Attempts to Push Sharia Law on America

[vector7]

Islam’s Peace

Hunt, Dave
March 1, 2003



That Islam is “peace and tolerance” is the most popular lie in the world today. Intellectuals in the West who defame Christ parrot the most fatuous praise of Muhammad, in spite of his legacy of murder, pillage and rape. A Sesame Street-type Arabic TV program features children training to be suicide bombers and chanting “Death to Israel”—for peace, of course. Reporter Ann Coulter suggests, “Inasmuch as liberals are demanding that Americans ritualistically proclaim, ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ Muslims might do their part by not killing people all the time.” 1

That our leaders promote this lie, and that so many believe it without one fact to support it, bodes ill for America and the world. We only ask Muslims for one example of where and when Islam ever brought peace and tolerance—and please don’t threaten us with death (the standard Islamic persuasion) for asking!

Never forget that Muslims slaughtered and conquered “for Allah” from Spain to China. These Arab conquests (defensive battles, they claim) were “more rapid than the Roman, more lasting than the Mongol...the most amazing feat in military history.” 2

Islam’s founder, Muhammad, began his career attacking rich caravans passing near his base in Medina. The first three assaults failed. The fourth succeeded because the victims were surprised by an ambush during Ramadan. Arab tribes had long refrained from aggression in that “holy month.” Muhammad, however, had received a “revelation” authorizing plunder and murder in Allah’s name during this special time of peace (Surah 2:217). Another absolved the Muslims of killing: “Ye slew them not, but Allah slew them” (Surah 8:17).

Most Muslims don’t realize that in observing Ramadan and the annual pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca, they follow what pagan Arabs practiced for centuries before Muhammad was born (see TBC Feb ’00 ). Had President Bush known the truth instead of the misinformation fed to him by Cleveland State University law professor David F. Forte,3 he might not have hosted a White House dinner honoring “the holy month Ramadan,” nor flattered Muslims saying “all the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements.” Benefit?

Challenged to do miracles like Christ, Muhammad could do none. On March 16, 624, near Badr, he led 300 warriors in a vicious attack against a large Meccan caravan protected by a force of 800. Some 40 Meccans were killed and 60 taken prisoner to a loss of only 14 Muslims. This amazing victory was seen as the attesting miracle Muhammad needed. As a result, the ranks of Muslims swelled with those eager to share in future plunder.

Having proved himself the prophet of Allah with the sword, Muhammad sealed his apostleship with more than twenty murders, beginning with al-Nadr, an old enemy from Mecca. Taken captive in the battle at Badr, he pleaded that the Meccan Qur’aish tribe would never kill captives.

Muhammad had him beheaded anyway, justifying the deed with another “revelation”: “It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land” (Surah 8:67).

Much of the growing Muslim wealth came from robbing and killing Jews, causing “the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper”4—justified by a further “revelation” (Surah 33:26,27). To this day, by law no Jew may set foot in Saudi Arabia.

A number of poets were murdered at Muhammad’s behest for having mocked him in verse. The first was the poetess Asma bint Marwan, stabbed to death by Umayr while she was nursing her youngest child. The poet Abu Afak (reportedly more than 100 years old) was murdered next. Then came the Jewish poet Ka’b bin al-Ashraf. A timely “revelation” said all poets were inspired of Satan (Surah 26:221-227).

Does it bother today’s Muslims that murder, rape, plunder and slavery of innocent people were the accepted way of life upon which Islam was founded and still operates? Apparently not. Ka’b’s murder (the account slanted with fictitious details) is justified on a popular Muslim web site, revealing Islam’s peculiar meaning of “peace” and “justice”:

Ka’b had become a real danger to the state of peace and mutual trust which the Prophet was struggling to achieve in Madinah....The Prophet was quite exasperated with him....This was all part of the great process...which helped to make Islam spread and establish it on foundations of justice and piety.5

Christ left Christians “an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not...[but] bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness...” (1 Pt 2:21-24). But the Muslim must follow the example of Muhammad who killed all who dared to disagree with him!

A Christian must “know” God (Jer 9:24; Jn 17:3), “love” God with all his heart (Deut 6:5; Mat 22:37, etc.) and “believe” in Christ in his heart (Acts 8:37; Rom 10:9). The God of the Bible wants man’s trust and affection without coercion.

In contrast, Allah can be neither known nor loved. Nor does one even have to believe to become a Muslim. Under threat of death, one merely recites aloud, “There is no ila (god) but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” This “conversion without faith” was established when Abu Sufyan, a Qur’aish leader, upon surrendering Mecca in 630 to Muhammad and his superior army, admitted that he doubted the latter’s prophethood. He was warned, “‘Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before your neck is cut off by the sword.’ Thus [without believing] he professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim.”6 This pattern is followed today: confess or die!

Upon Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632, many Arabs attempted to abandon Islam. Abu Bakr (the first caliph to succeed Muhammad) and his warriors in the infamous Wars of Apostasy killed tens of thousands of ex-Muslims, forcing Arabia back into Islam. Muhammad had commanded, “Whoever relinquishes his faith, kill him.” Islam is still enforced this way under shari’a (Islamic law) in Saudi Arabia and wherever Muslims are able to do so. This is peace and tolerance?!

The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights was announced at the International Conference on the Prophet Muhammad and his Message held in London in April 1980. It declares, “Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago...based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah [teachings and practice of Muhammad]....” Human rights? What deceit!

Abu Bakr was succeeded as caliph by Umar Abu Hafsa. His armies took Damascus in 635, Antioch in 636, Jerusalem in 638, Syria in 640, Egypt and Persia in 641. Entire cities were massacred, such as Behnesa, Fayum, Nikiu and Aboit in Egypt, Tripoli in North Africa and Euchaita in Armenia. Carthage was razed to the ground. In 644, Umar was murdered.

Uthman ibn Affan, the third caliph, consolidated and expanded the growing Islamic empire. A son-in-law of Muhammad, he standardized the Qur’an, burning all rival copies over protests of those still alive who remembered different readings and missing verses. Among these was Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha who, by the way, never veiled her face.

Uthman, too, was murdered by a rival Muslim faction. Prevented from being buried in a Muslim cemetery, he was buried at night by friends, ironically, in a Jewish cemetery.

Islam divides the world into dar al-Islam (the house of peace) and dar al-Harb (the house of war). To bring “peace,” Allah commands, “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads! (8:13); Slay the idolaters wherever you find them...(9:5); O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites and be thou harsh with them...(9:73); Believers, make war on the infidels that dwell around you...” (9:123). Perpetual jihad is commanded until all the world is under shari’a. Nor would that bring peace, because Muslims fight among themselves, as history testifies.

The fourth and last of the “rightly guided” caliphs was Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. Accused of complicity in Uthman’s murder, he never fully established his rule. Aisha supported a rebellion against him, resulting in the Battle of the Camel in which 10,000 were killed. Ali won, but was murdered in 661.

Wars of succession pitted Qur’aish against Bedouins, Umayyads against the Hashimite followers of Ali, etc. Most of Ali’s family were killed by rival Muslims in 680. Mecca was besieged by troops of Yezid, an Umayyad; the Ka’aba (later restored) was burned to the ground, its Black Stone split into three pieces. Mecca was taken in 692 by Abd-al-Malik (who in 691 had built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem to replace the Ka’aba). He united Muslims once again by force and Islam continued its conquests.

In 712, Muslim raiders under Muhammad Qasun began the invasion of India, demolishing temples and palaces and massacring, as in Constantinople, where the streets ran with blood. “The massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger in sheer numbers than the Holocaust....”7 But Islam is “peace!”

The Umayyad caliphate ruled the Muslim world until 749 when all of the Umayyads were murdered by the rival Abbasids, except one survivor, abd-al-Rahman, who fled to Spain where he established an independent caliphate. Thus began the Abbasid caliphate, which lasted until 1258 in spite of intrigue, assassinations and uprisings—all peaceful, of course.

The double-cross and murder of Muslims at the hands of Muslims continues to this day. Scarcely a Muslim regime is not ruled by a dictator who seized power from other Muslims, as in Syria and Iraq. The ten-year revolution in Algeria has cost 100,000 lives. In Afghanistan, rival Muslim warlords fight one another. “Infidels” have to intervene there as in the Gulf, to enforce peace among “peaceful” Muslims.

Muslims loyal to the murdered Ali and his sons are called Shi’ites (the majority in Iran). The others are called Sunnis and comprise the majority elsewhere. These two factions have long demonstrated that “Islam is peace” by fighting one another, as in the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq when more people were killed than in World War I.

Muslim conquests involving multiple massacres of literally millions continued for more than 1,300 years. Under the Abbasids the Islamic empire reached its zenith of power, prosperity and learning.

In Spain (to which Muslims point as an example of their tolerance) the garrison of Muez was slaughtered in 920; Pamplona was put to the sword in 923; then Cordova, Zaragoza and Mereda, with all adult males killed and women and children enslaved. The Jews of Granada were butchered in 1066, 34 years after 6,000 Jews had been slaughtered in Fez, Morocco. In 1146, Islamic Fez was put to the sword by rival Muslims, the Almohads, who conquered much of North Africa after annihilating the Almoravides (another Muslim faction) with about 100,000 massacred, another 120,000 killed in Marrakesh, and similar slaughters elsewhere—all gestures of “peace.”

The 400-year rule of the Ottoman Turks saw forced kidnappings of young boys into Islam and slavery, causing parents to mutilate children to make them undesirable. Under the Ottomans, being Greek, Armenian, Serb or any other non-Muslim was to live in daily fear of murder, rape, torture, genocide. To this day, Serbs and Bulgarians loathe Turks and Bosnians.

When Sultan Murad III died, his son Muhammad had all nineteen of his brothers murdered and the seven of his father’s concubines who were pregnant sewn into sacks and thrown into the sea. The successor of Murad IV had all 300 women in his harem sewn into sacks and thrown into the Bosphorus. Like so many other Muslim leaders, he was murdered—peacefully.

The persecution of Jews in Roman Catholic Europe was mild compared to what Ottoman Christians endured for four centuries. More than a million Armenians were slaughtered in the last decades of the nineteenth and the first of the twentieth centuries, as well as many thousands of Jews, Greeks, Assyrians, Lebanese, et al. Tragically, the oppression and bloodshed were often condoned by Western powers, particularly England and at times America. In the great 1915 genocide, “women came with butcher knives [to] gain that merit in Allah’s eyes that comes from killing a Christian.”8 The destruction of Smyrna in September 1922 with the deliberate massacre of nearly 300,000 inhabitants is another example of Islamic “peace.” English, American, Italian and French battleships anchored in the harbor repelled fleeing victims who swam out to them for help.9

The popular “explanation” that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are not Muslims, but fanatics, is a rebuke to the Qur’an, to Muhammad, and to Islam itself. As Trifkovic writes (p. 127), “Thirteen centuries of...suffering and death of countless millions, have been covered by the myth of Islamic ‘tolerance’....” The West winks at the blatant denial of basic human rights and support of terrorism by Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries—even favors Islamic terrorists in Chechnya, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kashmir, Kosovo, Macedonia, Sudan and East Timor.

Our politically correct delusion is leading to disaster. Tragically, the gospel is kept from Islamic countries by the failure of Western governments to admit and confront the truth about Islam. Please continue to inform yourselves, to protest to our leaders, to pray for God’s intervention, and to be witnesses for Christ to Muslims in our country. TBC

Endnotes
1. www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter.html.
2. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization (Simon and Schuster, 1950), IV: 188.
3. Imprimis (Oct 2002), 2-6; Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Islam (Regina Orthodox Press, 2002), 83-84.
4. W. N. Arafat, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1976, 100-107.
5. www.islam101.com/people/companions/maslamah.html.
6. Cf. Ibn Hisham, part 4 of his Biography of the Prophet, cited in Trifkovic, Sword, 48.
7. Trifkovic, Sword, 112.
8. Michael J. Arlen, Passage to Ararat (Ruminator Books, 2002), 224.
9. Nicholas Gage, Greek Fire (Alfred A. Knopf, 2000), cited in Trifkovic, 125.

[vector7]

Kansas: Preach Gospel to Muslims – Get Arrested

September 10, 2010 - Paul Williams, PhD

Comments (7)

Attempt to address Muslims in Kansas and you’ll be hauled off in handcuffs to the local police department.

That’s what happened to Pastor Mark Holick of Spirit One Christian Center when he visited the Wichita Islamic Society to speak about the gospel and to distribute religious tracts.

Pastor Holick and fourteen other Christians, including two additional senior ministers, did not step foot inside the mosque - - but merely attempted to engage Muslims in dialogue on a public sidewalk as they left the building.

When the police arrived on the scene, Mr. Holick was handcuffed and forced into a squad car.
When asked what crime he had committed, the police, according to the pastor, said “loitering” and “failure to disperse.”

Mr. Holick told OneNewsNow that it was “very disconcerting to see the gospel squelched — especially on a public sidewalk in a country with a constitutional guarantee of free speech.”

The police allege that the pastor and his followers were blocking a driveway.

Mr. Holick denies this charge by saying: “Of course we never did do that. There would be no reason for us to block vehicles — and they probably have no idea how much I like all of my organs and bones perfectly in the position they’re in right now.”

Previously, Mr. Holick captured headlines by positing this message on the marquee of the Spirit One Christian Center: “America, we have a Muslim president. This is a sin against the Lord.”

Last year, the fiery pastor was taken into custody by the Wichita police for communicating his religious views to gays and lesbians at a homosexual festival that was held in a public park.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul L. Williams, Ph.D., is the author of The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, The Al Qaeda Connection, and other best-selling books. He is a frequent guest on such national news networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR. Visit his website at http://thelastcrusade.org/

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (7)

[vector7]

---

---

Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 4

---

Posted: September 06, 2010
1:00 am Eastern © 2010

Nine years ago this week, we began to chant: "We will never forget 9/11."

Nine years later, I think too many of us have forgotten, especially those in the White House.

Islamic extremists murdered more than 3,000 innocent American lives on Sept. 11. Who would have believed that within a decade of that tragic event that we'd also have a new president who believes, according to his own 2009 Cairo confession and creed, that it was "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"? Not to mention his mission to fight for the mosque near Ground Zero!

In Part 1 of this series, I began to demonstrate how President Obama is using Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain to "deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo last June."

In Part 2, I detailed Obama's real spiritual beliefs based upon a rare in-depth 2004 interview by a religious reporter of a major newspaper publication, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus.

In Part 3, I explained how Obama categorically has been prejudicial in his treatment against Christians and Christianity in comparison to Muslims and Islam.

In Part 4 here, I will not only expand on that case but show how the Obama administration has changed course in just this last year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, exclusively benefitting Islam and its proliferation while again abandoning the principles in the U.S. Constitution.

In October of 2009, the White House rightly opposed the Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC), an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries, push for the United Nation's Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution that would broadly condemn the defamation of religion (or the defamation of Islam), because it would plunder Americans' first amendment rights to freedom of speech.

Hypocritically, however, as the Heritage Foundation reported, at the same basic time that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly repudiating that U.N. Human Rights Council resolution, on Oct. 2, 2009, "the Obama Administration's delegation to the 12th session of the council and OIC-member Egypt co-sponsored and adopted a resolution on freedom of opinion and expression that contains the essential elements of the resolutions on 'defamation of religions' that the U.S. opposed in the past."

And just a few months ago on June 23, 2010, that anti-First Amendment stand was reiterated when America's special envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, clearly explained the new leg of Obama's Muslim mission at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars – information by the way that no mainstream news agency I could find even reported. Hussain said, "The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the U.N. on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe." (Please read that again!)

Could it get any clearer? "Especially in Europe," but not excluding America!

Do we naively believe that Obama, the OIC and U.S. Special Envoy Rashad
Hussain will not continue to pound on the tolerance doors of the world and Washington government, until the First Amendment is overstepped and abandoned again under the same guise as U.S. hate crime laws? If the U.S. already passed hate crimes laws in a tolerant-infatuated culture, how far away is an international hate crime or anti-defamation law, especially under this administration?

The key problem here is obvious: If international tolerance for Muslims can be increased then codified into international law or a violation of human rights so that a religion and its adherents cannot be defamed, it categorically overrides and violates the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the core principle of U.S. free speech. And it's only a matter of time before the feds use that international pressure to try to coerce the American people to accept the same stateside, just like they have hate-crime laws.

And why should we not believe that Obama will again overstep the Constitution by handing over the administration of defamation of religion laws to global and international powers, when he in fact recently reported Arizona immigration laws to the U.N. as an example of human right violations?

Instead of the U.S. attacking those who are cutting off limbs or stoning Islamic women in the Middle East under Shariah law, the feds attack the good people of Arizona by reporting their "treatment" of illegal aliens, when all they are trying to do is to enforce the very immigration law the feds are ignoring?

Why doesn't the U.S. instead seek to pass an international resolution to clamp down on those Islamic extremists in Europe, who are completely out of control and ignored by the White House and even mainstream media though they protest, riot and hold up their hate signs to bomb or behead anyone who does not follow Islam?

Of course, Obama and the rest of his administration will do or say nothing against Islam in any form. If they would, they would have defended the U.S. against the greatest Muslim jihadist, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who in Dec. 2009 publicly accused the U.S. of actively planning and plotting to stop mankind's real savior: i.e. Mahdi, the imam that Muslims believe will be the ultimate savior of mankind.

To the contrary, Obama's Cairo pro-Muslim mission continues, and proof came again just last week. While the president announced to the nation from the Oval Office that, on Aug. 31, 2010, the combat mission in Iraq ended, on the same day, unbeknownst to the most of the country and world, the Obama administration held a special workshop for 25-30 Muslim leaders from 20 national Islamic groups (under the leadership of the "Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations") to provide the groups "funding, government assistance and resources."

And as a cherry on top of the Obama Islamic financial sundae, while most Americans would have to prove they have medical insurance or face a fine under Obamacare, many believe the stage is set so that Muslims could be exempt in the future from that financial penalty, due to a loophole in the law for conscientious religious objection, specifically created for those like the Amish, who believe their community cares for their own. Many Muslims are already rejoicing over this exemption based upon their belief that mandated universal health care is haraam or forbidden like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on future speculation like gambling or the charging of interest.

At a time commemorating Sept. 11, when recent polls show 70 percent of Americans are opposed to a Ground Zero mosque, and one in five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, does he really expect that we will naively tolerate and approve of the Islamic bias in his presidential religious leadership and administration?

It's time we heed the wisdom of our fourth president, James Madison, who said, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

[American Patriot]

You all need to hear this. Please:

http://www.hannity.com/guest/gabriel...e/10909Related Info

	Listen to the September 14, 2010 show with Brigitte Gabriel
	Go to the September 14, 2010 show page

Sean: Obama should not raise taxes in a bad economy; Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen; Brigitte Gabriel and Wafa Sultan ... More

[American Patriot]

And they closed down the Awful Tower yesterday too.

I mean Eiffel, EIFFEL!

[vector7]

France In Trouble Over Immigrants

France got into big trouble this week over its deportation of Gypsies early this week, and its move to ban veils that hide the faces of women won't help matters any. Trying to control the increasing Islamization of its society, the French Senate passed a bill that forbids women from wearing the burqa and other face-hiding veils in public. The vote was nearly unamious, 246-1. The Senate's action follows that of the country's National Assembly, which acted in June and also passed the bill by a large margin. The bill awaits the singnature of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The bill imposes a $185 fine on women who wear veils in public, but even more importantly, cracks down on Muslim men who force women to do so. Men face a fine of nearly $40,000. The AP called it "one more blow" to Islam in France, but did not explain what other "blows" Islam has suffered. France passed the veil ban, the AP reported, to protect the equality and dignity of women. As well, the AP reports, it will help France maintain its secular milieu. But whatever the reason women may no longer cover their faces in public, the country's radical Left, as expected, chalks the action up to Islamophobia. Raphael Liogier, a sociology professor who heads the Observatory of the Religious in Aix-en-Provence, says that Muslims in France are already targeted by hate-mongers and the ban on face-covering veils "will officialize Islamophobia." "With the identity crisis that France has today, the scapegoat is the Muslim," he told The Associated Press. "Ironically, instead of helping some women integrate, the measure may keep them cloistered in their homes to avoid exposing their faces in public. "I won't go out. I'll send people to shop for me. I'll stay home, very simply," said Oum Al Khyr, who wears a "niqab" that hides all but the eyes. "I'll spend my time praying," said the single woman "over 45" who lives in Montreuil on Paris' eastern edge. "I'll exclude myself from society when I wanted to live in it." One Muslim woman told the AP interviewer she would sue France in the European Court of Human Rights: "I will accept the fine with great pleasure." France is home to five million Muslims, the largest population in Europe, which may explain why it has an identity crisis. Like many Europeans nations, it is suffering the consequences of a decades-long open-borders policy that has allowed Muslims to establish enclaves across the country, particularly in Paris, where rioting Muslims sent the city up in flames in November, 2008. Now, it has begun to act in its own defense, following such countries as Switzerland. In 2009, the Swiss banned the Muslim minaret, described by Turkish President Recep Erdogan as the "Muslim Bayonet." That law sent European leftists into a tizzy. Gypsies Go Home This latest move to protect France from the influence of unwelcome immigrants follows its expulsion of 1,000 illegal-alien Gypsies who were gathered in illegal camps and committing crimes. France paid each deportee $385. Although the European Union is essentially a borderless superstate entitling Europeans to travel anywhere they wish, a country can expel those within its borders without proper papers. "We do not evacuate ... illegal camps because they are Roma's [Roma is another name for Gypsies]," Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said, "we dismantle them because they are illegal," he said. The EU labeled the move a "disgrace," and said that France was "breaking European law," as the New York Times summed up the position of EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding. "My patience is wearing thin," she warned at a news conference in Brussels, Belgium. "No member can expect special treatment when fundamental values and European laws are at stake." She likened the expulsions to what occurred to the Jews in World War II. "Enough is enough!" she thundered, pounding her fist."After 11 years of experience on the commission, I even go further," she said. "This is a disgrace. Discrimination on the basis or ethnic origin or race has no place in Europe." Then, of course, the usual suspects chimed in, the Times reported: One prominent French organization supporting immigrant rights, Gisti, said it also was contemplating a lawsuit against the government. "Can you imagine a directive explicitly naming Jews or Arabs?" asked Stephane Maugendre, the president of Gisti, on France Info Radio. What the EU will do if France refuses to rescind the expulsion order or pay any fines remains to be seen.

[vector7]

What does France know that we don't...



Disney worker demanding to wear hijab still refuses company's offers to compromise


It's not that Disney is refusing her a job or a living wage because she is a Muslim. Rather, it is clear from this story that Imane Boudlal wants to be seen wearing a hijab and wants Disneyland to be her platform for doing so; thus, Disney's attempts to compromise and offer her other positions and alternative costuming options have been non-starters.

Disney is in the entertainment business. Costumes and standards of appearance are part of maintaining the experience that Disneyland sells, and uniforms are called "uniforms" for a reason. But Boudlal is bent on injecting her own social engineering agenda into Disney's small, small world, and believes it trumps the basic principle that one is not entitled to a job whose requirements one cannot fulfill.

An update on this story. "Muslim hostess and Disney still at odds over headscarf," by Laura Bly for USA Today, September 13:

A Muslim woman who sued Disney last week for refusing to let her wear a religious headscarf at her job as a Disneyland Resort restaurant hostess says she has been suspended without pay for turning down the company's alternatives - including a large hat and bow-tie bonnet she called "humiliating" and "embarrassing."

Nothing new there: company uniforms tend to be unflattering in some way to just about everyone.

According to her union, Unite Here Local 11, Imane Boudlal was suspended Tuesday after rejecting both a Disney-made hijab, or headscarf, and offers of four "backstage" jobs out of the public eye.

But Disneyland spokeswoman Suzi Brown said that while the company had not scheduled Boudlal for future work hours, Boudlal's characterization was inaccurate.

"Over the last four days we have made every attempt to provide Ms. Boudhal with several different costuming options which we believe would accommodate her religious beliefs and meet our costuming guidelines," said Brown in a prepared statement.

"We also offered her four roles" - three phone-based positions and one bakery job, all of which paid at least as much as what she was making as a hostess at the Grand Californian Hotel - "that would allow her to wear her own hijab," the statement added. "She's chosen to reject over and over again all the options presented to her."

Disney's strict dress code prohibits "cast members," or employees who meet the public, from wearing religious items. But the company has worked to accommodate employees' concerns by allowing such modifications as longer sleeves and skirts instead of pants. In 2004, Disney World in Florida was sued by a female Muslim employee who wanted to wear a headscarf to work. The case was settled out of court and the terms were confidential.

Boudlal, a U.S. citizen who was born in Morocco, has been employed at the Western-themed Storyteller's Cafe for more than two years. She said that while she has worn a headscarf off the job for the past year, she decided she had the right to wear her hijab to work after studying for her citizenship exam in June and reading a Disney manual that mentioned an accommodation policy for religious beliefs.

She said she had requested a Disney-made headscarf more than two months ago, and when she arrived at the restaurant Aug. 15 wearing her own, she was told to remove it or go home. She filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last Wednesday.

"I'm not a character in a role, I just wear a uniform," said Boudlal, who added that she has been willing to accept a "simple and decent" Disney alternative but is unwilling to move to a behind-the-scenes job "because I'd feel humiliated."

"The point is, they don't want anyone to look Muslim or different," she said.

That's why they call it a "uniform." So people don't look different, or somehow more privileged or special than the next worker.

Posted by Marisol on September 13, 2010 9:32 AM | 47 Comments

[American Patriot]

Yeah!

I was posting it,you are faster because of server's delay from Europe to USA

Admit it, you're just a slow old man... come on Peterle, POST FASTER!

/chuckles

[vector7]

Shariah: The Threat to America

Center for Security Policy | Sep 13, 2010

This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as "shariah." It is designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate "second opinion" on the official characterizations and assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government.

The authors, under the sponsorship of the Center for Security Policy, have modeled this work on an earlier "exercise in competitive analysis" which came to be known as the "Team B" Report. That 1976 document challenged the then-prevailing official U.S. government intelligence estimates of the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union and the policy known as "détente" that such estimates ostensibly justified.

As with the original Team B analysis, however, this study challenges the assumptions underpinning the official line in the conflict with today's totalitarian threat, which is currently euphemistically described as "violent extremism," and the policies of co-existence, accommodation and submission that are rooted in those assumptions.

Read the report...

[American Patriot]

[vector7]

Now chanting "USA" at a football game is offensive to Muslims


At least in the view of a dhimmi "University Academic Professional" at the University of Illinois . "Block-I chant portrays 'neither patriotism nor remembrance,'" by David Green, "University Academic Professional," in the Daily Illini, September 15 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

The vast majority of 9/11 observances in this country cannot be seen as politically neutral events. Implicit in their nature are the notions that lives lost at the World Trade Center are more valuable than lives lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere; that the motives of the 9/11 attackers had nothing to do with genuine grievances in the Islamic world regarding American imperialism; and that the U.S. has been justified in the subsequent killing of hundreds of thousands in so-called retaliation.

The observance at Saturday's football game was no different. A moment of silence was followed by a military airplane flyover; in between, Block-I students chanted "USA, USA." This was neither patriotism nor remembrance in any justifiable sense, but politicization, militarism, propaganda and bellicosity. The University is a public institution that encompasses the political views of all, not just the most (falsely) "patriotic." Athletic planners should cease such exploitation for political purposes. They might at least consider how most Muslim students, American or otherwise, would respond to this nativist display; or better, Muslims and others that live their lives under the threat of our planes, drones and soldiers....

Never mind the non-Muslims in Muslim countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Egypt who are threatened and terrorized by Muslims. That wouldn't fit this "University Academic Professional"'s paradigm.

---

Wonder what happens when Muslims have the majority? Pakistan: Muslims burn Christian man as policeman rapes his wife

[American Patriot]

Usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa fuck you islam usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa

[vector7]

Under Sharia this is legal
Father who threw baby from bridge 'devout Muslim'

Reportedly drove to Jersey mosque, consulted imam immediately after abducting daughter

Posted: February 18, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Shamsid-Din Abdur-Raheem

A 21-year-old New Jersey man accused of kidnapping his 3-month-old daughter and throwing her off a bridge is described by his father as a devout Muslim who prayed regularly and is said to have immediately visited mosques and confessed to an imam following his crime.

Shamsid-Din Abdur-Raheem, an aspiring lawyer and student at Richard Stockton College, reportedly held a leadership position in the Muslim Student Association at Stockton, according to college senior Zaw Win. The group's member and officer list has been disabled on its website.

He was also an intern in Washington, D.C., with the juveniles section of the Office of the Attorney General, according to March 2009 press release from Stockton College. He was fired after only a month for missing work and not completing assignments. He lashed out during his termination, and security personnel escorted him out of the building.

Abdur-Raheem allegedly forced his way into the baby's maternal grandmother's home at 4 p.m. on Feb. 16, punched the 60-year-old woman in the face and choked her. He took 3-month old Zara Malani-lin Abdur, and the grandmother chased him outside. She threw herself on the hood of a Dodge Caravan as Abdur-Raheem climbed into the passenger side, clutching his daughter, New Jersey's Star-Ledger reports. According to some reports, he left with an unidentified man at the wheel, though other accounts say he was the only man in the van.

The baby's mother, Venetta Benjamin, has full custody of the baby and is not married to Abdur-Raheem. He had reportedly threatened to harm Benjamin in the week prior to the abduction because she didn't want to marry him. Benjamin was filing a restraining order against him at the time he abducted his daughter.

After arriving at the Driscoll Bridge and dropping his daughter into the icy cold water of the Raritan River, Abdur-Raheem is said to have immediately driven to see Imam Amin Muhammad at the Masjid Mohammed in Atlantic City, and then to Masjid un-Nur in Camden County.

His father, Muhsin Abdur-Raheem, described his son as a devout Muslim and said he prayed often. He said his son sought counsel from an imam at Masjid Muhammad following the abduction. Shamsid-Din Abdur-Raheem then visited his father, who called the police around 8 p.m.

Authorities stopped Abdur-Raheem's red 2002 Dodge Caravan in Winslow Township but did not find the baby with him.

Police say Shamsid-Din Abdur-Raheem told them he threw the baby off the Garden State Parkway's Driscoll Bridge. He has been charged with kidnapping and attempted murder, aggravated assault and child endangerment. The kidnapping charge carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in state prison, and the attempted murder charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in state prison.

Despite the alleged confession, he pleaded not guilty during his arraignment today.

"We're all distraught about this," his father told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"We're faithful people.

We don't condone any kind of violence."

Despite an exhaustive search, dozens of emergency personnel have been unable to find the baby. Authorities say her chances for survival are slim at this point.

Asked if he believes she may survive, the father said, "I hope it's a miracle."

---

NJ dad pleads not guilty in baby's bridge death

By SAMANTHA HENRY (AP) – Sep 14, 2010



NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — A New Jersey father accused of tossing his 3-month-old daughter to her death off a bridge pleaded not guilty Tuesday, as a judge ordered him to have no further contact with the child's mother.

Shamsid-Din Abdur-Raheem sat silently as his attorney entered the plea in state Superior Court in New Brunswick.

The 22-year-old Galloway Township resident is charged with murder and five other counts related to the infant's abduction and death. He remains jailed on $2.7 million bail.

Abdur-Raheem is also charged with attempted murder for allegedly assaulting the baby's maternal grandmother, who was baby-sitting while the child's mother sought a restraining order against him.

Prosecutors claim Abdur-Raheem abducted Zara Malani-lin Abdur from her grandmother's East Orange apartment on Feb. 16, choking and assaulting the woman and then hitting her with his van as she attempted to block his escape.

Abdur-Raheem later parked on the shoulder of the Garden State Parkway over the Driscoll Bridge — which spans the Raritan River between Sayreville and Woodbridge — and threw or dropped the baby from the front passenger window, according to court papers.

Police launched a massive search for the child. But she wasn't found until April, when people walking along the riverbank not far from the bridge came across an infant's body matching her description. An autopsy determined she had drowned.

Deputy Attorney General Andrew C. Fried asked state Superior Court Judge Frederick DeVesa Tuesday to bar Abdur-Raheem from all further contact with the baby's mother, saying he had sent her a 10-page letter from jail.

Fried declined to discuss the letter's content, but said it could prompt the state to pursue additional charges of harassment or witness tampering.

Abdur-Raheem's attorney, Richard Klein, told the judge that the letter had been sent in response to a jail visit the baby's mother had initiated. Fried countered that the mother had only visited to ask Abdur-Raheem if their child was still alive, before the baby's body had been found.

The judge asked Abdur-Raheem if he understood the order to have no further contact with the child's mother, to which the defendant, his cuffed hands resting in his lap, nodded and quietly replied: "Yes."

The case, which New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow has characterized as a tragic example of domestic violence, prompted a review of the state's guidelines for issuing Amber Alert broadcasts in response to reports of missing children.

Dow ordered the review, and changes to the system, after it was discovered that no alert had been issued for four hours between the time the child was abducted and Abdur-Raheem was arrested, as state law discouraged the use of the alerts in domestic cases at the time.

New Jersey police now issue the alerts even in cases of suspected parental involvement in a child's abduction.

[vector7]

Muslim Honor Killings in America – Wave of the Future?

By Bob Ellis on August 7th, 2010



If you’ve been following current events very closely for the past several years, you might be aware that Muslim “honor killings” are not just something that occurs in Middle Eastern countries. It happens right here in the United States. It doesn’t happen a lot, and the “mainstream” media is usually pretty hushed about it, but it is happening in frightening numbers, and you can find out about it if you look hard enough.

Even the case of Rifqa Bary, the girl who ran away from home because she feared for her life after converting to Christianity, was more visible on the current events scene, but you’d have to really look for information about it.

The attention level is beginning to change, however, and hopefully that will be a good thing for America. That is because radical Muslims, after a Western society has become “tolerant” of their more extreme beliefs, usually demands the recognition of Muslim practices such as Sharia Law.

We don’t need Sharai law or honor killings in America.

You’ll see in the first video below a brief expose about the honor killing of two sisters in Texas, Sarah Yaser Said, 17, and Amina Yaser Said, 18, in 2008.

The next videos are a longer expose on this case and on Muslim honor killing in America.

It’s time America opened her collective eyes to radical Islam (especially radical Islam’s inroads in America) and put an end to the moral dereliction being carried out under the excuse of “tolerance.”

Our freedoms–and our lives–are on the line.

Muslim Honor Killing in America

Part 1 – Honor Killing In America

Part 2 – Honor Killing In America

Part 3 – Honor Killing In America

Part 4 – Honor Killing In America

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

[Backstop]

Honor killing is part of their religion.

They're not gonna change.

[vector7]

Six UK Men Jailed as Racists for Burning Koran

When Australian lawyer (and atheist) Alex Stewart allegedly rolled marijuana “joints” from pages of the Bible and Koran and smoked them on YouTube, he quickly learned that many Muslims do not share the sufferance demonstrated by Western Christians, who have become accustomed to such conduct. Neither the Australian government nor Christians posed a threat to Stewart, but Muslim leaders were quick to try to avert violence from their community; Stewart found it necessary to go into hiding. Just like The FBI tells American Cartoonist to disappear after offending Islam However, six men in the United Kingdom are finding that their government will not be as forbearing of such shenanigans as their Commonwealth brethren "Down Under,” at least when it comes to tolerating actions deemed to be anti-Islamic. Their decision to burn two copies of the Koran on the anniversary of September 11, and then post the video (like Stewart) on YouTube, has resulted in their being taken into custody. According to an article in the online edition of the Telegraph: The men, all but one of them members of the far-right English Defence League, set fire to what appears to be the Muslim holy books on the anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities in the United States. They say they carried out the “private joke” as a riposte to historical images of Muslim extremists burning American flags and effigies of western leaders. However, all six insist that they have no idea who actually posted the video onto the Internet, and say they now “bitterly regret” the stunt. All are now on bail pending further police inquiries. The clip, recorded in the back yard of a public house [pub] in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, has been broadly condemned by other YouTube users, some of whom have expressed concern that British soldiers in Afghanistan could be targeted as a direct result. They were marshalled by a man wearing a jacket bearing the logo: “English Defence League, Gateshead Division.” As in the case of Rev. Terry Jones (the Florida minister who also proposed burning the Koran on the anniversary of the terrorist attack by Islamic extremists), the ironic invocation of national security simply highlights the homicidal tendencies of the Jihadists. The histrionics displayed by the governments of the U.S. and U.K. when citizens propose to burn a few copies of the Koran demonstrate not a concern for protecting the rights of minorities, but rather a fundamental agreement with the political assessment of those who propose to burn the books: that is, the view that adherents of Islam are inclined to acts of extreme violence when provoked, and the slightest provocation may unleash a wave of Jihadism which even highly trained armed forces thousands of miles from the alleged offense will be unable to contain. Officials have been desperate to frame opposition to Islam as racist, a charge which seems all the more peculiar given the fact that the same government officials will no doubt insist that Jihadists cannot be racially profiled. Of course, Islam is no more a "race" than any other religion, and one may object to the tenets of Islam just as one may disagree with those of any other religion, without such disagreement being “racist.” According to the Telegraph, On the video members of the gang are heard shouting: “This is for the boys in Afghanistan. September 11, international Burn a Koran Day, for all the people of 9/11. This is how we do it in Gateshead, right.” They are then shown burning a second book. Police visited The Bugle [pub] last Wednesday after the video was posted online and two men were arrested on suspicion of stirring racial hatred. They have since been released on bail. Four more men were arrested and bailed on Wednesday pending further inquiries, Northumbria Police said. “The arrests followed the burning of what are believed to have been two Korans in Gateshead on September 11,” a spokesman said. He added that the men were not arrested for watching or distributing the video, but on suspicion of burning the Koran. One must wonder whether the contemplation of charges of stirring racial hatred for the Koran-burners will be followed by similar charges sweeping the United Kingdom after the annual observance of Guy Fawkes Day on November 5. After all, if the age of political correctness and tolerance now declares religion to be a matter of race, and expressions of religious disagreement are now to be interpreted (and prosecuted) as racism, one may legitimately wonder how the government will respond to similar expressions of religious disagreement. If the "Gateshead Six" are to be tried as racists for burning two copies of the Koran, what ought to await Richard Dawkins and his ilk is something similar to the Nuremberg Trials.

[Backstop]

Tell me again why islam is not a danger.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video...house-11777133

Anjem Choudary says he believes the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/an...ubmission.html

Anjem Choudary: "Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission."

This interview handily demonstrates why Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri's fatwa against "terrorism" is not nearly as momentous as advertised. He can go on talking about terrorism all he wants, and Choudary and his ilk will keep talking about armed jihad and quoting chapter and verse, and never the twain shall meet.
"UK Muslim Leader: Islam Not a Religion of Peace," by Erick Stakelbeck for CBN News, March 2:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has released a review of its strategy in the war on terrorism. The report failed to even mention the word "Islam."

CBN News traveled to London to talk with Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim radical who says Islamic teachings are what shaped his pro-jihad message.

Although both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have declared that Islam is a religion of peace, Choudary begs to differ.

A Religion of Peace?

"You can't say that Islam is a religion of peace," Choudary told CBN News. "Because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. So the Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam."

Choudary is the leader of Islam4UK, a group recently banned in Britain under the country's counter-terrorism laws. He wants Islamic Sharia law to rule the United Kingdom and is working to make that dream a reality.

While Islamic radicals in the United States usually prefer to speak in more moderate tones while in public, masking their true agenda, Choudary has no such inhibitions.

He has praised the 9/11 hijackers and has called for the execution of Pope Benedict. He also stirred controversy recently when video emerged of him converting a 10-year-old British boy to Islam.

Openly Praising Jihad

Choudary told CBN News his group is a "non-violent political and ideological movement" that resides in the UK under "a covenant of security."

Yet he openly praises violent jihad.

"The Koran is full of, you know, jihad is the most talked about duty in the Koran other than tawhid -- belief," he said. "Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting."

Several former members of Choudary's group have been arrested on terrorism charges.

"A very significant amount of former al-Muhajiroun people were involved in terrorist plots against this country," London-based terrorism expert Peter Neumann said. "A number of people have actually gone to Afghanistan, joined the Taliban and died fighting for the Taliban."

Choudary refuses to condemn acts of terror including 9/11 and the July 7, 2005 London bombings, which killed 52 people.

Islam More than Religion

CBN News asked Choudary for his thoughts on the 7/7 bombings on London's transport system, and whether he condemned them.

"For the people who carried it out, it was legitimate," he replied. "If you look at the will of the 7/7 bombers Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, they would be justified. And there are many verses from the Koran and many statements to say that's the Islamic argument. And that is a difficult Islamic argument to refute. And there are many scholars who support that argument as well."

Choudary says his group is merely following core Islamic teachings and that Islam is much more than a religion.

"This particular belief is more than just a religion," he declared. "It is not just a spiritual belief. It is, in fact, an ideology which you believe in and you struggle for and you are willing even to die for, because you believe in that: That is your whole life."

Choudary seems to relish being called Great Britain's "most hated man" and pledges to continue his rallies calling for the overthrow of the British system.

[Backstop]

Great article.

And as I've said all along, they'll take over this country one brick at a time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ckmail_us.html
October 03, 2010
We Allow Them to Blackmail Us -- Islam vs. the West
By Eileen F. Toplansky
The Muslim world does not have to fire a single shot; the Western world is capitulating to the Islamists' every demand. Three recent events show the continuing and relentless interplay among Islamists worldwide.

The latest assault is playing out in Spain. La Meca, a popular "discotheque in southern Spain, has agreed to change its name and architectural design" because of pressure from Islamic extremists, who find the name of the discotheque and its design "offensive and insulting to their religion."

Like the Danish cartoon uproar in 2005 when Muslims took to the streets in outrage because the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of twelve cartoons about the prophet Muhammad, the Spaniards now find themselves being threatened and sued by Islamic organizations. Moreover, this incident has sparked a diplomatic confrontation and has created an international uproar within the Muslim world.

The Spanish nightclub event began in August 2010, "when a Senegalese immigrant rejected a job offer at La Meca because the club's name offended his religion. Soon after, a group of Muslim radicals posted a video on the Internet calling for a boycott of Spanish goods and a jihad against those who 'blaspheme the name of Allah.'"

In fact, in early September, Spain's intelligence agency actually warned La Meca's owners that the discotheque was being directly targeted by Islamic extremists. Mohamed Ali, of the Spanish Federation of Islamic Entities, stated that "calling a place for dancing and drinking by that name is grotesque and constitutes a lack of respect for Muslims." A suit against the discotheque is being considered "for insulting the honor of [Islam.]"

The net effect is that yet another European country is now surrendering to the demands of Muslims who claim that "territories once occupied by Muslims must remain under Muslim domination forever." In September of this year, the Spanish intelligence agency "reported a jihadist 'media offensive' unlike any seen since the March 2004 attacks in Madrid. Analysts say that ... jihadists are now calling for a 'crusade' that involves Spain's two North African enclaves, Ceuta and Melilla."

In another example of Islamist dominance, in Egypt, Coptic Christian leader Pope Shenouda III "apologized in a television interview to any Muslims who were offended after [Shenouda's] top Bishop reportedly 'disputed the authenticity' of some verses of the Koran." So once again, the Muslim world shuts down dissenting voices and erupts in mindless violence. Shenouda acknowledges that Egypt is "not their [the Copts'] country anymore." He states that the Copts "are the ones who are guests since Muslims are the majority."

In fact, Coptics and other non-Muslims have been reduced to dhimmis under constant threat from their Islamic overlords. Construction of new churches or fixing of old ones is forbidden under Islamic law, and Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badie urges Muslims to "respond to whomever [sic] slanders the book of God or the prophet."

This blackmail by Islamists is becoming a daily exercise as the West permits itself to be bullied by the emerging caliphate. American ideals of liberty as stated in the First Amendment are completely foreign notions to the Muslim world as they threaten, intimidate, and murder anyone who disagrees with an iota of their belief system. And the escalating intolerance will soon have official United Nations sanction, as the "Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has called upon the international community to make collective efforts to prevent incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims[.]"

In essence, the OIC wants the United Nations to develop a "legally binding institutional instrument" to muzzle free speech about Islam and jihad. This coming from people who spew hate cartoons against Jews and Christians, who teach their children vile lies, and who engage in deliberate obfuscation known as taqiyya, or lying for the sake of Islam, is breathtaking. While Christians and Jews are terrorized and their respective buildings of worship are burned, the foreign ministers of the OIC are concerned about the alleged "increasing acts of Islamophobia and growing trend of intolerance and hatred toward Muslims."

These three events are not isolated occurrences and exemplify the findings of a Center for Security Policy report entitled "Shariah: The Threat to America -- An Exercise in Competitive Analysis --Report of Team 'B' II" published in 2010. Some salient features of this 170-plus-page report include:

Sharia is a totalitarian, socio-political doctrine because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere -- economic, social, military, legal, and political. In fact, "shariah is fundamentally about power, namely the enforcement of a body of law, not faith."
Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad, or holy war, or stealthier practices referred to as dawa, shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values such as freedom of conscience, individual liberty (including in matters of personal privacy and sexual preference), freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah), economic liberty (including private property), equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims), [and] an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of federalism and democracy, not wanton violence. In fact, "any system of man-made law is considered illicit under Islamic law[.]" Thus, "Islam and democracy can never co-exist in harmony."
In fact, the unremitting rhetoric of rage emanating from the Muslim world must be viewed as a hypocritical ruse to bully the West. Has the West become so lacking in resolve that it should surrender to these hysterical rants as if there were any merit to them?

Andrew C. McCarthy, Harry Edward Soyster, and R. James Woolsey, authors of the Shariah: The Threat to America analysis, unequivocally state that American "leadership has ... failed to appreciate the complementary subversion campaigns posed by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood[.]" The Brotherhood "has succeeded in penetrating our educational, legal and political systems, as well as top levels of government, intelligence, the media, and the U.S. military, virtually paralyzing our ability to respond effectively."

Until Americans accept the fact that shariah is "as totalitarian a political program as ever were those of communism, fascism, national socialism, or Japanese imperialism," we will never truly combat the enemy "inside our perimeter." We have abdicated teaching our young people about the timeless ideals of American democracy, while "in many mosques, the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution is being encouraged" through printed material and in textbooks!

Consequently, not addressing the "internal threat that has masked itself as a religion" and permitting Muslim Brotherhood free reign when they "demand that free speech be barred where it gives offense to them, effectively imposes shariah blasphemy laws in this country."

Ostensibly mollifying the Islamic world by changing the name of a nightclub, by complying with shariah financing, or by having American women -- whether they be Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton or Diane Sawyer -- wear a head covering, or hijab, is a subtle acquiescence by the West which will only embolden the enemy. Bat Ya'or explains that this "tacit, non-comprehended acceptance of shariah's dictates," in essence, "puts the Western public sphere in the position of conforming to one of the basic rules of dhimmitude: the express prohibition of Christians and Jews to criticize Islamic history and doctrine."

We must identify, recognize, and defeat every facet of shariah's designs and the people who promulgate it. We must begin to educate ourselves about this existential threat.

[vector7]

School systems to get Muslim holiday

Cambridge to start observance in 2011-12

By Brock Parker, Globe Correspondent | October 10, 2010

As a Muslim and a high school senior at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, 17-year-old Dunia Kassay faces a tough choice every year on Islamic holy days: go to school or stay home to be with family and friends.

If she stays home, Kassay says, she will be forced to play catch-up and make up her school assignments. But if she goes to school, she will be neglecting what she feels is her religious obligation on holidays such as Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting.

“It’s really conflicting,’’ Kassay said. “Instead of fasting for a month and enjoying this really big day, eating and going to family’s houses, it’s kind of like, ‘Oh, hey, guys, I’ve got to go do my homework.’ ’’

But beginning next year, Cambridge public schools will attempt to make it easier for Muslim students to honor their highest holy days.

In a move that school officials believe is the first of its kind in the state, Cambridge will close schools for one Muslim holiday each year beginning in the 2011-2012 school year.

The school will either close for Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adha, also known as the Festival of Sacrifice, depending on which holiday falls within the school year. If both fall within the school calendar, the district will close for only one of the days.

The school district’s decision, announced last month, was made as the national discussion about Islam continues, fueled by a Mosque proposal two blocks from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Florida preacher Terry Jones’s threat to burn a Koran. The discussion has also touched local schools, as Wellesley school officials drew criticism recently for a video that showed sixth-grade students kneeling during a prayer service at a Boston mosque during a field trip in May.

But Cambridge School Committee member Marc McGovern, who pushed for the Muslim holiday in city schools, said he thinks people need to take a step back from what he called hysteria and the stereotypes of all Muslims as terrorists.

“At a time when I think the Muslim population is being characterized with a broad brush in a negative way, I think it’s important for us to say we’re not going to do that here,’’ McGovern said.

Cambridge schools already close for some Christian and Jewish holidays, and McGovern said he believes Muslims should be treated equally.

“The issue that sort of came up was should we celebrate any religious holidays, but there was not the will to take away Good Friday or one of the Jewish holidays,’’ he said. “So I said, if that is the case, I think we have an obligation to celebrate one of the Muslim holidays, as well.’’

State and federal laws require schools to make reasonable accommodation of the religious needs of students and in observance of holy days, but the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education leaves the decision about how to do that up to individual school districts because they “know best about the needs and unique demographic makeup of their student population and community,’’ said JC Considine, a spokesman for the department.

If a school district has a large number of students who observe Good Friday and would not attend school that day, Considine said the districts are allowed to close because of the expected low attendance. But the state does require districts to schedule at least 180 days of school.

Cambridge School Superintendent Jeffrey Young said the district does not collect information about the religion of its students. But Young said that there is a significant Muslim population in the city, and that, at least anecdotally, the Muslim population in the schools appears to be growing.

A large Muslim population is one of the reasons why the school district in Dearborn, Mich., began closing schools for high Islamic holy days 10 years ago, said David Mustonen, communications coordinator for the school system.

Mustonen said that at first there were some people in the community who didn’t like the schools being closed on Eid holidays. “However, I don’t think this is the case anymore as people have come to realize that it is no different then taking time off at Christmas or Easter,’’ Mustonen said in an e-mail.

In September, public schools in Burlington, Vt., also closed on Eid al-Fitr for the first time, said Dan Balon, director of the school district’s diversity and equity office.

Balon said there is an increasing Muslim population in the schools, and the district decided to close on the holiday rather than risk low attendance rates and force students to decide between school and staying home to celebrate the holiday.

Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, said that to his knowledge Cambridge would be the first school district in Massachusetts to close schools for a Muslim holiday.

“Somebody has to be first,’’ said Koocher. “I suspect there may be heightened interest in this. We’ll see how this plays out.’’

Marla Erlien, chairwoman of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission, said the discussion about closing Cambridge schools for an Islamic holiday began several years ago when the commission conducted a survey at Rindge and Latin asking students about discrimination, and at a follow-up forum students raised concerns about how Muslims were a “discarded group’’ whose holidays weren’t recognized in the schools.

From there, several students, including Kassay and Humbi Song, a 2009 graduate of the high school, began working to raise understanding of Arab and Muslim culture at the high school and then advocating for a day off from school on a Muslim holiday.

Song, who is not Muslim, said she tried to promote awareness about Islam at the high school in part because she had Muslim friends who had been made fun of for their religious clothing and headwear. She said she thinks some students were uneducated about Muslim culture.

Erlien said she thinks closing schools on the holiday will help build connections with Muslims in Cambridge.

“As their kids come home and say, ‘Oh, look, we now have a holiday,’ the parents might begin to feel safer here,’’ Erlien said.

But McGovern said he’s sure there will be some people who think closing school for a Muslim holiday is a terrible idea.

“Can’t please everybody,’’ he said. “You have to do what you think is right.’’

Brock Parker can be reached at Brock.globe@gmail.com.

[American Patriot]

Fla. Pastor Wins Car for Canceling Koran Burning


Published October 15, 2010
| FoxNews.com

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments (25)
• Text Size

AP
Aug. 30: Rev. Terry Jones, seen here at the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., says he plans to burn copies of the Koran to mark the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks despite the potential security threat it will create for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

SOUTH BRUNSWICK, N.J. – A New Jersey car dealer plans to keep his word after offering Florida pastor Terry Jones a new car if he promised to not burn a Koran.
Brad Benson made the offer in one of his dealership's quirky radio ads.
He says he was surprised when a representative for Jones called to collect the 2011 Hyundai Accent.
Jones never burned a Koran but he tells The Associated Press that the offer of a car was not the reason. He says he learned about the offer a few weeks after Sept. 11.
The Gainesville, Fla., pastor says he plans to donate the car to an organization that helps abused Muslim women.
Jones must pick up the car in person, although a handover date has not been set.
Benson asked radio listeners for advice and says a majority of callers told him to honor his promise to the preacher.