Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 21, 2018, 10:35:21 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
107444 Posts in 2403 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 22 Print
Author Topic: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude)  (Read 299375 times)
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #400 on: March 24, 2012, 11:11:55 PM »

I'd get a handwriting exemplar from the husband to start with.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #401 on: March 28, 2012, 10:51:45 AM »
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #402 on: March 28, 2012, 08:25:36 PM »

I wonder if the tire iron happens to be from the same make/model of the family car?
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #403 on: April 05, 2012, 03:27:38 PM »

The Myth of Self-Radicalization
by Patrick Dunleavy
Special to IPT News
April 4, 2012

When seven people are killed including 3 children, who is responsible? When a van carrying Hasidic students is attacked by automatic weapon fire, killing one and wounding several others, who is held accountable?

It would seem according to some reports that the victims fell prey to the "lone terrorist" or "self-radicalized" individual. Is this an accurate description of what took place?

Recent studies and statements by several government officials, including the director of the FBI and the secretary of Homeland Security, tell us that the greatest threat facing us post 9-11 is the individual terrorist.

But in looking at two specific cases of Islamic terrorist attacks we may find that definition an over-simplified version of what actually took place.

The first is the case of Mohamed Merah, the 23-year-old French / Algerian in Toulouse, France who shot three French paratroopers and four Jewish civilians, three of whom were young children.

The profile coming out initially said he was self-radicalized because of the economic poverty he grew up in. A victim of high unemployment and discrimination against an immigrant minority caused the anger that fueled the fire in him. If that is true, where did the $26,000 found on him come from? Not to mention the cache of weapons and the expenditures necessary for him to travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan? Who provided the funds, the contacts, and the weapons?

The second description said he "self-radicalized in prison." Is that possible? Is prison a place where you can be left to yourself to evolve into something?

As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system for 26 years and a considerable amount of that time in the prison system, I can tell you emphatically that Merah's radicalization was much more than self-induced. One does not become "self-radicalized" in prison. The constant interaction that occurs within a prison negates that. There is always a facilitator, an influence, or a catalyst. Be that literature, another cellmate, or a clergy. What was the integer in this case?

French authorities had known for some time that mixing convicted Islamic terrorists with low-level criminals in the prison's general population contributed to radicalization.

Who were his cellmates? Who visited him? What literature did he have access to?

The second case is that of Rashid Baz, the Lebanese/Palestinian immigrant known as "the Brooklyn Bridge Shooter" responsible for the death of Hasidic student Ari Halberstam in 1994. The case was initially thought to be "road rage." It wasn't until 1999 when US Attorney Mary Jo White opened an investigation into the crime and found it was indeed a terrorist act that it was reclassified.

Yet, despite the evidence, it was declared that Baz acted alone. The final report stated, "Baz acted on his own ... and there appear to be no unpunished co-conspirators." He was by definition a "lone wolf" terrorist. And since then he has been free to move about the general population of the prison influencing other inmates and even working as the chaplain's clerk in the prison mosque.

Now, from his prison cell in Attica 18 years later, Baz admitted that he had intentionally targeted Jews on that fateful day in March. Why? Was no one else involved?

Looking back at the evidence, the answer is disturbing. Two relatives helped him hide the weapons he used in their house. When the guns and ammunition were found, they said that they knew nothing of his involvement in the crime nor did they share his radical hatred for Jewish people.

Phone records obtained by police show just the opposite. The family members were in contact with a member of an Islamic terrorist organization, Hamas.

Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel by any means including killing Jewish civilians.

In addition, at least two witnesses testified that, just prior to going on a rampage, Baz attended a service at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge in Brooklyn. There, he heard a fiery sermon preached calling for revenge on Jews for an incident that had recently occurred in Hebron. That was Feb. 25, on the eve of the first anniversary of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 by radical Islamic fundamentalists.

One of the witnesses testified that Baz was enraged after the speech, determined to act. Was this the catalyst that sent him over the edge?

To this day, neither the imam nor the mosque president has been held accountable for that. Why?

Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not freedom of speech, nor is promoting a message, either spoken, written, or on the internet, that instructs someone to kill others in the name of God.

A terrorist is not hatched overnight, nor are they produced solely in the dark vacuum of self.

Even the National Counter Terrorism Center acknowledges this in its definition of radicalism. "Radicalism is a dynamic and multi-layered process involving several factors that interact with one another to influence an individual," it says.

Instilling grievances, preaching and religious dogma all play a role.

When we say that a person was self-taught or self-motivated, we look at them in a positive light.

When used in recent descriptions of Islamic terrorists it has quite the opposite effect.

It tends to triteness and absolves anyone else of complicity in the act. There is an overuse of the word, a diluting of the meaning, a deliberate misuse in an attempt to simplify the issue of radicalization.

Those who contributed to the radicalization process must be held accountable.

Patrick Dunleavy is the former Deputy Inspector General for New York State Department of Corrections and author of The Fertile Soil of Jihad.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #404 on: April 07, 2012, 08:33:15 AM »
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #405 on: April 07, 2012, 08:57:08 AM »

EL CAJON, Calif. -- An Iraqi-American woman beaten to death in her southern California home last month was planning to divorce her husband and move to Texas, her brother revealed Friday, as the search continued for the woman's killer.
Mother-of-five Shaima Alawadi, 32, was bashed with a blunt object before her body was discovered by her daughter -- 17-year-old Fatima Alhimidi -- in the dining room of the family's home in El Cajon, Calif., on March 21, alongside a note saying, "go back to your country, you terrorist." She was taken off life support three days later.

Hess Alawadi told the San Diego Union-Tribune that his sister was planning to move to Texas with her children after divorcing her husband, Kassim Alhimidi. He said Alhimidi knew of his wife's plans.
Authorities found divorce papers in the woman's car as they began their investigation.

Read more:
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #406 on: April 21, 2012, 12:30:41 AM »

Al-Arian Surfaces With Self-Serving Skype

IPT News
April 20, 2012






Be the first of your friends to like this.

He's been on house arrest for nearly four years, but the inability to be in the
spotlight may constitute cruel and unusual punishment for Palestinian Islamic Jihad
(PIJ) operative Sami Al-Arian.

A website called The Islamist posted what it says is the complete text of a
statement the former University of South Florida professor and PIJ governing board
member made via Skype Wednesday. In it, the man who created and ran the "active arm"
of the terrorist group in North America and sheltered its current leader, decries
his "persecution" and lamenting the plight of others convicted of supporting
terrorist groups such as Hamas and al-Qaida.

The speech marks "my first public address in the U. S. in over nine years," he says,
and comes despite attorneys' advice not to make public statements. "Nothing short of
our very survival as free people living in a free and democratic society is at
stake," he says, casting America as a security state in the wake of 9/11 law
enforcement actions.

"We, as a community, are at the forefront in the fight to reclaim the foundations
and principles that established this great country."

Al-Arian still faces a criminal contempt indictment issued in June 2008, after he
repeatedly refused to testify before a federal grand jury investigating terror
financing in northern Virginia. His argument that his 2006 guilty plea to providing
goods and services to the PIJ meant he would never have to provide information to
the government, be it voluntarily or under court order. The judge who sentenced him
in Tampa, along with a separate judge in Alexandria and their respective circuit
courts of appeal, all rejected that claim.

His attorneys have never produced any written evidence backing up the claim. It is
not mentioned in his plea agreement, and when asked at in a hearing whether his plea
was based on any additional promises, he said, "I don't recall anything else."

"You think anybody has attempted to trick you?" the judge asked.

"No," Al-Arian said.

The case has been frozen in limbo, however, by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema's
refusal to rule on defense motions to dismiss the contempt case despite repeated
promises to deliver a written order as far back as the spring of 2009.

This week's remarks include an appeal for the National Coalition to Protect Civil
Freedoms. He said he speaks "(o)n behalf of all victims of injustice" in seeking
support for the group. Then he recites a list of people he says were unjustly
convicted on terror charges.

"Today Ali Al-Tamimi is serving life for giving a religious fatwa. Tarek Mehanna is
serving 17 years for translating a document. Mufid Abdel Kader is serving 20 years
because he had a beautiful voice and sang for Palestine. Ghassan El-Ashi and Shukri
Abu Baker are serving 65 years each for feeding and clothing hungry Palestinian
children ... Aafi (sic) Siddqui was sentenced to 86 years after she was shot and
nearly died."

Al-Tamimi's fatwa urged followers to wage war against American troops and help the
Taliban. Mehanna was convicted of conspiracy to provide material support to
al-Qaida, providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy to commit murder
in a foreign country. Abdel Kader, Elashi and Baker each were convicted for their
work with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which illegally
routed more than $12 million to Hamas before being shut down in 2001.

Aafia Siddiqui was apprehended in Afghanistan in possession of plans for a "mass
casualty attack" in the United States, including a list of New York City landmarks.
Prosecutors say she grabbed an Army officer's M-4 rifle and fired it at another
officer and other members of a U.S. interview team at an Afghan police compound in
July 2008.

To Al-Arian, they remain "Innocent people [who] are targeted and their families are
suffering because of their beliefs, opinions, associations, and advocacy. All first
amendment activities- supposedly guaranteed by the US constitution.

President Obama said if he had a son he would have looked like Trayvon Martin. Let
me tell you, all our sons look like Ahmad Abu Ali, Ziad Yaghi, and Tarek Mehanna."

Despite his record of lies and support for murderers, Al-Arian remains a popular
figure in the media and among academics. The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times
(now Tampa Bay Times) provided sympathetic coverage. Georgetown University's John
Esposito continues to consider Al-Arian a "very close friend" and "a man of
conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice."

American Islamist groups, led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
never wavered in supporting Al-Arian.

Related Topics: Prosecutions, Sami Al-Arian

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental
agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative
Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All
donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project
on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.

You are subscribed to this list as

To edit subscription options:

To unsubscribe:

To subscribe:
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #407 on: April 25, 2012, 05:02:40 PM »

IPT Featured Article: ICNA's Radicalization Continues

Steven Emerson, Executive Director

April 25, 2012

Articles by IPT | IPT in the News | IPT Blog | Profiles | Multimedia | Donate |
Contact Us

ICNA's Radicalization Continues

IPT News
April 25, 2012






Be the first of your friends to like this.

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) is leading a pro-Sharia public relations
campaign, aimed at persuading Americans that these beliefs aren't something to fear
or leading to domination.

As it does this, however, it continues to guide followers toward texts that go in a
starkly contrasting direction. It has pushed underground a series of curricula
detailing its adult radicalization program, but more extremist materials pop up in
youth events, the group's bookstore, and elsewhere.

ICNA has long been involved in the radicalization of its members, with an
indoctrination process into South Asian and Muslim Brotherhood extremist texts. Many
of those titles disappeared from ICNA and the ICNA Sisters' web pages after a series
of articles by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

That doesn't mean that ICNA has changed its tune. A recent investigation by the
Toronto Sun revealed that the organization has marketed pro-violence and
pro-Islamist texts, particularly by South Asian extremist Sayyid Abu 'Ala Maududi,
through its Canadian bookstore. These texts, according to Canadian Muslim moderate
Tarek Fatah, have a profound effect on the Muslim youth.

"This sort of literature lays the seeds into their minds that the West is the enemy,
and they are the troopers who have to fight that enemy," Fatah told the Sun.

"Maududi, in his books, is asking for young Muslim men to wage war."

Required reading of some of Maududi's books is also still part of ICNA's membership
process, especially for youth. This year's annual "Quiz Competition on Islamic
Knowledge and Skills" tested 11th and 12th graders throughout the country on their
knowledge of one of his masterpieces, Towards Understanding Islam.

"The greatest sacrifice made in the way of God is jihad. In it man sacrifices not
only his own life and belongings, but destroys those of others as well," Maududi
teaches in the text, which is posted on ICNA's youth website. "What comparison would
the loss of some lives - even if it were thousands or more be to the calamity that
would befall mankind as the result of the victory of evil over good. What comparison
would it be to the tremendous anguish mankind would suffer if falsehood overtook
truth, and if aggressive atheism won over the religion of God," he says, arguing
that Islam must dominate all other political and social philosophies.

"Not only would the religion of God be eliminated, but the world would become the
abode of evil, corruption, and perversion. Life would be disrupted from within and
without. In order to prevent this greater evil, God has commanded us to sacrifice
our lives and property for His pleasure." he adds.

Maududi explains that Islam should not be viewed like other religions, as a sphere
of human life which plays a part in societal organization but does not control it.
Rather, it is a "system encompassing all fields of living" including politics,
economics, and legislation.

The same text was a recommended reading for 7th-10th graders participating in ICNA's
Southern California branches for the 2010 quiz and debate program. Other recommended
books include Maududi's A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in Islam and
Abdullah al-Ahsan's The History of Al-Khalifah Ar-Rashidah.

A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in Islam says that Islamic revival
demands that Muslims "determine exactly where to strike the blow so as to break the
power of un-Islam and enable Islam to take hold of life as a whole." It also demands
that the revivalist know when "to wrest authority from the hands of un-Islam and
practically re-establish government on the system described as 'Caliphate after the
pattern of Prophethood' by the Holy Prophet."

The need for a caliphate, an Islamic theological empire, is reinforced in The
History of Al-Khalifah Ar-Rashidah. The book discusses rule of law and governance in
the historical caliphate period, during Islam's early history from its founding
until the Mongol Invasion, including the "principles [that] embody the archetypical
Islamic state."

These events further serve as a way of involving more mosques in ICNA's radicalism.
According to an ICNA report, a quiz event brought participants from across
unaffiliated mosques and schools across the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro area, and
encouraged the selling of Maududi's extremist literature in local Muslim bookshops.

Radicalism also hasn't disappeared from the group's conferences, despite apologies
and excuses from ICNA over past anti-Semitic and pro-violence statements.

At the group's latest conference last December, Egyptian Islamist Ragheb Elsergany
envisioned a day soon when "all of Palestine" would be liberated. Elsergany said the
rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East and North Africa was clearing the
way for "the Zionist entity" to "vanish absolutely."

While one-time extremist statements might be viewed as a fluke, Elsergany was at the
center of controversy for ICNA's 2009 conference, for making similar comments. These
statements made by Elsergany and others, were picked up by organizations monitoring
hate speech. The conference was even labeled "a platform for extremist rhetoric" by
the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

In response, ICNA claimed that the inflammatory rhetoric was unexpected and not
representative of the rest of the conference.

"In response to the ADL's statement, both MAS and ICNA categorically state that our
organizations do not affirm any statements that reflect hatred of the Jewish people,
or any other religious or ethnic community, or that call for the destruction of
Israel. If any such unfortunate statements were made by any speakers at our
conference in Chicago, we deeply regret them and affirm that such individuals will
not be invited to future conferences," they claimed.

But not only did ICNA invite Elsergany back, his picture was featured in a scrolling
montage of speakers on the conference website's home page.

In 2009, Elsergany explicitly endorsed jihad and told Muslims it is their duty to
help finance it.

"It is required to act in ways to please Allah, and one of the greatest of them is
jihad in the way of Allah, and one of the greatest of them is supporting the
fighters, and the mujahideen [Islamic warriors] and the besieged, and those in need
there in Palestine," he said in an Arabic session entitled "The Gaza Struggle."

Elsergany then pushed people to donate money to the cause. "Allah has entrusted us
with the money for our brothers and sisters, to confer upon the people of Palestine
the surplus of our money. This is their right," he said. "They are the ones who face
the Zionists with their chests, their nerves, their lives, their children, their
holy places and their sacred places. They are the ones standing [in] front of us and
we are standing behind them. You Muslims are abandoning this role."

In the 2011 conference, Elsergany also preached "liberation" of all the battlefronts
of jihad throughout the world.

"We have lived under and now after the dawning of the light [the Egyptian
Revolution], soon there will be a greater dawning with the liberation of Palestine,
the liberation of Chechnya, the liberation of Kashmir, the liberation of Turkestan,
the liberation of South Sudan, of all the lands usurped from the Muslims. If God
wills, it is coming," he said.

The continuation of extremist rhetoric, and the invitation of the very same hateful
speakers to national conferences, begs the question of how serious ICNA is about the
"rejection of extremism."

Related Topics: The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental
agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative
Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All
donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project
on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.

You are subscribed to this list as

To edit subscription options:

To unsubscribe:

To subscribe:

The Investigative Project on Terrorism

202-363-8602 - main

202-966-5191 - fax

Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #408 on: May 02, 2012, 08:24:24 AM »

HAMTRAMCK, Mich. — The prom countdown was nearly complete, the do-it-yourself Greek columns, pink and white tulle bows and plastic flutes with the “Once Upon a Dream” logo awaiting the evening of evenings.

.But as she looked at her reflection in the mirror, her one-shoulder lavender gown matching the elaborate hijab that framed her face in a cascade of flowers — a style learned on YouTube — Tharima Ahmed knew that what lay ahead was more than simply a prom.

As organizer of Hamtramck High School’s first all-girl prom, which conforms to religious beliefs forbidding dating, dancing with boys or appearing without a head scarf in front of males, Tharima, 17, was forging a new rite of passage for every teenage Muslim girl who had ever spent prom night at home, wistfully watching the limousines roll by.

“Hi, guys — I mean girls!” Tharima, a Bangladeshi-American, exuded into the microphone as 100 girls — Yemeni-American, Polish-American, Palestinian-American, Bosnian-American and African-American — began pouring into the hall on Bangladesh Avenue.

This was prom, Hamtramck-style: the dense scrappy working-class city of 22,500 encircled by Detroit, once predominantly German and Polish, has become one of the most diverse small cities in America. Its new soul lay in the music playlist embedded in Rukeih Malik’s iPhone: Lady Gaga, Cobra Starship, the Belgrade-born singer Ana Kokic and The Bilz, a Canadian-South Asian band, singing “2 Step Bhangra.”

In this season of wobbly heels and cleavage, the bittersweet transformation of teenagers in jeans and T-shirts into elegant adults barely recognizable to their friends is an anticipated tradition.

But at the all-girl prom, there were double double-takes, as some of Tharima’s classmates, normally concealed in a chrysalis of hijab and abaya, the traditional Muslim cloak, literally let their hair down in public for the first time.

Eman Ashabi, a Yemeni-American who helped organize the event, arrived in a ruffled pink gown, her black hair falling in perfect waves, thanks to a curling iron. Like many here, she stunned her friends.

“It’s ‘Oh my god!’ ” said Simone Alhagri, a Yemeni-American junior who was wearing a tight shirred dress. “This is how you look underneath!”

The dance was the denouement of seven months of feverish planning in which a committee raised $2,500, mostly through bake sales. Ignoring the naysayers who could not imagine anyone coming to a prom without boys, Tharima and her friends approached their task systematically, taking a survey of all the girls at Hamtramck High. They found that 65 percent were not able to attend the coed prom because of cultural and religious beliefs. After discussion, the school supported the student-driven alternative.

In addition to Muslim girls (and alumnae who never got the opportunity), non-Muslim students wanted to go, too. “I want to support all my girls,” said Sylwia Stanko, who was born in Poland and whose friends are mostly Bengali-American or Arab-American. “I know how important it is to them.”

The prom promised “music all night, except during dinner and five minutes for prayer.” A former Knights of Columbus hall was transformed into princess-pink perfection.

Tharima placed a huge order for decorations with, including a light-up fountain to which the girls added pink food coloring.

Tharima had dreamed of prom night since her freshman year, squirreling away photographs of ballrooms and ads for tiaras.

As Tharima prepared for her big night, her mother, Roushanara Ahmed, recalled the fancy pink sari she wore to an all-girls party in what is now Bangladesh. “I was in high school,” she said, her voice low, eyes softening. “I know her feelings.”

Like the prom, the city of Hamtramck is a mixer of a different kind. Along Joseph Campau Street, a monumental statue of Pope John Paul II presides over Pope Park, with its festive mural of Krakow. A poster for the television program “Bosnian Idol” is displayed in the Albanian Euro Mini Mart, known for homemade yogurt and burek, traditional spinach and meat pies. During her English class, Tharima can hear the call to prayer over loudspeakers from the Islah Islamic Center a few blocks from school.

Diversity was hard-won: The mosque, one of five in the city, was the subject of controversy in 2004, when some people strenuously objected to the city’s decision to allow it to broadcast prayers five times a day; the city ultimately prevailed, regulating the hours when the call may be sounded.

In sharp contrast to earlier immigrants, drawn by the once-thriving auto industry, a quarter of the residents now live below the federal poverty level.

Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #409 on: May 04, 2012, 08:38:32 PM »

Awlaki Acknowledges His Radical Past
IPT News
May 4, 2012

When Anwar al-Awlaki emerged as the clear inspiration behind a series of terror plots in 2009, his former associates in America insisted he was radicalized well after leaving the United States in 2002.
But in what might be his last published work, Awlaki explains that his involvement in violent jihad dated back to 1991, and that he hated the American government as far back as his college days.
"Spilling out the Beans: Al Awlaki Revealing His Side of the Story," appeared this week in the final edition of al-Qaida's English-language magazine Inspire.
The clarification flies in the face of claims by American Muslim leaders that he had been radicalized by Islamophobia after the 9/11 attacks, and motivated to violence following his 18 month imprisonment in Yemen, starting in 2006. At the heart of some Muslim leaders' argument was a desire to distance themselves from Awlaki's new public radicalism, and to twist the debate to focus on America's role in creating a vengeful monster.
"While employed at Dar Al-Hijrah, Imam Al-Awlaki was known for his interfaith outreach, civic engagement and tolerance in the Northern Virginia community," a statement from the imam's former mosque in northern Virginia said after Awlaki died in a U.S. drone strike last fall. "However, after Mr. Al-Awlaki's departure from the mosque in 2002 he was arrested by Yemeni authorities and allegedly tortured. It was then that Al-Awlaki began preaching violence," they claimed, while condemning America's assassination of Awlaki in a drone strike.
These claims were echoed by major outlets like the New York Times and National Public Radio. They portrayed Awlaki as a victim of his circumstances, and accepted the moderation of the "eloquent" preacher who claimed he could have been "a bridge between Americans and one billion Muslims worldwide."
But that image has not jibed with other accounts of Awlaki's life. Quotes from his early American speeches, accounts of his family life, and personal insights from friends show someone who idolized the Afghani jihad and Osama bin Laden's mentor Abdullah Azzam. Long before Awlaki preached America's destruction, he already believed that jihad was a key point of Islam and that America was against Muslims.
Spilling the Beans
In the Inspire article, Awlaki weaved the events of his life into a consistent narrative of hate.
"I have had experiences with the US government at quite a young age that most of you would not have in a lifetime. I have seen the other face of America," Awlaki wrote. From the beginning, Awlaki struggled with his relationship with America, while holding his own views close to heart.
Awlaki was born in the United States, but moved with his family to Yemen when he was 7. His father, a university professor in the capital Sana'a, became the country's agriculture minister. His father's clout helped him obtain college scholarships meant for foreign students even though he was an American citizen. Awlaki was influenced by his local environment to a much greater degree than previously believed. A New York Times biographical article states that the Afghani jihad against the Soviet Union was at the top of many people's minds in Yemen in the 1980s and early 90s, but not the Awlakis'. They were focused on using contacts to get a scholarship for their son.
But in his Inspire article, Awlaki wrote he already harbored pro-jihad sentiments and feared the United States saw him as a potential asset.
"Even though I was not fully practicing back then … I had an extreme dislike to the US government and was very wary of anything concerning intelligence services or secret orders," he wrote. "Thus, I was cold when it came to my relationship with the Office of International Students (which in my belief is a front for recruitment of international students for the government and is also a front from spying on them and reporting on them to the authorities). I also received an invitation to join the Rotary Club which I turned down."
The 1991 Gulf War in Kuwait triggered his hatred while a student back in the United States. "That is when I started taking my religion more seriously and I took the step of traveling to Afghanistan to fight," he wrote. "I spent a winter there and returned with the intention of finishing up in the US and leaving to Afghanistan for good. My plan was to travel back in summer, however, Kabul was opened by the mujahideen and I saw that the war was over and ended up staying in the US."
That account differs sharply from a 2010Time magazine profile. Awlaki wasn't interested in al-Qaida or Afghanistan after visiting in 1993, Time reports, and he "was depressed by poverty and hunger in the homes where he stayed."
Solidifying His Views
After returning to America, Awlaki claimed that he lost his scholarship in part due to his grades and because of what he called his fighting role and service as a Muslim Student Association president. Regardless, he now considered himself a fundamentalist and took up a new position reflecting this status when he moved from Denver to San Diego.
When Awlaki returned from Afghanistan he wore clothes popular with the mujahideen and often quoted Abdullah Azzam. He was also accused by a member of his Denver mosque of encouraging a Saudi youth to join jihad in Chechnya, shortly before he left for San Diego.
There, he became imam for the mosque Masjid al Ribat al Islami in 1996, chosen by "a group of students from Saudi [Arabia] and the Gulf states who formed their own mosque because they "were not happy with how things were run" at the moderate San Diego Islamic Center. Awlaki claimed that his conservatism and good fit with the community was important, because the government actively tried to infiltrate the mosque and recruit him to spy on his community, which he helped to prevent. He also claimed this was the reason why he was "falsely" arrested for soliciting prostitutes.
By 1998, Awlaki was fed up with the United States and ready to leave, but it took "three years and September 11" to "unwind" himself from the United States. During this time, Awlaki solidified his views of America and jihad.
Awlaki began preaching about the glories of jihad and the enemies of Islam in a lecture series from the late 1990s called "Lives of the Prophets." Evil surrounds Muslims in the West, he said, arguing that U.S. foreign and domestic policy are controlled by "the strong Jewish lobbyists." His disdain of Jews, whom he terms "the enemy from Day 1 to the Day of Judgment," is a common theme.
In one sermon, Awlaki prayed to Allah to "free" the al Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site of Islam, from what he terms "the Jewish terrorists" who he claims "have taken (it) over" and "give it back to the Ummah of Islam." He called for the broad institution of Sharia law as the basis for society. "Justice is in the heart of the judge," he said, "and that is why we can only have justice through a true Islamic system."
In another, Awlaki preached patience and persistence in pursuit of victory, saying people can get "fired up fast" by "a very hot" sermon about jihad and be "ready to go on the battlefield."
But those emotions can be lost "by the time you step your foot out of the masjid … Very easily fired up, and very easily we cool down," he lamented.
In the "Lives of the Prophets" lectures, well before 9/11 and before his time in a Yemeni prison, he called for a sustained commitment to jihad:
"Talking big is easy, but the sacrifice, and especially long-term sacrifice which jihad needs, that is difficult. Jihad is not only sacrifice, but it is a long term sacrifice. And that is where people fail. If you are asked to sacrifice in one time, you could be fired up by a speech, and then you would give out your money, for example, and you would sacrifice. That could happen. But when you're asked to sacrifice for a long period, then you're suffering hardship for a long time, that is what causes people to fail"
Sacrifice, he said, could take many forms and people should be willing to do whatever is required: "It could be your life, your time, your money, your family, it could even be the Islamic family or brothers that you are with, it could be the scholars that you love. Anything is possible."
Although his language became more direct in later sermons, calling for unlimited attacks on Americans, Awlaki proved that he already embraced violent jihad as a fundamental part of his worldview.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #410 on: May 10, 2012, 06:13:34 AM »

American Islamists Push Negative American Image
by Steven Emerson
IPT News
May 9, 2012
Traveling in Bangladesh last weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was confronted with a question she said "hurts me so much."

Why, she was asked, is there "a common perception held by many young people that the U.S. is anti-Muslim?"

"I mean, it's a painful perception to hear about, Clinton said, "and I deeply regret that anyone believes that or propagates it."

There may be discrimination, but that cuts across racial, religious and ethnic lines, she said. American law and culture "has gone probably farther than anywhere else in the world in trying to guarantee legal protections for people."
Claims that America is anti-Muslim come from people "who, for their own reasons, try to politicize what the United States has done in a way that I think is unfortunate and unfair," she said.

In many cases, however, the message that America is hostile toward Muslims is promoted by the same people Clinton's State Department and other Cabinet-level agencies turn to as outreach partners.  We've noted repeatedly how national Islamist groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Advocates and others have pushed the notion that America's legal and military war on terror amounts to a war on Islam.
It's an irresponsible message for two reasons. It is wrong. And it has been proven to be among the most effective messages in radicalizing young Muslims. Yet the same groups who perpetuate it in America find themselves embraced by the government. Officials legitimize and empower them by attending and speaking at their events rather than building the profile of Muslim voices who tout the freedom and opportunity their families find here.

Most recently, Cyrus McGoldrick, civil rights director for CAIR's New York chapter, told a newspaper that a spate of arson attacks by a lone suspect on mosques was driven by bigotry even though police say personal vendettas were in play. In one case, a mosque had refused to let the suspect use its restroom.

"It was only a matter of time before the war abroad became a war at home," McGoldrick said. "Fearmongering about Islam and other American minorities have ripped this country apart. Warmongering politicians and willing media confirm this narrative, the warrantless incomprehensive surveillance of the Muslim community by the NYPD confirms this narrative and the destruction of the Constitution in the name of the war on terror confirms this narrative."

McGoldrick was angered by disclosures of New York Police Department surveillance of public settings and its review of web pages as part of its efforts to identify pockets of radicalization among the local Muslim community. His organization joined 15 other groups, including the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America in sponsoring a rally against "NYPD and CIA Repression" last November. During that event, Shahina Parveen Siraj, whose son Shahwar Matin Siraj was convicted of plotting to bomb New York's Herald Square subway station, said, "In addition to the wars abroad, there are wars here against Muslims, African Americans, immigrants and the poor." Siraj's claim of entrapment was rejected on appeal.
Shahina Siraj's claims were echoed by DePaul University Professor Laith Saud, a frequent host of CAIR-Chicago events. "But neo-cons and neo-liberals are more interested in promoting war against the entire Muslim world and our own interests for inexplicable reasons," Saud said.

The State Department has sent CAIR officials abroad on goodwill missions, including at least two by Michigan director Dawud Walid. During a 2010 trip to Mali, Walid depicted American law enforcement as inherently hostile toward Muslims. "Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001 American Muslims have been subjected to increased discrimination from racial and religious profiling by law enforcement."

CAIR officials have no problem routinely appearing on Press TV, Iran's state-controlled English-language outlet, to criticize American treatment of Muslims.  But CAIR is far from alone in fueling an international perception of anti-Muslim bias that was raised by Clinton's questioner.

Muslim Advocates, a group of attorneys, joined in sending a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder accusing the NYPD of trampling the civil rights of Muslims and other minorities. "As a result," it said, "Muslims are being sent the message that the government officials entrusted with protecting their rights will not do so, and furthermore, these officials will not investigate allegations of police misconduct."

Muslim Advocates Executive Director Farhana Khera has visited the White House several times in the past two years and been influential in pushing government officials to purge training material about Islam that the group didn't like.
She has been less effective arguing against FBI counter-terrorism sting operations that she dismisses as forms of entrapment. Holder directly rebuffed the argument during a December 2010 speech at a Muslim Advocates event.
"Those who characterize the FBI's activities in this case as 'entrapment' simply do not have their facts straight or do not have a full understanding of the law," Holder said.

But one of the administration's chief advisers on Muslim issues also has pushed the idea that America has treated its Muslim citizens unfairly. Dalia Mogahed, a pollster by trade, said in 2009 that Islamophobia "presents a grave danger to America as a whole."

A year earlier, she lamented a "witch-hunt" against Muslim groups in America. "There is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is malign these groups" such as CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), she told a Religious Newswriters Association conference in Washington.

CAIR and ISNA were maligned, but by their officials' actions, evidenced in exhibits in a federal terror-financing prosecution, and not by politicians or pundits. Those exhibits showed ISNA provided early service to a Hamas-support network in the United States and that CAIR is the progeny of that Muslim Brotherhood-directed effort.

For all the noise, Clinton's response that America "has gone probably farther than anywhere else in the world" in protecting religious liberty is supported by a few key figures. More than 900 new mosques have opened in the United States since 2000. The Muslim population is expected to double here by 2030, reaching 6.2 million people.

Such signs of a robust and growing community don't mesh with national Islamist activists who depict Muslims as under siege. On the other hand, those groups routinely smear Muslim voices who proclaim loudest that America is the best place for a Muslim to practice his/her faith.

If the Secretary of State truly is hurt by the perception, she might consider embracing those voices who trumpet American freedoms and challenging those administration allies who foment ill will.  Ostracizing Islamist groups who, despite their embrace throughout the Obama administration as "allies" in the war against terrorism, is necessary to stop the perpetuation of hate against the United States. No matter what the Obama administration claims about its achievements in defeating terrorism, it is actually enabling of Islamic terrorism by embracing radical Islamist groups who issue the same hateful narrative against the United States that Secretary Clinton has decried overseas as "painful."

To quote Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is us.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #411 on: May 11, 2012, 01:21:39 PM »

Sent by an internet friend:


SHAME on you - Bill O'Reilly - for helping this anti-American fraud promote his book.  See below - watch the interview and then read Pamela's story:
prentice crawford
« Reply #412 on: May 13, 2012, 01:18:06 AM »


By Kevin Murphy | Reuters – 7 hrs agoKANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - Kansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the state courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws in making decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an embarrassment to the state.

The legislation, which passed 33-3 in the state Senate on Friday and 120-0 previously in the House, is widely known in Kansas as the "Sharia bill," because the perceived goal of supporters is to keep Islamic code from being recognized in Kansas.

The bill was sent to Republican Governor Sam Brownback, who has not indicated whether he will sign it.

In interviews on Saturday, a supporter of the bill said it reassured foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution will protect them. But an opponent said the bill's real purpose is to hold Islam out for ridicule.

Kansas Representative Peggy Mast, a lead sponsor of the bill for the past two years, said the goal was to make sure there was no confusion that American laws prevailed on American soil.

Mast said research showed more than 50 cases around the United States where courts or government agencies took laws from Sharia or other legal systems into account in decision-making.

Commonly, they involved divorce, child custody, property division or other cases where the woman was treated unfairly, Mast said.

"I want people of other cultures, when they come to the United States, to know the freedoms they have in regard to women's and children's rights," said Mast, a Republican. "An important part of this bill would be to educate them."

State Senator Tim Owens, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no need for legislation reaffirming American laws that already exist. All the proposed legislation does, he said, was target one particular group - Muslims - for discrimination.


"It's based on fear, it's based on intolerance and it is not based on understanding of the Constitution," said Owens, a Republican, who said the measure is an embarrassment to Kansas.

"People will ask, 'How narrow has that state become?'" Owens said. "How unwelcoming is this state?"

He said non-U.S. companies may be unwilling to do business in a state whose residents object to "anything different than what they think is appropriate."

Roughly 20 states have considered legislation similar to what has passed in Kansas, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington. Some state legislatures, including Kansas, have passed laws that do not mention Sharia by name, he said.

Hooper said there was a movement by conservative-leaning state legislatures to introduce anti-Islam bills that have no legal foundation.

"Really, the goal seems to be (to demonize) Islam and (to marginalize) American Muslims," Hooper said. "Some (states) have passed these watered-down bills and declared a great victory. It's utter nonsense, but if your goal is to promote intolerance, I guess you won."

After Oklahoma voters approved a law in 2010 barring state judges from considering Sharia law specifically in making decisions, federal courts granted an injunction preventing the law from taking effect.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the injunction, ruling the law unfairly discriminated against a particular religion.

Sharia, or Islamic law, covers all aspects of Muslim life including religious obligations and financial dealings, and opponents of state bans say they could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims.

A report earlier this year showed that nearly a third of Americans believed American Muslims want to establish Sharia law in the United States.

The same report, by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute, showed 88 percent of Americans acknowledged knowing little about Muslim beliefs.

(Editing By Andrew Stern and Todd Eastham)


Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #413 on: May 13, 2012, 09:37:44 AM »

Ibrahim Cooper of CAIR is a dishonest guy leading a dishonest organization.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #414 on: May 13, 2012, 09:42:29 AM »

"It's utter nonsense, but if your goal is to promote intolerance, I guess you won."

This law, if signed by the governor, like the OK case, will be ruled discriminatory by the Courts.

It's ridiculous.

Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #415 on: May 13, 2012, 10:08:34 AM »

"a supporter of the bill said it reassured foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution will protect them." 

Sounds like a rational basis (and that would be the standard of review, yes?) to me , , ,
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #416 on: May 13, 2012, 10:17:56 AM »

Actually the courts ruled OK's law was discriminatory.  So I guess your are right, the Constitution protected them from this discriminatory law.   smiley  The same will happen
in KS.  It's all for show.  Rather sad actually.

"It's based on fear, it's based on intolerance and it is not based on understanding of the Constitution," said Owens, a Republican, who said the measure is an embarrassment to Kansas."
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #417 on: May 13, 2012, 10:47:58 AM »

Umm , , , OK named one particular religion's law (Sharia) and KS does not.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #418 on: May 13, 2012, 11:18:19 AM »

"The acknowledged intent behind the measure, as many who voted for it stated, is to block the use of Islamic law being used in making legal decisions here in the US."
They are trying to focus on one religious group.  That's simply wrong IMHO.

We've had this discussion before.  People IMHO should be entitled to freely draw up contracts, within reason, that both parties agree to in advance and sign.  Whether the agreement is
based on Mormon Law, Christian Law, Jewish Law, or Sharia Law; if both parties agree that seems fair.  If I'm Jewish and you are Jewish, and we both want a Rabbi to adjudicate our civil disagreement based upon Jewish Law, what's the problem if we both agree to abide by the agreement?  It's similar to mandatory arbitration agreements in many contracts.  Or a pre-nuptial agreement; that too supersedes usual state distribution laws and gives most if not all the money to one party.  Again, it is perhaps "unfair", but it was agreed upon voluntarily in advance so what's the issue?

If you don't like the terms, don't do the deal.
Power User
Posts: 9476

« Reply #419 on: May 13, 2012, 12:06:26 PM »

Crafty's point is crucial IMO, Oklahoma's law referenced singled out a particular religion and was struck down.  The Kansas law does not.

JDN says freedom you should have a freedom to freely draw up contracts; great idea, but that is not true in any other area of law. In housing, I cannot write provisions such as a longer term to return a deposit than is specified in state law if both parties agree, or set a faster, easier reversion process for default in mortgage in exchange for a lower interest rate if all parties agree.  Loan sharks and usury are another example or prostitution and narcotics; you simply cannot do these deals.

If you want more freedom to make enforceable, consensual, private contracts, the starting point should be smaller government.  Get active to oppose these laws but don't expect a court to strike them all down. MHO.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #420 on: May 13, 2012, 01:59:20 PM »

Doug, I understand your point, and I'm not an attorney, but if in many instances, mandatory arbitration hearings are allowed, prenuptial agreements are allowed, etc. so what is wrong with basing the agreement that was mutually agreed upon in advance allowing a binding third party "Judge" whether that "Judge" be an Arbitrator, a Rabbi's decision, a Priest's decision, or Sharia Law?  Frankly, while I acknowledge your point, arbitration does not apply in those instances.  But where it does.....

Worse, the KS law as are many of these new laws intent is to focus on Islam and Sharia Law.  Because you and I don't agree with their rules, we wouldn't sign an agreement to be bound by them either.  However if we were both Muslim, we might.  But that doesn't make them "wrong" or "right".  We simply have no "faith" in their rules therefore we wouldn't agree.  But others do, just as you probably have faith in the Catholic rules and I have faith in the Lutheran rules.

As for religious laws, Halakha courts are already functioning within the legal system of the U.S.  Jewish divorce cases are sometimes handled by the Beth Din of America, the Jewish Religious Court who can issue a Get or Jewish permission for divorce.  “Under American law the procedures and rulings of Jewish law courts are treated just as any other produced by a legal arbitration hearing.”

Many, if not most of the contracts we sign on a daily basis have an Arbitration Clause.  My doctor requires one, my insurance company, Credit Card Companies, Facebook, Apple Computer, etc.

In the United States, the federal government has expressed a policy of support of arbitration clauses, because they reduce the burden on court systems to resolve disputes. This support is found in the Federal Arbitration Act, which permits compulsory and binding arbitration, under which parties give up the right to appeal an arbitrator's decision to a court.

If I agree, but later I don't like it; well too bad.  As Chief Justice Roberts says in a recent case, "Roberts steps in to say of arbitration that if you are "in for a penny, you're in for a pound. If you agree to arbitrate, then it's at least for the arbitrator to decide particular provisions, whether they are unconscionable."

No one is suggesting changing criminal laws.  Only civil matters are addressed in Arbitration.  Frankly, as noted, the courts push Arbitration. 

I suppose if you simply say, "No Arbitration" that would be fine.  But no state wants to do that; therefore IMHO this law is discriminatory focusing on Sharia Law.  Therefore wrong.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #421 on: May 13, 2012, 02:52:46 PM »

Worse, the KS law as are many of these new laws intent is to focus on Islam and Sharia Law.

Lets be precise here.  That is not what the article said.  What it said was

"But an opponent said the bill's real purpose is to hold Islam out for ridicule."

I think, as has been amply illustrated and discussed on the US Sovereignty thread, and even in the SCOTUS thread (e.g. Justice Ginsburg's-- and other justices-- attitudes towards bringing int'l law into US law, even US C'l law) there is considerable basis for being concerned about progressivism seeking to sabotage American law and from what I know so far there is more than a rational basis for a law blocking non-American laws.

Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #422 on: May 13, 2012, 03:38:20 PM »

In this matter, the purpose IS to focus on Islam and Sharia Law.  No one seems to deny that.  Many lawmakers in KS have said specifically said that is why they passed the law.  It's not an issue of sovereignty.  It's anti Islamic.

For that matter, I don't think Sharia Law is a "non-American Law", rather it is one based upon religion.

Isn't Beth Din the same? Based upon Jewish Law?

We are talking civil matters here; what is the difference between if we both agree to let our Rabbi or Mullah or neighborhood Priest adjudicate our disagreement?  Or if we mutually
agree to let our French next door neighbor Arbitrate our disagreement?  Each has their own bias.  But we agreed in advance; we knew that.  That is the issue here; Binding Arbitration.

The true issue in KS or like OK before, isn't about foreign law or sovereignty, it's all about keeping Sharia Religious Law out.  That, IMHO is discrimination.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #423 on: May 13, 2012, 04:14:53 PM »

Accepting your premise for a moment, the problem is the Sharia Law is anti-American in its values.  It does not respect free speech, freedom of religion, legal equality between the sexes-- indeed the Koran describes how a husband may beat his wife etc and honor killings mean that the reality is that the freedom of contract you assume is a fiction-- and much more.  Do they get to hack off a little girl's clitoris in the name of religious freedom?  Do they get to deny her the right to go to school in the name of religious freedom?  Do they get to beat (or kill!) their daughters for seeing non-muslim boys?  These things are parts of Islam in some parts of the world, and some of them here.

For the record, I'd be against the Aztec religion (you know, the one that sacrificed humans to the Sun God) too

« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 04:17:55 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #424 on: May 13, 2012, 06:42:28 PM »

It's an emotional subject, but don't confuse criminal with civil; you know better than that.  Further, you know arbitration law.  My premise is correct.  You, along with many other people
simply don't like Muslims; I acknowledge that there are valid reasons.  That is your personal prerogative.  However, they should have the same rights before the law in America as anyone else of any other faith.

As you point out, it may well be that terrible violence in the name of Sharia Law is allowed in "some parts of the world".  But not here.  Their country, their rules.  In America, the "reality" is it's criminal to do honor killings, etc.  Simply call the police; there is no "contract" or "arbitration agreement" that supersedes murder.  That included Islam and the Aztec religion and any other religion for that matter.  We make our own criminal laws.  But you know that too therefore all those accusation of Islam violence in America because of Sharia Law are hyperbole.

The law is discriminatory.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #425 on: May 14, 2012, 08:42:29 AM »

JDN:  My sense of this is that it is the sort of thing about which you will go on endlessly and in part not particularly responsively, so this will probably be my last post.

1) First and foremost, this law is about ALL foreign law, not just Sharia.  Therefore it is not discriminatory.   As I have already noted and various threads on this forum have discussed in more than a little detail, there is ample reason to be concerned forces within the American legal and political systems tying down and or replacing American law.  In a democratic republic such as are, the people may do as they have done here and vote to block this.    Just because you and the courts don't like that the final straw in this regard MAY have been the dislike of a particular form of law seeking to insinuate its way into our legal system, does/should not mean that the courts get to overturn the people's will.

2) Coincidentally enough, my wife was watching a FOX piece last night, "Honor Killings in America" with focus on a horrific case.   One of the points the piece brought home was that with honor killings, typically many family members support the murder of their daughters and that the whole concept of honor killings only makes sense in the context of a community that shares the same values.   In such a context, to pretend that a woman is voluntarily signing and arbitration agreement is simply quite disingenuous.

" the problem is the Sharia Law is anti-American in its values.  It does not respect free speech, freedom of religion, legal equality between the sexes-- indeed the Koran describes how a husband may beat his wife etc and honor killings mean that the reality is that the freedom of contract you assume is a fiction-- and much more.  Do they get to hack off a little girl's clitoris in the name of religious freedom?  Do they get to deny her the right to go to school in the name of religious freedom?  Do they get to beat (or kill!) their daughters for seeing non-muslim boys?  These things are parts of Islam in some parts of the world, AND SOME OF THEM HERE."

What of a Sharia court "arbitrating" a domestic abuse case?  Is it OK with you that the court say the husband has the right to beat his wife?   How likely is a muslim woman in fear of her safety and/or fear of her daughter's safety, to hire a lawyer to legally challenge a pre-nuptial agreement specifying that marital and family matters are to be arbitrated a sharia court?

3)  "You, along with many other people simply don't like Muslims; I acknowledge that there are valid reasons."

NO, there are many Muslims who are good people (they tend to disagree with certain tenets of Islam), people whom I like so please do NOT say that "You don't like Muslims".   It is ISLAM and some of its anti-American values that I have profound problems with.  I will go further and say that there are things about Islam that I do like. 

I will add that Islam is not the only religion with which I have problems.  For example, I have profound problems with the Catholic Church's many, many vast conspiracies protecting the pedophiles within its ranks-- conspiracies which apparently go to the highest levels of the Church's hierarchy.

4) "That is your personal prerogative."

And so it appears that you too think people have the right to discriminate , , , cheesy

Power User
Posts: 9476

« Reply #426 on: May 14, 2012, 09:41:02 AM »

America is a melting pot.  If you come here Muslim or convert to Islam you have the same rights to participate in making our laws and to be governed by our laws as everyone else.  The Kansas law quoted below really is saying what is already the law, you cannot contract away your constitutional rights and liberties.

Already well-answered, but the "simply don't like Muslims" comment was way out of line for people who truly believe in freedom of religion. That freedom ends at some of those extreme acts, already illegal here.  I've read a lot of posts here and never found someone who opposed peaceful prayer because a person worships a different religion. The part of Islam we don't like is when and where they teach hatred, vow to destroy others and recruit their young to come kill us, forcing our response.  That is NOT what this issue is about.  (P.S. CINO: Catholic in name only, there is nothing Catholic or Christian about abusing children or covering it up, though most certainly it happened.  They also are not entitled to be judged by a separate set of laws, prohibited in the Kansas law.)

Kansas House Bill (Substitute for SENATE BILL No. 79)

AN ACT concerning the protection of rights and privileges granted under
the United States or Kansas constitutions.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. While the legislature fully recognizes the right to contract
freely under the laws of this state, it also recognizes that this right may be
reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to
protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States
or Kansas constitution.
Sec. 2. As used in this act, "foreign law," "legal code" or "system"
means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state
or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international
organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts,
administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals.
Sec. 3. Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling
or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and
unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency
bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on
any foreign law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties
affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights
and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.
Sec. 4. A contract or contractual provision, if capable of segregation,
which provides for the choice of a foreign law, legal code or system to
govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a
court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually
agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and
unenforceable if the foreign law, legal code or system chosen includes or
incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at
issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties,
rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas
Sec. 5. (a) A contract or contractual provision, if capable of
segregation, which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the
courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to
adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually
agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and
unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any foreign law, legal
code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the
parties the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under
the United States and Kansas constitutions.
(b) If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this
state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding
proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a
claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely
violate the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the
United States and Kansas constitutions of the nonclaimant in the foreign
forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of
this state that the claim shall be denied.
Sec. 6. Nothing in this act shall be construed to disapprove of or
abrogate any appellate decision previously rendered by the supreme court
of Kansas.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed to allow a court to: (a)
Adjudicate or prohibit any religious organization from deciding upon
ecclesiastical matters of a religious organization, including, but not limited
to, the selection, appointment, calling, discipline, dismissal, removal or
excommunication of a member, member of the clergy, or other person who
performs ministerial functions; or (b) determine or interpret the doctrine of
a religious organization, including, but not limited to, where adjudication
by a court would violate the prohibitions of the religion clauses of the first
amendment to the constitution of the United States, or violate the
constitution of the state of Kansas.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #427 on: May 14, 2012, 11:06:14 AM »

Doug, thank you for providing the text of the law.  I assume Beth Din arbitration will now be prohibited as well.  I am curious to see if this law
will be challenged in the courts and the outcome.  Again, as in the OK case, I disagree with the opinion of others on this forum.

As for my comment, "simply don't like Muslims" I apologize.  I was wrong.  It was not my intent to imply a personal hatred by anyone.  That said,
polls show, and as I said, perhaps for valid reasons, many, if not most Americans have a mistrust or dislike in general of Muslims.

As for the discriminatory nature of the law, as I pointed out twice before, numerous lawmakers in KS specifically said this law is pointed at
Sharia.  I doubt KS state legislators are truly concerned about our sovereignty and international tribunals.  "The Kansas law quoted below really is saying what is already the law, you cannot contract away your constitutional rights and liberties."  That's a given; you don't need a new law to do that.  But what we are really talking about, sorry to keep repeating myself, but there is a difference, is civil law and arbitration.

As for "honor killings" obviously it's wrong.  Then again, killing is wrong therefore I assume the perpetrators in America were charged with a crime
and if found guilty, sent to jail for a long time.  It's not different than any other murder or crime.  Nor is it any different than any other woman
who fears for her life; she calls the police and gets a restraining order.  Sometimes successful, and sadly sometimes not; it sadly happens in all
cultures and walks of life, perhaps more so in some cultures than others, but that never makes it right in America.

And yes, I do agree it is your personal prerogative to dislike Muslims (not saying you do; I apologized).  That is discriminatory, but (perhaps we should move this to another forum where you said it's ok to discriminate) IMHO if I choose not to date Muslim women for example, or women with blond hair, but keep my choice to myself and thereby not affect anyone else or group with my discriminatory opinion, that's my choice.  I may even prefer that my daughter marry a Christian rather than someone who is devoted to another faith.  But when my opinion become public, rather than personal, and affects others than myself or family, be it at work or society in general, then I find that wrong.

Power User
Posts: 2268

« Reply #428 on: May 14, 2012, 11:38:43 AM »

"The Kansas law quoted below really is saying what is already the law, you cannot contract away your constitutional rights and liberties."

So the elected officials in Kansas took time to make illegal an illegal act?  Is this the Department of Redundancy Department?  Big government? 
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #429 on: May 14, 2012, 11:47:14 AM »

"But when my opinion become public, rather than personal, and affects others than myself or family, be it at work or society in general, then I find that wrong."

And illegal.  Restating your proposistion here:  We are free to think something as long as we don't say it.  The First Amendment does not apply.


Riffing further with the phrase on which BD has key in:

""The Kansas law quoted below really is saying what is already the law, you cannot contract away your constitutional rights and liberties."" and therefore it is discriminatory and should be overturned by the courts.
Power User
Posts: 9476

« Reply #430 on: May 14, 2012, 12:34:42 PM »

Yes, redundancy is what I read into it also.  Those of us who believe our rights have already been taken do not take our rights for granted.  A current vote that the constitution still applies and our rights still exist is very far from the worst I see coming out of legislatures.  I am not always quick enough to catch all of BD's insight or humor; if you see more than that written into the Kansas law, please advise.

The redundant "Department of Redundancy Department"  lol

We have far worse here.  I take my orders from the Department of Oxymorons.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #431 on: May 14, 2012, 04:11:07 PM »

IPT News
May 14, 2012
Few organizations in the United States have been as consistent in attacking law enforcement as the Muslim Public Affairs Council and its president, Salam al-Marayati.

Marayati, who attended last year's White House Iftar Dinner during Ramadan, has suggested that Muslim Americans are at war with both al-Qaeda and the FBI. "We in the Muslim American community have been battling the corrupt and bankrupt ideas of cults such as Al Qaeda," he wrote in October in the Los Angeles Times." Now it seems we also have to battle pseudo-experts in the FBI and the Department of Justice."

Marayati was incensed over reports that the FBI and one U.S. Attorney's office had used training materials "revealing a deep anti-Muslim sentiment within the U.S. government." One example was a 2010 presentation by an analyst working for a U.S. Attorney in Pennsylvania which warned of a civilizational jihad that is "waged today in the U.S. by 'civilians, juries, lawyers, media, and charities'" who "threaten our values."

Marayati warned that if U.S. law enforcement continues to use such "incorrect and divisive" literature, the "partnership" between Muslim Americans and law enforcement "will slowly disintegrate."

"Such baseless and inflammatory claims shall best be left to those few who share Al Qaeda's agenda," Marayati wrote. "In other words, the rhetoric of Al Qaeda and those law enforcement trainers are opposite sides of the same coin of hate."

But the concept of civilization-jihad is not something conjured up by a consultant as a pretext to oppress Muslims. During the 2008 Hamas-financing prosecution of five former officials of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), FBI Agent Lara Burns testified about a 1991 internal memorandum outlining the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood-connected "Palestine Committee" which was created to advance the Hamas agenda in the United States.

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means," the memo read. "The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The five HLF officials were convicted on all charges by a federal jury in Dallas and sentenced to long prison terms.

Despite its long record of attacking law enforcement efforts to protect the American people from jihadist violence, MPAC has gained influence within the Obama administration. The group's Washington office director, Haris Tarin, has frequently attended White House events, including its Iftar Dinner last Ramadan and President Obama's 9/11 Memorial at the Kennedy Center. In July, Obama personally telephoned Tarin to commend him for MPAC's work.

And in recent months, MPAC, working in tandem with other Islamist organizations, has repeatedly pushed in order to bend U.S. government policies to its will.

In February, MPAC joined the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and other groups in meeting with FBI Director Robert Mueller to discuss purportedly anti-Muslim materials in Bureau training manuals.

MPAC's website linked to an article which said the FBI had destroyed hundreds of terrorism documents in an effort to root out "Islamophobia." The purged materials included articles and PowerPoint presentations defining jihad as "holy war" and describing the Brotherhood's efforts to achieve world domination.

In April, MPAC and Muslim Advocates sprung into action after White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan expressed "his full confidence that the NYPD is doing things consistent with the law, and it's something that again has been responsible for keeping this city safe over the past decade."

MPAC responded to Brennan's statement with a call for "immediate public clarification" along with a threat. Much as Marayati did in the Los Angeles Times op-ed cited above, Tarin suggested Muslims would cease cooperating with law enforcement if surveillance policies were not changed to MPAC's satisfaction.

"There are plenty of robust partnership models that both communities and the government have invested in and those partnerships will be jeopardized if NYPD's current tactics are not halted, and its programs are not adjusted to more successful initiatives," Tarin warned.

Four days after MPAC laid down the law, the Obama administration caved and issued a clarification of Brennan's comments. The counterterrorism chief had "never approved of described press accounts of alleged NYPD surveillance," a White House official said.

In earlier comments praising the police department, Brennan "wasn't referring to the NYPD surveillance" that had come under attack from Islamist groups like MPAC and Muslim Advocates, the official added. "Rather, he was stating that everyone in the counterterrorism and law enforcement community must make sure we are doing things consistent with the law."
Non-Islamist Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are a top target of MPAC attacks.

A first-generation American Muslim whose parents fled Syria's Ba'athist dictatorship in the 1960s, Jasser served 11 years as a U.S. Navy medical officer. He believes that the jihadist terror threat cannot be addressed without addressing the role of "political Islam" as practiced by groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Jasser has called on Muslims to oppose people like Muslim Brotherhood-linked cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has said it is permissible to kill apostates, and Jamal Badawi of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), who has said apostates should be "punished." According to Jasser, the jihadists won't be defeated until Muslims start to realize that they are on a "slippery slope" toward radicalism.

This kind of talk has earned Jasser the enmity of groups like MPAC, which sent out a March "action alert" urging supporters to protest his appointment to the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), calling it "an affront to all Muslims." The group directed its Twitter followers to a petition circulated by Islamist groups, copying its claim that "Zuhdi Jasser does not belong on the USCIRF."

While it treats fellow Muslim Americans like Jasser with contempt and works to marginalize them, MPAC is frequently deferential to rogue states and terrorists.

Last month, it reposted an article suggesting that convicted terrorist Tarek Mehanna was only exercising his freedom of speech when he translated and posted al-Qaida recruitment videos, and that Muslims have the right to kill American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The article, published in Britain's Guardian newspaper, was linked from MPAC's Twitter feed and Facebook page.

The writer, Marine veteran Ross Caputi, argues that Mehanna, "is being punished for his ideas, and the case against him stinks of a lynch-mob mentality." Describing Mehanna, now serving a 17-year prison term, as a "victim" of a " hysterical witch-hunt for 'radical' Muslims," Caputi agrees with the convicted terrorist "that much of what the US military has done in Iraq and Afghanistan can be characterized as terrorism, and I support Afghans and Iraqis who fight back against us."

In February, MPAC reposted on its Twitter and Facebook pages an article in which Iran's repressive regime gloated over the fact that an Iranian film won an Oscar, defeating an Israeli film in the same category.

In a Feb. 29 appearance on Russia Today's Cross Talk program, al-Marayati depicted Iran (which is flouting international law with its illicit nuclear-weapons program) as the victim in the current diplomatic crisis.

"With other countries, we utilize the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), we use multilateral instruments to deal with the nuclear problem," al-Marayati said. "In this case with Iran, there is no dialogue, there is (sic) no negotiations , it is all confrontational policies that is part of a war-mongering mentality here in the U.S. and they're just waiting for the tripwire and then the machinery of war will begin."

Al-Marayati also suggested that the United States was in trouble for doing "dirty work" for Israel.

"The other point here, which is very important historically, the United States has done a lot of dirty work that has served the interests of Israel," he said. "It destroyed Iraq. It supported the destruction and crippling of Egypt. It has crippled the Gulf. And now, it is looking to Iran as the next target for crippling and destroying. I think this is madness. Who is driving our foreign policy? President Obama or Prime Minister Netanyahu?"

MPAC officials have also appeared on Press TV, the Iranian regime's English-language propaganda outlet, at least six times since November 2010, always criticizing U.S. government policies or complaining about the plight of Muslims in the U.S.
MPAC has a history of excusing terrorist attacks against Americans and questioning U.S. government actions against terrorists and their financiers.

In a 1999 paper, it called Hizballah's bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, in which more than 280 American servicemen were killed as they slept, "a military operation, producing no civilian casualties – exactly the kind of attack that Americans might have lauded had it been directed against Washington's enemies." Other MPAC policy papers have criticized the presence of Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on the U.S. list of terror groups.

MPAC questioned Washington's targeting of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida ideologue and facilitator of attacks against America. After Awlaki was killed in a Sept. 30 drone strike, MPAC rejected his message of violence while questioning his killing "without a trial and due process."

In 2001, MPAC blasted the Treasury Department for designating the HLF for its Hamas fundraising activities. It accused Washington of "taking food out of the mouths of Palestinian orphans" and "succumbing to politically-motivated smear campaigns by those who would perpetuate Israel's brutal occupation."

At a MPAC's December 2010 annual conference, senior MPAC official Maher Hathout portrayed critics of radical Islam as "Muslim bashers." Ignoring a slew of homegrown terror plots targeting the United States that year, Hathout tried to whitewash the connection between jihad and violence – even though terrorists themselves invoke Islam to justify their violent jihad.

"I am so protective of the word and concept of jihad," Hathout said. "We define what jihad is, not anyone else, and jihad has nothing to do with what they are talking about."

He made this comment shortly after Awlaki took to the pages of al-Qaida's Inspire magazine to argue that Western Muslims must wage violent jihad in order to topple non-believers.
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #432 on: May 21, 2012, 06:52:20 PM »

Morris continues to flog his book, but the basic point is correct. Indeed, it fails to mention how Wahhabi money is the main source of funding for many/most? US mosques. Also, I did not realize the specifics of Saudi money tainting US academic integrity.

In Screwed!, we reveal that the Saudi Monarchy, which we defended in the Gulf War with American blood, is the source of 90 percent of the global funding for radical Islamist mosques and schools throughout the world. Our oil dollars at work!

Lawrence Wright, author of the Looming Tower, estimates that the Saudis have spent $75 billion on spreading global jihad.

Dr. Sahr Muhammad Hatam, himself a graduate of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi schools, describes what they are like: “The mentality of each one of us was programmed upon entering the school as a child [to believe] that anyone who is not a Muslim is our enemy and that the west means enfeeblement, licentiousness, and a lack of values. Anyone who escapes this programming in school encounters it at the mosque or through the media or preachers lurking in every corner.”

In Screwed!, we lay out a plan to stop buying Saudi oil and to help the Europeans and Japan stop as well. We are at the cusp of genuine energy independence thanks technological breakthroughs in deep sea drilling and hydraulic fracking (where pressurized water is shot into shale deposits hundreds of feet below the surface, breaking up the rock and releasing oil and gas). U.S. oil production will increase by two million barrels per day and Canada will generate one million more by 2016. This increase will allow us to stop buying Saudi oil (we now buy one million barrels daily). We can also stop buying oil from Venezuela (one million), Algeria (400,000) and Russia (600,000).

So we can stop sending our oil money to our enemies in three years!

Notice how our campuses have become anti-Israeli? In Screwed, we explain how the Saudis stoke hatred for Israel by spreading their oil dollars around liberally. For example, Harvard gets $20 million from Saudi Arabia. In return, the University has established a Center for Middle Eastern Studies headed by Paul Beran, a dedicated opponent of Israel who has pushed the campaign to boycott its products and divest of its assets. Cornell gets $10 million, Georgetown gets $20 million, and British universities get $460 million – including $39 million to Oxford.

In Screwed!, read the full story of the Saudi threat to the West and our strategy for neutralizing their influence.

Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #433 on: May 31, 2012, 03:33:52 PM »
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #434 on: May 31, 2012, 05:02:27 PM »
Power User
Posts: 42494

« Reply #435 on: June 02, 2012, 01:36:54 PM »

A Top Cops Partner With Islamists
IPT News
June 1, 2012

Few local law-enforcement officials in the United States have proven themselves more Islamist-friendly than Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, whose department has been dogged by allegations of malfeasance in office, and the Los Angeles Police Department's top deputy handling counterterrorism issues, Michael Downing.
Downing has expressed a benign view of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian-based fundamentalist movement which seeks a global Islamic Caliphate as its ultimate objective. During a May 2011 town hall meeting, he acknowledged the group is operating in the United States, but his biggest concern was "not to demonize the Brotherhood here."
Downing has expressed a much darker view of American critics of Islamism and shariah law, suggesting they pose a threat analogous to that of Islamic jihadists. In remarks to the "Festival of Interfaith Unity" meeting last year, Downing railed against Shariah, the Threat to America, apparently referring to this book produced by the Center for Security Policy.
"One of my greatest challenges this year is this idea of two sides of extremism: The side of fanaticism and those who want to do violence on innocent people," Downing told attendees. "And the other side of the equation that want to instill fear in the hearts of the American people because they don't tell the truth."
Baca won adulation in 2010, when he testified before a congressional panel, exploding at a question about the wisdom of his close relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with documented ties to a Hamas-support network.
"CAIR is not a terrorist-supporting organization," he said. Anyone who says different is an "amateur intelligence officer."
He has equally warm views toward the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group which routinely minimizes the threat posed by Muslim extremists in the United States and criticizes FBI sting operations against would-be terrorists.
Baca praised MPAC boss Salam al-Marayati during a March 2010 town hall as "a great man of thinking and wisdom," telling him: "Thank you very much. You've been an incredibly important friend to me." Baca credited Marayati with "helping me improve my thinking."
Now those sympathies are being realized in policies which some veteran law enforcement officials warn are equally misguided.
Baca and Downing won plaudits from Islamist groups like CAIR and MPAC in recent weeks, with Downing getting praise for surveillance "reforms" that may limit law enforcement's ability to investigate suspected radical activity and Baca for making a deal with MPAC and like-minded groups on recruiting Muslim chaplains to work in county correctional facilities.
A retired federal law enforcement officer who consults with local police agencies expressed concern that the surveillance agreement between Downing and MPAC could have a "chilling effect" on monitoring radical activities. He noted that MPAC issued a statement claiming that "Any reporting of incidents by law enforcement on individuals or groups must be connected to criminal activity."
Pointing to the case of Nidal Hasan, who massacred 13 people at Fort Hood Texas in 2009, the retired official noted that radicals often try to avoid criminal activity before attempting to carry out acts of jihad. Prior to the rampage, Hasan's most troubling activities largely involved radical presentations to colleagues and postings on jihadist websites – activities protected by the First Amendment.
If the new rules agreed to by Downing have the effect of preventing investigations of such activities, "the results could be catastrophic," the retired officer told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Patrick Dunleavy, formerly a senior official with the New York State Corrections Department, says he is troubled by unanswered questions about vetting of jail chaplains as well as Baca's admission that he didn't know what was going on in jails he is responsible for overseeing.
Baca's department has been under investigation by the Justice Department and the FBI over inmate beatings and other misconduct by deputies. Adding to his troubles, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that Baca can be held personally liable because he was told about the jail violence and took no action to prevent it.
Baca complained that his commanders kept him in the dark about the problems. "I wasn't ignoring the jails. I just didn't know," he told the Los Angeles Times. "People can say, 'What the hell kind of leader is that?' The truth is I should've known."
Baca's administration of the jail "has been fraught with corruption and mismanagement of security," Dunleavy observed. "In light of the Justice Department investigation of systemic abuses, can we really trust his administration to conduct proper vetting of religious workers or volunteers?"
The sheriff needs to explain who should be responsible for vetting organizations and individuals who want to come into Los Angeles County jails to work with Muslim inmates, Dunleavy said. He noted that Baca has vehemently defended CAIR even though the FBI cut off relations with the group, saying "until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner."
That decision was based on evidence including the presence of CAIR founders on an internal telephone list for a Hamas support network called the Palestine Committee, and CAIR's inclusion on a meeting agenda involving the committee's front organizations.
If Baca doesn't accept the FBI's word about CAIR, then "who will he accept? Would you accept the word of MPAC?" in deciding who is suitable to work with Muslim inmates, Dunleavy asked. Given the apparent disarray in Baca's department, unsuitable applicants could be "rubber stamped," he said. That's something he saw happen with Warith Deen Umar, former New York State Corrections department chaplain.
Baca's statements, including his rabid support for CAIR, raise questions about his ability to recognize radicals. He has included Iran on a list of Islamic countries that are not interested in supporting terrorism.
"The truth is that no Islamic country that I've been to" in the Middle East "is interested in supporting terrorism, including Iran," Baca said at a February 2011 MPAC Capitol Hill forum. The State Department has long expressed a very different view, calling it the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism."
At the MPAC forum, Baca stressed the need to work with Islamist groups as "our way of saying that Muslim Americans, at least in Southern California, are part of the protected fabric of America. "
These organizations had joined in forming a local "Congress" of Muslims, Baca said, alluding to the Muslim American Homeland Security Congress (MAHSC). The group's "core values" are "justice, moderation, education, peace and cooperation."
And Islamists in Southern California have embraced Baca. He "is our champion, is our hero in defending our country and in defending us against McCarthyism in our era," Marayati said at the same meeting.
Marayati's MPAC colleague, Maher Hathout, gushed that when Baca defended CAIR, "he actually was defending democracy of America."
Hussam Ayloush, director of CAIR's Los Angeles office, apparently quoting Baca's aggressive defense of CAIR in congressional testimony, stated: "These were amazing, amazing words. We commend the sheriff for standing up for American values. We commend him for that. I know he also stood for what protects our country. He refused to play politics into (sic) national security."
Like Baca, Downing, is also an advocate of "outreach" to Islamists. Speaking at an April 2011 LAPD-Muslim Forum, Downing boasted of his efforts to ignore the role of Islam as a motivating factor in jihadist efforts to attack the United States.
"I've been talking for 20 minutes and I never used the term 'radical Islam.' The terms that I use are 'violent extremists,'" Downing said. "You can be as extreme as you like. But when it turns violent, then it does break the law. And I did not use [the term] 'radical Islam.'"
Downing received MPAC's Community Leadership Award at its annual convention in December 2010. It "honors individuals and institutions whose relentless work has contributed to the empowerment of the Muslim American Community and the society at large," MPAC's Haris Tarin said. "It is this tireless work of these individuals and institutions who partner with MPAC on a daily basis that allow us to amplify and strengthen our message."
In the May 2011 interview in which Downing cautioned against demonizing the Brotherhood, he portrayed the group as a politically diverse organization, likening it to the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States. "Just like Republicans and Democrats have a more conservative and more liberal [ideology], that's what we have" with the Brotherhood, he said.
Not everyone shares Downing's benign perspective regarding the Muslim Brotherhood's "diversity." Just days after he made these comments, it issued a statement in Arabic criticizing Osama bin Laden's death in a U.S. military operation as an "assassination" and hit the United States for not bringing the terrorist leader to trial. The same statement defended "resistance" (violent jihad) as necessary for innocent people to defend themselves against "oppression," as "is the case of the Palestinian people and Israel's Zionists."
Kemal Helbawy, at the time a senior Brotherhood official based in Britain, praised bin Laden and suggested he was falsely accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks, which Helbawy said were actually "planned" by Americans.
The Quilliam Foundation, a British research group dominated by former Islamists, said the reaction to bin Laden's death "is a reminder that the Muslim Brotherhood is a deeply problematic organization whose attitude to mass-murder and terrorism is problematic at best."
In Quilliam's view, the Brotherhood's "diversity" (touted by Downing) has been little more than a trick aimed at deceiving the West:
"Helbawy's statements are the latest example of senior Muslim Brotherhood members giving different messages to different audiences. When speaking to mainstream audiences Helbawy presents himself as a moderate reformer; when speaking to Islamists he praises Osama bin Laden. This doublespeak undermines trust between Muslims and non-Muslims and hinders genuine efforts to tackle extremism and terrorism."
Downing's comments came at a time when the Brotherhood behaved in an increasingly aggressive fashion, contradicting earlier assurances that it would not attempt to dominate Egypt politically. For example, after pledging not to contest more than a third of seats in Egypt's first free parliamentary election in more than 30 years, some Brotherhood officials spoke of targeting half or more of the seats in Parliament. There were also reports that the group would form an alliance with hard-line Salafist groups – which contrasted sharply with earlier talk of adopting a more moderate, inclusive approach.
Brotherhood representatives (who had previously indicated the organization would respect the peace accord with Israel) dropped the pretense of moderation. "The Egyptian nation believes that normalization of relations with the Zionist regime is among the most important issues which should be stopped completely," senior Brotherhood official Mohammed Habib told Iran's Fars News. "The Egyptian nation believes the Zionist regime is a danger threatening the national security of not just Egypt, but also other Arab countries."
The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas is an offshoot of the Brotherhood. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal traveled to Cairo in May 2011, where he visited the Muslim Brotherhood's headquarters and sat shoulder to shoulder in a display of unity with Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie, who said Egypt should move toward "continued unity against the 'Zionist' occupation."
It wasn't clear whether Downing was aware of any of this when he likened the Muslim Brotherhood's disinformation efforts to Democratic vs. Republican ideological battles in the United States. In the same interview, Downing boasts about his knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood. But he seemed to have been caught off-guard by a question about a Muslim Brotherhood document about a "civilization jihad" aimed at "changing life as we know it" in the West.
Downing responded with a rambling discourse mentioning Brotherhood founder Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Student Association and the fall of the Turkish Empire but ignored the substance of the question. At the 2008 terror-finance prosecution of five former officials of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, prosecutors introduced a 1991 internal memorandum outlining the agenda of the Brotherhood-linked Palestine Committee, which created to advance the Hamas cause in the U.S.
The document spoke of a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" in which Muslims in America work to advance "a kind of grand Jihad" aimed at "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."
Downing and Baca are not the only senior law-enforcement officials in the county who appear to have a soft spot for local Islamists. In October, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck met with Muslim community leaders, including Muzzamil Siddiqui, president of the Fiqh Council of North America. The council issued a fatwa, which appeared on the LAPD website, declaring that Muslims would respect U.S. law, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, "so long as there is no conflict with Muslims obligation for obedience to God."
Power User
Posts: 1028

« Reply #436 on: June 14, 2012, 12:52:51 PM »

Sent out today from ACT! for America:

What would happen to a business owner who failed to institute a safety policy and an employee was injured as a result? Asked another way, how quickly would a lawsuit be filed?

Muslim employees at a Minnesota business have gone to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) asking for help in their opposition to just such a safety-inspired policy. (See the KSMP-TV story below.)

They claim the policy infringes on their beliefs.

But what if one of them got injured if the owner did NOT institute the safety policy? They would sue the owner!

A few years ago Muslim organizations in the UK protested a policy that required surgical staff to thoroughly sterilize up to their elbows. They protested because they said it required Muslim women to expose their arms.

The policy was rescinded. Accommodating unreasonable Muslim demands trumped sound public health policies, putting patients at risk.

Now these Minnesota Muslim employees are demanding that the business owner be put in an impossible situation—rescind the safety requirement and risk being sued if someone is injured, or keep the requirement and get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit.


More than 30 Somali employees walked out in protest of dress code changes at a privately-owned business in Le Center, Minn.

The former employees of Dianne's Fine Desserts claim a new uniform policy was instituted to force them off the job because of their Islamic beliefs.

The owner of the bakery, Mike Knowles, told the Faribault Daily News a woman's long dress recently got caught in a boot washer and the new guidelines were instated over safety concerns.

Knowles, who bought the business just 11 days before the accident, said the company leaders went out of their way to try to work with the Somali Community. Originally, they had recommended knee-high skirts but later agreed to boot-high or mid-calf skirts before making the policy public at a meeting on Friday.

On Monday, many devout women reported back to work in their full-length attire, saying the new dress code conflicts with their religious beliefs. They were then given the option adjust their skirt lengths or leave.

Eleven women walked out and were joined by about 20 Somali men.

The workers have asked the Council on American-Islamic Relations to intercede, and CAIR has previously helped 25 Muslim employees who were terminated in December 2010.

At the time, the business was called Dianne's Gourmet Desserts and was under a different owner who fired the employees after the break schedule was altered into conflict with employees' prayer schedule, but employees prayed anyway. A complaint was forwarded to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the workers were reinstated.

The walk-off has also been brought to the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 1028

« Reply #437 on: June 18, 2012, 01:00:54 PM »

Conservatives for Shariah

Center for Security Policy | Jun 18, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East has caused many Americans to reflect on that group's stated ambition to impose worldwide the totalitarian,supremacist Islamic doctrine known as shariah.  Particularly unsettling is evidence of the group's goal in America, namely of "destroying Western civilization from within," as documented in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2008.
But for some prominent conservatives, such facts are not just inconvenient.  They - and any who point them out - must be denied, ignored or suppressed.
The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the Right's most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online.  The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman (  He was joined on June 13 by Matthew Schmitz in NRO (  Both caricatured the "bogus" threat of "creeping shariah" as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.
Schmitz went further, wrongly describing shariah as "not one rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural, and ethical understandings."  In fact, shariah as practiced by mainstream Islam is, indeed, one very rigid legal system that has simply been enforced to varying degrees around the Muslim world.  Its Brotherhood and other adherents are now aggressively seeking to impose conformity with all of its tenets in Egypt, in Iraq, in Indonesia and, in due course, here.  Schmitz even went so far as to describe those determined to resist that last prospect as "anti-Muslim bigots" who are "undermin[ing] our national security."
Specifically, Messrs. Chapman and Schmitz find fault with those of us supporting state-level legislation aimed at countering stealthy civilization jihad in U.S. courts.  It is known as American Law for American Courts (ALAC) - a statute already enacted in four states and under consideration in many more.  ALAC prevents foreign laws, including but not limited to shariah, from being used in court to deny constitutional rights.  Incredibly, the authors contend that such laws are a threat to religious freedom in this country.
Unfortunately, these pundits are not the only conservatives hostile to admonitions about shariah's advent in America.  As documented in a new Center for Security Policy online curriculum entitled "The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within" (, some are actually enabling the Brotherhood's influence operations.  This is done through sponsorship of its operatives, facilitating their access toother conservatives and promotion of their agendas.
Sadly, still other conservatives appear determined to remain willfully blind to such behavior.  They have engaged in purges from some of the Right's conclaves.  They have also sought to suppress warnings and assiduously deny that the Brotherhood is "inside the wire" - including, in at least one instance, a formal condemnation for raising the alarm.
The good news is that five leading Members of Congress have recently joined theranks of those determined to expose the Muslim Brotherhood's influence operations and counter their effect on government policy and the danger they pose to our Constitution and freedoms. They are: Rep. Michele Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus; Rep. Louie Gohmert,Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security; Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee's Oversight Subcommittee; and Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee.
In a joint press release ( dated June 13, each of these influential legislators made clear their view that the Muslim Brotherhood represents a serious threat here in America.  They expressed a determination to establish the nature and extent of the Brotherhood's "civilization jihad" inside the United States and to counter it.
To that end, the Members of Congress last week drew on evidence presented in the Center for Security Policy's course to ask the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Judiciary, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to investigate the extent and impact of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of their agencies.  They requested that the IGs provide their findings within ninety days.
In addition, Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman of the House Appropriations State, Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, is pressing the Department of Justice toensure compliance with the FBI's stated policy of not dealing in non-investigative contexts with one of the Muslim Brotherhood's most notorious fronts, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  This effort took on even greater urgency in light of the revelation earlier this month by a White House official that the administration had had "hundreds of meetings" with CAIR.
Conservatives and other Republicans face, in short, a time of choosing.  Are they going to ignore the real and present danger posed by shariah and its adherents like the Muslim Brotherhood?  Will they therefore be recorded by history as having enabled, whether directly or indirectly, such stealthy threats to our republic and its government society?
Or are prominent conservatives going to help our countrymen of all political stripes understand the challenge we face and lead in developing and executing strategies for defeating it?
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 1028

« Reply #438 on: June 18, 2012, 07:26:21 PM »

Jesus Akbar

Bill Warner - Center for the Study of Political Islam

Recently a Yale theologian, Miroslav Volf, came to a Christian school, Lipscomb University, and talked about how Islam and Christianity can live in harmony and respect. He is part of a new industry in America, Christians constructing beautiful lies about Islam. Fundamentally, he says that we all worship the same god.

Volf says, “one of the best ways for people of different faiths to get along is to study their scriptures together.”

If we want to get along, then looking at looking at scriptures is indeed a most excellent way to get to know each other. The problem is that the only scripture Volf wants to study is the Koran. Any time that someone wants to explain Islam by the Koran, you are dealing with someone who is ignorant or a deceiver.

The Koran proclaims in 91 verses that every Muslim is to model their life after the example (Sunna) of Mohammed, but the Sunna of Mohammed is found only in the Sira and the Hadith. The Koran is only 14% of the Islamic sacred texts. Mohammed, not Allah, is 86% of the textual doctrine. Volf, however, ignores Mohammed and only wants to talk about Allah. There is a very good reason for this. Allah is so conveniently abstract that he can construct his Allah-equals-the-Trinity-god by cherry-picking verses and muddle through as if he were in a dormitory philosophy bull session.

While Volf is comparing scriptures, he should point out that the Koran says that Jesus of the Bible is a fraud and that the Gospels, Psalms and Torah are corrupt. That inconvenient Koranic detail was not mentioned.

Volf ignores a 1400 year history of Islam and Christianity and all other religions. The jihad doctrine found in the Koran is the foundation for the murder of 270 million Kafirs (non-Muslims, including Christians). He also ignores the over 18,000 Islamic terror attacks since September 11, 2001. Why refer to a 1400 year history of continuous persecution if it gets in the way of your arguments? What are ugly facts in the face of a beautiful lie?

Volf: Two faiths, worshipping the same God, can work toward the common good under a single government.

Hello, the only government that Allah wants is the Sharia. The place for Christianity and Judaism in the Sharia is as the dhimmi, a semi-slave. History is very clear that when the Sharia is put into place, Christianity dies. It takes centuries, but Christianity is annihilated. Christianity can survive Communism and Nazism, but it cannot survive the Sharia. When Islam invaded what is now Turkey and installed Sharia, it was 100% Christian. Here is a graph of what Sharia law did to the Christian population.

Volf : Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the “our God vs. their God” premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates strife.

Mohammed, the prophet of Allah, did not just destroy bridges, he destroyed civilizations. Mohammed attacked each and every neighbor until the day he died. That is the Sunna of Mohammed (perfect example of a sacred life). After he died, his Companions (Abu Baker, Umar and Uthman) followed his Sunna just as he demonstrated, and they killed Christians as fast as they could and placed them under Sharia law as dhimmis. By the time the Companion caliphs died, they had destroyed the classical civilization of the Greeks and Romans that was the matrix of Christianity. The classical church in the Middle East with its incredible variety of Christianity was annihilated by Mohammed and his personal students of jihad. The Christianity of today is a stump of the Christianity of the year 630 AD when jihad began. Whole forms of early Christianity were annihilated by Islamic jihad.

And the Koran spoke wonderfully of Mohammed’s jihad. In the Koran written in Medina, about 24% is devoted to “fighting in Allah’s cause”, jihad.

Volf said, “Faith is often misused for political ends, which frequently leads to violence.”

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 converts. After he turned to politics and jihad and when he died every Arab was a Muslim. It was politics and jihad which made him successful.

The moral demand on Muslims is to practice jihad, deceive Kafirs and impose Sharia law. Islamic morality is dualistic. Islamic ethics have one set of rules for Muslims and a second set of rules for Kafirs. Ethics based on the Golden Rule have only one set of rules.

Thick spirituality, Volf said, is faith combined with morality, which treats all people as equal in God’s sight.

Yet we have Allah who hates Kafirs and who does not have a Golden Rule. Only the Golden Rule makes people equal in God’s sight. Allah denies the Golden Rule. Go ahead, plow through the Koran and find the Golden Rule. Do the same for the Sira and the Hadith. No, the way Mohammed treated you depended upon who you are. A Muslim is treated well, and a Kafir is treated to murder, rape, enslavement and deceit.

A religion of the Golden Rule can lead to peace. A religion of jihad and political Sharia leads to war. Islam will not admit to any fault or take any credit for 270,000,000 dead over the last 1400 years. Look at Islamic Turkey—Turkish Muslims murdered a million Armenians in 20th century, but will not admit to this annihilation and genocide.

Lipscomb professor David Fleer, one of the conference organizers, said that Volf’s experiences in Yugoslavia and his scholarship made him the perfect speaker to address how religion and reconciliation intersect. “He set forth the theological foundation for us,” Fleer said.

Exactly why is this man an expert? An expert is made only by studying the Sira, Hadith, Koran and Sharia—not his zip code. There is one, and only one criteria for being expert on Islam—knowledge about Allah and Mohammed. Volf only talks about Allah.

But the real tragedy is that a religion professor thinks that Volf’s inventions are a solid foundation. Contemporary Christian and Jewish theology has become mere philosophy and has its foundation in Leftist social justice doctrine, not scriptures.

Volf said one of the keys to people of different faiths getting along is for each side to admit that those of other faiths are real members of the community. “It’s not just creating space for them physically,” he said. “You have to create space for them in your own cultural self-perception.”

But Islam insists that Kafirs are not part of the umma (Islamic community) which is pure Islamic doctrine. There are 11 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not even the friend of a Kafir, much less a member of the community.

Islam comes into our civilization and demands the political Sharia. Notice that the accommodation is that we submit to the political Sharia and we have to create a space for it in our culture. And the political Sharia has a definite space for the Kafir, called dhimmi. What is disgusting is that Volf makes submitting to political Sharia seem like a blessing to us and our country.

There is a certain class consciousness in the article, Volf’s Yale elitism is all over the copy. Why is it that the elites are such believers? Why do those who understand the threat of Islam and Sharia called “haters” by the media? The elites control the venue. There is no space in the print media, except for Islam and its apologists. The knowledgeable opposition never gets to debate, is never invited to the party. The elites have ruled that the only views that are legal are Muslims and apologists. Those who disagree are immoral bigots and Islamophobes.

Here is the final test of the “we-all-worship-the-same-god” school of theology. What was the last time that a Christian yelled, “Jesus Akbar” before he blew himself up? What was the last time that a Muslim yelled, “Allahu Akbar”, before he murdered a Kafir?

Sure, all gods are the same.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC,

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 1028

« Reply #439 on: June 19, 2012, 09:03:48 AM »

How do you win a war, When you Have no Answers?

May 2, 2012
By admin

Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and the rest of the FAILED “moderate Islam” campaign.

For over 10 years I have been speaking out against the threat of Islam. When I first started  though, I remember numerous non-Muslims telling me that I should not say Islam itself is the problem. To use the term “Islamofascism” (which I admittedly did use for a short period of time), or “radical Islam”. Another popular term is “Islamism”. I did not really care for using the term “Islamofascism”, as in the back of my mind I knew Islam itself was the problem.

After a short while I decided to go against the wishes of many friends and go with the truth. The truth being that Islam itself is the problem. My line of thinking is, how can we defeat an enemy if we cannot even bring ourselves to name that enemy? Now it is over a decade later and the situation with Islam in America has gotten worse, much worse.

There is some good news though, and that is that the voices of non-Muslims are on the rise. But after that there is a major problem. The voices of most of the “leaders” on this issue do not get to the root of the problem, and have no real long term answers. Apparently the best they can do is continue to fantasize about “moderate” Muslims/Islam coming to the rescue. Ignoring the fact that “moderates” did not save Europe and that more and more aspects of Sharia are seeping into America. In other words, what is being done is not working.

As many of you know, for over a year I have been exposing the weak kneed stance of the “leaders” of ACT!, their support of so called “moderate” Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, and Muslim immigration. Unfortunately ACT! is not the only cheerleader of Jasser. There are other big names in this battle that are also living in the “moderates” are going to save the day fantasy.

5. Clarion Fund: Over a year ago they asked me to remove them from my email list. I asked them why, and they never responded. Here is what they have to say about Jasser.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser Founder and President, American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). Jasser is a devout practicing Muslim practicing internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix. He is the immediate-Past President of the Arizona Medical Association.

Reading such a comment leads me to believe that they are ignorant on Islam itself. Because Muslims want Sharia. I receive occasional emails from their founder Raphael Shore. I politely asked him if he has ever read a Koran and Sahih Ahadith. He will not respond. I guess the truth is too much for them to deal with.

4. Walid Phares: Sometime within the last year he defriended me on Facebook, and then ran to the hills when I asked why he did so. Phares is frequently on the news, but is another one who has his Jasser pom poms out. Only Phares is so foolish, that he actually wants Jasser who tries to cover for Islam, in our government.

(Click on picture to enlarge)

Just what we need….Jasser getting more politicians to believe that Islam itself is not the problem, and “moderates” are coming to the rescue.

3. Steve Emerson: Emerson does a good job exposing the threat of Islamic terrorism, but does not seem to have any long term answers on the legal jihad that is taking place across America. Earlier I stated that ACT! was in favor of Muslim immigration. Emerson is no better, as he even supports Mosques being built is America!

Steve Emerson: Jasser is a Muslim. Though he opposed the proposed Ground Zero mosque, his record and that of his family has been in helping build mosques in Wisconsin and Arizona.

Maybe Emerson and the rest of the Jasser cheer leaders would like to explain how adding more Islam is going to help defeat Islam?! Oh I forgot, I am not supposed to say Islam itself is the problem….

2. Daniel Pipes: Looking at Pipes we see the ultimate failure of the “moderate” Muslim campaign.

Calling Islamism the Enemy
by Daniel Pipes
December 1, 2001
President Bush and others were properly careful not to foster or be seen as fostering the idea that Islam—a faith observed by more than one billion people across the world—was our enemy.

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
November 23, 2004

There is good news to report: The idea that “militant Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution” is finding greater acceptance over time.

We also see that Pipes does not care that he is misleading America, as he is carrying the same message today!

APRIL 20, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has said, “The problem is radical Islam. The solution is moderate Islam.”

1. The Capo of the “moderate” Muslim campaign,Mr Frank Gaffney himself. Gaffney has been telling America that “moderates” are coming to the rescue since at least 2007.

Frank Gaffney, one of the summit panelists and the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, was the most explicit proponent of this view. Gaffney used Ronald Reagan’s strategy in bringing down the Berlin Wall as a model for how we should engage the Muslims today, saying that, like Reagan’s empowerment of natural allies within Communism, “we must empower our allies within Islam.”

Well Frank, those within Islam stand with Islam.

In 2008 Frank had presented his “hero” Jasser with a “Defender of the Home Front” award. Under Gaffney’s and Pipes’ watch things have gotten worse, much worse.How much more of America has to be changed to suit Islam, before Gaffney and his puppets stop misleading America?

Gaffney also makes the following bold statement:

Gaffney replied that such wasn’t the case and that he knows that there are millions of Muslims who don’t want to live under sharia — Muslims who came to the U.S. to get away from sharia-based governments.

So Frank, are you saying that about half the Muslims here do not want it? (Technically if they do not want Sharia they have apostated, but I will give you a pass on that for now.) Where is your proof? You are starting to sound like a Muslim sympathizer like ACT!’s Guy Rodgers.

What is so ludicrous about the “moderate” Muslim campaign is that it is being lead by mostly non-Muslims. Did any of the above ever ask themselves why Jasser spends so much time with non-Muslims, instead of Muslims?

I proudly stand with colleagues Pamela Geller and Mr. Spencer on the issue of “moderate Islam”.

Pamela Geller: I have long derided the “moderate Islam” meme as a theory with no basis in reality or history. It’s wishful thinking, dangerous, and suicidal.

Robert Spencer:I recently participated in a FrontPage Symposium, “The World’s Most Wanted: A ‘Moderate Islam,’” about that great unicorn in which everyone believes and depends upon but which no one has ever actually seen, moderate Islam. (R.S.)

I entitled this article “How do you win a war, When you Have no Answers?” because, “moderate” Muslims/Islam is not an answer. It is a fantasy! Either we end up dealing with Muslim immigration, and Islam, or it is just a matter of time until we lose this war. As they will never stop pushing.

Coming up next on Logan’s Warning: Europe: The Rise of the Anti-Islam Campaign… something Gaffney and his friends might want to pay attention to.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #440 on: June 19, 2012, 10:44:05 AM »

Islam itself is NOT the problem.

"In his speech on November 27th, Pope Urban used highly abusive language when referring to the Muslims, calling them an 'acursed race' who defiled holy places and abused Christians. He implored the men of Europe to leave their families and possessions and go to the Holy Land to fight for its liberation from Muslim control. If they did so, they would become a living sacrifice to God. He promised that God would grant them a full remission of their sins if they died while on crusade.

The results of the Pope's call had quick and long lasting results. Filled with zeal at the prospect of liberating the Holy Land and motivated by the promise of instant entry into heaven, thousands of men responded to the call. A series of crusades were sent to the Holy Land. It was an orgy of killing.  Emperor Alexius had hoped only a few mercenary troops would be sent, however, the enormity of the response created new problems as Alexius was unable to keep the Crusaders under his control.

After short-lived 'people's crusades' which only succeeded in turning the opinion of Eastern Christians against the Western ones, the First Crusade succeeded in conquering Jerusalem and setting up four small Christian states. After these initial successes, the Crusader's fortunes dwindled until they lost the Holy Land entirely."
Power User
Posts: 1028

« Reply #441 on: June 19, 2012, 10:55:35 AM »


I strongly disagree.  There are no present-day Christian crusades (which were, by the way a justified response to MUSLIM aggression which threatened to eradicate Christendom at the time) - and there is nothing in either the Old or New Testaments which exhorts believers to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them."  Clearly you have not educated yourself on the Qu'ran, aHadith, and Sira if you are drawing any sort of moral equivalency between Christianity or Judaism and Islam.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #442 on: June 19, 2012, 11:16:08 AM »

I agree, there are no "present day Christian crusades".  But did you read the promises the Pope made?  No virgins, but He promised that God would grant them a full remission of their sins if they died while on crusade.  It was an orgy of death.  Yet I don't hold all Christians to blame.

I am not "trying to draw any moral equivalency between Christianity or Judaism and Islam."  I am merely pointing out that I disagree with your article; IMHO Islam itself is NOT the problem.  Radicals in any religion are the problem.

And you are right, I know little of the Islamic books, nor am I particularly interested, but I do know my Bible.

Maybe you couldn't find them, but here a just a few passages saying, "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them."  I found a lot more, the number was rather overwhelming.   smiley

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Power User
Posts: 1028

« Reply #443 on: June 19, 2012, 11:25:56 AM »


If you have no interest in learning about these books you are by definition willfully ignorant about Islam.  If you educated yourself, you would see that the article I posted is 100% correct. 

As far as your Old Testament citations, I misstated my point - what I meant to say is that there is currently no major Christian denomination or Judaic one, for that matter - which teaches that it is the duty of Jews or Christians to go out and murder unbelievers.  EVERY major school of Islam teaches this.  This is a simple fact.

You ARE, btw drawing a moral equivalency when you point out "atrocities" committed by Christians in the past as evidence that Islam itself is not the problem we face.  Any "Muslim" who is not following Sharia is an apostate - which btw, according to Islamic teaching of ALL major schools - carries the death penalty.

You sir are speaking from ignorance.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 9476

« Reply #444 on: June 19, 2012, 11:34:38 AM »

JDN,  Where you find a couple of apparent contradictions in translation from the words written thousands of years ago, I notice you did not quote "Thou Shalt Not Kill" written / spoken with extreme clarity, the contradictions today are resolved in Judeo-Christianity 100% on the side of peace.  Islam needs to do that. I don't know how.

Either way, we are not at war with a billion people.  Only with those at war with us.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #445 on: June 19, 2012, 11:47:06 AM »

Perhaps you are missing the point. 

Islam is not the problem we face.  Most, millions upon millions of Islamics are peace loving.  I think it is you, not I, who is speaking from ignorance if you criticize all Muslims.

And yes, you did and continue to mistake your Biblical point; while "currently, no major Christian denomination or Judaic one, for that matter - which teaches that it is the duty of Jews or Christians to go out and murder unbelievers" those versus are in the Bible which as Christians we hold as true. 

Yet as I have posted elsewhere, I like to think that Christians and most religions have "progressed".  Islam's progress seems a little slower.   smiley

Doug, "In the Bible, thou shalt not kill" in many cases doesn't seem to apply to non believers.  According to God that seems to be the exception.  However, I do understand your point.

I also agree, there is no reason to hate or be at war with a billion people, i.e. Muslims; only those individuals or specific groups at war with us.  That is exactly my point too.
Power User
Posts: 1028

« Reply #446 on: June 19, 2012, 02:17:44 PM »

JDN and DougMacG:

NOWHERE did I state that all Muslims are the problem or that we are or should be at war with all Muslims.  Neither did the article which I first posted which started this discussion.  ISLAM is the problem.  Clearly there are many who consider themselves Muslim who are not inclined to follow Islamic law.  However - Islamic jurisprudence is what it is - and by definition re: The Qu'ran, aHadith and Sira - it is NON-SUBJECT to revision or change.  This is what both of you are missing and why I say that anyone who believes in a "Moderate Islam" is ignorant and/or living in fantasy land.  There is no such thing.  Yes - there are peace-loving Muslims, but they are not the problem.  As a good friend of mine says - they are infinitely superior morally to the man who - again by Islamic definition - is the supreme model of moral behavior - the "prophet" Muhammad.

ISLAM teaches that there are only three ways to deal with infidels:  1) Forced conversion to Islam 2)Permanent "dhimmi" or second-class status with no equality to Muslims in society in terms of treatment of the law, or 3) Payment of the "jizzya" or "infidel tax" which in effect accomplishes #2.  There are no other options.

There are also NO MOSQUES that teach this so-called "moderate Islam."  Not all of those calling themselves Muslim may be aware of these mandates, or wish to impose them on the rest of the world - but this IS official Islamic doctrine.  Therefore Islam IS the problem.  Not "Islamofascism" or " Islamic extremism" or "Islamic terrorism."  Islam is the problem - just as Nazism and Communism are problems intrinsically.  They are anti-freedom, anti-individualist totalitarian ideologies.  Referring to "moderate Islam" is as laughable as speaking of "moderate Nazism."  It not only doesn't exist - it never has.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #447 on: June 19, 2012, 03:23:14 PM »

Ojjectivist1; perhaps it is semantics, but, they are the same, because people who believe in Islam are called Muslims.  Islam is a religion while Muslims are people who believe in it.  "The followers of Islam are called Muslims. For example those who follow Christianity are called Christian and those who follows Buddhism are called Buddhists."
The terms are inseparable.

Your misleading and IMHO untrue article that you posted goes to great lengths trying to prove that there cannot be a moderate Islam; aka a moderate Muslim; I beg to differ. 

You posted:

"Gaffney also makes the following bold statement:
Gaffney replied that such wasn’t the case and that he knows that there are millions of Muslims who don’t want to live under sharia — Muslims who came to the U.S. to get away from sharia-based governments.
So Frank, are you saying that about half the Muslims here do not want it? (Technically if they do not want Sharia they have apostated, but I will give you a pass on that for now.) Where is your proof? You are starting to sound like a Muslim sympathizer like ACT!’s Guy Rodgers.
I proudly stand with colleagues Pamela Geller and Mr. Spencer on the issue of “moderate Islam”.
Pamela Geller: I have long derided the “moderate Islam” meme as a theory with no basis in reality or history. It’s wishful thinking, dangerous, and suicidal."

While you say, "there are NO MOSQUES that teach moderate Islam, that there are "no other options", I find it incongruent that the majority of the billion Muslims, followers of Islam are peace loving and moderate.  They are not our enemy. 

Just like there are many Christians and Jews who choose not to follow strict old testament law.  I am one of those; I consider myself a Christian, a follower of Christianity, a "moderate" so to speak versus old testament fire and brimstone.  I have devoted Jewish friends who also don't follow all the original rules.  No different than a moderate Muslim who is a follower of Islam but perhaps doesn't insist that one's arm be cut off for stealing.

Bottom line?  Islam is NOT the problem.  Nor is being a Muslim - a follower of Islam.  Only radical elements; specifically as Doug pointed out, "those at war with us". 

Power User
Posts: 1028

« Reply #448 on: June 19, 2012, 04:02:36 PM »

I think I've made my point as clearly as is possible in my previous post.  Either you accept that Islam inherently teaches these things or you don't.  If you don't - you are clearly ignorant of the holy books of Islam, Islamic jurisprudence, and the teachings of every major school of Islam on the planet.

I didn't say that there can NEVER BE a "moderate Islam," only that it doesn't exist now.  Frankly, given the fact that all current Muslim leaders agree that there can be no deviation from the current teaching - I am not optimistic about this "moderate Islam" developing any time soon.  Did the world wait for a "moderate Nazism" to evolve?  No - any rational person at the time thought that - rightly - to be suicidal.

And make no mistake - Islam is not simply a religion - it is a comprehensive totalitarian ideology dictating every aspect of its subjects' lives and governance.  It is a socio-political system every bit as much as Communism or Nazism.  That you fail to understand this is simply illustrative of your ignorance of the subject.

Therefore we are left with the simple fact that Islam itself is the problem.  Conflating the explicit official teachings of Islam with those who call themselves Muslims but in fact may be either entirely ignorant of these teachings or simply practicing taqiyya - an official doctrine of sanctioned deception to infidels - is simply not valid.  

As I said before - there is no mainstream Christian or Jewish denomination that teaches the inherent incompatibility of individual freedom with its doctrine.  Islam does EXACTLY THIS.  Until you understand the nature of Islam and its explicit teachings - for example that approximately 85% of the Qu'ran deals with how to treat UNBELIEVERS - not Muslims - and it isn't pretty - you will continue to labor in your fog of ignorance.  I find it amazing that there is such resistance among those who claim to want to defend individual freedom to learning about a doctrine - Islam - that is diametrically opposed to that principle.

Frankly, it is eerily analogous to the behavior of the Jews in Germany who chose to live in denial of what Hitler had in store for them until it was too late.  At least they could be partly forgiven due to the fact that Hitler did not openly advertise his "final solution."  Muslim leaders around the world ROUTINELY call for the annihilation of Israel and the United States.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #449 on: June 19, 2012, 04:38:05 PM »

Objectivist1; I too think I have made my point clearly as possible; that you choose to blindly ignore that the majority of one billion followers, the 100's of millions of of Muslims that follow Islam are law abiding peaceful people refutes your "logic".  Only the radicals, those very few as a percentage wage war on us, are deemed to be our enemy.  Or do these these hundreds of millions of peace loving moderate followers of Islam "continue to labor in a fog of ignorance" too?   huh

Islam itself is NOT the problem; that is the only "fact" on the table.  Followers of Islam, Muslims have equal rights, no more no less than all Americans.  Further, they are deserving of the same respect.  Obviously you disagree.  Let's leave it there.  Your arguments have become absurd and illogical.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 22 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!