Creeping Sharia

[Julian]

"Moderate" Kuwait Parliament adds "the death penalty for those who publicly insult" allah, Muhammad, or his wives

This is the sharia. The same sharia that Reza Aslan and Hamas groups like CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MSA, MSU et al are fighting for in America. The opponents of the anti-sharia legislation support these blasphemy laws and the brutal, misogynistic sharia (i.e. honor killings, forced marriage, clitorectomies, etc.).

Arab times reports this:

"Al-Dallal added the legal committee also unanimously approved amendments to the Penal Code pertaining to blasphemy. The amendments stipulate the death penalty for those who publicly insult God Almighty (Divine Entity) or Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) or his wives. He said the committee discussed the matter with representatives from the Awqaf Ministry and fatwa experts and the bill will be on the agenda of the next session...

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

[Ogopogo]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... karen-lugo

April 17, 2012 4:00 A.M.
America’s Quiet Muslims
Muslims who value American liberty must oppose an insidious new campaign.

By Karen Lugo

Archive Latest RSS Send

Zulfiqar Ali Shah


If America is going to fare better than Europe in halting the development of a de facto sharia society, the unabashed efforts of Muslims who understand the unique value of America’s legacy of liberty will be crucial. Estimates indicate that more than half of American Muslims are quietly appreciative of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. The challenge lies in persuading them to take a public stand.

The stage is now set for all freedom-supporting Muslims to step up and counter the Islamic Circle of North America as it rolls out its $3 million campaign to convince Americans that the goals of sharia law and the objectives of the United States Constitution are one and the same. As enunciated in a fatwa by the Islamic Fiqh Council of North America, which interprets Islamic law for this continent, Muslim authorities claim there is “no inherent conflict between the normative values of Islam and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights” (emphasis added). The proclamation also asserts that “secular legal systems in Western democracies generally share the same supreme objectives, and are generally compatible with Islamic Shari’ah” (emphasis added).

Advertisement
The ICNA campaign to soften sharia for American consumption is based on dizzying historical spin, as demonstrated by Zulfiqar Ali Shah (also known as Al Fokkar Ali Shah and Tho Al Fokkar Ali Shah), the former president of ICNA and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America. His showcase essay, “Founding Father’s [sic] of America’s Indebtedness to Islamic Thought,” makes the specious argument that John Locke, the authority behind much of the Founding philosophy, had a “political outlook [that] closely resembled the Islamic teachings.”

For evidence, Shah sprinkles into his fable some odd incidentals, like the assertion that the inquisitive Locke owned a copy of the Koran and had friends who were Muslims or Muslim sympathizers — as if these happenstances could prove that Locke was “greatly influenced by Muslim philosophers.”

Shah fabricates whole cloth out of scraps of conjecture extracted from John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility, by Professor John Marshall, an outlier in the Lockean-scholarship camp. Shah tries to use Marshall’s material to support his claim that Locke rejected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. According to Shah’s tortured construction, rejection of belief in the tripartite God implies sympathy with broader Islamic teaching. Yet Marshall noted that there was “no sign that Locke ever felt able to assert that there could not be three infinite persons of the Godhead in only one infinite space,” and he remarked that Locke’s observations were not “invested with Socinian purpose.”

Still, from the report of Locke’s investigation of Socinianism, an anti-trinitarian doctrine, Shah bootstraps the notion that Locke was “an outright Socinian” and “denounced fundamental Christian dogmas such as Trinity, Jesus’ divinity, Original Sin, Ecclesiastical authority, biblical inerrancy and salvation through the redemptive death and crucifixion of Christ.”

Tellingly, Shah steers clear of the salient themes of Locke’s essays on government, natural law, and liberty. For where Locke directly contradicts sharia tenets is in his very principled defense of ordered liberty, popular sovereignty, rights of conscience, and a civil government whose purpose is the protection of individual life, liberty, and property. These foundational components of the Declaration of Independence are all on a collision course with arbitrary clerical judgments, theocratic statism, discrimination against women, and disregard for basic civil and religious rights.

In the light of these truths, Shah’s most dishonest avowal comes at the conclusion of his essay on the purported debt that the Founders owe to Islam, where he declares that “the American dream [of] ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ is a summarized version of the five objectives of Islamic Shari’ah . . . incorporated by John Lock [sic] in his Treatises.”

Shah (under the variant “Zululfokka Shah”) is also listed as a scholar associated with the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. This committee of Islamic sharia experts, “established in response to the growing need of an Islamic jurisprudence specific to Muslims in the West,” has issued a 47-page manifesto (analysis and translated excepts here; also, an efficient overview by scholar Andrew Bostom here). Presented at a conference in Houston in 2008, the document teaches highest allegiance to Islamic law and reveals fundamental disregard for the American Constitution as Muslims are instructed on the fine points of living and governing under infidel systems, applying man-made law, and working as judges or lawyers.

To the Muslim who must act as a judge applying law other than sharia, the document encourages defiant judicial activism, directing him to “rule by [sharia] in every case brought before him, or at least as close as he’s able.” Muslim judges ruling under infidel law are admonished “to increase the good and decrease the bad as much as possible.” If a Muslim judge follows the AMJA document’s injunction to “in his heart hate the man-made law,” it is certain that his judgments will reflect sharia standards, not the will of the American people expressed as law made by their elected representatives.

The ICNA campaign to whitewash this activist and anti-constitutional Islamist agenda must be challenged by thoughtful Americans as the town halls that will be part of the campaign are convened. Even more important, previously reticent Muslims should recognize the urgency of confronting hard-line Islamist leadership.

America’s Muslims have the most to lose and so command the highest credibility in this cultural debate. They must stand now to defend America’s guarantees of individual liberty and equal rights. Western Europe offers ample evidence of what life is like as pockets of sharia societies spread.

Zuhdi Jasser, Irshad Manji, and other courageous Muslims have assumed national leadership roles in the defense of American freedoms. For all Muslims who have been inspired by their example, now is the time to confront the totalitarian goals of those who work to impose sharia by subterfuge.

— Karen Lugo is co-director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and founder of the Libertas-West Project.

[Ogopogo]

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/20/the- ... -not-hate/


The Scandalous Lies of ‘Hope Not Hate’

Posted by Bruce Bawer Bio ↓ on Apr 20th, 2012 Comments ↓
14
Print This Post Print This Post

# A A A

The list reads, in large part, like an honor roll of courageous truth-tellers. In the U.S., people like David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, and Andrew McCarthy. In Canada, Ezra Levant. In the U.K., Roger Scruton. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders. In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard. And so on.

But no, this isn’t meant as an honor roll. It’s a list of individuals – and organizations, too, among them the David Horowitz Freedom Center – that, according to a new “Counter-Jihad Report” by a British group called Hope Not Hate, make up a nefarious network of Islamophobic extremists who inspired the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring-Breivik.

It’s no coincidence that this “report” was issued to coincide with the beginning of Breivik’s trial, which started on Monday. For the people at Hope Not Hate seek to draw an explicit cause-and-effect connection between writings by various critics of Islam and the atrocities of July 22.

One thing’s clear: Breivik has been a terrific gift to those who, for whatever reason, have long been eager to shift focus away from the danger of Islam and to argue that it’s the criticism of Islam that’s the real danger.

It hasn’t been easy for these folks. Over the last decade, as a result of one brutal jihadist atrocity after another – 9/11, Madrid, London, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai, etc., etc. – Islam has been associated in the Western mind with bloodthirsty slaughter. Then, on July 22 of last year, a single man, acting alone, killed dozens of people, purportedly in the name of anti-jihadism. His actions provided everyone who’d like to whitewash Islam with an opportunity to associate not Islam, but its critics, with savage violence.

The people at Hope Not Hate didn’t let this opportunity pass them by. So – voilà, the “Counter-Jihad Report,” the implicit premise of which is that to be opposed to jihad is, by definition, not only a bad but a downright dangerous thing.

Not that the “report” actually addresses the subject of jihad – no, jihad itself is left almost entirely out of the equation. Indeed, to read this thing, you’d almost think that jihad were some fantasy cooked up by “counter-jihadists” in order to smear Islam.

I won’t mince words: the “report” is a thoroughly repulsive piece of work. One repulsive thing about it is that it brings together the names of serious, respectable, and well-informed critics of Islam – individuals and organizations that are profoundly concerned about the rise of Islam in the West because they recognize it as a threat to freedom and human rights – with the names of neo-Nazis. Also repulsive is the masthead on this page, on which pictures of David Horowitz and Geert Wilders are juxtaposed with a photo of Breivik, in full faux-military regalia, aiming his gun.

In a sane world, such a juxtaposition of images would be more than enough to make it clear that Hope Not Hate is a despicable organization and that its “report” is not to be taken seriously. Yet this isn’t, alas, a sane world. Issued only a few days ago, the “report” has already been embraced by the international media, and the formerly obscure Hope Not Hate is suddenly being treated as if it were a definitive source of objective information.

In Norway, for example, TV2′s coverage of the Breivik trial has included fawning interviews with a representative of Hope Not Hate and screen shots of that appalling masthead. (On the authority of Hope Not Hate, TV2 has labeled Jihad Watch a “radical right” website.)

TV2 isn’t alone. In the U.S., MSNBC treated Hope Not Hate’s “report” as gospel. Here’s how MSNBC’s reporter, Kari Huus, began her story about it: “Anti-Islamist groups and individuals like those that inspired Norwegian Anders Berhing Breivik to launch his bloody attacks in Norway last July are growing in number, reach and interconnectedness, according to a new report published in Britain.”

Huus described the “report” as arguing “that the 9-11 attacks by Islamic extremists provided fuel for counter-jihad extremists — themselves provoking violence by individuals like Breivik.” Note Huus’s use of the word extremist to equate, in essence, the jihadists who murdered three thousand people on 9/11 with writers who have simply sought to clarify those jihadists’ ideology.

The Guardian, too, was glad to lend legitimacy to Hope Not Hate’s “report.” Its headline: “Far-right anti-Muslim network on rise globally as Breivik trial opens.” For the Guardian, the question of whether critics of Muslim “inspired” Breivik to murder dozens of people wasn’t even a question: “The international network of counter-jihadist groups that inspired Anders Behring Breivik,” read the lede on Mark Townsend’s story, “is growing in reach and influence, according to a report released on the eve of the Norwegian’s trial.”

Hope Not Hate’s “Counter-Jihad Report” is, quite simply, a full-frontal assault on truth. It’s Orwellian. It turns reality on its head. It takes on people who have spent years monitoring and alerting the public to a clear and present danger and represents them as constituting the danger. Meanwhile, the people who really are the danger all but disappear from the picture.

None of which would matter much, except for the fact that the mainstream news media are eating it up. They love this. They’d prefer not to discuss Islamic terrorist networks in the West. And they definitely don’t want to talk about the kind of “soft jihad” that leads to a man like Lars Hedegaard being put on trial in Denmark for criticizing Islam. Hedegaard has warned for years that Islam is a threat to free speech; the fact that he’s now on trial for speaking his mind only proves him right. Yet the mainstream news media don’t want to go near such uncomfortable facts; they’d much rather have an excuse to depict Hedegaard, and all those who share his concerns, as dangerous extremists.

If there were any doubt about the determination of some people to use the Breivik trial to demonize critics of Islam, Hope Not Hate has removed that doubt entirely. Just check out what a Norwegian blogger associated with the organization wrote the other day: “The trial [of Breivik] is a lawful assize against the mass murderer of Oslo and Utøya, but in our minds it should be more than that: a tribunal to condemn the criminal thoughts that turned an insignificant young man into a mass killer.”

That’s what it’s all about, folks: putting “criminal thoughts” about Islam – thoughtcrimes, to use Orwell’s increasingly useful word – on trial. The depressing news is that all too many members of the Western cultural elite, from the judiciary to the media, have proven themselves more than eager to join groups like Hope Not Hate in prosecuting the case.

[Ogopogo]

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=14348

Judge rules enforcing Muslim law on everyone not establishment of religion
Posted by Peter Grady • April 26, 2012 • Printer-friendly
More from Peter Grady

Obama faces pressure to be more extreme on same-sex marriage
Sen. takes on Obama over abstinence education
Evangelicals looking for reason to vote for Romney
Bill introduced to protect chaplains and servicemembers right to oppose homosexuality

by Peter Grady --



A federal judge says an Ohio prison that forces all inmates to adhere to a strict Islamic diet is not an establishment of religion because everyone eats the same food.

A federal judge recently threw out prisoner James Rivers' lawsuit against Ohio Prison director Gary Mohr's decision to ban pork from kitchens in all prisons under control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Mohr made the decision to stop serving pork products after a Muslim on death row filed a lawsuit against the prison system.

Abdul Awkal, an inmate on death row, argued in his lawsuit that the prison’s failure to provide halal meals violated his religious freedoms.

Despite Awkal’s claims, Islamic teaching says it is perfectly acceptable to eat non-halal meat if there is no halal food available.

Islam teaches that meat such as pork is considered unclean and not to be eaten. This would include all pork products including sausage and bacon.

Awkal was later joined by a second Muslim who is not on death row. Prison authorities had argued that they provided non-pork and vegetarian options for Muslims. The Muslims said that was not good enough and still insisted that the food they were given meet halal standards.

Despite Awkal’s claims that eating halal meat is a requirement of his faith, Islamic teaching says it is perfectly acceptable to eat non-halal meat if there is no halal food available.

Prison authorities had argued that providing halal meet for the thousands of Muslims in prison would bankrupt the system.

In response to the lawsuit, prison officials stopped serving pork products to everyone; including atheists and those whose religion contains no such prohibition.

Former Navy chaplain Dr. Gordon Klingenschmitt says while the judge ruled it is acceptable to force all non-Muslims to adhere to a Muslim diet, Christians have no dietary rights.
"This is another example of the Islamicization [sic] of America. It's establishing Islam as the state religion of the prison system," Klingenschmitt contends. "The judge's reasoning is this: He said as long as all of the prisoners are forced to eat the same food, then there's no discrimination taking place. In other words, if he enforces Muslim law equally, then there's no establishment of religion. I think that's wrong, and I pray this is overturned on the appeal."

Share on FacebookShare on Facebook

[Julian]

Muslim Brotherhood Takes Charge of FBI Counterterrorism Training

by:
Clare Lopez

“Cultural suicide” is what Rep. Allen West calls the direction that U.S. national security—and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—is taking America with its policy of political correctness towards the Muslim Brotherhood. Speaking on “Fox and Friends” TV program, the Florida Congressman, left, was reacting to reports that the FBI recently has edited its training curriculum in order to conform to Muslim Brotherhood definitions of non-offensive material for counterterrorism training.

West accepts that when the Brotherhood threatens to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” it means what it says. In return, he asserts what most Americans probably would consider to be basic common sense: “We should not allow the Muslim Brotherhood or associated groups to be influencing our national security strategy.”

In addition to the wholesale purge of FBI counterterrorism training materials, the Washington Post reported on February 16, 2012, that the FBI was “willing to consider a proposal from a coalition of Muslim and interfaith groups to establish a committee of experts to review materials used in FBI anti-terrorism training.”

Among groups represented at an 8 February 2012 meeting that included FBI Director Robert Mueller were the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, a Muslim Brotherhood front group that was listed by the Dept. of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land HAMAS terror funding trial) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). It may be recalled that MPAC president Salam al-Marayati published an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times on October 19, 2011, essentially threatening the FBI with a Muslim community refusal to cooperate with the FBI on terrorism matters unless Mueller purged FBI training materials of all references that link Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture to Islamic terrorism.

According to reports, some 700 documents and more than 300 entire presentations “were subsequently pulled from the agency’s training materials.” Now it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood, flush with the success of its blatant blackmail of the United States government, is going to get veto power over what may and may not be taught in future FBI classes about the doctrinal, historical, and legal linkages between Islam and Islamic jihad. In view of the October 2010 declaration of war (jihad) against the U.S. by Muslim Brotherhood Secretary General Muhammad Badi, it might be thought that the group probably ought not to be allowed anywhere near U.S. counterterrorism policy, but the FBI apparently thinks otherwise.

A key element of Islamic law (sharia) is the definition of the crime of slander. Unlike in U.S. law on slander, for which truth is an absolute defense, in sharia slander “means to mention anything concerning a [Muslim] person that he would dislike.” As may be seen at the website of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, (OIC – the 57-member head of state organization comprising the Islamic ummah – or perhaps, caliphate), one of the group’s top priorities is the global criminalization of the criticism of Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood, the political action arm of the OIC, working closely here with the FBI, has just taken a major step forward in achieving that objective.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, too, seems willing to accomodate OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu on something called “The Istanbul Process,” which is a thinly disguised campaign to insinuate Islamic law on slander into the U.S. legal system. A number of meetings on the subject already have been held in various cities around the world; at the most recent of these in December 2011, Clinton welcomed Ihsanoglu to Washington, D.C. for closed door meetings whose purpose, agenda and results were not shared candidly with the American public.

Some of it can be understood only too well, though, from the OIC’s charter, which commits it “to combat defamation of Islam,” while its action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” by all states to combat so-called “Islamophobia.” UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, adopted in March 2011, is an OIC-sponsored and U.S.-supported statement that takes direct aim at Americans’ constitutional right to free speech, especially about Islam, despite claims to the contrary.

With the Department of State and the FBI both now apparently having capitulated to the OIC and Muslim Brotherhood agenda to outlaw criticism of Islam—handy thing for groups representing some of the most repressive governments and social systems on earth—it is more critical than ever that an informed citizenry remain engaged in the political process.

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/mu ... m-training

[Julian]

Muslim mob stones Christians – in U.S.!
Hundreds chant, 'Allahu Akbar!' while hurling urine, eggs, bottles, concrete

It happened in an American city: Hundreds of angry Muslim children and adults rioted against Christians, throwing chunks of concrete and eggs at their heads, spraying them with urine and cursing at them – while police stood by and threatened the Christian victims with “disorderly conduct.”

The city of Dearborn, Mich., hosted its annual 2012 Arab International festival on Father’s Day weekend. As can be seen in a video of the attack, a group of Christians holding signs were viciously assaulted by an angry mob of Arabs – as the crowd chanted “Allahu Akbar!” – Arabic for “God is the greatest!”

Starting at the 9:00 mark and continuing to about the 10:30 mark, the crowd – reminiscent of a rock-throwing “intifada” scene from the Middle East – can be seen hurling a dizzying barrage of objects at the Christians standing passively with their signs, causing some injuries.

At the beginning of the video, Christian street preachers shout, “God is good, and God is not Allah!”

First, police approached Ruben Israel of OfficialStreetPreachers.com, warning him, “The city of Dearborn has an ordinance, OK, that you guys can’t use the megaphone. So, if you guys continue to use that, you will get a citation.”

Israel noted that the group was allowed to use the megaphone in 2011. Then he asked the officer, “So, if we don’t use a megaphone, can we throw water bottles at the crowd?”

The officer shook his head no.

“So what are you going to do if they throw water bottles at us?” Israel asked.

“If that happens, we will take care of that and address it,” the officer promised.

When Israel said he had captured the mob’s assault on the Christians on video, the officer suggested he “take it through the proper channels, and we’ll try to find them.”

However, at the 2:17 mark of the video, the mob can be heard screaming, “You want to jump ‘em? C’mon, let’s go!”

One boy yells, “Let’s beat the sh-t out of them!”

A girl shouts, “Go home! Do you understand English?!”

The Christians are no longer using megaphones, as the mob advances on them from all angles – hurling bottles, cans, eggs, chunks of concrete and even milk crates toward their heads.

Even young children shout obscenities such as, “F—k you, b-tch!”

Meanwhile, police are nowhere to be seen in the video.

One of the Christians asks another, “Is this worse than last year?”

He replies, “Oh my goodness, yeah!! This is insanity.”

At the 6:55 mark, an irate 18-year-old man from Iraq gets into the Christians’ faces, screaming, “If you don’t like Dearborn, then go the f—k back home! … I am an American citizen, and I have my rights. There’s freedom of religion, isn’t there?”

He screams, “So why do you guys pray like this on the bank? Oh Lord. Why don’t you get on the ground, like the prophets, huh? You’re Christian. That’s what it says in the Bible, you stupid sh-t!”

Many minutes into the video and after much of the shouting takes place, Dearborn mounted police ride through the crowd. The video states that no arrests were made.

According to the tape, the mob began chucking more stones, bottles and debris as the Christians were injured and property damaged.

“Dearborn Police finally arrive after 30 mins of assault,” a caption states.

Despite the attacks the Christians had endured, a man identified in the video as Deputy Chief Dennis Richardson of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office tells them, “You’re a danger to the safety right now.”

Officers claim they don’t have the manpower to protect the Christians at the festival.

“Your safety is in harm’s way. You need to protect everybody,” said Deputy Chief Mike Jaafar of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. “You do have the option to leave. I just want to make that clear.”

Israel replied, “You have the option to stand with us” as Jaafar walked away, leaving the Christians to the mob.

When police leave, the crowd continues harassing the Christians and screaming profanities.

Then police begin escorting the Christians away from the crowd.

Deputy Chief Richardson tells Israel, “We have the responsibility of policing the entire festival, and obviously your conduct is such that it’s causing a disturbance and is a direct threat to the safety of everyone here. Someone could get hurt. You already have blood on your face. One of the festival people, one of my officers, anybody can get hurt. Now we’re going to escort you out.”

Israel explains that the mob throws things and becomes more aggressive when police leave the scene.

“Part of the reason that they throw things on someone is because you tell them stuff that enrages them,” Richardson argues.

Israel tells Richardson that the Christians aren’t even saying anything to the crowd at this point.

“We’re not even preaching,” he said. “So it’s obviously the signs. Now the signs are going to be illegal? … My thing is, if we could have a couple of officers there, that would kind of keep ‘em at bay.”

Richardson insists that the Christians leave, telling Israel, “You’re going to leave now. We’re escorting you that way.”

Israel resists, saying, “We can’t do that.”

But Deputy Chief Jaafar re-enters the scene and tells him, “It’s not your call. We’ve been very gentle and very, very respectful to you. You are jeopardizing public safety, and you need to understand it’s going overboard. … You’re attracting a crowd and affecting public safety, and you need to understand that.”

Richardson asks Israel, “How many bottles or objects have you been hit with?”

He replies, “Uh, I lost count. It’s only because you guys weren’t around. We have video of that.”

Israel also tells him, “We did try to contact the sheriff. The problem is, he didn’t respond. We did try to contact the city attorney…. The reason this is going on now is because of what happened last year. What happened last year is you allowed it to escalate into this. And so, you guys just lost a lawsuit on free speech, and you want to do it again.”

Another Christian asks Richardson, “Why don’t you get us a bullpen that we asked for in the email?”

“OK, that’s a free-speech zone,” he replied. “And the Chamber of Commerce decided that they did not want a free-speech zone.”

At that, he insisted once again that the Christians leave.

Israel argues that the officers are jeopardizing free speech.

“Let me ask you this: If we don’t leave, are we going to get arrested?” he asked.

“Probably, we will cite you all, yes,” Richardson tells him, adding, “You are a danger to public safety. You’re disorderly.

Israel replies, “I would assume 200 angry Muslim children throwing bottles would be more of a threat than a few guys with signs.”

The Christians tell one another: “If they make us leave right now, they reward riotous behavior.”

A woman steps in to speak with the officers, and then they tell the Christians, “If you don’t leave, we are going to cite you for disorderly conduct. … Look at your people, here. This is crazy! Now let’s go.”

After they leave, the Christians are pulled over in their van by at least 12 police officers. The video does not explain why.


http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/muslim-mob-s ... ns-in-u-s/

[Julian]

U.S. lawmaker: Model public schools after Muslim ones

Praises virtues of Islamic 'madrassas,' 'where foundation is the Quran'

A U.S. lawmaker – who prides himself on being only the second Muslim elected to Congress – has declared that America “needs Muslims” and U.S. public schools should be modeled after Islamic madrassas, “where the foundation is the Quran.”

In a dramatic video dated May 26, U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., addressed an Islamic Circle of North America convention, saying the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was hard on Muslims

At the 6:19 mark, Carson declares:

“America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran. And that model that we are pushing in some of our schools meets the multiple needs of students.

“Most of us are visual learners. Some of us are auditor learners – we learn by hearing. Many of us are kinesthetic learners. We learn by doing, touching, feeling. I have found … that we need an educational model that is current, that meets the need of our students. America must understand that she needs Muslims.”

He adds, “There are over 7 million Muslims in this country. And while we are under attack, we cannot retreat.”

Carson is married to Mariama Shaheed Carson, public-school principal of Snacks Crossing Elementary School in Indianapolis, Ind.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/u-s-lawmaker ... slim-ones/

[Julian]

Women need 'dress code' to prevent sex assaults: Islamic street preacher

Islamic street preacher Al-Hasshim Kamena Atangana at the intersection of Younge and Dundas. He says North American women should be made to "cover up" as a way of avoiding sexual assault.

TORONTO -- Canadian laws should be changed to require women to "cover themselves" to prevent sexual assaults, an Islamic street preacher in Toronto says.

Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, 33, an Islamic convert, called for legal change in response to recent sex attacks at York University.

Atangana is connected with a group called Muslim Support Network and is one of a number of street-corner clerics commonly seen at Yonge and Dundas Sts. in the heart of the city.

In an e-mail to the QMI Agency, Atangana said "the reason ... these sex attacks are continuously happening is because (of) Canadian laws, which give too much freedom to women" when it comes to how they dress.

"You should take your example from the way Muslim women dress," he wrote. "Why does (sic) Muslim women who wear long dress and covers her head aren't targeted for sex attacks?"

more: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/ca ... 84302.html

[Julian]

.... I'm waiting for the outcry from Canadian feminists.....

[Alec Bachlow]

If under Shari law the wife has no right to refusal of un-wanted sex...and that consent is not needed- Then is someone as important as a wife has no rights- then it can be said under Shari law no one has the right to resist the will of Islam.

That Shari is the ONLY law that is relevant..that Shari must prevail over all other systems of law. This is not a good thing- Put bluntly it is becoming evident that Islam's long term agenda is one of conquering and displacing all those that are not of Islam..Kind of like a very huge and ancient hostile merger by Islam.

Just goes to show you that the basis of the faith has been one of aggressive expansionism - at it's origin and in the present day.

[Alec Bachlow]

If under Shari law the wife has no right to refusal of un-wanted sex...and that consent is not needed- Then is someone as important as a wife has no rights- then it can be said under Shari law no one has the right to resist the will of Islam.

That Shari is the ONLY law that is relevant..that Shari must prevail over all other systems of law. This is not a good thing- Put bluntly it is becoming evident that Islam's long term agenda is one of conquering and displacing all those that are not of Islam..Kind of like a very huge and ancient hostile merger by Islam.

Just goes to show you that the basis of the faith has been one of aggressive expansionism - at it's origin and in the present day.

[Alec Bachlow]

This problem is the result of legal minds who are following the trend of being fascinating by international law and all forms of law form everywhere- It is an egg head mentality - Lawyers and judges who think that taking care of domestic law and order are just too boring- These legalists are of the same attitude as "Doctors without boarders" - They feel that dabbling in all sorts of foreign systems makes them sophisticates- but forget that each nation is a family and each family has it's own house rules- To have another family enter into the territory of a separate family and attempt to dominate them is simply wrong. I remember doing some research on what the interests were of individuals who sat on the Supreme Court. Some if not all had more interest it law outside their own nation- than law within their own nation...Time for them to take care of their own.

[Alec Bachlow]

This problem is the result of legal minds who are following the trend of being fascinating by international law and all forms of law form everywhere- It is an egg head mentality - Lawyers and judges who think that taking care of domestic law and order are just too boring- These legalists are of the same attitude as "Doctors without boarders" - They feel that dabbling in all sorts of foreign systems makes them sophisticates- but forget that each nation is a family and each family has it's own house rules-

To have another family enter into the territory of a separate family and attempt to dominate them is simply wrong. I remember doing some research on what the interests were of individuals who sat on the Supreme Court. Some if not all had more interest it law outside their own nation- than law within their own nation...Time for them to take care of their own.

It is the same problem that the UN has become- high brows are disrespecting the personal sovereignty of people and nations. Shari- should not be permitted - It would be like me going to Saudi Arabia and insisting that they practice Canadian common law to please me.................They would toss me out on my ass- So why do we allow them to migrate here and do to us what we are NOT permitted to do to them? We are weak and of wandering values prone to experimentation...and Islam knows this.They will take full advantage till our system is displaced by theirs- THAT is the agenda- all or nothing for Islam.

[styky]

Muslim street cleric wants Canadian women to cover up
By Terry Davidson, QMI Agency
Canadian laws should be changed to require women to "cover themselves" to prevent sexual assaults, says an Islamic street preacher in Toronto.

Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, a 33-year-old Islamic convert, called for legal change in response to recent sex attacks at York University.

Atangana is connected with a group called Muslim Support Network and is one of a number of street-corner clerics commonly seen at the Yonge and Dundas Sts.

In an e-mail to the Toronto Sun, Atangana said "the reason ... these sex attacks are continuously happening is because (of) Canadian laws, which give too much freedom to women" when it comes to how they dress. ...............http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012 ... 90461.html

[The Gooch]

So if they discover that the sexual assaults were commited by someone Muslim is this going to be used as a cultural defense by the lawyers?