Islamic Charity Drops Suit Against Terrorism Analyst

Great news! Now, free comrade Shmuelvitch, a victim of cruel political repression. Drop the charges of felony for him acting out his disgust upon the koran or islam's kampf which requires Shmuelvitch's destruction.

Never off topic. No Muslim would claim to be a Christian. so why do Christians claim to be Muslims? The following website is operated by a "sufi master" - Hamza Darrel Grizzle - who is also an Episcopalian Minister. This phenomena should be explored. I detect confirmation of Orwell's Newspeak concept of compatible-contradictions.

http://sufiatlanta.homestead.com/

http://wildfaith.blogspot.com/

Hugh Fitz.: what protects Muslims from the extreme deference manifest by some Christians?

Reciprocal discovery strikes again!

....as more and more investigations are carried out on terrorist organizations, you cannot be surprized at the names of individuals or names of Muslim affiliated groups that surface...like the lines of a spider web, the connections fall back to its source...the spider. If the spiders web is partially destroyed by a falling limb from a tree or by an other item large enough to break it, the spider is patient and simply rebuilds the web. The network of terrorists are similiar to the the spiders web, the spider is the the Qur'an, and the spider is poisonous and the web is large and can be frequently rebuilt and redesigned...all those who are caught in the web will die and be consumed by the spider...

Good analogy, exsgt.

Mental image of Mo in the middle - a great, hairy legged, slimy, smelly spider, preying on the world.

Why are there no counter suits in these matters. These scum sue and withdraw. They should pay all the legal expenses plus the mental pain and suffering they impose on the innocent who project the truth. The fruit of that truth should be projected through out our nation and the scum should be put out of business or if they continue be jailed or deported.

Now why would the lying liars try and stop up the mouths of those who would tell the truth and expose them ?

Tell the world.

When does the countersuit against the anti-Constitutional terror-incitement in the Koran begin?

I agree, exsgtbrown. And I predict that as the pressure rises on CAIR (thanks in no small part to Robert!), it's star will fall. But - another such entity will arise (probably already in its infancy); they always do.

They are only branches; not the root.

"The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, also named the book's publisher, Yale University Press..."

Yale University Press? Reminds me of another University Press under fire.

Campus Watch (in an e-mail) stated the following: "Silence in the face of genuine censorship: Moreover, the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association, the umbrella group for scholars of the field, has yet to utter a word in protest of Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz's successful settlement against Cambridge University Press, which saw the American-authored book "Alms for Jihad" pulped and pulled from bookstores."

Has anyone ever read material from the ALA (that's the American Library Association)? They are highly, highly opposed to any form of censorship...(they don't like filters placed on electronic library catalogs so that children aren't exposed to adult materials, etc.) So where is the ALA on this one? I don't appreciate Arabs pulping books in the United States of America.

See the following with respect to "censorship":
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/challengesupport/reporting/reportingchallenge.htm

Please report this outrage (a PDF form is available).

supercargo,

I know you didn't ask me, but I'm not too parsimonious to add my two cents to the kitty.

My guess is that this poor, retarded dupe thinks this "Sufi mysticism" is some kind of new age thing, like crystals and Tarot. Not that I have anything against the latter--my point is that he's confusing this Sufi crap with more innocent stuff.

Of course anything presented as being mystical is a special draw for some people. Draw=attendance=MONEY.

I'm an Episcopalian, and I love my church and its minister, but I hate what I call his "money sermons". When these are delivered, I leave church feeling let down. I go to church for spiritual nourishment, not to listen to cries of "poverty". My weekly donation should be enough.

Anyway, the Episcopal church is very interested in money--there's no getting around it. My supposition is that this is a minister who is aware of the offputting effect of his monthly money related homilies. This may just be a way to raise the money without having to call for it, in a sermon.

The poor fool is standing on a slippery slope, and has no awareness of it. Someone should send him a Qur'an, with the passages related to Christians highlighted.

I would like to add that, for those of us who believe in him, Jesus has been gone for a long time.

Some Christians think they're hungry for his miracles, signs, and wonders, when what they hunger for is Jesus, himself.

So, instead of consuming what good food there is to be had, they'll settle for the junk food of Sufi-ism. It's tasty food, and exotic, but it won't sustain life or faith. It's subtly poisoned, but poisoned it is, as is everything Mohammed ever touched.

Many years ago, I also thought that somehow Sufi Islam was mildly "acceptable" -- as opposed to the "purist" Wahhabi brand of Islamism. Then, of course (shortly after 9/11) i heard Sufi Islamists speak and -- guess what? They're no different. There are any number of "Sufis" as ugly and horrific as any Wahhabi...no difference.

Hugh has written on the topic of "The Sufis."

Hugh, where are you?

supercargo,

I know you didn't ask me, but I'm not too parsimonious to add my two cents to the kitty.

My guess is that this poor, retarded dupe thinks this "Sufi mysticism" is some kind of new age thing, like crystals and Tarot. Not that I have anything against the latter--my point is that he's confusing this Sufi crap with more innocent stuff.

Of course anything presented as being mystical is a special draw for some people. Draw=attendance=MONEY.

I'm an Episcopalian, and I love my church and its minister, but I hate what I call his "money sermons". When these are delivered, I leave church feeling let down. I go to church for spiritual nourishment, not to listen to cries of "poverty". My weekly donation should be enough.

Anyway, the Episcopal church is very interested in money--there's no getting around it. My supposition is that this is a minister who is aware of the offputting effect of his monthly money related homilies. This may just be a way to raise the money without having to call for it, in a sermon.

I would like to add that, for those of us who believe in him, Jesus has been gone for a long time.

Some Christians think they're hungry for his miracles, signs, and wonders, when what they hunger for is Jesus, himself.

So, instead of consuming what good food there is to be had, they'll settle for the junk food of Sufi-ism. It's tasty food, and exotic, but it won't sustain life or faith. It's subtly poisoned, but poisoned it is, as is everything Mohammed ever touched.

I didn't make the double posts. My evil twin did it.

Aynrandgirl observes:

"Reciprocal discovery strikes again!"

This is probably quite correct. As a practicing lawyer, I enjoy reading between the lines of the press stories about these muslim slander suits. There is usually no direct reference to the "discovery process" but it is evident in the results.

The "discovery process" is common to all suits, and was designed to avoid "trial by ambush" by allowing each side to a suit to ask questions of the other side, under oath, before trial, and to obtain copies of documents and other evidence, before trial, upon written request.

This process was designed to expose the evidence so that rational decision making could be made as to whether to settle without trial. It seems to be working very well in most of these muslim slander cases.

The defendant author/speaker demands to see the financial records, telephone bills, cellphone statements, diaries, recorded sermons, letters, emails, hard drive contents, etc., of the complaining muslim or muslim organization, and suddenly the suit goes away.

The take-away from these lessons is that the author was probably correct, and, further, that the muslim or the organization has plenty to hide.

I have watched muslims in court in my area, and have discussed their trial behavior with other lawyers. Often, they will hire women lawyers because they want to boss them around. Also, deadlines mean NOTHING to them, as they are usually so arrogant that they have an attitude that nobody can tell them what to do. Of course, anybody involved in the court process can tell you that EVERYTHING has a deadline, especially discovery and summary judgment.

As flawed as our system sometimes proves to be, it was designed to discover the truth. More often than not, muslims don't want the truth to be discovered, so they are at a disadvantage. It's as simple as that, and a good lawyer can have some fun, like fishing. Set the hook and reel them in.

Maybe the lefties and the ACLU can take up this "charity" cause.

Alms for jihad.

Tolerance of the intolerant is obscene. Political correctness must not be allowed to poison the West.

What is the likelihood that an American publisher, like Regnery, might republish "Alms for Jihad"? Or do the authors not own the copyright?

Typically, the authors of a work own the copyright (the publishers agree to distribute a work, but the authors retain copyright ownership.) This is the standard practice, although arrangements could differ with "Alms for Jihad" -- I'm not privy to the details (I suppose authors could relinquish ownership if they so chose -- but that would be unusual).

I believe the two American authors have been shabbily treated by the Cambridge University Press (CUP) in the UK. CUP refused to stand up for the authors and immediately caved -- but then I suppose what else can one expect from the supine Brits in the face of Islamic demands for Dhimmitude?

There have been critical comments made at the website of "The Literary Saloon".

[quote]: "Recall that this was a defamation case in which the actual defamers -- authors J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins -- weren't made parties to the suit (or allowed to defend or explain those claims which the sheikh and CUP agreed were false -- curious, no ?)...[and] There is no mention of any efforts to try to preserve the book without the (apparently very limited) references to Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz. More significantly, they are -- in our opinion -- not adequately open or clear about the efforts to determine the veracity of the defamatory statements in the book. It is also ridiculous for them not to admit how much money they paid out, and it is disappointing that they have not used this case to discuss this obviously huge free speech/academic publishing/legal responsibility problem." [end quote]

In the press release put out by the prevailing Defendant - Matthew Levitt - he announced that his First Amendment right was vindicated by the dismissal of the muslim lawsuit against him.

Mr. Levitt neglected to mention another important idea had been vindicated by dismissal of the lawsuit.

The idea of TRUTH.

Congrats to Mr. Levitt and the Yale Univ. Press.

Where will the slow jihadists strike next?

lol
Not only did they NOT have a case, it was obvious it was frivolous, a scare tactic that failed, and the fact is they would have lost badly.
The only thing the islamists are used to have blowing up in their faces are bombs.
lol

Robert Spencer :

Here's my post from 2005 when I did a bit of digging into what KinderUSA really did for Orphans
and I found a series of Links that that lead to other sites that had subtles inferences that Donations will be for Allah's cause.

People like Hooper and groups like CAIR say far more about themselves by what they DON'T say , plus when they do speak they play a game where they use vague terms so they can use the "Out of context" tripe .

*************************************************

***********************************

************************

Found another charity that has a update on their "Orphanage" mission,check out the info/blog hypertext and "Take action " posting because they too are using the Tsunami victims to play the Victim in the media.
KinderUSA drew my attention when its mission statement focused on Palestine and failed to assure non-Muslims received help and that some orphans weren't created by "Jihad" parents.
They insist the goal is to aid orphans no matter how they became parentless,I read the fine print and look for outright condemnation of terrorism and Jihad suicide bombers.
The real victims are some of the Muslims suckered in to the scam and find themselves being visited by the FBI,others donate while using the Sgt.Shultz defence to scream Racism and Islamophobia while knowing exactly what the money goes to.

http://www.kinderusa.org/

Posted by: ala-sux at February 24, 2005 12:09 AM