koranic charge — including in mosques, as they prepare to violently seize power across the nations, Egypt being an especially coveted target. Indeed, at one point, Awwa himself ceded that "Muslims are arrested every day [in Egypt] for extremism and the possession of arms."

"Planning to divide Egypt to create a Coptic State." Context: In a closed conference, Coptic Bishop Bishoy had the temerity to acknowledge history: "Muslims are guests in this country, Christians are the original residents. Prior to the Arab invasion of Egypt, which took place in the seventh century, the majority of Egypt's population was Christian." As usual, this otherwise historically accurate observation has enraged Muslims, been denounced by Al Azhar, and cited as "proof" that the Copts seek to divide Egypt and establish their own state.

It is actually Muslim minorities who habitually try to secede from non-Muslim countries. Whether by creating their own nations (Pakistan), or creating enclaves in the West, the notion of separating from the infidel is commanded in the Koran (e.g., 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22), codified in the doctrine of wala wa bara, and imprinted on the Muslim psyche. Unsurprisingly, then, Muslims have come to project this divisive impulse onto the Copts as well.

Yet, there is perhaps no clearer example of Muslim projection than when the aforementioned bishop, in response to the anti-Copt upsurge, declared that Egypt's Christians are reaching the point of martyrdom; amazingly, this, too, has been thoroughly "Islamicized" as a declaration of war-to-the-death, including by Awwa, who, during his Al Jazeera rant, asserted that "Father Bishoy declared that they would reach the point of martyrdom, which can only mean war. He said, 'If you talk about our churches, we will reach the point of martyrdom.' This means war."

Of course, the notion that a martyr is someone who wages and dies in jihad, or "holy war," is intrinsic to Islam (e.g., Koran 9:111). Even the authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid ("martyr") as "one killed in battle with infidels." On the other hand, Christian martyrdom has always meant being persecuted and killed for refusing to recant Christianity — and this is precisely the definition that has for centuries applied to Egypt's Copts, the definition that Bishop Bishoy clearly meant. (See this article for the pivotal differences between Christian and Muslim martyrdom.)

To recap: Islamists regularly abduct, abuse, brainwash, and compel Coptic girls to convert — and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamists regularly smuggle and stockpile weapons, including in their holy places — and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamists are constantly either trying to break away or conquer infidel nations — and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamic martyrdom means participating and dying in jihad — and now Christian martyrdom is defined as the exact same thing.

While anti-Copt sentiment is as old as the Muslim conquest of Egypt, this recent batch of bizarre accusations is making Muslims more irate and paranoid, and bodes greater evil for Egypt's beleaguered Christians. According to sharia's dhimmi pact, the necessary condition for Copts to be tolerated is that they live as subordinate, second-class "citizens." The Islamist psyche — and Egypt is increasingly Islamicizing — expects this. Yet these recent charges portray the Copts as violent antagonists bent on war and conquest. If the Muslim popular mind accepts this new interpretation, far from subjugated dhimmis, or even co-equals, the Copts will be perceived as little better than infidel terrorists, and treated accordingly, that is, barbarously.

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

Related Topics: Anti-Christianism, Egypt, Radical Islam
Raymond Ibrahim

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

George Washington University Adds Female-Only Swim-Time Hours For Muslims

From Creeping Sharia:

George Washington Univ adds female-only swim hours for Muslims

Posted on October 27, 2010 by creeping

Sharia compliant, complete with a female lifeguard.

The Muslim Students Association is shaking down universities while their fellow Muslim Brotherhood-linked legal jihadists, CAIR, are shaking down private pools. You can take a Muslim out of sharia, but apparently you can’t take the sharia out of some Muslims. via University starts female-only swim hours – News.

When Zainah Khan packed for GW last year, she left her swimsuit behind.

The Saudi Arabian native knew she wouldn’t be able to swim in the Lerner Health and Wellness Center because it is open to both male and female students.

If she donned a bathing suit in HelWell, the sophomore would risk being seen without her hijab – a headscarf worn by some Muslim women in public – and in immodest clothing, which goes against the basic tenants of her religion.

But this fall, Khan and other female followers of the Islam religion have the opportunity to dive in.

Last week, the Muslim Students’ Association and the University opened up “Sisters’ Splash,” a female-only hour at the pool.

Every week, GW plans to close the HelWell pool to men and will cover the glass door with a dark tarp, giving female Muslim students the chance to swim at their leisure. The University also hired a female lifeguard to be on duty for each week’s event.

The Muslim Brotherhood founded MSA is steadily plying its sharia at universities across the U.S.

Related Creeping Sharia pool posts:

Harvard Gyms go Sharia

Kansas City YMCA segregates pool for Muslim women, so does MIT

Oregon Muslim requests women-only swim times, female lifeguards

North Carolina aquatic center says yes to sharia law – makes public pool private for Muslim women

UK: Muslims force infidel swimmers into sharia, darkness

More sharia compliant swimming pools for Muslim women in UK

London pools enforcing sharia law for non-Muslims

Australia: Bare skin banned at public pool to appease Muslims

Amsterdam: Muslim women demand men be banned from pool

Sharia compliant beaches in Ital

The English Defense League Will Not Allow Christmas To Be Hijacked By Muslims

From Bare Naked Islam:

ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE will not allow Christmas to be hijacked by Muslims

The EDL anti-Islamic extremism activists have vowed to “close down” any town that ditches British traditions and shows favoritism to Muslims. And they don’t give a damn if you call them ‘racists.’

UK DAILY STARThe English Defence League said it has written to every council in the country threatening a mass invasion if they ban the word “Christmas.” It includes using the term “winter festival” in case Christmas upsets Muslims. EDL WEBSITE

EDL leader Stephen Lennon said “working class people” in the UK were “at boiling point” over what he says is the “Islamisation of Britain.”

His declaration comes after yesterday’s Daily Star poll found 98% of readers fear that Britain is becoming a Muslim state.

He said: “If the politicians aren’t going to stick up for us, we will make them, because we will cause so much fuss and so much noise they are going to have to listen.

“We will not back down or be beaten into submission. We don’t care if you call us racists. We are coming anyway. We are going to continue doing it until someone listens.”

The EDL was set up last year after Islamic extremists hijacked a homecoming parade for British troops in Luton, Beds.

On Sunday more than 250 EDL members joined US activist Rabbi Nachum Shifren at an anti-Palestine demo outside the Israeli Embassy in London.














Islamic Supremacist Reza Aslan: Nothing Can Stop The Spread Of Islam

From Jihad Watch:

Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan: "Nothing can stop the spread of Islam"

Reza Aslan: Desperate, obsessed, fanatical, mendacious

Islamic supremacist and Iranian regime apologist Reza Aslan spoke in Salt Lake City last night. First, the mainstream media report, followed by a more complete account from Jihad Watch agent Evan Mark.

"Islam in America will survive current turmoil, author says," by Ben Fulton for The Salt Lake Tribune, October 25:

United States history is rife with examples of religious bigotry the nation later outgrew after decades of assimilation with Catholics, Mormons and Jews, said visiting scholar Reza Aslan.

Islam will in time surmount the same obstacles, he said. But the politicized rhetoric against all things Islam means the stakes are much higher this time in the fight against divisiveness and for the American dream....

This is a familiar theme among Islamic supremacists these days. It completely ignores, of course, and hopes you don't notice, the jihad terror attacks committed in the name of Islam in the U.S. (Fort Hood, Little Rock, the Detroit underwear bomber, the North Carolina plot, the Fort Dix plot, the JFK Airport plot, etc. etc. etc.), which have no parallel in the history of Catholics, Mormons or Jews in the United States.

Recounting a recent trip to Europe where he came face-to-face with that continent's unease surrounding Muslims, Aslan said he returned home comforted by the knowledge that such xenophobia "couldn't happen here." Then he saw a TV advertisement sponsored by an organization called GOP Trust attacking the proposed "mosque at ground zero," which, as Aslan noted, was neither a mosque nor proposed for location at ground zero.

Aslan knows better, but he hopes you don't. Regarding the claims, often repeated (indeed, Aslan's talk in Salt Lake City seems to have consisted entirely of recycled talking points from Hamas-linked CAIR), that the mosque at Ground Zero is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero, in fact it is both. The Burlington Coat Factory building that will be torn down to build the mosque is part of the attack site, as the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes crashed into its roof and fell five stories to the basement. The building is thus an essential part of Ground Zero itself, which will greatly enhance the mosque's symbolic value in the Islamic world as another triumphal mosque, a la the Al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (the grandest cathedral in Christendom for a millennium, converted to a mosque in 1453, now a museum), and thousands of others throughout the Islamic world.

And as for its not being a mosque, it will contain a mosque, and thus it isn't in the least unjustified to call the whole thing a mosque, as did Daisy Khan. No one says that the evangelical mega-churches that contain swimming pools and counseling centers, etc., are not churches because they contain things other than a worship space.

"The word 'They' has become very common nowadays," Aslan said....

Yes, notice how often this oily hypocrite uses it regarding opponents of Islamic supremacism.

Mocking Newt Gingrich's challenge that New York City's Islamic Center should be allowed only when Saudi Arabia allows the construction of churches, Aslan said it saddened him that America has given up "the war of ideas" in the fight against terrorism.

"I had no idea our constitutional freedoms depended on the actions of one of the most draconian nations on earth," Aslan said.

This is outstandingly dishonest, even by Aslan's standards. Gingrich's point is not that the U.S. should become more like Saudi Arabia, but that Saudi Arabia should become more like the U.S. The point would be to call upon the Saudis to offer the same religious freedom to non-Muslims that the U.S. offers to Muslims. Aslan, of course, being a Sharia supremacist, doesn't want non-Muslims to have such freedom in Islamic states, so he twists the argument.

And now here is an eyewitness account from Evan Mark:

Reza Aslan delivered a whitewashed sermon last night to unsuspecting liberals and broken Mormons at the public library in downtown Salt Lake City. Well, less sermon and more fits and torrents of whiny passive-aggressive rage, really... Highlights (paraphrased) include:

"One day we'll look back with the same derision, and scorn, and ridicule at the Robert Spencers and the Pamela Gellers as we do now at those who discriminated against Jews and Catholics..."

He slammed Pamela for her non-existent attack about Barack Obama being the "bastard child of Malcolm X," and slammed you for the halal Campbell's Soup issue, which the room ate up, of course.

This kind of thing shows that Reza Aslan has no interest in the truth whatsoever, and will lie in whatever way he thinks will advance his cause. For if he had bothered to do some fact-checking, he might have found this two-year-old statement from Pamela Geller on the actual post in question: "The 'Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child' charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama's many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer's documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child, and never did -- but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing."

And regarding the halal soup, he misrepresented my position at the Daily Beast a couple of weeks ago, and I responded by pointing out that I had never said that the halal soup was a sign of Sharia coming to America (this was an invention of Leftist pseudo-journalist/propagandist Rachel Slajda), but was troubled only by the Campbell's connection to Hamas-linked ISNA. Did Aslan tell his Salt Lake City audience about ISNA's ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood? Somehow I doubt it.

In any case, I am surprised to hear that he mentioned Pamela Geller and me -- apparently several times. When I speak to public audiences, I don't talk about Reza Aslan. We are, apparently, living in his head, and he is growing desperate about the fact that the truth is getting about him and about the Islamic supremacist agenda in general. But as slick as he is (and that is far less than he clearly thinks he is), he won't be able to stop the truth from coming out.

Evan Mark continues with his paraphrases of Aslan's remarks, and his comments on them (in italics below):

"The problem with radicalization isn't that Muslim aren't going to mosques. In fact, we have a problem with radicalism precisely because there are not enough Muslims going to mosques!"

At this I laughed loudly, vomited a little in my mouth, and had to walk out.

Reza Aslan has got to be the most pretentious, power-hungry little weasel of a human being I think I've ever had the displeasure to hear speak.

"Adherents of the world's great religions -- Christians, Muslims, and Jews, are all the same since they all share historical ties to Abraham."

"Nothing can stop the spread of Islam. There are those who would try, but it simply will not happen. Absolutely nothing can stop the spread of Islam." (He became wide-eyed and fanatical when he said this.)

"I'm being paid to tell you that what will change the world will be ideas and information, but I'm here to tell you that this isn't true. Ideas and information will not change the world because ideas and information don't change people."

I guess that's why he feels so free to lie.

You could sit me down with Bill O'Reilly for 30 minutes and we could have a discussion about Islam and do you think it would change him!?! No way! (Cue uproarious laughter. I wonder how much it would change you, Reza?)

O'Reilly is a clueless empty suit, anyway, and the Islamic supremacists already own him, so why should Aslan bother sitting down with him?

"Some people say we're in a war of ideas, well, I'm here to tell you. There IS no war of ideas. It's a myth."

"What will change the world will ultimately be human relationships."

He is so pretentious! He oozes smugness and arrogance. Listening to him talk is truly painful.

For anyone there who may have been interested in honest analysis, I'm sure it was painful.

Posted by Robert on October 26, 2010 9:17 AM

What Happened To Arch-bishop Cyril And Patriarch Emmanuel?

From Jihad Watch:

What happened to Archbishop Cyril and Patriarch Emmanuel?

Archbishop Cyril (left); Patriarch Emmanuel

Recently two prominent Eastern Catholic bishops have made statements that are not only curious and counter-factual, but apparently contradictory of their earlier statements, or at least not obviously emanating from the same point of view as those earlier remarks. Both cases are indicative of a larger phenomenon regarding the difficulties that Christians in Islamic countries and non-Muslims in Muslim countries in general face.

In 2006, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, Eparch of Newton for the Melkite Greek Catholics in the United States, said: "the doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers." He pointed out that "the concept of nonviolence is absent from Muslim doctrine and practice." And he said that "peace in Islam is based on the surrender of all people to Islam and to God's power based on Islamic law. They have to defend this peace of God even by force."

And yet at the recently concluded Vatican Synod on Christians in the Middle East, he contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council and echoed Islamic supremacist propaganda by saying that divine promises made to Israel according to Jewish and Christian Scripture "were nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people." He made no mention of the Muslim imperative to bring about "the surrender of all people to Islam" as being a possible contributing cause in the plight of Christians in the Middle East; instead, he blamed Israel only.

In 2007, Emmanuel III Delly, the Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, said this about the Christians in Iraq: "Christians are killed, chased out of their homes before the very eyes of those who are supposed to be responsible for their safety." In 2008, he said: "The situation in some parts of Iraq, is disastrous and tragic. Life is a Calvary: there is no peace or security... Everyone is afraid of kidnapping."

But on October 15 he said this at the Vatican's Synod on Christians in the Middle East: "The population of this country, crossed by two famous rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, is 24 million, all Muslims, with whom we live peacefully and freely....Christians are good with their fellow Muslims and in Iraq there is mutual respect among them."

(Quotes from Patriarch Emmanuel thanks to Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican.)

Why these shifts?

There are several possible reasons. One is the Arab nationalist imperative, which was largely an attempt by Christian Arabs to ease the pain of dhimmitude by creating a secular framework upon which Christians could enjoy equal, or almost equal, status with Muslims. Practically this meant the utter co-opting of Christian communities in Arab countries: they became politically, culturally, and socially indistinguishable from the larger Muslim population. This was because for Muslims Islam was always the heart of the Arab identity in any case -- as was succinctly summed up by pioneering Arab nationalist Michel Aflaq: "Arab nationalism is Islam." That is another reason why the statements by Archbishop Cyril in Baalbek years ago and at the Synod more recently are essentially identical to statements that so many Muslim leaders have made about Jews, Jerusalem and Israel. This is the way all too many Middle Eastern Christians have learned to view the world.

In the case of Archbishop Cyril, he is strongly in the running to become the next Archbishop of Beirut, and could be trying to reassure Muslim leaders in Lebanon that his stint in the United States has not tainted him with Zionism, and he is still as anti-Israel as he was as Archbishop of Baalbek, before he came to America. It is a pity that a Christian leader would have to behave this way, and I am not saying he is not doing it out of conviction also, but in any case it is a reflection of the situation on the ground in Islamic countries: Christians who don't echo the Islamic political line face hard going.

Also, according to Islamic law, the "protection" contract between the Muslim community and the dhimmis is violated, leaving the dhimmi subject to execution, if he "mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam," ('Umdat al-Salik 011.10(5).) Neither Patriarch Emmanuel nor Archbishop Cyril (if he moves back to Lebanon) live in states that enforce the fullness of Sharia, but it remains a cultural hangover in the Islamic world, such that Christians generally know that if they speak out against the mistreatment to which they are subjected, they will only make matters worse. Historically, dhimmi communities were also kept apart and at odds with one another -- hence the animosity toward Jews. They were communities of fear, living under an ever-ready threat of death if they got out of line. And so mostly, they didn't.

Accordingly, we cannot judge either Patriarch Emmanuel nor Archbishop Cyril harshly. What is remarkable about Patriarch Emmanuel's statements was not that he painted such a falsely positive picture at the Synod, but that he ever spoke out about the persecution of Christians in Iraq at all. Their odd statements of late were almost certainly made in an attempt to protect their communities. The situation of Christians in the Middle East is bad enough, and they may fear they will make it even worse by speaking more honestly about Islamic supremacism and jihad. But Western audiences should note the full reality of the situation, and call all the more loudly for the human rights community to speak out, and for the world to take action, to end the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries -- so that these embattled leaders need exhibit Stockholm Syndrome-like symptoms, or dissemble to protect their people, no longer.

Posted by Robert on October 26, 2010 11:32 AM

Sudan: Police Aid In Muslim's Effort To Take-Over Church Land

From Jihad Watch:

Sudan: Police aid in Muslim's effort to take over church land

This story has come out of Sudan. Just days ago, there was a college chapel seized in Pakistan. Wow, did these guys call each other?

No. What is most revealing about such stories is how often the same acts of discrimination (if not violence) against non-Muslims occur, geographically far removed from one another, but with the same intent: to make the unbelievers "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29), and to establish and maintain Islamic supremacy by any means necessary.

"Police in Sudan Aid Muslim's Effort to Take Over Church Plot," from Compass Direct News, October 25:

NAIROBI, Kenya, October 25 (CDN) -- Police in Sudan evicted the staff of a Presbyterian church from its events and office site in Khartoum earlier this month, aiding a Muslim businessman's effort to seize the property.

Christians in Sudan's capital city told Compass that police entered the compound of the Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church (SPEC) on Oct. 4 at around 2 p.m. and ordered workers to leave, claiming that the land belonged to Muslim businessman Osman al Tayeb. When asked to show evidence of Al Tayeb's ownership, however, officers failed to produce any documentation, the sources said.

The church had signed a contract with al Tayeb stipulating the terms under which he could attain the property - including providing legal documents such as a construction permit and then obtaining final approval from SPEC - but those terms remained unmet, church officials said.

Church leader Deng Bol said that under terms of the unfulfilled contract, the SPEC would turn the property over to al Tayeb to construct a business center on the site, with the denomination to receive a share of the returns from the commercial enterprise and regain ownership of the plot after 80 years.

"But the investor failed to produce a single document from the concerned authorities" and therefore resorted to police action to secure the property, Bol said.

SPEC leaders had yet to approve the project because of the high risk of permanently losing the property, he said.

"The SPEC feared that they were going to lose the property after 80 years if they accepted the proposed contract," Bol said.

SPEC leaders have undertaken legal action to recover the property, he said. The disputed plot of 2,232 square meters is located in a busy part of the heart of Khartoum, where it has been used for Christian rallies and related activities.

"The plot is registered in the name of the church and should not be sold or transfered for any other activities, only for church-related programs," a church elder who requested anonymity said.

The Rev. Philip Akway, general secretary of the SPEC, told Compass that the government might be annoyed that Christian activities have taken place there for many decades.

Sharia is unique in how readily people suppose lapses in enforcement represent its true form, extolling what happens in spite of Sharia as merits of the law itself. But whatever relative tolerance has been observed decades past does nothing to defang Sharia, once its proponents assert themselves. It is at that point that this church now finds itself.

"Muslim groups are not happy with the church in north Sudan, therefore they try to cause tension in the church," Akway told Compass.

The policeman leading the officers in the eviction on Oct. 4 verbally threatened to shoot anyone who interfered, Christian sources said.Posted by Marisol on October 27, 2010 12:02 AM

Appeal From The Declaration Alliance For Aid In the Effort To Stop The Ground Zero Mega-Mosque

From The Declaration Alliance:

Ground Zero Mosque Imam Issues Effectual "FATWAH"



ALERT: The Ground Zero Mosque Imam is attacking first responder Forras and has issued an effectual "Fatwah" on Forras and his lawyer. He has publicly stated that more terrorist violence will result if building of the mosque is prevented.

Imam Feisal has consistently made his anti-American views known. Shortly after the deadly and traumatic events of 9/11, Feisal made a statement suggesting the attacks were caused by American actions toward his fellow Muslims.

Fox News and other news outlets have reported that donors to his mosque were also funders of the Holy Land Foundation, a terrorist organization that was indicted and convicted of support for jihadists in the federal court in Dallas, Texas. American tax dollars from the State Department are paying for Feisal's Mosque fundraising trip to Muslim countries in the Middle East.

Declaration Alliance Needs You In the Legal Fight To Stop The "Ground Zero Mosque"

Select Here To Donate Now!

The controversial Imam Feisal Rauf has moved to dismiss the complaint Vincent Forras, a First Responder, had filed against him and his Ground Zero Mosque, and counter-sued Forras reportedly for $50,000 USD.

Forras and counsel have not yet seen the defendant pleadings, but according to the New York Post, Feisal used the opportunity to attack and smear Forras and his attorney. The Post reported in an article of October 11, 2010, entitled "Anti-mosque lawsuit slammed as bigotry," that Feisal and GZ Mosque "...are blasting a $350 million lawsuit filed by a 9/11 first responder as 'blind bigotry.'" The motion to dismiss seeks to have the complaint thrown out on First Amendment grounds.

Apparently, Feisal believes the 9/11 attacks were "justified" in part by American actions, and that Forras has no right to use the American legal system for redress of grievances and suffering of all those who risked their lives in the attacks' aftermath. The defendants' motion to dismiss will surely fail, and now that Feisal and his Ground Zero Mosque have counter-sued, Forras et al are assured that the case will proceed to uncover more details about the mosque project's ties to terrorist interests.

In fact, Forras' suit is not an attack on Islam, but rather a simple nuisance and infliction of emotional distress case under common law. It merely seeks to stop the building of the Ground Zero Mosque, and seeks damages for the infliction of the emotional distress Feisal's "clever" but dastardly scheme brings to again terrorize the survivors, the victim's families, New York City and the nation.

Declaration Alliance Needs You In the Legal Fight To Stop The "Ground Zero Mosque"

Select Here To Donate Now!

While nearly 80% of the American people oppose the Ground Zero Mosque, even over 58% of Muslims worldwide also oppose it. It is universally seen as a clear act of aggression and provocation. It is evident that the Ground Zero Mosque is intended to drive a wedge between Christians and Jews, and Muslims. It is a ploy to ignite and intensify hatred by Muslims against America and the West.

"Now, Feisal has upped the ante by defaming a heroic First Responder, Vinnie Forras, and his brother First Responders in this suit, and me as 'blind bigots' -- in an obvious attempt to incite hatred and violence by radical Muslims against us. The motives for Feisal's attack against us are transparent, as they amount in practice to issuing a 'fatwah' to harm if not kill Vinnie and me. This type of outrageous conduct cannot be permitted in a civilized society and it underscores why the Ground Zero Mosque is just a nefarious way to organize hostility and mete out psychological terrorism, since additional large-scale attacks on New York City have thus far failed over the last eight years," stated Forras' counsel Larry Klayman.

The class action complaint against Feisal and his Ground Zero Mosque are publicly available for review at participating in the suit for the plaintiffs is Declaration Alliance, as a civic advocacy and social welfare organization.

Declaration Alliance Needs You In the Legal Fight To Stop The "Ground Zero Mosque"

Select Here To Donate Now!

I oppose the mosque, and I think it can be stopped without any violation of constitutional rights.

The Imam behind the Cordoba project is associated with Hamas and extremist groups, and "religious liberty does not extend to actions that violate the fundamental premises of natural justice.

If you had a cult in America that wanted to practice human sacrifice, it would be banned.

The issue should be handled by local authorities, but federal authorities could get involved because of the threat of national security.

This is one of those cases where I think on proper grounds of real concern for the integrity of our country's national security and acts which might exacerbate the threats to the United States, you may intervene to stop it.

Declaration Alliance Needs You In the Legal Fight To Stop The "Ground Zero Mosque"

Select Here To Donate Now!

If everyone who receives this message would sacrifice $100 toward defending America and preserving their own freedoms, we could get the word out to enough concerned Americans to mount the legal defense for the affected First Responders in this class action necessary to prevail, and shut down this outrageous Ground Zero "Victory" Mosque, once and for all.

For more information about Declaration Alliance go to

Keep Faith,

Alan Keyes

Please Send Checks To:

Declaration Alliance

National Processing Center

PO Box 131728

Houston, TX 77219-1728

Germany Hopes To Make Forced Marriage A Crime

From the AP:

Oct 27, 9:07 AM EDT

Germany hopes to make forced marriage a crime


Associated Press

AP Photo
AP Photo/Gero Breloer


Latest News

Court rejects bid to bar testimony on Demjanjuk

Germany hopes to make forced marriage a crime

Germany undertakes major military restructuring

German Foreign Ministry confronts Nazi past

Germany granted access to citizens in Iran


Exhibit Honors Soviet Photographer

Buy AP Photo Reprints


Berlin Wall: 20 Years Later

BERLIN (AP) -- Germany's government on Wednesday proposed criminalizing forced marriage, a tradition that some Muslim immigrant families impose on their children, even ones who were raised in Germany's more liberal society.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's Cabinet agreed to a proposed law that would make forced marriage in Germany a crime that can be punished with up to five years in prison.

The legislation still needs to pass parliament.

"Forced marriages are a serious problem in Germany," Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said, adding that by criminalizing them Germany would make clear that this is no longer "a tradition from olden times or different cultures that is ... tolerable."

About 4.3 million Muslims live in Germany, and forced marriage is still fairly common, especially among Turks and Arabs.

There are no official figures on the number of forced marriages, but rights groups say that increasing numbers of young immigrants who grew up in Germany and identify with Western values and the right to choose their own partners are rebelling against the tradition.

On Wednesday, the government also proposed modifying a general immigration law to ease an existing restriction on immigrants who are forced into arranged marriages overseas.

Such immigrants often lose their residency status in Germany, if they are kept out of Germany for more than six months.

Under the proposed law, such so-called "vacation brides" would receive an unlimited right to return to Germany, if they have lived in the country for at least eight years and attended school for six years. Those who have spent less time in Germany also would be able to return to Germany, if they can prove that they are well integrated here.

The German human rights organization Forum Menschenrechte said Wednesday that such legal changes would not go far enough.

For example, it said women who are brought to Germany from Turkey and forced to marry a Turkish immigrant need more protection.

Currently, if these women manage to get a divorce during the first three years of their time in Germany, they are automatically deported to their home country, unless they can prove they suffered a special hardship in their relationship.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Click here for copyright permissions!

Copyright 2008 Associated Press

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Indoneisa: 700 Churches Attacked In Past Decade

From Catholic and Alliance Defense Fund:

Indonesia: 700 churches attacked in past decade

October 26, 2010

Some 700 Catholic and Protestant churches have been attacked in Indonesia over the past decade, according to the Indonesian Christian Communication Forum. Between October 12 and October 17, a Catholic parish was attacked, another was threatened with attack, and a Protestant church was burned down.

“The violence and attacks, against Christian churches of all denominations, has grown in recent years and now in the past several days,” said Bishop Johannes Pujasumarta of Bandung, secretary general of the Indonesian bishops’ conference. “Those responsible are small radical Islamic groups that are sowing panic among our people, especially in the Dioceses of Jakarta, Bandung, and Bogor. They are minority groups, but they should be stopped. The violence also increases the indifference of the civil authorities and police, who shrug off the violence. We demand more attention and protection for the Christian communities and that such acts may not remain unpunished.”

3% of the nation’s 224.9 million people are Catholic, according to Vatican statistics; 6% are Protestant and 86% are Muslim, making Indonesia the country with the largest Muslim population.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

•Rise in attacks and violence against churches, Christians concerned (Fides)