Caliphate conference coming to Chicago area

Islam uses democracy (freedom of speech) to destroy it (like cancer)

"Freedom of speech is our foremost bulwark against tyranny,
and tyranny is coming." -- Robert Spencer

5:73 Allah hates Trinitarian (i.e. Christians)
& free speech

http://newstime.co.nz/video-shariah-the-threat-to-america-and-the-west.html

There needs to be some Rolling, Roaring Thunder 'round Rolling Meadows, come June 17th.
. Walnut Grove is not, and must never be, be part of some 'Caliphate'.

. .can't imagine Michael Landon being too impressed with this Saracen incursion.

NO SHARI'AH HERE!

If groups procuring a hotel venue for conference discussion and deliberation that doesn't concur with Jihad Watch's vision for society is such an issue, amid possible calls for hotel boycotts, then perhaps it should strive to be more ecumenical in its ideological drives and vigilance.

Less than a year ago, a Kansas City Hilton hosted Angelus Press' conference on the Social Reign of Christ, featuring speaker after speaker arising to the podium to call for societal - including governmental - transformation under Christ and to denounce the separation of Church and State. One speaker proclaimed that the United States is little more than a naturalistic concentration camp with a cherry on top.

I watched this with the volume muted and see only the throngs of the brainwashed Muslim males channeling their sexual energy into political and religious piety. I see perhaps two females in the entire video, excellent representational video of Sharia in practice.

It would be interesting to see if the venue receives any threating phone calls like those that had affected Pamela Geller a while back and if the hotel would cancel the event in kind. I realize that this tit-for-tat exchange is childish but would give them a taste of thier own medicine. Or perhaps a bomb threat phoned in the day of the event.

Zuhdi Jasser has condemned Hizb ut-Tahrir:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=jasser%20condemns%20hizb%20ut-tahrir&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aifdemocracy.org%2Fnews.php&ei=khnGT4vpK4GS9gSb3-y0Bg&usg=AFQjCNG9BxdKPZXpjLFwfLtyLjAV82kHuw

What we have witnessed throughout this past year and last was a change of power, history and you can say identity, within the Arab world today. With Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, some parts of Algeria and Morocco and other Arab countries people have stood up for justice, democracy and freedom, freedom for all people in their “faith,” but has the Arab spring really brought freedom to all people or has it just come to the minority that desires religious freedom mainly other than the economy getting fixed and bringing forth a leader who will bring freedom and democracy.

Read more: http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/05/29/the-arab-spring-and-christians/#ixzz1wMGRdQNx

Youssef

All those proposing caliphate here should be thrown in jail!! It is not freedom of expression - it is sedition against the country they live in. Who needs them, they should get the hell out of here!!! Where is our pro-Mohammadan government - probably facilitating the conference!!!

response to RX:

If you want to throw spitballs at Christianity, start your own website.

What are u talking about?

The Social Reign of Christ means a re-evaluation of our society, and a striving for the ability to always do good, rather than the ability to do anything one pleases. This involves not only interpersonal relationships, but also not placing money and greed at the center of life.

It includes fairness, respect, and love for ALL. It is a Society of the Spirit.

You are attempting to draw a moral equivalence between a cult that wants to install Sharia, a cult responsible for over 18,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 - and Angelus Press. A moral equivalence between a cult whose "holy" books demand chopping off heads and fingers of unbelievers and killing of apostates - and the Christian message of turn the other cheek.

Get real.

. .would even contemplate. .

Adrian,

You are perplexed by my post as I throw no spitballs at Christianity, rightly understood.

Rather, I highlight and elucidate that staunch Christians hold conferences as well with an eye toward the dissolution of the Americanist model of statecraft. Your effete, Bambi version of the Social Reign does not square with the truth of the matter nor the vigor and robustness with which it was presented at this conference.

To RX:

I am not perplexed. On the contrary, your sarcasm is all too evident.

You write:

"If groups procuring a hotel venue for conference discussion and deliberation that doesn't concur with Jihad Watch's vision for society is such an issue.... "

So, a critique of the Caliphate with it's Sharia Law is only "Jihad Watch's" vision for society, not yours?

Where do you stand on this?

-- also --

"does not square with the truth of the matter"... ?

OK, educate us.... list all the repression, mutilation, killings, misogyny, that have resulted from Angelus Press and the Social Reign movement in the last ten years.

This is the second Caliphate conference hosted by Hizb-ut Tahrir in the Chicago area in as many years. Are their US offices located in Chicago? Their website doesn't say.

Guys ...

Poster "RX" is recycled "fairuzfan" who was banned back in February 2011.

Check out this thread for more details:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/robert-spencer-juan-cole-is-as-ignorant-of-catholicism-as-he-is-of-islam.html

Note the comment by "classicus" to "RX" on April 9 @3:27PM, and most notably the comment by "classicus" to "RX" on April 10 @12:31AM, where he confronts "RX" as "fairuzfan".

And then I posted this comment @1:03AM:

Classicus ...

Here we have our beloved "Hugh" giving fairuzfan, aka RX, a much deserved spanking. Enjoy!

Hugh writes:

"Hard to know if he's one of those antisemitic Richard-Williamson Society of Pius X types, even further beyond the pale than Bishop Lefebvre (incidentaly, despite Lefebvre, I think there's a lot to be said for not jettisoning the Latin Mass, and I'm glad it's here and there coming back, on Robert Frost's aesthetic theory that "some mystery becomes the proud"), a real throwback and fanatic, or if he's merely a Muslim decking himself out as an antisemitic richard-williamson type. I asked two friends of mine, both supernumeraries in Opus Dei, and very much amused by the question, what they thought of this "fairuzfan" -- that is, whether they thought he was a Muslim masquerading as a "Catholic" or was indeed a Catholic of a peculiar kind, and the two of them came down on opposite sides of the question, one thinking he must be a Muslim and the other thinking he was merely one of those williamson clones (yes, I am aware that some people think everyone in Opus Dei is a fanatic, because Dan Brown has made many think so but, at least in this country -- and I know a few in Spain too -- it most definitely isn't so), the kind who are nostalgic for father-feeney, formerly of Central Square, in Cambirdge, and have a deep interest in denouncing Jews and Judaism, and who, therefore, have a natural interest in, and natural sympathy for, Muslims, as people who will not look askance, but welcome, their pre-existing mental condition that others will, among those in the educated Western world, any longer tolerate.

It really doesn't matter what "fairuzfan"'s background is; what is of note is the difficulty he has understanding American Constitutional Law and the history of its adjudication.. His understanding of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is crudely absolutist -- akin to those people who think that the guarantee of Free Speech is similarly absolutist, for they have never heard of any time, place, and manner restrictions, have never heard of the Holmes-Brandeis "clear and present danger" test, have never heard of the modifications and then the final jettisoning of that test with Brandenburg, and do not realize that interpretations of constitutional clauses and their application are not set in stone, not even in harlan-stone. His, fairuzfan's, view of the Tenth Amendment is simply bizarre.

If he felt like educating himself,he could. He could start, say, with the works of the late Professor Robert McCloskey, who wrote for the general reader, and who taught undergraduates at Harvard College -- taught them brilliantly -- rather than at Harvard Law School. You can still find his anthology of major Supreme Court cases and his discussion of them. He could go back further, to Corwin say, or Alexander Meiklejohn. He could read Alexander Bickel, at Yale Law School, a contemporary of McCloskey (who died, unforgettably and tragically, of a ruptured spleen). There is the great big book, Tribe on American Cosntitutional Law, written by him with a lot of help from a whole tribe of anonymous Harvard Law School students who considered it an honor to slave away, at slave wages, for Tribe), and then fairuzfan, if he wanted to -- I suspect he doesn't want to, anymore than he really wants to read about Islam from thsoe who are not simply apologists, but scholars or witnesses -- to bring himself up to speed and up to date with the shepardizing and searching for cases that in antediluvian pre-Internet days took forever, but now can be done with flying fingers and a subscription to Lexis-Nexis or WestLaw, or both.

Then he could find out where things stand as to both the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clause, though neither he, nor anyone else, can discover what the Supreme Court will accept as the definition of a "religion" because they haven't yet addressed that question. And Islam, that Total Belief-System, fairly begs to have that question answered."

Here @ 7:23PM on 3-10-2010:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/jihad-jane-arrest-raises-fears-of-homegrown-terrorists-but-no-one-really-wants-to-do-anything-about.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RX/fairuzfan is a longtime liar and a troll, so don't expect anything remarkable from him ...

Adrian, you are indeed greatly befuddled and confused here, as I am employing no sarcasm, and you seem to have a faulty grasp of the central aspects of the topic at issue here.

Not even Jihad Watch is accusing Hizb ut Tahrir of engaging in atrocities within the United States but refers to their 'non-violent efforts'. So it is greatly relevant to raise another instance, if this is of such critical importance, of others who have their 'non-violent' efforts at odds with the Jihad Watch vision. And those at the AP conference I cited most certainly oppose the Americanist system, separation of church and state, and favor the transition to a confessional state with distinctions among religions codified as appropriate into law.

One can share any number of the reservations that Jihad Watch has about a caliphate while parting company over any number of other questions.

RX wrote:

"Not even Jihad Watch is accusing Hizb ut Tahrir of engaging in atrocities within the United States but refers to their 'non-violent efforts'."

There was an evocation to answer the call for a C;aiphate, even at the expense of one's life at 1:05 of the video...

Will Barack Obama be campaigning at the conference?

Hizb ut-Tahrir are banned in many muslim countries. They are not banned in the US and also Australia. From time to time there are Hizb ut-Tahrir conferences in Australia as well.

See http://thehizbuttahrirwatch.wordpress.com/

One of the things I love about Jihad Watch is the integrity of the vast majority of posters ! Incredible sharing of information without stooping to a level of Islamics & leftues & the ability to ferret out circle talking trolls !

"The Minister Louis Farrakhan isn’t one to avoid controversial language. In his Sunday address in San Diego, the Nation of Islam leader slammed Israel, lamented Mexico’s loss of land at the hands of American “trickery” and derided President Barack Obama for his endorsement of same-sex marriage. But that’s only a portion of what was uttered in his nearly three-hour address. During the last 10 minutes, the fiery Farrakhan erupted with fervency, applauding the violence of sharia law and giving some cryptic warnings to America regarding Iranian intervention.

(Related: Farrakhan Laments: ‘Sad That Mexico Lost California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico‘ Through American ’Trickery’)

In speaking to his “Arab brothers,” Farrakhan said that they should not kill their children who shame them. But rather than merely lambasting those who participate in honor crimes, he turned the discussion into a referendum on America "

Farrakhan is a divot.