September 2012 Archives

September 30, 2012

But don't be concerned. It was just a "misunderstanding." The love still flows between the Americans and the Afghans.

End this madness -- bring our troops home now. There is no definition of victory, no ideological differentiation between the Taliban and the government forces, and no way to distinguish jihadis who want to get close enough to American troops to kill them from those who might actually be OK with working with Americans. U.S. out of Afghanistan!

"US and Afghan forces clash, leaving 5 dead," by Heidi Vogt and Rahim Faiez for the Associated Press, September 30 (thanks to Block Ness):

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - A firefight broke out between U.S. forces and their Afghan army allies in eastern Afghanistan Sunday, killing two Americans and three Afghan soldiers and pushing the number of U.S. troops killed in the long-running war 2,000.

The fighting started Saturday when what is believed to have been a mortar fired by insurgents struck a checkpoint set up by U.S. forces in Wardak province, said Shahidullah Shahid, a provincial government spokesman. He said the Americans thought they were under attack from a nearby Afghan army checkpoint and fired on it, prompting the Afghan soldiers to return fire.

The Afghan Defense Ministry said the gunbattle was the result of a "misunderstanding" between international forces and Afghan soldiers manning a checkpoint in the Sayd Abad district.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force, commonly referred to as ISAF, provided a different account.

(AP) In this July 9, 2010 file photograph, an Afghan National Army soldier wears an ammunition...
Full Image
"After a short conversation took place between (Afghan army) and ISAF personnel firing occurred which resulted in the fatal wounding of an ISAF soldier and the death of his civilian colleague," the coalition said in a statement. It said the three Afghan soldiers died "in an ensuing exchange of fire."

NATO did not say whether it considered this an "insider" attack on foreign forces by Afghan allies.

There has been rising tide of such attacks in which Afghan soldiers or police assault their international allies. The killings pose one of the greatest threats to NATO's mission in the country, endangering a partnership key to training up Afghan security forces and withdrawing international troops.

While it may be days before it becomes clear who fired on whom first, the incident illustrates how tense relations have become between international troops and their Afghan allies.

Officials on both sides went into damage control mode, arguing that Saturday's violence did not mark a new low in Afghan-U.S. relations and urging patience while investigators tried to figure out exactly what had happened.

The deputy commander of NATO's military force in Afghanistan, British Lt. Gen. Adrian Bradshaw, called a last-minute news conference in Kabul to address the incident, even though he had few details to give.

He said the initial report of an insider attack should be amended to note that the incident "is now understood possibly to have involved insurgent fire," and tried to stress that relations between international troops and their Afghan allies "are very strong and very effective."

A spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, Gen. Zahir Azimi, also sought to downplay the incident.

"In a misunderstanding shooting broke out between Afghan army and ISAF forces. As a result of the shooting, three army soldiers were killed, three other soldiers were wounded and number of ISAF forces were killed and wounded," Azimi said in a statement....

| 28 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

This shows that Leftists and Islamic supremacists will destroy anyone and everyone based on perceived slights to Muslims. Matt Schaeffer is guilty of nothing but mistakenly thinking someone who was writing to him was in Pakistan, since a Pakistani map showed up with the message. But for this, he must resign and his company is in danger: it's "racism," doncha know. Muslims clearly experience no actual racism (what race is Islam again?), and so have to trump up and magnify efforts like this.

If you're near Livingston, Montana, buy Wilcoxson's Ice Cream and be sure that you express your support for Matt Schaeffer and the freedom of speech in the face of this politically correct intimidation.

"Facebook trouble for a Montana company," by Jan Falstad for the Billings Gazette, September 28 (thanks to Maxwell):

The president of Livingston-based Wilcoxson’s Ice Cream, which runs a plant in Billings, offered to resign Friday following social-media fury over a one-sentence Facebook response.

Although he insists he meant nothing derogatory, Wilcoxson’s president Matt Schaeffer, of Livingston, offered to step down to save the company from fallout over his response to a Muslim customer who asked if the company used any gelatin containing pork in its ice cream.

The meltdown started the evening of Sept. 21 when a man in Sheridan, Wyo., posted a Facebook comment about Wilcoxson’s “cookies and cream” flavor ice cream containing gelatin.

“Does it contain pork? I am a Muslim and love your ice cream and when I read it today I was shocked. I look forward to you writing me back. Thank you. If possible, if it does have pork gelatin please tell me what flavors do so I can avoid them thanks again :)”

Schaeffer said he was tired that night, was responding to a series of posts and only read to the “pork” part of the sentence before clicking on the writer’s Facebook page where he saw a map of Pakistan and quickly wrote this response:

“We don’t deliver outside of Montana, certainly not Pakistan.”

Schaeffer said he didn’t see the address of Sheridan, Wyo., because he didn’t read that far.

“There was a map on his Facebook page with a map of Pakistan, with a balloon in the center. I presumed he was sending this from Pakistan,” Schaeffer said.

The commenter took offense and wrote:

“What are u talking about!!??? I think.ur comment is rude to assume I live in Pakistan.”

The man said “just because of your ignorance, I wont buy your ice cream and definitely wont recommend it.”

Alisa Prigge, of Denver, who said she and her husband are friends of the Wyoming man who asked about the gelatin, sent a letter on Sept. 26 to Wilcoxson’s calling for a boycott to “stand up to racism, ignorance and intolerance” and sent copies to Montana reporters. She said that her friend is an American citizen who was born in this country.

Prigge said she hadn’t talked to Schaeffer to hear his version of the story before she sent the email.

This was an honest mistake, Schaeffer said, adding he apologized to the man on Wednesday and again Friday during an interview with Sheridanmedia.com

“It was wrong. I screwed up,” he said, calling himself a social-media beginner who has only used Facebook for four months. Schaeffer actually took over the Wilcoxson’s Facebook page from a fan who created it after the fan said it became too much work.

Wilcoxson’s is a company that has a history of shying away from media attention.

Schaeffer refused to grant interviews and tours of the ice cream plant until this year when Wilcoxson’s celebrated its 100th anniversary.

“This company has lived through how many wars and economically diverse situations? It’s tremendous. One hundred years in Montana selling ice cream? That’s incredible,” Schaeffer told The Gazette on Friday.

The company does not deliver ice cream outside of Montana, he said, but will ship some for special occasions.

“It can cost $175 dollars to send a $3 bucket of ice cream, with the dry ice, the packer and Fed Ex,” he said.

The story quickly went viral.

The initial coverage Wednesday by the Bozeman Chronicle called Schaeffer’s comment “inflammatory” in its headline and lead sentence.

With every retelling, the story picked up some errors and omissions.

On Friday, a story on NBC News, where Schaeffer offered to resign, identified him as chief executive officer, instead of president.

The Huffington Post also called Schaeffer the CEO in its headline and story.

It also issued a correction for saying that Wilcoxson’s headquarters were in Billings, instead of Livingston. Schaeffer said he did not talk to the Huffington Post.

The Daily Mail’s online site in the United Kingdom published a Thursday story saying none of the angry comments seem to be coming from Montana.

But The Mail said hostile commentators were flooding Yelp, a business review Website, and including one that said, “Wilcoxson’s is a horrible company run by hateful people.”

Schaeffer had never visited that site either.

The derogatory telephone calls have been coming from out of state, Schaeffer said.

“In-state calls, including from Sheridan, have been very positive and supportive,” he said.

After negative comments started pouring in on Wednesday, Schaeffer took the company’s Facebook page down.

“The page will be put back up soon. It will be run by somebody other than myself, who is more adept at it,” he said.

| 59 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Leftists never saw a jihadist they didn't like: "Suicide Bombers 'martyrs' according to UK taxpayer-supported charity," from the Jerusalem Post, September 24:

The Camden Abu Dis Friendship Association (CADFA) was founded in 2004. CADFA claims to “promote awareness about the human rights situation in Abu Dis” (a village in the West Bank) through “friendship links and twinning”. In reality, CADFA is a highly-politicised organisation that uses human rights as a facade to shield its apologism for terror and vicious anti-Israel sentiment.

For many years now, far-Left groups have adopted humanitarian fronts in order to legitimise their hard-line anti-Israel sentiment. Those who follow the machinations of the anti-Israel networks have watched as groups hijack interfaith dialogue, anti-war, anti-fascism, among others. The ‘twinning’ of education establishments is yet another victim of such exploitation – in particular, schools and universities.

In lobbying for twinning initiatives, anti-Israel groups claim an interest in the mutual exchange of ideas, and express solidarity with those trying to claim an education in areas of conflict. But twinning schools and universities with their counterparts in the Palestinian territories has allowed extremist groups to legitimise their anti-Israel rhetoric, and gives them the chance to indoctrinate the students of twinned establishments with visceral anti-Israel propaganda.

CADFA is a charity, and runs a number of exchange programmes between schools in London and Abu Dis. It also runs ‘urgent action’ campaigns, and releases regular ‘updates’ about the ‘human rights situation’ in Abu Dis.

In 2009, Jon Benjamin, Chief Executive of the Jewish Board of Deputies, wrote to Hampstead School to express his concern at a CADFA-organised event. One anti-Israel activist, brought over by CADFA, had repeatedly warned children of the “Jewish soldiers” who he claimed were persecuting him. Benjamin described CADFA’s activism as a “one-sided, partisan political campaign”.

London Mayor Boris Johnson also condemned the incident, noting: “I don't think it is right that London schoolchildren should face any kind of prejudice or any kind of upset in their life as a result of the attempt to import into London schools the politics and the political disputes of the Middle East.”

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Yet another dhimmi commentator counsels submission to violent intimidation. Has everyone in the entire country forgotten that the only one responsible for one's actions is oneself? Has the entire world lost sight of the fact that if Muslims commit violence because of this ad or over any other pretext, the fault and responsibility will be theirs and theirs alone?

Joseph Dolman wants us to be silent, submissive slaves lest we anger our Muslim masters. What is even worse is that Newsday prints this suicidal nonsense.

"Dolman: Anti-jihad ads in subway may be legal, but they lack street-smarts," by Joseph Dolman for Newsday, September 24:

The unwritten code of the subway says that when a situation is fraught with danger, you never want to escalate it. You never want to challenge the angry-looking guy who’s staring at you from across the aisle and muttering under his breath. Is Armageddon erupting in his head? You don’t want to find out.

Today I’m upset with Pamela Geller because she has broken the code. She has an ad going up in 10 New York subway stations that reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” As a New Yorker who was present in Manhattan on 9/11, I can promise you, I don’t like jihadists any more than she does.

But is it really wise to bait them? Right now? After what has happened in Egypt, Libya and Lower Manhattan (more than once)?...

We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions we loathe and believe fraught with death, unless they pose such an imminent threat that an immediate check is required to save the country, wrote Justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. Who can say with certainty what the effect of Geller’s signs will be?

The issue isn’t the law. It’s common sense. Why bring this intractable psychodrama to the subway? Life is tough enough.

| 25 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

If "Islamophobia" is criminalized, will these attacks on infidels stop? No, of course not. The only thing that will stop will be the infidels' ability to speak about and resist the jihad onslaught.

"Algeria at UN: Limit free speech, protect Islam," by David Stringer for the Associated Press, September 30:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Algeria demanded new efforts Saturday to limit freedom of expression to prevent denigrating attacks on Islam, appealing to the United Nations to take a lead as nations engaged in new debate on the tensions between free speech and religious tolerance.

In an address to the General Assembly, Algeria's foreign minister Mourad Medelci called for global action under the auspices of the United Nations to respond to violent demonstrations provoked by a U.S.-produced video that mocks Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad.

While Medelci didn't offer precise details of how he believed the U.N. could intervene, his call follows similar demands at the General Assembly from scores of leaders in the Muslim world who want new laws to ban insults against Islam.

On the sidelines of the annual forum, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, told The Associated Press Saturday in an interview that the deaths of two dozen people in violent protests against the anti-Islam film underscored the need for new legislation.

Malaysia's foreign minister Anifah Aman told the General Assembly that the creators of the anti-Islam film — an amateurish, privately produced U.S. video that mocked Muhammad's image — and those behind the publication of lewd caricatures of the prophet by French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo had shown "blatant malicious intent" toward Muslims.

"When we discriminate against gender, it is called sexism. When African Americans are criticized and vilified, it is called racism. When the same is done to the Jews, people call it Anti-Semitism. But why is it when Muslims are stigmatized and defamed, it is defended as 'freedom of expression'?" Aman told the General Assembly.

Aman he believed it was "time to dwell deeper into the heart of the problem and the real debate — the relationship between freedom of expression and social responsibilities, duties and obligations."

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari had called in his speech Tuesday to the General Assembly for action led by the U.N. to address a "widening rift" between the Muslim world and the West....

Speaking Saturday, Liechtenstein's Foreign Minister Aurelia Frick said that the "hateful slander of people on the basis of their culture or religion is unacceptable," but did not join calls for new laws. She urged nations instead to promote values of "tolerance, understanding and mutual respect."

Yes, that will fix everything.

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Wallis says that people might get hurt because of Geller's ad. Note how thoroughly he has absorbed the dhimmi mindset: he assumes that if Muslims become violent, it is the fault of non-Muslims, who must adjust their behavior in order to placate them.

The host shows that he holds the same assumptions when he asks Geller why she is throwing a match into a powder keg. It doesn't seem to occur either to him or to Wallis that the only people responsible for the actions of violent Muslims are the violent Muslims who commit them.

Watch the clip. In it, Pamela Geller patiently explains to these cringing dhimmis elementary principles of the freedom of speech and the necessity not to kowtow to violent intimidation. She brilliantly skewers their tolerance of evil and eagerness to adopt dhimmi self-censorship to save their miserable skins.

More and more people in the public square are demonstrating an inability to grasp this basic point, and that bodes quite ill: the principle is being reinforced that all Muslims or anyone else have to do in order to silence speech that they don't like is start acting violently. Alan Dershowitz takes apart this idea in an excellent piece about the MTA's new regulations, which state that ads will be barred if people may react violently to them. Says Dershowitz: the new regulation "incentivizes people to engage in violence. What it says to people, is that if they don’t like ads, just engage in violence and then we’ll take the ads down."

We have already begun the process of testing this unconstitutional new regulation.

Pamela Geller will never stop talking. Nor will I. We will never accept dhimmitude and submission. We will never bow to violent intimidation. Jim Wallis and other dhimmi Christians and Jews ought to be deeply, deeply ashamed of the stance they've taken: they have validated and encouraged violence, hatred and oppression. If free people and free societies survive, they will be looked upon as suicidal fools.

| 48 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

And the local authorities are on their knees, pleading with the local Muslims to trust them. Such is the topsy-turvy state of the world today. "Suspected Muslim insurgents shoot grenades at fair in southern Thailand, 30 hurt," from the Associated Press, September 30 (thanks to Maxwell):

PATTANI, Thailand — Thai police believe Islamist insurgents fired grenades at a fair in southern Thailand, injuring 30 people, in anger over government efforts to win over local Muslim religious leaders.

Police Lt. Col. Krajang Raknarong said Sunday the attackers fired grenades at a security checkpoint near the trade fair in Narathiwat province’s Bajoh district on Saturday. Thirty people were hurt, four seriously, when two grenades exploded near fair booths.

At least five people were killed in southern Thailand on Saturday in separate shooting attacks blamed by police on the insurgents.

The local district chief and security officials met religious elders earlier Saturday as part of official efforts to win the trust of local Muslims.

The local Muslims should be the ones trying to win the trust of the local district chief and security officials. After all, they're the ones doing the killing. But as always, they play the victim card very skillfully.

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

I've been getting more emails than usual lately asking me to cut out the snark and just report on events.

Request noted. Answer: no.

Why? Because the purpose of posting a news article like the one below is twofold. One is to inform you that Sunni jihadists murdered 26 Shi'ites in a series of car bombings in Iraq. But the other is to show -- yet again -- the bankruptcy of the mainstream narrative about what is happening in the world. We just saw at the UN a steady drumbeat from Muslim leaders worldwide: the West must criminalize "Islamophobia." "Islamophobia" is a crime against humanity. Do any of those leaders, or any of the Western media dhimmis who made the same call, say a word about Sunni-on-Shi'ite, or the Islamic beliefs that inspire it? No. Will any of them they say a word about the bombing of Sunday school children in Kenya, or the Islamic beliefs that inspired that? No. Will they weigh in on the ongoing murders of NATO troops by their putative Afghan allies, and the Islamic beliefs that inspire those murders? No. Will they have even a single word to say about the burning of Buddhist temples and homes in Bangladesh by Muslims enraged over a photo of a burnt Qur'an, and the Islamic beliefs that led to that?

No. Instead, they will say that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and that "Islamophobia" is the real problem, and that to oppose jihad savagery and Islamic supremacism is "hate." The daily headlines, day in and day out for eleven years of Jihad Watch now, prove this to be so howlingly absurd as to be beneath rational refutation. They know that, too, which is why they are pushing for "hate speech" laws that will silence opponents of jihad: they know they cannot refute us, so they have to forcibly shut us up.

And they may well succeed in doing that. But in the meantime, I am going to continue to ridicule the absurd, nonsensical positions that they are trying to force everyone hold -- on pain of charges of "racism" and "hate."

"Bombs target Shiite areas, security forces in multiple cities across Iraq, killing 26," by Sinan Salaheddin for The Associated Press, September 30 (thanks to Kenneth):

BAGHDAD - Bombs striking Shiite neighbourhoods, security forces and other targets across Iraq killed at least 26 people Sunday, officials said. It was the latest instance in which insurgents launched co-ordinate attacks in multiple cities across the country in a single day, apparently intending to rekindle widespread sectarian conflict and undermine public confidence in the beleaguered government.

The deadliest attack came in the town of Taji, a former al-Qaida stronghold just north of Baghdad, where three explosive-rigged cars went off within minutes of each other. Police said eight people died and 28 were injured in the back-to-back blasts that began around 7:15 a.m.

In all, at least 94 people were wounded in the wave of attacks that stretched from the restive but oil-rich city of Kirkuk in Iraq's north to the southern Shiite town of Kut.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the violence, but car bombs are a hallmark of al-Qaida in Iraq. The Sunni militant network has vowed to take back areas of the country, like Taji, from which it was pushed before U.S. troops withdrew last December.

Shortly after the Taji attacks, police said a suicide bomber set off his explosives-packed car in the Shiite neighbourhood of Shula in northwest Baghdad. One person was killed and seven wounded. Police could not immediately identify the target.

"So many people were hurt. A leg of a person was amputated," lamented Shula resident Naeem Frieh. "What have those innocent people done to deserve this?"

And in Baghdad's bustling Karrada neighbourhood, a parked car laden with explosives went off next to a police patrol, killing a police officer and a civilian, other officials said. Eight other people were injured. The blast was followed minutes later by another parked car bomb as people gathered, killing three civilians and injuring 12 others, they added. Secondary bomb blasts targeting those coming to help the wounded are a common insurgent tactic.

Elsewhere in the country, another suicide bomber drove a minibus into a security checkpoint in Kut, located 160 kilometres (100 miles) southeast of Baghdad. Three police officers were killed and five wounded, Maj. Gen. Hussein Abdul-Hadi Mahbob said.

And in Iraq's north, another policeman was killed when security forces were trying to defuse a car bomb parked on the main highway between the cities of Kirkuk and Tuz Khormato, said Kirkuk police chief Brig. Gen. Sarhad Qadir. A second policeman was wounded in the blast, Qadir said. Kirkuk is about 290 kilometres (180 miles) north of Baghdad.

In mid-morning, another parked car bomb went off next to a bus carrying Iranian pilgrims in the town of Madain, killing three Iraqis and injuring 11 others included seven Iranians, another police officer and health official said. Madain is a mainly Sunni area located 20 kilometres (12 miles) southeast of Baghdad....

Senior central government officials were not available for comment.

What could they possibly say?

| 12 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Barack Obama and General John Allen should be prosecuted for the deaths of every one of the fifty troops murdered by their Afghan "allies" this year. They are all victims of the politically correct unwillingness to accept unpleasant realities about Islam: that it teaches hatred of and warfare against unbelievers, the virtue of deceit in war, and the impermissibility of cooperating with or allying with infidels on a permanent and lasting basis. "Afghan inside attack kills 2 Americans, 2 Afghans, marking 2,000 US troop deaths," from the Associated Press, September 30 (thanks to Kenneth):

An Afghan soldier turned his gun on American troops at a checkpoint in the country's east, killing two Americans and at least two fellow members of Afghanistan's army in a shooting that marked both the continuance of a disturbing trend of insider attacks and the 2,000th U.S. troop death in the long-running war, officials said Sunday.

The string of insider attacks is one of the greatest threats to NATO's mission in the country, endangering a partnership key to training up Afghan security forces and withdrawing international troops.

Saturday's shooting took place at an Afghan army checkpoint just outside a joint U.S.-Afghan base in Wardak province, said Shahidullah Shahid, a provincial government spokesman.

"Initial reports indicate that a misunderstanding happened between Afghan army soldiers and American soldiers," Shahid said. He said investigators had been sent to the site to try to figure out what happened....

Afghan soldiers and policemen -- or militants in their uniforms -- have gunned down more than 50 foreign troops so far this year, eroding the trust between coalition forces and their Afghan partners. An equal number of Afghan policemen and soldiers also died in these attacks, giving them reason as well to be suspicious of possible infiltrators within their ranks.

The attacks are taking a toll on the partnership between international and Afghan forces, prompting the U.S. military to restrict operations with small-sized Afghan units earlier this month.

The military didn't restrict them enough.

The close contact -- with coalition forces working side by side with Afghan troops as advisers, mentors and trainers -- is a key part of the U.S. strategy for preparing the Afghans to take the lead in security operations as the U.S. and other nations prepare to pull out their last combat troops at the end of 2014, just 27 months away....

And obviously it's working very, very well.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

How many more of these attacks are we going to see before a significant portion of the Western government and media elites decides that resisting jihad is not "racism," but a struggle for justice and basic human decency?

Probably no number of attacks will ever convince most of those elites.

"Deadly Kenya grenade attack hits children in church," from the BBC, September 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

One child has been killed and three seriously hurt, police say, in a grenade attack on a church's Sunday school in the Kenya capital, Nairobi.

The attacker targeted St Polycarp's church on Juja Road.

A police spokesman blamed sympathisers of Somalia's al-Shabab Islamist militant group, angry over Kenya's role in the UN-backed intervention force.

A mob later rounded on Somalis living near the church with sticks and stones in a suspected revenge attack.

Police chief Moses Nyakwama told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme that 13 people had been injured in the revenge attack, in the suburb of Eastleigh.

'Running for their lives'

The fact that Sunday's bombing has immediately been blamed on "Al-Shabab sympathisers" is hardly surprising, given events in Somalia in recent days.

The hand-grenade, thrown into a crowded public place, is becoming a grimly familiar tactic in Kenya. In the past six months, it has been used in bars in Mombasa, churches in Garissa near the Somali border, as well as churches and a bus station in Nairobi....

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

But remember: if you stand up against this madness and call it what it is, you're a "racist" and an "Islamophobe."

"Officials: Angry Muslims torch Buddhist temples, homes in Bangladesh over burned Quran photo," from the Associated Press, September 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

COX’S BAZAR, Bangladesh — Thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims angry over an alleged derogatory photo of the Islamic holy book Quran on Facebook set fires in at least 10 Buddhist temples and 40 homes near the southern border with Myanmar, authorities said Sunday.

The violence began late Saturday and continued until early Sunday, said Nojibul Islam, a police chief in the coastal district of Cox’s Bazar.

He said the situation was under control Sunday afternoon after extra security officials were deployed and the government banned public gatherings in the troubled area.

He said at least 20 people were injured in the attacks that followed the posting of a Facebook photo of a burned copy of the Quran. The rioters blamed the photo on a local Buddhist boy, though it was not immediately clear if the boy actually posted the photo.

Bangladesh’s popular English-language Daily Star newspaper quoted the boy as saying that the photo was mistakenly tagged on his Facebook profile. The newspaper reported that soon after the violence broke out, the boy’s Facebook account was closed and police escorted him and his mother to safety.

Joinul Bari, chief government administrator in Cox’s Bazar district, said authorities detained the boy’s parents and were investigating.

Buddhists make up less than 1 percent of Muslim-majority Bangladesh’s 150 million people....

| 29 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 29, 2012


Don't support vandalism. Don't support savagery. Don't support oppression.
Support law, civilization and freedom of speech.

Video thanks to John Smith.

Also, Pamela Geller has this:

Moe Moe Moe Moe Moe-nuh!
(sing to the tune of the Kinks' L-O-L-A Lola)

I met her in the hub down in old Times Square
where ya drink kool-aid
and attack da blasphemers
Moe Moe Moe Moe Moe Mona! Moe Moe Moe Moe-nuh!
She looked up at me and she gave me a spray
She talked like a kaffir but her jihad was cray cray

Moe Moe Moe Moe Monuh!

Now I'm not the world's most jihadic man
But I paint what I can and spray the kuffar man
and so does Mona
Moe Moe Moe Moe Moe-nuh!

Well we sprayed the paint and takbir'd all night
Under electric subwaylight
She picked me up and sat me on her knee
And said dear boy wont you wage jihad with me
Well I'm not the worlds most Islamic guy
But when I looked at her spray can well I almost fell for my Mona
Moe Moe Moe Moe Monuh! Moe Moe Moe Moe Monuh!
Moe Moe Moe Moe Monuh! Moe Moe Moe Moe Monuh!

I pumped out the spray
I sprayed Pammy Hall
I cursed at them all
I got down on my knees
Then I looked at her and she at me

Groped, attacked down in Tahrir Square
made a 'beast' outta huh!
She attacks in the street
filthy kuffar
allahu da akbar!

Ack ack ack ack bar!
Well that's the way that I want it to stay
And I always want it to be that way for my Mona
Moe Moe Moe Moe Monuh!
Liberals will be savages and savages will be liberals
It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Mona
Moe Moe Moe Moe Monuh!

Well I left mosque just a week before
And I'd never ever waged a jihad before
But Mona smiled and took me by the hand
And said dear boy I'm gonna make you Sharia man

Now I'm not the world's most savage of men
But I paint what I can and spray the kuffar men
and so does Mona
Moe Moe Moe Moe Moe-nuh!

And Karl reMarks has this (thanks to Amira):

Mona Eltahawy reflects on her subway mission.*

When I woke up in the morning, a habit I had acquired while living as a young girl in Saudi Arabia, there were many thoughts running through my head. This was going to be a big day. Pamela Geller had succeeded in her stunt to attract attention to herself by winning the case to place her Islamophobic ads on the New York subway.

I hate Islamophobia. I believe in the right of Muslims to practice their religion freely in the West. But not to wear a veil obviously. That’s a symbol of male domination. In that case, I support French politicians and the French police. The universally recognized agents of women’s liberation.

I also hate any woman that tries to attract attention to herself by carrying out cynical stunts. Like Pamela Geller. So I hatched a low-key, secret plan to challenge her odious subway ads. I only shared the details with my 160 thousand Twitter followers, but somehow the news leaked out. But I’m running ahead of myself. That evening, I planned to spray graffiti over one of the ads and make a statement against racism.

But first things first. What to wear. I needed something subtle and clandestine. I chose a bright pink coat that would go completely unnoticed among all the Amanda from the Sex and the City lookalikes on the NY subway. I carefully chose a matching color spray can. Attention to details always pays off. I finished with a necklace of the Egyptian goddess of sex and retribution, in that order, Sekhmet, the first feminist in history.

My blood boiled as I thought about how Pamela Geller depicted Arabs and Muslims as savages. What will she do next, suggest that Arab men are backward misogynists who repress women? That all this repression is a deep cultural problem embedded within the Arab male psyche and promoted by Islamists? Outrageous.

Read it all.

| 31 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -- Voltaire

(Thanks to Patricia)

| 53 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Will the Islamophobia never end? See, this is all our fault. If we just outlawed criticism of Islam, these Muslims would not have been enraged, and the bishop would not have been beaten. Capisce? "Pakistani protestant bishop injured in Lahore," from AGI, September 29 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

(AGI) Rome- Pakistan Christians are under attack from Islamic extremists angry at the film US-made film, The Innocence of Muslims. Following the attack on St. Paul's church in Mardan, a bishop was assaulted, beaten and injured. Local sources of the Vatican news agency Fides report that protestant bishop Naeem Samuel of the Trinity Evangelical Church Prayer, was attacked yesterday as he was leaving church in Youhanaabad, a suburb of Lahore (Punjab province), where about 10,000 Christian families live. . .
| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Long overdue, and not enough, but welcome nevertheless. "House lawmaker blocks $450M in US aid for Egypt," by Donna Cassata for the Associated Press, September 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Obama administration's plan to transfer $450 million in cash to Egypt hit a roadblock Friday as a top House committee chairwoman blocked the move, saying it warrants further review.

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, said the State Department had notified Congress of plans to move the money to the new government of President Mohammed Morsi as Cairo struggles economically. The money is part of the nearly $1 billion in debt relief that President Barack Obama had promised Egypt earlier this year.

"This proposal comes to Congress at a point when the U.S.-Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny, and rightly so," the chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations said in a statement. "I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time. ... I have placed a hold on these funds."

The relationship between the United States and Egypt has been rocky since the overthrow of U.S. ally President Hosni Mubarak last year. The Egyptian government angered Washington when it cracked down on numerous democracy advocates and groups, including three U.S.-funded nongovernmental organizations, earlier this year.

More recently, demonstrators breached the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest an anti-Islam video, and some in Congress have called for cutting off aid. The United States provides Egypt with $1.55 billion annually - $250 million in economic aid and $1.3 billion in military aid....

| 44 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

We saw at the UN this week a concerted effort by Muslim leaders from around the world to compel the West to criminalize criticism of Islam. The objective of this effort is to stop those who point out the motives and goals of the jihadists, as these are rooted in Islamic texts and teachings. That will render the West mute and hence defenseless before the advancing jihad and the tyranny of Sharia.

"At U.N., Muslim world questions Western freedom of speech," by John Irish for Reuters, September 28 (thanks to Clayton):

(Reuters) - Muslim leaders were in unison at the United Nations this week arguing that the West was hiding behind its defense of freedom of speech and ignoring cultural sensitivities in the aftermath of anti-Islam slurs that have raised fears of a widening East-West cultural divide.

A video made in California depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a fool sparked the storming of U.S. and other Western embassies in many Islamic countries and a deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan this month. The crisis deepened when a French magazine published caricatures of the Prophet.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

"Unfortunately, Islamophobia has also become a new form of racism like anti-Semitism. It can no longer be tolerated under the guise of freedom of expression. Freedom does not mean anarchy," he told the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Friday.

Egypt's newly elected Islamist president, Mohamed Mursi, voiced similar sentiments in his speech on Wednesday.

"Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone," he said. "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us."...

While repeating his condemnations of the video, U.S. President Barack Obama staunchly defended free speech, riling some of those leaders.

"The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech - the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy," Obama said in a 30-minute speech dominated by this theme.

'CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS'

Speaking after Obama, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, where more than a dozen people were killed in protests against the anti-Islam film, demanded insults to religion be criminalized.

"The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression," he said.

Highlighting the anger of some, about 150 protesters demanded "justice" and chanted "there is no god but Allah" outside the U.N. building on Thursday. One placard read: "Blaspheming my Prophet must be made a crime at the U.N."

Foreign ministers from the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation met on Friday. The film topped the agenda.

"This incident demonstrates the serious consequences of abusing the principle of freedom of expression on one side and the freedom of demonstration on the other side," OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told reporters.

Human Rights First and Muslim Public Affairs Council, two U.S.-based advocacy groups, warned of the risks of regulating such freedoms.

"Countless incidents show that when governments or religious movements seek to punish offences in the name of combating religious bigotry, violence then ensues and real violations of human rights are perpetrated against targeted individuals," they said in a joint statement.

The 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council, dominated by developing states, has passed non-binding resolutions against defamation of religion for over a decade. Similar ones were endorsed in the U.N. General Assembly.

European countries, the United States and several Latin American nations in the council opposed the resolutions, arguing that while individual people have human rights, religions do not, and that existing U.N. pacts - if enforced - were sufficient to curb incitement to hatred and violence.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle attempted to dampen talk of a clash of civilizations on Thursday.

"Some would have us believe that the burning embassy buildings are proof of a clash of civilizations," Westerwelle said in his U.N. address. "We must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such arguments. This is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash within civilizations. It is also a struggle for the soul of the movement for change in the Arab world."

Yeah? Where is the other side in this clash?

| 23 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Attempted honor murder in Montreal.

Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

In light of all this, until authorities get the courage to tell the truth about honor killing, there will be many more such murders.

"‘It’s for your good. Let me finish’: Afghan-Canadian mother told police she stabbed her daughter with a kitchen knife," by Graeme Hamilton for the National Post, September 26 (thanks to Michael):

MONTREAL – For months, Bahar Ebrahimi had been rebelling against her parents, complaining their Afghan culture and Muslim religion were suffocating her. “I want to enjoy my life. I want to feel what the other ones feel,” she told them, according to her mother’s statement to police.

It was June, 2010, Grand Prix weekend in downtown Montreal, and on two straight nights the 19-year-old stayed out past dawn against her parents’ wishes.

For her mother, Johra Kaleki, the behaviour confirmed that all her efforts to steer her eldest daughter on the right path had failed. “I felt like she would never be fixed,” she told Sgt.-Det. Alexandre Bertrand in an interrogation video played Wednesday in Quebec Court.

As her crying husband spoke to Bahar in the basement of their Dorval home, Ms. Kaleki went upstairs and grabbed a large knife from the kitchen counter, the one she used to chop meat, she recounted. “I said, ‘This is the time.’ ”

She hid the knife under her T-shirt, returned to the basement, and told her husband the problem would best be resolved between mother and daughter. “Just leave us alone for five minutes,” she said she told him. “Don’t come until I call you.”

He left and she cuddled her first-born and told her to lie on her stomach so she could give her a back massage. “Then I stab her, stab her neck,” she confessed. “She said, ‘No Mom!’ I said, ‘It’s for your good. Let me finish.’ ”

Earlier in the interrogation, Sgt.-Det. Bertrand has asked whether the knife blade was sharp. “No, it wasn’t,” she replied. “I wish it was. I wanted to give her the peace that she needed.”

Bahar survived the attack, suffering serious knife wounds to her head and shoulder. Ms. Kaleki, 40, is charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault and illegal use of a weapon.

Her husband, alerted by Bahar’s screams, rushed downstairs and grabbed the knife from Ms. Kaleki, the court heard. “I said to my husband, let me finish her.’ ” She tried to choke her daughter, she said, and after Bahar escaped, she chased her upstairs and tried to break down the locked door to the bedroom where she was calling 911.

She was arrested, and after being treated in hospital for a knife wound on her own arm, she told her story to Sgt.-Det. Bertrand.

The first night Bahar stayed out late, informing her parents she was downtown enjoying a concert, they went to the local police station to file a report, Ms. Kaleki said. The officer told them there was nothing that could be done. “He said, ‘She’s safe. Don’t worry. She’s a teenager.’ ”

But the idea of a rebellious teenage girl was foreign to her parents. They expected Bahar to be home by 11 p.m. and not to smoke, drink or have boyfriends.

After the second night, when Bahar said she had spent much of the evening walking along St. Laurent Blvd., Ms. Kaleki was horrified. “I asked her, ‘Are you a prostitute? Are you a whore?’ ” she said.

A few months earlier, when Ms. Kaleki discovered Bahar was being harassed by an ex-boyfriend, she blamed her daughter. After speaking to the boy once on the phone, Ms. Kaleki decided he sounded like “a very good Muslim guy” and told Bahar he would make a good husband. “Probably you’ve done something to drive him crazy,” she told her. “I know you. You’re my daughter.” Bahar refused the idea of marriage, calling the boy a “psycho.”

Toward the end of the four-hour interview, the detective asked Ms. Kaleki whether she had anything to add. “I hope she gets well,” she said referring to her daughter. But she did not want her to emerge unscarred.

“She live with that wound,” she continued, pointing to her neck, “she remembers me.” The experience “will make her strong and give her wisdom. . . . It means she will give up her ways of living.”...

| 15 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Just yesterday Muslims on Twitter were excoriating me for my "ignorance," "lies" and "hate" for saying that according to the Islamic texts that Muslims consider most reliable, Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when he was 54 and she was nine.

"The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)." -- Bukhari 7.62.88

Muslims take this seriously and imitate Muhammad in this. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: "Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed."

The Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl "a divine blessing," and advised the faithful: "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house."

The Qur'an also It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).

So will the Muslims defending Islam from scurrilous "Islamophobic" charges that it sanctions child marriage excoriate Yassir Barhami with the same furious contempt with which they went after me yesterday? Of course not. And this is neither personal nor singular: Islamic apologists routinely feign furious indignation at infidels who dare to point out aspects of Muslim belief and practice that are quite obviously true. It is simply a tactic of intimidation, to which they so often have recourse because it so often works.

"Egypt sheikh says girls should be married, have children starting at 14-years-old," by Joseph Mayton for Bikyamasr, September 29 (thanks to Lachlan):

CAIRO: An Egyptian cleric and member of the Constituent Assembly tasked with drafting Egypt’s new constitution has said that girls 14-years-old are permitted to have sexual relations under Islam and has proposed reducing the marriage age limit as a result.

It is permissible for the girl at the age of 9 or 10 to marry,” Yassir Barhami said in discussing a woman’s sexual reproduction and his interpretation of Islam.

The Salafist – ultra-conservative – preacher claimed that under Islam when a girl begins to ovulate she is ready for marriage.

He added during a television debate on Dream TV last Tuesday that “marriage of a girl would not be a supplement for education,” but added that it “was better” to marry a girl young “than falling into sin with customary marriage.”

The cleric cited the Qur’an in arguing that any girl who is menstruating should be married and begin having children.

At the same time of advocating the marriage age be dropped to 14-years-old, he argued that the Salafist Constituent Assembly is also pushing for a law that denies “slavery against women” in the new constitution.

Manal al-Taibi, a now resigned member of the Constituent Assembly, said that this call is the promotion of child marriage and is akin to rape.

She has resigned her position on the assembly in protest to the overuse of Sharia law, or Islamic law, permeating the drafting process.

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

At last, some common sense. "Support the civilized man," by Israel Kasnett in the Jerusalem Post, September 27 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Pamela Geller, the executive director of the The American Freedom Defense Initiative, has it right. Her organization’s pro-Israel posters are in 10 New York City subway stations after a federal judge ruled that the city must put them up. The ads read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

New York’s MTA transportation agency barred the ads last year, citing “demeaning language.” However, a Manhattan federal court judge ruled in July that the MTA violated the First Amendment rights of AFDI, the group behind the ads.

Geller boldly fought for freedom of expression on CNN and blamed the network for being part of the problem.

“Your position is emboldening Islamic terrorism and emboldening extremism because you’re sanctioning it... you’re blaming the victim,” she told Erin Burnett.

Burnett attempted to push the interpretation of “jihad” as a “personal struggle,” implying that Geller is taking an extreme stance in her ads. What Burnett and, likely, most CNN viewers do not get, is that “jihad” today is used in the context of “holy war” against non-believers. It may have been intended to be used in a more peaceful context, but clearly Islam has changed....

Even more worrying is the West’s inability to gain a proper perspective and understanding of radical Islamic ideology. The West seems to believe that “most Muslims are peaceful” and, considering that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, this may just be the case. However, if just 10 percent of Muslims – 13 million people, that is – follow radical Islam, the world is in trouble. Put simply, radical Islam seeks to slowly take control of the world and bring it to submission.

THE LEVEL of hatred for the Western world, especially Israel, should be of great concern for all those who believe the Muslim world is changing for the better.

In August, numerous news outlets reported on the Egyptian show in which Arab celebrities and public figures had been invited under the pretense that they would appear on an Arabic-speaking German network.

When the deception began, the guests were unnerved after they were tricked into believing that the show airs on an Israeli channel.

The host fooled guests into believing she was of Jewish origin.

Some of the guests responded with anti- Israeli slurs and violence. When Egyptian actor Ayman Kandeel believed he had been tricked into appearing on an Israeli television network, he smacked the show’s producer and slapped the female host, throwing her into a corner.

And Morsy thinks the world should accept this “culture”? And CNN thinks jihadists aren’t savages? What culture maintains honor killings as a rightful practice? What culture becomes enraged by silly depictions of Muhammad but snores when thousands of innocent men, women and children are actually dying? Only a twisted, savage culture would operate in such a manner.

The world ignores wars fought between savages. Just look at Syria. Look at Africa.

IT IS this savage culture that the Western world is trying to appease. And it will fail....

As Geller says, any war on innocent civilians is savagery. The West needs to stop apologizing to the Muslim world, get behind Israel and defeat jihad.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Should the West Tolerate Islam?
by James M. Arlandosn, Ph.D.

Thomas Jefferson said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs.”

This means that beliefs and practices that do not harm us monetarily or physically can be tolerated.

But at what cost? How far do we take tolerance?

The answer to those complicated questions is found in another Jefferson document.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

But this answer is not as simple as it first appears, for how do we apply those three self-evident truths to an aggressive religion like Islam?

Three Universal Rights

The three universal rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have penetrated our psyche whether we acknowledge them or not. By them, we can discern which rules in shariah are harmful or harmless. So let’s unpack the three rights.

Happiness appears at first glance to be so subjective and so open to a wide interpretation that it is impossible to nail down. However, it is not as subjective as it first appears. At bottom, it depends on life and liberty.

Happiness means functioning in excellence and fullness, living to the highest potential and freedom. If one’s life and liberty is restricted and oppressed, then one cannot be happy, even if he thinks he is.

Pursuing happiness means that an individual creates his own utopia, as he lives in society and follows basic laws, like honoring contracts and respecting other people’s property and person. The government does not create utopia for him. Government is formed to ensure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government clears the path and creates a safe environment for people to be free and have a high quality of life and pursue their own happiness, as they define it.

Life and liberty, though they have a subjective feel to them, are not entirely subjective. Extreme behavior or policies do not lead to life and liberty, whether an individual or an entire society believes this or not, and whether a religious system teaches the opposite – they do lead to life and liberty and happiness. Despite their belief or religious system, when an act or policy does not actually promote life and liberty, then a person cannot be happy by definition, because happiness is built on life and liberty.

A person living under oppression, religious or atheistic, cannot be free and have a high quality of life; therefore, he cannot be happy, even if he thinks he is. He is not the best judge of what happiness is because he does not have a broad perspective.

Examples

Specific examples can be tricky. Sometimes we all sense people choose self-imposed oppression and restriction (e.g. the headscarf), but this does not harm society at large, so their choice can be tolerated. Other examples, however, are obviously bad, because they oppress all or many in society (e.g. the second-class jizyah or submission tax), so those shariah laws should not be tolerated.

One man gets revelations that tell his followers how to dress, how to believe, and how to pray. A prophet can teach these things, if he wants. He’s within his political right of religious freedom. If people choose freely to follow them and are allowed freely to walk away from them, then the religious laws do not pick the pockets or breaks the legs of the larger society. These religious rules can be done in private or at the mosque (or church or synagogue).

Yet, a strong case can be made that an extremely large number of religious laws also restricts life and liberty excessively, and therefore they do not lead to the pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, these religious laws that do not harm the larger society monetarily or physically can be tolerated.

However, if the same revelator gets an allegedly divine message that orders him to impose, by government decree or armed struggle, these beliefs on everyone or to restrict and punish nonconformist beliefs, then religious freedom is not promoted, and this harms society. His religion picks our pockets and breaks our legs.

And certainly a religious theocracy does not create utopia for all of society, to make people conform to a theocrat’s vision of the ideal world. A theocracy works overtime to remove all imperfections. That is why sexual sins are turned into crimes. If corporal punishments need to be applied, even up to execution, then so be it. Those imperfections must be removed. But a theocracy breaks our legs and picks our pockets.

A small-scale example is a woman who believes that wearing a veil that covers her face, except the eye slit (either a burqa or niqab), makes her happy. That’s part of her utopia. Who are we to interfere in her pursuit of happiness? Never mind that vitamin deficiencies can happen from underexposure to the sun, as the article on the veil in this series documents. Though she may not (yet) have come to the realization that a burqa or niqab is an extreme restriction on her liberty and highest quality of life, it still is such a restriction, objectively speaking. Deception does exist, which can be defined as believing or thinking you are right, while in reality you are wrong. And beliefs can be wrong.

Nonetheless, if she still freely chooses to wear a burqa or niqab and can freely choose not to wear it, then her belief should be tolerated. [1] If someone wants to persuade her with words alone, not by force or government fiat, then he can try. But her personal liberty must be respected, after the discussion ends.

However, if a government passes laws that force all women to wear certain religious clothes, then these laws are unjust, because they violate liberty, and violated liberty does not lead to the highest quality of life. And a degraded life does not add up to happiness – or the pursuit of it. In such a repressive environment, individuals cannot create their personal utopia as they define it.

Another example of how shariah restricts life and liberty: shariah today still imposes a submission tax on Jews or Christians or other religious minorities who refuse to join Islam. Defenders of this policy say that it is designed to offer them protection for the privilege of living under Islam.

However, a second-class submission tax based on religion violates the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. It does indeed harm us monetarily and legally. Everyone should be equal before the law; no one is to be discriminated against because he or she may be a religious minority living in an Islamic country.

And now we can judge that this Islamic rule about a religious submission tax is a bad one, for it is incompatible with the progress of humanity. The tax degrades the life and liberty of Jews and Christians and other religious minorities because they become second-class citizens and are deprived of some of their lawful earnings by a specialized religion tax, just for them.  When their life and liberty are restricted, they cannot pursue happiness, as they define it.

The foundation of advanced societies is equality before the law. But Islam teaches a religious hierarchy before its shariah tax law.

One major reason Americans fought the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was to free ourselves from taxes imposed on us without our consent. Why would we consent to a second-class religious submission tax, even if the government claims it came from Allah himself?

In all these examples, the general principle is Jefferson’s: if an act or policy does not harm us monetarily or physically, then it should be allowed. But if it does harm us in those two ways (or is on the verge of doing so), then it should not be allowed.

Conclusion

The shariah laws listed in Thirty Bad Shariah Laws – however culturally insensitive it may seem to hear – need to be rejected, because they are aggressive and oppressive, not peaceful or benign. These practices are themselves intolerant or fail to respect all humans with full dignity.

They are extreme and thus deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, these harmful shariah laws are wrong. They (should) have expiration dates on them – back in the seventh century.

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Where are British moderate Muslims?
by Enza Ferreri

If there are moderate Muslims in the UK, this is the moment for them to make their voices heard.

Pakistan’s Railways Minister has offered $100,000 for the murder of the filmmaker of The Innocence of Muslims.

In any civilized country, he would be not only fired from his cabinet position but also arrested for the crime of incitement to murder. Instead, Pakistan’s Prime Minister has excused him, and people in his country have demonstrated in his support.

Pakistan is a member of the British Commonwealth. Its High Commissioner to the UK, the equivalent of ambassador for Commonwealth countries, has defended the Railways Minister in an interview with Sky News.

Various British Muslims have also been interviewed, and they invariably expressed the opinion that, if freedom of speech should be protected, then the Pakistani minister is within his rights to say what he wants, and after all, he only hurt one person, not many like the controversial filmmaker. This is Muslim logic for you.

All this is reminiscent of what happened at the time of the Salman Rushdie affair, when opinion polls among British Muslims were showing the majority in favour of the fatwa against the writer.

Let’s not forget that many UK Muslims have come here from Pakistan, so much so that the derogatory term for Asians in Britain is “Paki”.

When we consider Pakistan, the country’s blasphemy law and its use to persecute Christian minorities in the most shameful way and the support that this law enjoys among the Pakistani population, and then we look at this latest episode of a government minister publicly inciting to murder with impunity and people taking to the streets defending him, we have to draw the conclusion that, if there are moderate Muslims in Pakistan, they must be very few or very silent or both.

Is the same true of British Muslims, many of whom are of Pakistani extraction?

Interestingly, Muslim figures prominent in the UK, always displayed for public consumption as representatives of moderate Islam, have turned out, under greater scrutiny, not to be so moderate after all.

Member of the House of Lords Lord Ahmed “savagely attacked Tony Blair for giving Salman Rushdie a knighthood, ...threatened to mobilise 10000 Muslims to prevent democratically elected Dutch MP Geert Wilders from speaking in Parliament, this is despite his own invite of the anti-semitic Israel Shamir who has been accused of denying the holocaust”.

The Pakistani-born peer also said: “Even if I have to beg I am willing to raise and offer £10 million so that George W Bush and Tony Blair can be brought to the International Court of Justice on war crimes charges”.

Former Deputy Leader of the Labour Group, Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice Sadiq Khan “is the lifelong friend of Babar Ahmad, a man indicted in the US on charges of ‘conspiracy to provide material to support terrorists, namely the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen; providing material to support terrorists; and conspiracy to kill in a foreign country’. Ahmad ran a website recruiting jihadi militants to go and fight the Russian in Chechnya and Coalition troops in Afghanistan. When arrested, he had in his possession plans for an American carrier battle group with written notations on it like ‘vulnerable to RPG’”.

Journalist Mehdi Hasan, former senior political editor of The New Statesman, on separate occasions called non-Muslims people of no intelligence and compared them to animals and cattle (in so doing revealing, on top of everything else, his speciesism).

And former co-chairman of the Conservative Party Baroness Warsi, unelected, appointed to the House of Lords, amidst public expenses frauds scandals, breachings of both the Ministerial Code and rules on financial declarations, found time to run a business her partner in which, Abid Hussain, has been a leading member of Hizb ut Tahrir, a radical Islamic group the Conservatives promised to ban when they were in opposition.

Disliked by Tories, called by one of them “the worst party chairman” we've ever had, Warsi, who is of Pakistani origin and maintains strong ties with that country, has now more power than ever, with two crucial cabinet posts and a seat at the National Security Council.

Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born, London-based author and journalist. She has been a London correspondent for several Italian magazines and newspapers, including Panorama, L'Espresso, La Repubblica.

| 8 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

As a prison psychologist I have dealt with more than a hundred criminal Muslims. Based on my professional experiences and conclusions, I have written extensively about the psychology of the Muslim mentality and violence, including being involved in the court case against the killer and Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr.

It is no secret that the Islamic texts, the Quran and the hadiths, are the main source of Islamic terror and crime: Islam teaches Muslims to hate, attack and kill non-Muslims, and it uses the same psychological tools to remove psychological hindrances to violence, as in all other kinds of warfare, by devaluing and demonizing the enemy. Combining mind-numbing repetition of hateful texts with a humiliating and violent upbringing in the family and in the Muslim madrassa schools is the ancient two-step recipe on how to break down human beings and make them submit to criminal doctrines and commit inhuman acts. Even the most cruel terrorist has also been an innocent child once, until he or she met with this classical method of brainwashing that has been integrated into many Muslim families, societies and schools.

But how to make a violent Muslim peaceful? This is probably one of the most important questions of our time, especially among people and authorities working with anti-terrorism.

Realizing the lack of and need for knowledge in this important area, I will here share my experience from working as a professional psychologist with more than hundred aggressive and violent Muslims.

As a psychologist I have not worked with convicted Muslim terrorists, so the advice that I give here is based on working with Muslims who have committed less radical types of crimes, including murder, attempted murder, arson and rape.

Violent behaviour, Islam and Muslim culture

Based on my experience, I found eight emotional indicators that are important when determining whether a Muslim may use violence or even turn to terror: anger, honor culture, victim mentality, identity, religiosity, responsibility for oneself, ability to regret and tolerance. Thus deradicalizing Muslims should aim to reduce the first five and increase the last three. Unfortunately, Islam and Muslim culture has a tendency to do the exact opposite. Deradicalizing Muslims is therefore not just about changing a political mindset, but to a large extent about limiting the influence of the culture and religion that fuels and partly constitutes their political mindset.

I have described several of these aspects in previous articles, such as "Report from the therapy room: Why are Muslims more violent and criminal?".

Understanding and working with the eight emotional factors

Based on my work with criminal and violent Muslims, I will here describe eight psychological factors that contribute to violent behaviour among Muslims. Many of the factors are also typical for non-Muslim criminals brought up in a family with dysfunctional patterns. I will mention them here with three subdivisions: a) describing the mental factor. b) describing how Islam and/or Muslim culture enhances this factor. c) describing the sign.

Anger:

a) Anger is a driving force behind most types of violence, including terror. Other emotions and ideas might be involved as well, but anger is almost always present, often as the most dominant emotion.

b) Muslims and anger. During therapy with violent Muslims it became clear that anger and aggression is much more accepted among Muslims. Contrary to Western culture, people brought up in Muslim societies see anger less as a sign of weakness than non-Muslims do. Anger is seen as a sign of strength and source of respect -- not a reason for ridicule and loss of social status as in Western culture. Therefore Muslims do not limit their aggressive emotions to the same degree as we do, and they see non-aggressive responses to aggression as a sign of cowardice and a weakness that can be exploited further.

c) Indicator. Signs of anger is a indicator when looking for risk of violent behaviour.

Honor culture:

a) Cultures that build on the clan cultural concept of honor have a tendency to create aggressive and insecure individuals ready to use violence to protect the inherent fragility of honor.

b) Honor has an essential place in Muslim culture, and Muslims are expected by both themselves and their Muslim surroundings to react aggressively if they or whatever they identify themselves with or represent (family, clan, area, culture, religion) is criticised or under (perceived) attack.

c) A strong concept of honor increases the risk of violent behaviour.

Victim mentality:

a) A driving force among most types of terrorists, including Muslim terrorists, is victim mentality. People seeing themselves as victims being treated unfairly by hostile powers often see their situation as an excuse for going beyond the law, generally accepted social behaviour and responsibility for ones own actions (one is "forced" by the enemy to act violently).

b) Experiencing oneself as being under the influence of outer imagined or real forces, whether it is Allah, conspiring non-Muslims or religious rules and cultural traditions, is a mindset pervading Muslim culture. A large German study showed "a distinct victim mentality and heightened acceptance of violence among [Muslim] youth" and that among "Muslim youth who maintain Muslim religious affiliation, one finds that a greater amount of violence is acceptable."

c) Sign of victim mentality is an indicator for violent behaviour.

Identity:

a) Identification with a religion increases the tendency to take it personally when one perceives the religion as being under attack.

b) My experience from working with criminal Muslims, even though many of them were not practising their religion actively, is that Muslims identify themselves very strongly with Islam and the Muslim community worldwide. This is why criminal Muslims almost never -- unless it concerns rivaling gangs or women -- attack other Muslims.

c) Identification with the Muslim community increases the tendency to take it personally and react when one perceives Islam or Muslims as being under attack.

Religiosity:

a) All through history religions have proven to be able to make people do what they would not have done without their religion -- positive or negative.

b) Since the Quran and the culture in most Muslim societies preaches aversion and in some cases even violence against non-Muslims, the degree of religiosity among Muslims is an important factor when deciding the risk of violent behaviour. A German study involving intense interviews with more than 40,000 people concluded that practising Islam increases anger and risk of violent behavior.

c) Strong religious feelings and the strong influence of a traditional Muslim upbringing is thus an important indicator when trying to identify and discover the tendency to use violence among Muslims and protect Islam against criticism and attacks.

Responsibility:

a) The ability to feel responsibility for oneself is important for the ability to display positive behaviour. The less people feel responsible for their own actions, the more they are likely to act unacceptably, since they do not feel that they themselves deserve to face the consequences and do not feel guilty.

b) A defining characteristic of Islam and Muslim culture is the lack of responsibility for oneself. According to Islam everything happens inshallah (Allah willing) and individual freedom is substituted by religious rules, cultural traditions and the authority of the family and clan. Muslims to a large extend obey the expectations of their religion, culture, family and clan. As a result inner locus of control (experiencing oneself as being in control of one's life) is very weak while outer locus of control (experiencing outer factors as being in control of one's life) is strong.

c) Lack of responsibility for oneself is important when determining risk of criminal behaviour.

Regret:

a) Being able to feel and express regret for one's own negative words and actions is crucial, especially when trying to determine the risk of recidivism (committing crime again after having served a sentence or being trained to abide by the law).

b) Since a victim mentality and a low amount of responsibility for oneself is characteristic of people brought up in the Muslim culture, regret is not characteristic. If one does not take responsibility for one's own actions, one simply can not fully regret them, as sincere regret includes insight into one's own role in the harm done.

c) Expression of regret based on insight into one's own role in the situation is an important indicator when trying to determine the risk of recidivism.

Tolerance:

a) Tolerance is important when it comes to respect for others. Low tolerance often decreases respect and increases the likelihood of harming people. A classical psychological maneuver to make soldiers more able to harm the enemy is to lower their respect towards the enemy by spreading derogatory propaganda about him.

b) Islam and Muslim culture preaches intolerance towards non-Muslims, both in writing and as a way of living. Non-Muslims are categorized as inferior, and the Quran orders Muslims to suppress, attack and kill non-Muslims. Terrorists often act because of intolerance towards otherwise legal statements and actions.

c) The degree of tolerance is an important indicator when trying to determine the risk of violent behaviour.

Working with the eight emotional factors

A necessary basis for human change is the realisation of the benefits of changing. Since many assailants by experience know that threats and violence can be much more effective in achieving one's goal -- and even feel the right to act threatening or violent -- this it not always an easy task.

Everybody knows that changing one's views and habits does not happen by itself. It takes a conscious effort, and normally no radical and lasting changes happen unless we want to and make the necessary and often demanding effort. Often people are not always ready or willing to change. In these cases it is by doing -- or being tricked into doing -- things that maybe only indirectly point to the goal that one gets closer to the point where one can work on changing oneself more consciously, in a targeted manner and voluntarily.

Here are some of the things that I have worked with and would advise using for treatment of convicted Muslim criminals and terrorists.

Even though the psychological factors are clearly defined, my estimation is that even with very competent therapists, only few attempts of deradicalization are successful. This is because radical Muslims both have to want it, dare to go against the their own radical network and be able to go through the hard and extensive psychological and practical processes of abandoning psychological, cultural and religious factors deeply rooted in their upbringing and lifestyle, in order to deradicalize.

Anger:

My experience from working with Muslims is that many have a heightened readiness to react to perceived threats. This includes the unpleasant bodily and mental feelings that often accompany anger, such as stress, anxiety, restlessness, lowered mood and unpleasant feelings in the head, heart area, stomach and other places. Throughout the therapy, I also managed to make many of the Muslim clients aware of the negative personal consequences that stem from angry behaviour, such as loss of friends, problems with the authorities, and the lack of ability to communicate the way one wants when angry.

Mindfulness exercises that relax the body (lying on a mattress, listening to relaxing music and being guided to tighten and relax the different muscle groups from toes to face) helped the clients to become more aware of their tensions and the unpleasant feelings that come from anger. The immediate benefits of relaxing by being less angry thus became evident to many of them -- they fell asleep, in spite of normally having great difficulties falling asleep.

Some of the Muslim clients were also open to learning ways of handling conflicts and irritation other than using threats and physical violence through psychoeducation.

I would not be surprised if anger-reducing medicine is one day be used on violent extremists -- individually or as a non-lethal weapon dropped on violent masses from airplanes.

Honor culture:

Protecting honor is a defining characteristic of Muslim culture and has been the cause of countless killings of women, non-Muslims and Muslims from other families, clans and sects.

Since a fragile sense of honor is closely related to low self-esteem, improving peoples' self-esteem is vital to make them less emotionally vulnerable to criticism. Of course, Muslim culture itself has a strong tendency to instill its world-famous fragile sense of honor in Muslims, but unsolved childhood traumas can be an important key. Learning social behaviour that increases positive feedback and healthy pride can also help.

Victim mentality and responsibility:

During my work with violent Muslims I realized the need for developing a therapeutic tool that decreases victim mentality and increases responsibility. For the tool to be useful it had to be simple and structured, because people brought up in cultures or families less familiar with psychology and the benefits of expressing inner states often find normal therapy meaningless or even confusing. I developed a four-step model that can also be visualized on a piece of paper or a white board. The four steps show how experiences awaken emotions, which motivate actions that have consequences that are experienced -- etc.

The steps are drawn and written in a circle, with step 1 at the top (12 o'clock), step 2 at 3 o'clock, step 3 at 6 o'clock and step 4 at 9 o'clock.

Step 1: The client is presented with a timeline on a paper or white board, going from birth until now. Above the timeline positive experiences are written, and below it, the negative.

Step 2: The client is asked to describe the emotions connected with the experiences. These are all listed below step 2 on the paper.

Step 3: The client is then asked what he did and normally does when he has the different emotions mentioned at step 2.

Step 4: The client is asked to describe what emotional and practical consequences these actions had and generally have.

This model makes it possible -- also visually -- for the client to see the connection between the way that he reacts to experiences and what he experiences. Depending on the client, this can help him to get insight into the mechanisms of responsibility for himself.

Identity:

Identity is one of the deepest rooted psychological phenomena, and changing this is not easy. The problem with radical Muslims is that they identify with Islam and the Muslim ummah to such an extent that they perceive themselves as being under attack, no matter how and where Islam or Muslims are criticised or attacked. This includes a very strong loyalty that makes them prone to react violently when this happens.

I do not have any useful suggestions at this point except for maybe showing Muslim extremists that the biggest enemies of Muslims are other Muslims: nobody kills more Muslims than Muslims, and nobody oppresses Muslims more than the Muslim rulers of Muslim countries. The "one ummah, one body" slogan put forward by the self-proclaimed defenders of Islam against the West must be seen in light of the fact that Muslims are far from being one single unit protecting each others' back.

Religiosity:

Muslim terrorists are most often very well versed in the Islamic scriptures, and trying to make them think that certain parts of the Quran should be seen from a historical perspective and not as guidelines in the modern world is futile. Since leaving Islam is punishable by death, one has to be able to present very convincing protection programmes to whoever considers leaving this religion.

Decreasing religiosity in Muslims who take the Quran literally is impossible as long as they are able to indoctrinate themselves and each other with the Islamic texts and practises. It can be necessary to deprive them of the source that fuels their hate and political ideas.

Making it so difficult to practise orthodox and therefore illegal Islam in our countries that they need to go elsewhere if they want to continue their way of life is a solution.

Ability to regret:

The ability to regret is necessary in order to change one's habits and feel empathy with others. The victim mentality and a lowered sense of responsibility for oneself decrease the ability to feel regret.

In many countries around the world, victims and offenders are offered a chance to meet, and in many cases it has a healing effect on both parties. Realizing the harm that one has done makes one able to regret and apologize, which is psychologically healthy. I think everybody knows the relief that follows when one has finally gotten oneself together and given an honest apology to somebody we hurt.

Again a four-step procedure can be helpful.

1) Realizing. First one has to realize that what one has done is wrong. Meeting with victims or survivors, reading about their suffering and that of their families, and knowing that innocent people were harmed is helpful to realize one's wrongdoing.

2) Admitting. Having reached a point where one can give an honest acknowledgment of one's actions, one simply does so. If one is not able to meet the victim in person, one can write a letter or give a public statement.

3) Regretting. After having admitted one's fault, one is ready to make the important step of deciding to never repeat one's mistake.

4) Opposite. In leaving one's habits behind, the last thing that has to be done to finalize the psychological process of regretting is to do the opposite. If one has previously harmed or hated a certain group of people, one starts helping them -- etc.

Going through these four steps may not feel very honorable or pleasant for the ego, but if one makes it through all four steps, one is truly reborn as a better citizen.

Tolerance:

Tolerance is important because Muslim terrorism if fueled by intolerance toward non-Muslims and non-Islamic values and societies. Since intolerance are often created by misunderstanding, creating understanding is a very effective way to tolerance.

I wish I had had movies showing normal non-Muslims' way of life in their families' daily lives when working with criminal Muslims' anger against non-Muslims. Showing the innocent, happy and constructive lives of normal Danish children and parents would have been an eye-opener for them. There are so many lies and myths in the Muslim communities about Westerners, and removing them will surely increase Muslims' tolerance towards us.

| 41 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Over the last few days I got caught up on Twitter with numerous Muslims who were furiously indignant at my alleged "lies" about Islam and Muslims, and -- with rage and profanities -- adopting an aggrieved victim status. The unreality of this stance is remarkable and more than remarkable considering the daily stream of stories like this one.

More on this story, also discussed here. "Muslims Order Christians Out of Their Village in Egypt," by Mary Abdelmassih for AINA, September 29:

(AINA) -- Copts in the North Sinai border town of Rafah have started leaving their homes after receiving an ultimatum from Islamists to leave "within 48 hours" or be killed. According to confirmed reports 9 Coptic families have left the town. The remaining 23 Coptic families are still there, waiting to leave. "it is difficult for us to leave as most of us are shop-owners and have property, so it is not easy just to leave everything and go," said one Copt who is still with his family in Rafah. The Copts are all confined to their homes, afraid to venture out.

However, two days ago. masked men on motorcycles sprayed Coptic stores with bullets, but no one was hurt.

The nine Coptic families who left Rafah were government employees and the Governor of North Sinai offered to transfer them to neighboring Sinai Province capital, Al-Arish, to take posts there instead.

About three weeks ago a Coptic shop owner received a hand-written threat that "all Christians should leave Rafah within 48 hours, otherwise they will be killed." Copts reported these threats to security but were told not to take the threats "earnestly," because threats were during the time of the YouTube clip mocking Mohammad. "We thought the writers of these threats were just being vindictive against the Copts since it was claimed that a US Copt is responsible for it [the film]," said a Copts resident of Rafah.

Coptic families went with church representatives and met with the Governor of North Sinai asking for protection, he promised none, but just transferred nine government employees to work in Al-Arish.

The Coptic Church issued a statement this afternoon, after a meeting of the Holy Synod, signed by acting Patriarch Anba Pachomios, condemning the forced displacement of the Copts from Rafah, demanding that the "responsible state agencies address those that are trying to undermine the state authority and show it unable to protect its citizens."

The statement further said "nearly one month ago the media had published the violations against the Copts but the Egyptian authorities have not taken the necessary measures to protect the Egyptian families, who have the right to live safely in their homes." It went on say that the series of Coptic displacement started with El-Ameriya (AINA 2-9-2012), then Dahshour (AINA 8-1-2012) and now has reached Rafah....

| 2 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Actually it was the jihadis who killed them -- oddly enough! We have so many Sharia-compliant journalists in the U.S.; can we send Christiane Amanpour, Niraj Warikoo, Bob Smietana, and Kari Huus to Mogadishu? They'd be much happier there, and the murderous Somali jihadists would find no fault with their coverage.

"2 more Somali journalists murdered, including 1 beheaded; 15 journalists killed in 2012," from the Associated Press, September 28:

MOGADISHU, Somalia — One Somali journalist was shot dead by gunmen on Friday while a second journalist was beheaded and his body dumped in the street, officials and residents said, two attacks that bring the number of Somali journalists killed this year to 15.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the latest killings, but the deaths fit into a year-long pattern of targeted attacks against Somali journalists. Reporters must watch for attacks from militants and criminals and know that such deaths have been met with judicial inaction in a capital city with crippled government institutions.

Residents in an area just north of Mogadishu discovered the headless dead body of Abdirahman Mohamed Ali, a 26-year-old sports writer with his hands tied behind his back on Thursday. His body also showed signs of torture. No previous killing of a journalist has involved a beheading, and the method of death could be an indication that al-Qaida-linked militants from al-Shabab were responsible.

“His decapitated body was dumped near a restaurant. We were shocked to see his severed head placed on his chest,” Ahmed Abdinur, a resident in the restive Suqa Holaha area, said by phone. “We don’t know who beheaded him, but our village has seen several such headless bodies before.”

Unidentified gunmen shot and killed Ahmed Abdulahi Fanah, a 32-year-old reporter who was working for the Yemeni news agency, the Somali journalists union said Friday. He was shot and killed as he walked out of his home on the way to work, it said.

The killings have made going to work a life-and-death decision for Somali journalists. One female television journalist said she won’t risk her life any longer.

“I have decided to leave the country because the time we expected would bring peace and liberty has turned into the worst we have ever seen,” Sahra Abdulahi Isse said. “The death threats have increased. ... I will be leaving for Uganda for my own safety.”

Most of the 15 deaths appear to have been targeted killings, though last week three journalists were killed when a suicide bomber detonated explosives in a cafe popular with journalists and politicians. The day after that attack gunmen shot and killed another journalist....

| 2 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 28, 2012

SpencerSept282012CharlieSavage.jpg


Here at the Jihad Watch offices.

Get the t-shirt here.

What I'm reading (cartoons here).

| 47 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Eventually they will have no where to flee to. "Egypt's Copts abandon Sinai homes after threats, attack," by Yousri Mohamed andTamim Elyan for Reuters, September 28

(Reuters) - Most Christians living near Egypt's border with Israel are fleeing their homes after Islamist militants made death threats and gunmen attacked a Coptic-owned shop, a priest said on Friday.

The departure of nine families that made up the small Christian community in the border area of Egypt's Sinai peninsula will fuel worries about religious tolerance and the rise of militancy after the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak last year.

"Coptic Christian families decided to leave ... out of fear for their lives after the threats and the armed attack," said Mikhail Antwan, priest at the Coptic Margirgis church in the North Sinai town of al-Arish.

Death threats had been printed on flyers circulating in the desert area, he added.

Two armed men riding a motorcycle opened fire on a Coptic-owned shop in Rafah on Wednesday but no one was injured.

Two families from the small community had already left while the rest were still packing up their possessions in Rafah and Shaikh Zuwaid after living 20 years in the area, he added.

All were planning to move to al-Arish, the administrative center of North Sinai, where security was better, the priest said.

Islamists with possible links to al Qaeda have gained a foothold in the area, analysts say.

Israel has voiced concern about security in Sinai, where at least four cross-border attacks have taken place since Mubarak was toppled in February 2011.

Egypt's new president, Mohamed Mursi, has vowed to restore order. But efforts to impose central authority are complicated by the indigenous Bedouin population's ingrained hostility to the government in Cairo.

A local official, who asked not to be named, confirmed the departures and said the families planned to return when security improved. It was the second wave of Christian departures - another seven families left soon after Mubarak's fall.

| 8 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Obamaslander.jpg


Priceless.

| 27 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
MonaHall.jpgFascist vandal at work


Morsi wants criticism of Islam criminalized. So it is not surprising that he would support fascist pro-jihad anti-free speech vandal Mona Eltahawy. "Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi asks Egyptian Consulate to 'monitor Eltahawy case,'" from Egypt Independent, September 27 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

President Mohamed Morsy asked Yousef Zada, Egypt's consul general in New York, to closely follow the case of Egyptian-American journalist and human rights activist Mona Eltahawy, who was arrested in New York City on Tuesday.

Morsy is currently heading an Egyptian delegation on a visit to New York to participate in the meetings of the United Nations General Assembly.

Eltahawy was arrested for vandalising a pro-Israel ad in a subway station at Times Square, while another woman who supported the billboard's content, Pamela Hall, was standing against the wall to prevent her from doing so.

The journalist was arrested while spraying pink paint over the phrase, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, defeat Jihad.”

Eltahawy has been released on bail.

| 60 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
Fars.jpg


Why not? If they believe in Zionist squirrels and Zionist pigeons, why not use The Onion as a reliable news source? After all, it's not as if they used the New York Times or Washington Post as reputable news sources.

"US satirical website fools Iran's Fars news agency," from the BBC, September 28 (thanks to Jacob):

A news agency in Iran has published a report by the satirical news website, The Onion, saying rural white Americans would rather vote for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than Barack Obama.

Quoting The Onion word-for-word, Fars states that an opinion poll also found 77% would rather go to a baseball game or have a drink with Mr Ahmadinejad.

A made-up West Virginia resident is quoted as saying: "I like him better."...

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Stop the presses! Shocka! Muslims "overwhelmingly" support Obama! Who'd-a thunk it? They are angry, says Zogby, with the Republicans' annoying tendency to want to resist jihad terror and Islamic supremacism (even as lukewarm, wishy-washy, and Norquist-compromised as the Republicans are about that). Bad dhimmi!

"James Zogby: Arab American Voters 'Overwhelmingly' Support Obama," by Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter in Newsmax, September 27 (thanks to bestproject):

Prominent Middle East expert Dr. James Zogby tells Newsmax that President Obama is polling about 18 percent below his 2008 numbers among Arab-American voters.

But those Arab-Americans who are Muslims now “overwhelmingly” support the Democratic candidate compared to four years ago, he adds....

Zogby is founder and president of the Arab American Institute, a Washington, D.C.–based organization that serves as a political and policy research arm of the Arab-American community, and author of the book “Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us and Why it Matters.”...

The Arab American Institute and JZ Analytics has just polled Arab-American voters in the key swing states of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, and found that they favor Obama over Mitt Romney by a margin of 52 percent to 28 percent....

“Here’s my sense: Arab-Americans are supportive of the president. They’re disappointed in some of the policies of the president, disappointed in his Middle East policy to be sure. But the Republican side hasn’t given them any reason to reconsider their support.

“So they’re disappointed, maybe, in one side but they’re pretty much turned off by the other side. What we’re left with is a rock-solid Republican core — 20 or so percent of the Arab-American community is committed Republican but more than two times that are committed Democrats. They’re supporting Obama, they still want to believe that he’ll make change, they haven’t seen it, they’re a little disappointed but they’re very turned off by the approach that’s been taken by Mitt Romney and by what has become the mainstream in the Republican Party. The message has not been inviting to Arab-Americans.”...

“The Muslim component is overwhelmingly, right now, in the Democratic camp. That was not the case in 2000, when they were split between the two. In fact, overall, back in 2000 and throughout the ‘90s, the community leaned Democratic, like many ethnic communities, by a two or three percent margin. That was the case with Irish, Polish, Italian, etc., and Arab-Americans were no different.

“But beginning in 2002, that gap began to open up, reaching its peak in 2008, settled down a bit in 2010, and it is still more than two to one Democratic in 2012.

The reasons are not so much faith as that the Republican Party has just turned them off, especially on the Muslim side, when you have everything from loyalty oaths in the Republican debate, whether Muslims should take an extra loyalty oath; the notion that you never met a Middle East country that you didn’t want to bomb; the very hard line on almost every issue involving the Middle East. Those things resonate not only with the Muslim part of the community, but with the broader community that recognized it as kind of intolerance and it scared them....

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

More Muslim spray paint on the activities of free people. "As promised, Islamic hacktivists disrupt PNC Bank," by Antone Gonsalves for Network World, September 28 (thanks to Twostellas):

PNC Bank's website was disrupted on Thursday by a group of Islamic hactivists who have also claimed responsibility for downing the sites this week of Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank.

The latest attack is identical to the other two in that hundreds of thousands of computers are used to overwhelm the sites' bandwidth, said Atif Mushtaq, a security researcher for FireEye who has been monitoring the attacks.

Islamic hacktivists' bank hacking claims gaining credibility

The hactivists also claim to be behind the distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks last week against Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, as well as U.S. bank yesterday.

PNC has confirmed the attack. Spokesman Fred Solomon told The Chicago Tribune that the disruption affected some online customers. "We are working to restore full service to everyone," he said.

Based on the kind of traffic Mushtaq has seen, the banks' sites are being overwhelmed by requests from the computers of supporters of the hacktivists. The group, which calls itself "Mrt. Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters," has used social networks, including Goolge+ [sic]; underground sites, and their own website to recruit sympathizers.

"I'm not surprised that there are thousands and thousands of people performing this type of DDoS," Mushtaq said....

The hactivists have said that the attacks are in retaliation for a video trailer denigrating the Prophet Muhammad. The amateurish YouTube video made in the U.S. has sparked violent protests in the Middle East and other regions....

While he hasn't monitored the recent attacks, Rachwald said he believes the attackers are much more sophisticated. An indication of that is the fact that the hactivists posted warnings in advance, naming the targeted banks. Nevertheless, the banks were unable to prevent disruption.

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence." Who decides who is damaging relations, spreading hate, and inciting violence? They do, of course. They're the "best of people" (Qur'an 3:110).

Attendance by notable free speech foes Reza Aslan, Christina Abraham, Cyrus McGoldrick and Mona Eltahawy unconfirmed.

"Islamic Leaders in Dearborn Mich. Plan Rally to Support Speech Prohibition," by AWR Hawkins at Breitbart, September 27:

Islamic leaders in Dearborn, Mich. are holding a rally this Friday night to build momentum for the passage of laws that prohibit speech or expression that hurts "the religious feelings of Muslims."

Put together in response to the film "Innocence of Muslims," rally organizer Tarek Baydoun said, "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to sow the seeds of hate and discord against the religious beliefs of others." Rally co-organizer Osama Siblani added, "There is a need for deterrent legal measures against those individuals or groups that want to damage relations between people, spread hate and incite violence."

In other words, it appears one of the goals of the rally will be the eventual creation of blasphemy laws: laws that would reflect an international movement toward banning speech that is critical of Islam or Mohammed....

| 50 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us


At last, the truth about the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) gets out on American airwaves. The mainstream media's consistent recourse to this unsavory gang of thugs and anti-free speech fascists as if it were really the civil rights organization that it claims to be is unconscionable. Brava to Pamela Geller for exposing them.

| 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Muslims have been making Malmö uncomfortable for Jews for quite some time. The Qur'an, after all, dubs them the worst enemies of the Muslims (5:82), which many Muslims today take as a license to victimize Jews wherever they find them.

"You don’t wear a kippah in this city. That would be suicide.”

"Explosion rocks Malmö Jewish centre," from The Local, September 28 (thanks to David):

Police were called out early on Friday morning after loud bangs were heard near the Jewish community centre in Malmö, southern Sweden.

“There as been an explosion. Something has detonated – we are certain of that,” said police officer Erik Liljenström to local paper Sydsvenskan early on Friday morning.

The police received a call shortly after 1am. Witnesses said they had heard loud blasts near the centre some 15 minutes earlier.

When police arrived at the scene they soon established that there had been some sort of explosion and that someone had tried to smash in the door.

There were loose paving stones lying among shards of shattered glass in front of the entrance, according to the paper.

While damage had been done to the front door, the building had not been damaged in any other way as far as the police could see, but according to witness statements the blasts were heard a few blocks away....

Shortly after 4am, police announced that they had identified one of the vehicles and brought two men in for questioning.

Both of the suspects are 18-year-old, according to Malmö police, who nevertheless believe that more people were involved in carrying out the attack.

No one was reportedly injured in the attack. According to the police, the men are under suspicion of destruction constituting a public danger.

"Now their [sic] going to be interrogated, then we'll see. They weren't caught in the act," police spokesperson Anders Lindell told the TT news agency.

On Friday, Malmö's Social Democratic mayor Ilmar Reepalu, who has previously been criticized for making controversial statements about the city's Jewish community, condemned the attacks....

Reepalu added that he hoped police would be able to solve the crime quickly and that it doesn't lead to heightened tensions in the city....

In other words, find the Muslims responsible and prosecute them quickly and quietly, before they can become "martyrs" in the latest case of Muslim rage.

Earlier this year, Reepalu came under fire for comments in which he claimed that the far right Sweden Democrats had "infiltrated" the Jewish community in Malmö....

In 2009, comments by Reepalu prompted the the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in the United States warned Jews from traveling to Sweden's third largest city.

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

According to Sisters In Islam, a Muslim reform group, there is evidence that most -- up to 75% -- of the women imprisoned in Pakistan are there because of rape. Islamic evidence laws disallow a woman's testimony in such cases, and require testimony from four male witnesses of the act to establish the rape. If such witnesses are not found, as is usually the case, and the accused perpetrator denies the act, as is usually the case, then the woman's very rape charge becomes evidence that she has committed zina -- unlawful sexual activity.

Ah, the glories of the Arab Spring: "From victim to accused: Tunisian raped by police indicted for ‘indecency,’" by Antoine Lambroschini for Middle East Online, September 26:

Tunisian civil society groups expressed outrage on Wednesday after a young woman was accused of indecency by two policemen jailed for raping her, amid criticism of the Islamist-led government for rolling back women's rights.

The woman and her fiance were summoned by a magistrate on Wednesday to face the two policemen, both found guilty of rape and jailed, who accuse her of "indecency" and "assault," a group of Tunisian NGOs said in a statement.

The interior ministry said the woman and her boyfriend were apprehended by three policemen on September 3, when they were found in an "immoral position."

Two policemen then raped her, while the third held the handcuffed fiance.

The NGOs, which include the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women and the Tunisian League of Human Rights, slammed what they described as a procedure that "transforms the victim into the accused."

It "is designed to frighten, and to force her and her fiance to waive their rights," they added.

They also questioned "the seriousness of the government's commitment to applying the national plan to combat violence against women."

"Rape as a means of repression is still practised in Tunisia," a coalition of leftwing opposition parties said separately, calling for a law to protect "Tunisian men and women against all forms of physical, moral and sexual violence."

MP Karima Souid, who belongs to Ettakatol, a centre-left group that partners the Islamist party Ennahda in Tunisia's ruling coalition, condemned her party's support for the government in protest at the proceedings against the rape victim.

"I completely dissociate myself from this government. The rape case and the summoning of the victim this morning is the last straw," she wrote on Facebook.

Interior ministry spokesman Khaled Tarrouche said that the ministry "had nothing to do with" the proceedings against the young women, emphasising that the decision to summon her was taken by the magistrate.

"In this case, we acted as was required of us. What had to be done was done, and the three police agents were arrested straight away," he said, insisting that cases of police assaulting women were "isolated."

The justice ministry was not immediately reachable for comment.

Since the Islamists' rise to power after the revolution last year, Tunisian feminist groups have accused the police of regularly harassing women, by challenging them over their clothing, or when they go out at night unaccompanied by family members.

Ennahda also provoked a storm of protest for proposing an article in the new constitution that referred to the "complementarity" of men to women rather than their equality.

Many saw the proposed article, which was abandoned on Monday, as a ploy by the Islamists to reverse the principle of gender equality that made Tunisia a beacon of modernity in the Arab world when it was introduced six decades ago.

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The Obama Administration's flimsy explanation for the massacre in Libya continues to fall apart. "US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm," from FoxNews.com, September 27:

U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault.

The account that officials initially classified the attack as terrorism is sure to raise serious questions among lawmakers who have challenged the narrative the administration put out in the week following the strike. A few Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest the administration withheld key facts about the assault for political reasons....

One intelligence official clarified to Fox News that there was not a "definitive" lead on who might have been responsible for the Libya attacks in the immediate aftermath, though officials had an idea of the suspects.

"It's inaccurate to suggest that within the first 24 hours there was a definitive calling card and home address for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack. Potential suspects and data points emerge early on, but it still takes time to be certain who is responsible," the official said.

Curiously, Obama referred to "acts of terror" in his first public remarks about the attack. But from there, administration officials went on to blame the anti-Islam film. Rice was the most explicit in that explanation, insisting on a slew of Sunday shows that the attack was not pre-planned and was tied to the film.

Obama still has not publicly and specifically described the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

But top administration officials have gradually walked back Rice's version of events....

Clinton earlier this week called the attack terrorism, two weeks after the fact. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also said that Obama now believes it is terrorism as well.

How reassuring!

| 2 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Canada's National Post takes aim at a word that is being used to stifle debate and destroy foes of jihad and Islamic supremacism. "Opinion: Stop calling criticism of Islam ‘Islamophobia,’" by Jackson Doughart and Faisal Saeed al-Mutar in the National Post, September 26:

The English language needs a moratorium on the word Islamophobia, a term often used to describe bigotry against Muslims. Unfortunately, it is also used reflexively to denounce critics of Islam, who contribute to a valuable and ongoing debate concerning the relationship between the West and the worldwide Islamic community. This subject is important because several Western countries, such as Denmark, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, are being forced to reconsider their approaches to immigration and culture in light of deep clashes between the Muslim immigrants and the native population. These tensions have captured much attention in recent weeks with the series of violent protests that have spread to over twenty countries, emanating from the controversial Innocence of Muslims film.

...But to accuse all opponents of Islam of harboring a deep-seated hatred, rooted in irrational fear, is a serious mistake, exemplified by the sweeping and liberal usage of Islamophobia. In fact, the only sentiment in this debate that could actually be described as phobic is the unconditional contempt among many Muslims for people who disagree with them. But one doubts that a formulation like “Infidelophobia” will gain traction anytime soon.

The strategic construction of “Islamophobia,” which is rooted in the word Islam and not Muslim, serves more than a mere lexical purpose. It is designed foremost to associate voluntary religious belief with involuntary skin color, appealing to widespread and legitimate revulsion to racial prejudice, and further to equate bigotry against Muslims with criticism of Islam, blurring any distinction between these two very different actions. While the prejudging of all Muslim citizens as suspicious and untrustworthy is indeed comparable with other forms of racial and religious bigotry, the study and refutation of Islam’s claims to moral and philosophical authority is a just and necessary enterprise, fully compatible with a pluralistic society that values religious liberty. This is because freedom of belief, if it is to have universal and consistent meaning, must include the freedom to criticize beliefs and believers — a concept that is foreign to the social and political world view of Islam....

In addition to “Islamophobia,” the earnest employment of the term blasphemy, and its advancement by Islam’s apologists as a tenable concept, is a clear enemy of open and secular society. Free expression, which constitutes the bedrock of the West’s process of deliberating controversial questions of value, cannot be balanced or reconciled with the idea of sacred and unchallengeable beliefs, since it contradicts the first principle of free speech: that even the most profane dissent must be protected. Most importantly, the creeping influence of terms like blasphemy and Islamophobia is undignifying to both Muslims and non-Muslims for two reasons. First, it colludes with Islam’s attempt to infantalize its adherents — convincing them that critical thought, especially about the matters of faith, is immoral. Second, it presumes that Muslims, particularly in the West, are not mature enough to handle criticism of their chosen beliefs, and that their subcultures are reducible to archaic texts and practices. This is the real injustice, involving the basest abandoning of scruple and succumbing to cowardice, and can only be rectified by ditching this thoroughly nonsensical expression.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"Obama's statements have caused a religious war" -- that is, his quite tepid statements mildly explaining that the U.S. valued the freedom of speech and thus could not outlaw blasphemy against Islam. Yet. "Pakistan Islamist accuses Obama of religious war on Muslims," by Aisha Chowdhry for Reuters, September 26:

(Reuters) - One of Pakistan's most feared Islamists accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of starting a religious war against Muslims over his handling of a video that mocked the Prophet Mohammad.

Hafiz Saeed, accused by India of masterminding the 2008 attack by Pakistani gunmen on India's financial capital Mumbai, said Obama should have ordered steps to remove the film from the Internet instead of defending freedom of expression in America.

"Obama's statements have caused a religious war," Saeed told Reuters in an interview. "This is a very sensitive issue. This is not going to be resolved soon. Obama's statement has started a cultural war."

The Obama administration has condemned the film, which ignited Muslim protests around the world as "disgusting".

But Western countries remain determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and have already voiced disquiet about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.

"Obama has said he cannot block the film," said Saeed. "What does that say?"

He said the United States should take tough action against the makers of the film.

"If not, then hand them to us," he said, flanked by bodyguards....

And now the U.S. has arrested the filmmaker. Will Obama hand him over to Saeed?

| 1 Comment
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Washington Square News is the student newspaper of New York University, but it is editorially and financially independent from the university, and has a circulation of about 60,000 in lower Manhattan -- one of the nation's foremost epicenters of the far Left. It is noteworthy and disquieting how quickly the restriction of the freedom of speech has become a fashionable opinion among the Leftist intelligentsia at universities and elsewhere, and how enthusiastically Leftists are embracing open foes of the freedom of speech like Reza Aslan and Mona Eltahawy as acceptable commentators on current events and even as heroes. Left fascism like that displayed by Aslan and Eltahawy increasingly threatens the freedom of all Americans.

"Have we taken free speech too far?," by Faria Mardhani in Washington Square News, September 26:

As of this week, anti-Islamic ads reading, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad” are legally being displayed in subways across New York City.

The ads are funded by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an organization co-founded by Pamela Geller who also co-founded the Stop Islamization of America.

Before discussing the implications of the ad, it is essential to clarify that these ads are anti-Islamic and not just pro-Israel. The Arab-Israeli conflict is fundamentally a political conflict: It is a conflict over lands that both parties consider rightfully their own. This ad is playing on the fact that the states that support Palestine militarily are a majority-Muslim; using the terms Jihad and Islam interchangeably. The ad is portraying the conflict as essentially religious rather than political, but what is most infuriating is that it is likening an entire faith to savagery.

This common claim doesn't become true by being oft-repeated. The ad doesn't actually mention Islam, so the assertion that it is "using the terms Jihad and Islam interchangeably" is in Faria Mardhani's mind, not in reality. Anyway, even if it were, would that really matter? Lost in the discussion is the question of whether the jihad against Israel, which is rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, is indeed savage, with its attacks on innocent civilians and gleeful celebration of those attacks by the populace.

The ad goes much further than only discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. It sends an insulting message about Muslims worldwide. If we assume the ad is using Jihad and Islam interchangeably, it implies:

1. The battle for Israel is a war against all Muslims.
2. All Muslims are savages.
3. All Muslims are anti-Israel.
4. The term Jihad can loosely be defined as the Palestinian perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Absolutely none of this is implied in the ad. As Pamela Geller has often pointed out, if peaceful Muslims really oppose the violence that is being committed in the name of jihad and Islam, they should be standing with us. That they do not is telling.

The FDI incorrectly defines Jihad as a general Holy War without understanding the many facets of the true meaning of Jihad and the restrictions Islam places on Muslims concerning violence. They clearly lack accurate information about Islam and are hoping to prevent others from obtaining it with these ads.

I am all for people obtaining accurate information about Islam. I've written twelve books full of accurate information about Islam. The ad is not a treatise on jihad. All of this about "the restrictions Islam places on Muslims concerning violence" is irrelevant. The ad asks people to support Israel instead of supporting the savage jihad against it. That's all.

Although the Metropolitan Transportation Authority appealed the ads, a District Court Judge legalized the advertisements on the basis of the First Amendment. The United States is one of the only democracies in the world that does not prohibit hate speech that incites animosity toward certain groups of people even though acts like this are clearly insulting the spirit of the First Amendment. The U.S. legal system’s refusal to accept this minimizes equality among Americans and reduces America’s sense of democracy.

Note the Orwellian leap of logic: the less free people are to say what they think, the more democracy we will have. This is the Leftist and Islamic supremacist vision of democracy; it is rather akin to the elections held in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, when the ruling party would garner 99% of the votes.

If any group is targeted by hate speech, its dignity and its right to self-respect is not being protected by national law. These ads are framing Muslims and Americans as two groups with irreconcilable differences, categorizing Muslim Americans as non-Americans. The ads minimize the true citizenship that Muslims hold in America and subject Muslims to hostility, violence and discrimination. This is a clear lack of social security.

No one is guaranteed "dignity" and a "right to self-respect" by "national law." This is Sharia language, not American language: we see Islamic supremacists day in and day out in reports I post at Jihad Watch demanding respect, and brutalizing those whom they think are not giving it to them. If some group is guaranteed "dignity" and a "right to self-respect" by law, then by law it can censor what it believes impugns its dignity and self-respect. This group thus becomes a protected class that can carry out its agenda unimpeded by criticism or resistance. And that is the overall agenda here: to establish Muslims in just that position.

Several groups have been marginalized by regrettable actions in America’s history, including the open persecution of Jews, the Japanese, African-Americans and homosexuals. In all four cases, the disregarded group was only afforded second-class citizenship. These ads will prove that the U.S. legal system has not left that America in the past. The ads will open the door to more outright persecution of Muslims, providing an extension of colonization, of Orientalism and of imperialism. They will lead to the west and the east having a true “Clash of Civilizations” and delaying the process of learning about each other.

Hysteria: calling for resistance to jihad savagery, such as the cold-blooded murder of the Fogel family in Egypt, is opening the door to persecution of Muslims. Therefore we must not resist jihad savagery, and all will be well. Won't it?

The decision that the United States must now make is whether hate speech like this should be legal. Do values of free speech override the values of equality and of preventing profound personal offense to any singular group? Was the First Amendment passed with the intention of grouping very diverse people into one entity and then vilifying them? Living in America, we are constantly valorizing free speech, and in my opinion, this makes it easier to trample over other values. We must not forget that the United States is first a democracy that promises to protect all of its citizens and treat them with equality. An ad like this inherently creates a hierarchy within society, placing the civilized man or American at the top and the savage or the Muslim underneath. If the U.S. government is willing to overlook the dignity of Muslims to uphold what the FDI chooses to call free speech, it has very clearly failed to be a true democracy and protect its citizens.

There is the call: jettison the First Amendment. And make no mistake: this is coming, unless we act strenuously now to defend it and resist these calls for authoritarianism wherever and whenever they appear.

| 12 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The deeply corrupt and compromised paper did not, of course, call them pro-freedom ads, but it is noteworthy that the Post has broken ranks with the foes of free speech that are getting more vocal every day -- at least for now.

"Metro should end its delay of running ‘Defeat Jihad’ ad," by the Washington Post Editorial Board, September 24:

NOTHING IN THE ad that the American Freedom Defense Initiative wants to place on local buses and trains in the Washington area violates Metro’s scant guidelines on advertising, which ban false or misleading ads and not much else. The group’s ad reads, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

That message may be seen as inflammatory, obnoxious or hateful but, as a federal judge noted in July in ordering New York’s subway system to accept the ad, it is protected speech under the First Amendment.

There is nothing inflammatory, obnoxious or hateful about standing up against the violent jihad against innocent civilians, except to people who think that jihad is not really all that bad.

So it is unlikely that Metro’s decision to “defer” placing the ad on buses and trains will survive a lawsuit brought by the sponsoring group. Nor does Metro’s stated rationale — a spokesman said that Metro wanted to wait “out of concern for public safety, given current world events” — seem likely to hold much water in a constitutional debate.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about restricting freedom of speech because some murderous thugs may go ape if we exercise it.

Like other incendiary advertising, and like the vile YouTube video that has sparked protests in the Muslim world, the ad degrades public debate and civic life. It could be read as labeling all of Israel’s adversaries as “savages,” vilifying them under the label of “jihad.” Even if you equate the word “jihad” with holy war or terrorism, which many Muslims do not, it is a fact that Israel’s detractors include plenty of people who are every bit as “civilized” as Israelis.

It "could be read" that way, because Leftists and Islamic supremacists insist that that is what the ad means. Their opinion, however, contrary to media assumptions, is not equivalent to established fact.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative is considered a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered by freedom-loving Americans to be a hate group and Leftist fundraising machine dedicated to defaming and demonizing voices on the Right that it dislikes.

| No Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)." -- Bukhari 7.62.88

Muhammad being the supreme example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur'an 33:21), child marriage is sanctioned by his example. So it is no surprise that Muslim Brotherhood Egypt would be considering legalizing it.

"Egypt: NCW Rejects Marriage of Nine-Year-Old Girls," from Egypt State Information Service via AllAfrica.com, September 19:

The National Council for Women (NCW) has expressed its profound dismay at statements made by some members of the Constituent Assembly in charge of writing Egypt's new constitution on the possibility of sanctioning marriage of sexually mature girls even if they were at the age of nine.

The NCW described such viewpoint as a setback to child rights and is only expressive of outdated traditions still prevailing in the Egyptian society.

| 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 27, 2012

Tonight on the Michael Coren Show on Sun TV, Michael and I discussed Mona Elttahawy's fascist vandalism and other issues.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

According to Al Masry Al Youm, Kasr El-Dobara, the largest evangelical church in the Middle East, located in Egypt, was recently besieged by “unknown people” hurling “stones and gas bombs.” The first gas bomb thrown at the church Thursday afternoon, September 13, was signaled as an error by police, but it was soon followed by other bomb attacks, which went into midnight and early Friday. Worshippers locked themselves inside the church and put on masks to avoid gas poisoning.

Some of those trapped inside looked for help by trying to contact politicians, journalists, and even the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood. All the latter did was announce on TV that the attackers were not members of the Muslim Brotherhood. After the besiegers left and the trapped Christians finally came out, not a single police or security agent to counter the attacks or protect the church could be found.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula apparently deceived many people in order to get his crude movie made. It has even been suggested that he is a jihadist who made the movie in order to provide a provocation that Islamic supremacists could use to push for destruction of the freedom of speech. But no matter who he really is, no matter how terrible of a man he may be, no matter how checkered his past or present or both may be, make no mistake: he is a political prisoner. He has been arrested not for the technicality of the probation violation, but for insulting Muhammad. His arrest is a symbol of America's capitulation to the Sharia.

The protests are not about the film. The protests are to intimidate the U.S. into criminalizing criticism of Islam. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.

"Man behind anti-Islam film arrested, authorities say," from the Associated Press, September 27 (thanks to Daisy Khan):

LOS ANGELES – The California man behind a crudely produced anti-Islamic video that has inflamed parts of the Middle East was arrested Thursday for violating terms of his probation, authorities said.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, has been on probation for a 2010 federal check fraud conviction that brought a 21-month prison sentence. Under terms of his probation, he was not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

Nakoula was taken into custody Thursday, said U.S. Attorney's spokesman Thomas Mrozek.

A U.S. District Court hearing was scheduled for Nakoula on Thursday afternoon. It was closed to media and the public....

| 53 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Jamie Glazov is the son of freedom fighters who combated Soviet tyranny, and he knows very well what a society looks like when citizens do not have freedom. In this appearance on Michael Coren's superb Sun TV show, he discusses how Obama is kowtowing before violent Islamic supremacist intimidation, Islamic antisemitism and its potential genocidal implications in connection with Iran and Israel, the Muslim persecution of Christians, and what the President of the United States should and must do in order to preserve the freedom of speech and our other freedoms. If only his words were heeded.

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
netanyahu_UN.jpgAP's scurrilous photo, clearly trying to invite Hitler comparisons


A real leader makes a strong moral stand against jihadist savagery. "Netanyahu: 'We will never be uprooted again,'" from FoxNews.com, September 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a rebuke to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, vowed Thursday during an address to the U.N. General Assembly that the Jewish people "will never be uprooted again."

Netanyahu started his address by telling the history of the Jewish people and their ties to the land of Israel.

"Throughout our history the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who sought our destruction," he said. "The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again."

The prime minister was speaking amid concerns in Israel that it may be running out to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power and threatening Israel's existence.

It also comes amid tensions between the Obama administration and his own over that issue.

Netanyahu's demand that President Obama declare "red lines" that would trigger an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has been rejected in Washington and sparked a public rift between the two leaders.

Further, Obama did not meet with Netanyahu this week during his visit to the U.N., drawing rebukes from pro-Israel Republicans in Washington....

A few hours before Netanyahu flew to the U.S., Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at length about his vision for a "new world order" during his speech at the U.N. His speech on Wednesday happened to fall on Yom Kippur, the most sacred day on the Jewish calendar, devoted to fasting, prayer and introspection.

Netanyahu issued a statement condemning the speech soon after the fast ended. "On the day when we pray to be inscribed in the book of life a platform was given to a dictatorial regime that strives, at every opportunity, to sentence us to death," Netanyahu said.

Indeed.

| 33 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Here's a surprise. Pamela Geller has the story:

Contrary to the conventional "wisdom," the MTA board did not change its ad policy and block political advertising because of our anti-jihad ad. Despite critical media and the howling mob of miscreants, political, cause-related ads will run. The agenda of the MTA meeting was to "overhaul subway ad policies," according to big media (ABC, WSJ). The good news is that the enemedia was wrong. There was no such overhaul.

All political ads will have to have a disclaimer, but as long as this is applied evenhandedly to all ads, not just to ones the MTA or PC police or sharia enforcers don't like, it's fine. Fascist Islamic supremacists like Mona Eltahawy will have to invest in a whole lot more spray paint, because we're going to keep speaking out for freedom and truth.

My coverage of the #OWS freak show here: #Savage Enemies of Free Speech Descend, Disrupt MTA Board Meeting Considering Ad Policy Overhaul

MTA Board Tweaks  Advertising Standards

At its regularly scheduled meeting today, the MTA Board modified the MTA’s Advertising Standards, which were last addressed by the Board in 1997.

The modification was prompted by a recent federal court decision that determined that MTA’s “no demeaning standard – a standard that had prohibited ads containing “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation – was unconstitutional.  

In determining how best to respond to the court’s decision, the MTA considered limiting the use of ad spaces in and on buses, subways, trains and stations across the board to ads of a commercial nature.  However, many board members believed that ad space in our transportation system, in addition to serving as a very important source of supplemental revenues to support transportation, should continue to serve as a vehicle for a wide variety of communications, including ads of a non-commercial nature that express viewpoints on matters of public concern. 

Accordingly, the MTA Board has decided to continue its policy of permitting both commercial and noncommercial advertisements, including ads expressing viewpoints on issues of the day. Of course, paid viewpoint ads contain the views of their sponsors, and we want to make sure that our customers do not confuse them with expression of MTA’s views. To underscore the point, our revised advertising policy will require sponsors who submit viewpoint ads on political, religious or moral issues or related matters to include a disclaimer on each such ad that makes this clear. Each such ad will be required to prominently include this disclaimer:

This is a paid advertisement sponsored by [Sponsor]. The display of this advertisement does not imply MTA’s endorsement of any views expressed.

To be clear, the MTA does not believe the First Amendment compels the MTA to open up its ad spaces in this way to a wide range of expressive communications. MTA could, for example, adopt a narrower commercially oriented ad policy, one that limited the range of ads it will display to those selling a product or service, and by doing so, avoid having to run demeaning or divisive ads such as the AFDI ad that resulted in litigation. But the MTA for decades has permitted its ad spaces to serve a broader communicative function than mere commercial advertising, and the Board, today reaffirms that tradition of tolerating a wide spectrum of types of ads, including ads that express views on a wide range of public matters. 

With that choice also come First Amendment limitations that constrain the MTA’s ability to disallow particular ads because their messages are uncivil or divisive. We had thought this did not mean having to run divisive ads that demeaned others, but the recent litigation tells us otherwise. A cost of opening our ad space to a variety of viewpoints on matters of public concern is that we cannot readily close that space to certain advertisements on account of their expression of divisive or even venomous messages.  

We deplore such hate messages and remain hopeful that the vast majority of advertisers in our buses,subways, trains and stationswill remain responsible and respectful of their audiences. And when, as there inevitably will be, a very few sponsors of ads stray from civility, we have every confidence that our customers will understand that in our enlightened civil democracy, the answer to distasteful and uncivil speech is more, and more civilized, speech.    

Download Fyi_fwmtaboardrevisesadvertisingstandards

Download NYC Subway 1-SHEET POSTER production specs 12-7-11 16

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

But don't call them "savages." That would be "racist." "Azerbaijanis jailed for Jewish school murder plot," from AP, September 27 (thanks to Kenneth):

BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) -- Three people have been convicted of plotting to kill teachers at a Jewish school in Azerbaijan.

A court in the capital Baku on Thursday found plot ringleader Rasim Aliyev and two other Azerbaijani citizens guilty of plotting the assassination of public officials and gun-smuggling. Aliyev was given a 14-year sentence while the others received 13 and eight years.

Investigators said Aliyev was hired to carry out the killings in Baku by an individual linked to security services in neighboring Iran.

Aliyev said in a televised confession that the attack was to be a reprisal against Israel for the assassination of an Iranian nuclear physicist....

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

This is the thuggery of the Left and the Islamic supremacists these days. From Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs:

I attended the MTA hearing this morning over whether they were going to change their policy to refuse all political ads (background here). The people who attended were for the most part OWS thugs, anarchists, and Jew-haters. They spoke as one violent and hateful voice, attacking the board members, attacking the system, attacking me, attacking everything they could.

OWS had sent out a notice earlier calling Eltahawy's anti-free speech fascist vandalism a "righteous act" and saying: "If it wasn't clear before, it is now obvious that the MTA is incapable of operating public transportation for the 99%." At the hearing, one OWS brownshirt said to the MTA Board: "You all would be shivering if you knew what's coming! Your days are numbered!"

In this poisonous atmosphere, I was grateful to be given the opportunity to speak. I explained the context of the ad, how it was a response to the anti-Israel ads that ran in the subways with no complaints. Of course, these free speech crushers did everything they could to shout me down. They were escorted out quickly.

I asked why this meeting had not taken place when not one, but numerous anti-Israel ads were up. That in itself shows an institutionalized, systemic anti-Israel bias. This is New York. They're worried about provoking jihadis? In 1993 there were no ads up, or cartoons or movies about Muhammad, but the World Trade Center got hit just the same. Nor were there any ads "offensive to Muslims" before 9/11.

They worried that the ads are "racist"? Jihad is not a race. I asked them to consider their decision very carefully -- I understand the pressure of the critical media and the howl of the mob. But the world is watching. As messy as this conversation is, this is the price of the freedom of speech. I asked them to stand for the freedom of speech, make the tough decision and do the right thing.

| 14 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

War on terror? What's that? The war on terror has been over for quite some time. No wonder we're losing it.

"17% Fewer Believe US Winning War on Terror Since Obama Inauguration," by Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart, September 26 (thanks to Benedict):

A recent survey of likely voters finds that pessimism about our success in the War on Terror "continues to grow" with only 45 percent saying they think the U.S. is winning that war, a 17-point drop from its one-time high of 62 percent in February 2009.

Rasmussen found that 45 percent think the U.S. is winning the war, 21 percent think the terrorists are winning, and 26 percent think that the neither side has an advantage. The 45 percent figure has dropped ten points since May of 2010.

The number of those who think the U.S. is winning has been steadily dropping since May of 2011.

Another Rasmussen poll finds that only 18 percent feel U.S. relations with the Muslim world are better now than four years ago....

| 12 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
Innocence.jpg


Birds of a feather. "Vandal Mona Eltahawy Retains Hamas #Savage Lawyer Stanley Cohen," by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, September 27:

Mona Eltahawy sprayed our AFDI pro-freedom ad with spray paint because she objected to the word "savages" being used of Islamic jihadists who murder Israeli civilians and celebrate their murders by passing out candy. Eltahawy describes herself as a "liberal Muslim," and everyone assumes that that means that she is worlds from the Muslims who commit such savagery, and only "Islamophobes" would consider them to be in the same camp. But now Eltahawy has retained Jewicidal leftist lawyer Stanley Cohen, who represents the Hamas savages, as her attorney in the criminal case against her for destroying my ad.

Six degrees of separation? This is no degree of separation. Eltahawy hates that I called the jihadis "savages" and then retains the savages' lawyer. Cohen says: “If I don’t support the politics of political clients, I don’t take the case.” So Eltahawy is a "liberal Muslim" who is outraged that I called jihadi "savages," and she has a lawyer who supports jihad terror against innocent Israeli civilians, the bloody murder of the Fogel family, the mass murders of Israeli civilians in buses and restaurants, etc.

Lawyer for Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-American writer busted for spray-painting pro-Israel subway ad, calls action free speech Janon Fisher and Pete Donahue, New York Daily News, September 26

A lawyer for an Egyptian-American columnist charged with spray-painting over a pro-Israel subway ad used an odd hypothetical example to argue his client was merely exercising her right to free speech.

“My client decided to take a stand based on principle,” Stanley Cohen said of Mona Eltahawy, who was arraigned on misdemeanor charges, including criminal mischief, in Manhattan Wednesday. The ad she defaced implies Muslims are savages.

“I wonder how New Yorkers would react to a poster with an oven that said, ‘Not enough Jews,’ ” Cohen reasoned.

Cohen "reasoned"? More like "Cohen viciously propagandized." My ad doesn't call for killing anyone. It doesn't justify violence, it denounces violence. It never mentions Islam or Muslims. For Cohen to make this invidious comparison shows what he is all about.

But his true colors were abundantly clear already. Cohen has made other vile comparisons before, invoking the Holocaust to argue for giving jihad terrorists a break. He also attended the Al-Quds International Forum in Istanbul, where Hamas and Hizballah were also present, and speakers demanded that Jerusalem be seized from Israel by force. And here is more from Discover the Networks:

In his office today, Cohen displays a picture of himself alongside the late Sheik Ahmed Yassin, former spiritual leader of the terrorist group Hamas. In Cohen’s view, Hamas is an organization composed of freedom fighters and martyrs who nobly give their lives in the pursuit of liberty and justice.

In 1995 Cohen aided Hamas’ senior political leader, Moussa Mohammed Abu Marzook -- who co-founded both the Islamic Association for Palestine and the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development -- in his legal battle against extradition from the U.S. to Israel. Cohen visited Marzook almost nightly in his jail cell for nearly two years, and ultimately mounted a successful defense for his client. “If I don't support the politics of political clients,” said Cohen, “I don't take the case.”

Also in the 1990s, Cohen, Kunstler, and Stewart teamed with Ramsey Clark to defend Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and leader of the Islamic Group, an Egypt-based terrorist organization with close links to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

Cohen also has represented members of the Peruvian terror group Shining Path; the cop-killer and leftist icon Mumia Abu-Jamal; a militant Muslim charged with torching a New York synagogue; Moataz Al-Hallak, an imam from Texas with suspected ties to al-Qaeda; Imam Kariye, a black Muslim suspected of terrorism; Hazem Ragab, who co-founded the Global Relief Foundation and was named as a co-conspirator to the 9/11 attacks; and Abdelhaleem Ashqar and Ismail Elbarasse, both of whom refused to testify before a grand jury investigating allegations of money laundering in support of Hamas. Moreover, Cohen has asserted that the confessed traitor John Walker Lindh, who went to Afghanistan to fight against American troops in 2001, was innocent.

Immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Cohen told the Village Voice, “If Osama bin Laden arrived in the United States today and asked me to represent him, sure I'd represent him.”

Mona Eltahawy will have to do for now.

| 14 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Don't they know that jihad has nothing to do with fighting hot wars, and that Sharia is benign and fully compatible with Western principles of human rights? Imam Rauf, call your office! "Islamist lobby group threatens 'Jihad' against Sudan government over constitution," from the Sudan Tribune, September 25 (thanks to Wimpy):

September 25, 2012 (KHARTOUM) – A coalition of Sudanese Islamist groups has threatened to declare Jihad against the government if it refuses their demands a constitution based on Islamic Shari’a law.

The threat by the Islamic Constitution Front (ICF), a group of Islamist political parties and individuals lobbying the government to create an Islamic constitution, comes after the country’s president Omer Al-Bashir announced on 13 July the formation of a committee comprising unidentified “religious scholars and experts in law, politics and economic” tasked to draft a permanent constitution for the predominantly Muslim country following the secession of the mainly Christian South Sudan in 2011.

ICF’s Chairman Al-Sadiq Abduall Abdel Majid declared, in a statement released on Tuesday, their group’s rejection to the constitution committee and demanded that the government holds a plebiscite on the process of constitution-creation.

In the same statement, ICF’s Secretary-General Nasir Al-Sayed threatened that they might resort to “Jihad” against the government by mobilizing the public to protest in demand of an Islamic constitution.

Al-Sayed also slammed the constitution-drafting committee, describing it as a group of non-achieving technocrats who lack the qualifications to “determine the fate of millions of Muslims”.

This is not first time that the ICF has attempted to bully the government over the Islamic constitution issue. It previously threatened to depose President Al-Bashir if the government fails to act on their demands.

ICF’s statement stressed that the government has no excuse to use for wriggling out of the Islamic constitution, after the secession of South Sudan whose population is largely Christian although many practice traditional African beliefs. The ICF claim that 97% of Sudanese are Muslim, although it is unclear what date this figure is based on.

The group further accused the government of trying to circumvent their demands for an Islamic constitution in order to ingratiate itself with the West and respond to pressure from foreign investment corporations.

ICF is composed of several Islamist group and individuals mostly representing Salafist groups and individuals and far-right political parties such as the Just Peace Forum (JPF) led by President Al-Bashir’s uncle Al-Tayyeb Mustafa.

Al-Bashir, himself an Islamist, has already made several statements confirming that Sudan’s upcoming constitution will reflect the country’s Islamic and Arab identity....

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Christians will not, of course, riot over this. Christians realize that the Muslim cleric who destroyed this copy of the New Testament has harmed neither them nor the New Testament, and that to harm or kill innocent people because of this would be criminal madness. And as for his being charged with blasphemy, while it is good to see that Muslim Brotherhood Egypt is willing to enforce its blasphemy laws even against Muslims, blasphemy should not be a matter of criminal law anywhere: it is too much a matter of judgment rather than an objective reality, and it risks establishing an ideology as protected from criticism, which is the road to tyranny.

"Blasphemy or democracy? Egypt cleric tears up, burns New Testament at US Embassy," by Ayman Mohyeldin for NBC News, September 26

Updated at 3:49 a.m. ET: CAIRO – An ultra-conservative Islamist cleric in Egypt faces charges of blasphemy after he allegedly tore up and burned copies of the New Testament at a protest in front of the American Embassy in Cairo.

Ahmed Mohammed Mahmoud Abdallah, also known as Sheikh Abu Islam, is part owner of a private ultra-conservative Islamic TV station known as Al Uma and was participating in demonstrations against a U.S.-made movie denigrating the Prophet Muhammad that swept the Muslim world in the last month.

Egypt’s General Prosecutor accused Abu Islam and his son, the channel's executive director, of insulting religion – in this case Christianity.

The case is a rare example of the country’s often-criticized blasphemy laws being used against someone who allegedly insulted a religion that is not Islam. That trial is scheduled to begin September 30.....

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

AhmadinejadMorsi.jpg


Destroy Israel and free speech, and all will be well. My piece in FrontPage this morning:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mohammed Morsi, arguably the foremost exponents today of Sharia rule, both spoke at the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, and their speeches together amounted to an Islamic supremacist wish list for the world.

The foremost item on their list, not surprisingly, was the destruction of Israel, although both knew better in the glare of international media than to state their aspirations quite so baldly.

Ahmadinejad drenched his address in Islamic piety, beginning with a traditional Islamic invocation: “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. All Praise Belongs to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and May Peace and Blessings be upon the Greatest and Trustworthy Prophet and His Pure Progeny, His Chosen Companions, and upon all Divine Messengers. Oh, God, Hasten the Emergence of Your Chosen Beloved, Grant Him Good Health and Victory, Make us His Best Companions, and all those who attest to His Rightfulness.” And then: “I thank the Almighty God for having once more the chance to participate in this meeting. We have gathered here to ponder and work together for building a better life for the entire human community and for our nations.”

And how can we work together for building a better life? Ahmadinejad ticked off a list of things that he posited had interfered with international brotherhood and harmony, including “egoism, distrust, malicious behaviors, and dictatorships,” as well as the Dark Ages and the Crusades (although he didn’t mention the centuries of murderous jihad warfare all over the globe).

His list culminated with his principal bogeys, the chief things he believed interfered with global peace: “the occupation of Palestine and imposition of a fake government”; Saddam Hussein’s “invasion” of Iran; 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a host of others. Among them, he complained about the supposed denial of “the right to criticize the hegemonic policies and actions of the world Zionism.” It was hard not to wonder at such moments in his speech what planet he was on, since the Palestinian jihadist propaganda machine has had such success in demonizing Israel in the world media; but of course a linchpin of that success has been to complain that the situation is exactly the opposite, and so that is what Ahmadinejad did in New York Wednesday.

In a speech that was heavy on Islamic proselytizing, after his survey of the world’s ills Ahmadinejad asked: “Does anybody believe that continuation of the current order is capable of bringing happiness for human society?” And further: “Who is responsible for all these sufferings and failures?” He left that question unanswered at that point, although at another point he railed against the “uncivilized Zionists,” and he went on to delineate his prescription: “There is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and a fresh way of thinking.” Foremost this would be “an order in which man is recognized as God’s Supreme Creature, enjoying material and spiritual qualities and possessing a pure and divine nature filled with a desire to seek justice and truth.” Consequently he called upon the nations to “place our trust in God Almighty and stand against the acquisitive minority” – in other words, to adopt Sharia and stand against Israel.

There is more.

| 17 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Just in case you thought this was over. "Hundreds In Crimea Protest Anti-Islam Film," from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, September 27 (thanks to Twostellas):

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine -- Hundreds of people have rallied in Simferopol -- the capital of Ukraine's Autonomous Republic of Crimea, to protest a U.S.-made video denigrating the Islamic Prophet Muhammad.

The protesters, mainly Crimean Tatars, chanted, "There is No God, but God and Muhammad is His Messenger!"

They were holding placards, one of which read, "America, Muhammad is Clean, You Are Humiliated!"

A similar protest was held by Tatar activists in the capital of Russia's Republic of Tatarstan, Kazan, on September 26....

| 15 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 26, 2012

Is KSTE self-enforcing Sharia? Certainly that is the way the wind is blowing these days. "Armstrong & Getty absent from Sacramento live radio amid controversy over Muslims," by Cynthia Hubert for the Sacramento Bee, September 26:

Popular talk radio show hosts Armstrong & Getty were absent from Clear Channel's live programming Tuesday amid controversy around one of the hosts' on-air comments about Muslims.

KSTE (650 AM) aired a previously recorded "Best Of" morning show on Tuesday instead of its regularly scheduled live program featuring Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Officials for the Sacramento station and its owner, Clear Channel Media and Entertainment, offered no explanation for the change, sparking questions and heated comments among fans on the show's Facebook page.

During an on-air discussion Monday, Armstrong criticized the United States for what he characterized as apologizing for a crude YouTube video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and sparked anti-U.S. uprisings around the globe. He urged listeners to make their own "anti-Muhammad ads" and post them to Al-Jazeera, the Arabic news network. "We need to bombard them with ads until they grow up," he said.

Armstrong did not return a phone message from The Bee on Tuesday, and Clear Channel spokesman Dave Milner said, "We do not have any information at this time" about the hosts and their future at KSTE.

The program, which airs weekday mornings, features the hosts taking calls from the public and offering social commentary and humorous anecdotes about everything from celebrity sex to politics.

The show's fans spoke out on Armstrong & Getty's Facebook page Tuesday, questioning why they were absent from the live broadcast and accusing the channel of censorship.

"Attention Clear Channel Cowards: Are you really afraid that both Muslims in Sacramento are going to picket the station, or boycott all of your advertisers selling prayer rugs? Really?" wrote one Facebook poster.

He and others said they were prepared to protest if Armstrong and Getty were suspended or fired for Monday's remarks.

Other posters defended the channel's right to censor content that it deemed offensive.

The Sacramento [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights group, has decided to steer clear of the controversy, said executive director Basim Elkarra.

"They're just doing it for ratings," he said of Armstrong's remarks about Muslims.

"Of course, we don't like some of their attacks," Elkarra said of the radio hosts. "But we respect freedom of speech."

Sure you do.

| 43 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Or else. "Yudhoyono touts blasphemy ban at UN," by Bagus BT Saragih for The Jakarta Post, September 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Indonesia is calling on the UN’s member states to adopt a legally binding instrument to ban blasphemy against religious symbols and to promote dialogue between different faiths, civilizations and cultures.

Speaking before hundreds of world leaders at the UN General Assembly, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said such an instrument was needed to prevent incitements to violence based on religion.

“This instrument, a product of international consensus, shall serve as a point of reference that the world community must comply with,” Yudhoyono said.

In addition, the President said that a dialogue was needed to build cooperation globally.

“These communities will become bulwarks for peace and they will make it difficult, if not impossible, for any kind of armed conflict to erupt,” Yudhoyono said....

In other words, pass international Sharia blasphemy laws, and the riots will stop. But the implication is that if we maintain free speech, more "armed conflicts" will erupt. This shows, as I have pointed out many times, how the violent jihad and the stealth jihad work hand-in-hand, and are two related and mutually dependent aspects of the same initiative.

The President said that the defamation of different religions has persisted, mentioning Innocence of Muslims, the US-made film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad that has caused an international uproar and spawned riots that have claimed several lives.

"Different religions"? Come on, Bambang. Only Muslims care.

The President said that the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights underlined that all people must observe morality and public order in exercising their freedom of expression.

“Freedom of expression is therefore not absolute,” Yudhoyono said in an address that principally focused on global security....

| 27 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Destroy free speech and criminalize criticism of Islam is the Muslim theme at this session of the General Assembly. "Pakistani President blames the West," from DW, September 26 (thanks to Kalb):

Asif Ali Zardari has denounced an anti-Islam film in his address to the UN General Assembly and called for an international ban on it. Analysts say that the Pakistani president's demand is hypocritical.

On Tuesday, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari began his General Assembly speech by denouncing the US-made anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims" and asked world leaders to ban the controversial movie and other "hate material" against the Prophet of Islam.

The low-budget movie sparked violent protests in many Muslim countries. Apart from protests in the Middle East, Islamic parties in many South Asian countries held rallies to speak out against the video and the US government.

In Pakistan, the ruling Pakistan People's Party's government - led by President Zardari - announced an official holiday on Friday, September 21, to show solidarity with the Prophet of Islam and to protest against the film. At least 19 people were killed during these protests as violent mobs set public property on fire, also torching a church in the northern city of Mardan, and various US establishments.

Free speech

"President Zardari's comments about the 'Innocence of Muslims' were aimed more towards his own countrymen than the West," Snehal Shingavi, a South Asia expert at the University of Texas in Austin, told DW in an interview. "By appearing to defend Islam, he [Zardari] tries to appease the Pakistanis who feel that the film was blasphemous."

But political observers and rights organizations say that Pakistan's own record against curbing hatred against the country's religious and sectarian minorities is not so envious, and that President Zardari's demand that the movie be banned worldwide is therefore hypocritical.

"By declaring a national holiday in support of the protests against the film, the PPP unleashed a wave of violence that included attacks on minorities ... Zardari gave official cover to right-wing Islamic parties and made things much more difficult for minorities in Pakistan," Shingavi said.

Human rights organizations point out that there is legal and cultural discrimination against religious minorities in Pakistan, which, in their opinion, is one the major causes of discrimination of Pakistani minority groups. They also say that Islamist groups propagate hate material against religious minorities on a regular basis and that Pakistani authorities do nothing to stop it.

But Ali K Chishti, a Karachi-based political analyst, said President Zardari's demand was justified.

"I think there has to be an international law which stops the spread of such hateful material. The President of Pakistan was voicing the sentiments of all Muslims - not only Pakistanis," he told DW....

Chisti must be a greasy Islamophobe. Everyone knows that only greasy Islamophobes think Islam is a monolith, such that anything at all can be predicated of "all Muslims."

Zardari also spoke about his country's role in the fight against terrorism at the UN. He said that his country had suffered enough in the "war on terror," and that the international community had no right to ask Pakistan to do more.

USofficials [sic] have long accused Islamabad of backing various factions of the Taliban and other Islamist extremists. Many "Af-Pak" experts maintain that the Taliban are Islamabad's favorites, and that the Pakistani military's spy agency - the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) - uses them as a bargaining tool for its influence in Afghanistan. Islamabad denies these allegations.

The US accuses Islamabad of covertly supporting the militant Haqqani network

"No country and no people have suffered more in the epic struggle against terrorism than Pakistan," Zardari insisted before the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, September 25. "To those who say we have not done enough, I say in all humility: Please do not insult the memory of our dead, and the pain of our living. Do not ask of my people what no one has ever asked of any other people," he said....

What? Loyalty to the country that financially supports yours, and of which you are putatively an ally? Basic decency? What exactly is too much to ask?

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Because it allows for the freedom of speech. Let's hope that Larijani still has reason to be upset about this in three or four years, and that the First Amendment hasn't been effectively gutted so as to fight the government- and media-designated forces of "hate." "Judiciary Chief Describes US Constitution as Law of Barbarism," from the Fars News Agency, September 26 (thanks to Wimpy):

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani condemned Washington's defiant reaction to the recent insult to Islam's Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in a US movie, and said the US constitution which allows such shameless acts against other religions resembles the "laws of barbarism".

"What kind of a constitution allows the US president to dispatch forces to the Muslim countries and shed the blood of the people only on the basis of unfounded claims of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) (in Iraq) but avoids his (the president) condemnation of insult to the holiest and the most spiritual person of the universe," Ayatollah Amoli Larijani said on Wednesday.

"With such contradictions, the (US) Constitution is the law of barbarism," he added.

Earlier this month, Amoli Larijani asked Muslim states and nations to show a united reaction to the recent blasphemous US-Israeli movie against Islam's Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

Addressing senior judiciary officials here in Tehran last Wednesday, Ayatollah Larijani described the recent insult to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) as a "great test for all Muslims, specially for Islamic governments".

"Through their collective protest, Muslims of the world should show to the ill-wishers and enemies how heavy the costs of such insults (to Islam) will be for them so that no one would dare ever again to do such shameless acts against Muslims," he said, and meantime, cautioned of the negative outcomes of Muslims' inaction for Islamic states in future....

In Iran, millions of Iranians in Tehran and other cities across the country held nationwide rallies in protest against the recent desecration of Islam.

The Iranian protesters chanted "Death to the US" and "Death to Israel" slogans, expressing disgust at the US and the Zionist regime's anti-Islam policies.

| 24 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Freedom of expression must come with "responsibility" -- i.e. it must be restricted in accord with Sharia. "Egypt's new President Morsi debuts at UN," from AP, September 26 (thanks to Kuzz):

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Egypt's new President Mohammed Morsi debuts at the United Nations on Wednesday with a speech that will be closely watched by world leaders for clues about his democratic intentions and plans for lifting his country out of crippling poverty.

Morsi, an Islamist and key figure in the once-banned Muslim Brotherhood, is the first democratically elected leader of the ancient land at the heart of the Arab world. He was sworn in June 30....

The Egyptian leader previewed his General Assembly remarks in a speech delivered Tuesday at former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative. Addressing the violence that raged across the Muslim world in response to a video produced in the U.S. that denigrated Islam's Prophet Muhammad, Morsi said freedom of expression must come with "responsibility."

He appeared to have been responding to President Barack Obama's General Assembly speech earlier Tuesday in which the U.S. leader again condemned the video but sternly defended the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of free speech....

Morsi did not explain what limitations he felt should be placed on free speech but said the video and the violent reaction to it demanded "reflection." He said freedom of expression must be linked with responsibility, "especially when it comes with serious implications for international peace and stability."

In other words, when we start killing you for what you say, stop saying it. Surrender to us.

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The Leftist media commits suicide, calling for an end to the First Amendment and surrender to Islamic supremacism -- as I wrote about here. And these would-be dhimmi slaves want to take us down with them.

"The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment: The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech," by Eric Posner at Slate, September 25 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

The universal response in the United States to the uproar over the anti-Muslim video is that the Muslim world will just have to get used to freedom of expression. President Obama said so himself in a speech at the United Nations today, which included both a strong defense of the First Amendment and (“in the alternative,” as lawyers say) and a plea that the United States is helpless anyway when it comes to controlling information. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them. Muslims need to grow a thick skin, the thinking goes, as believers in the West have done over the centuries. Perhaps they will even learn what it means to live in a free society, and adopt something like the First Amendment in their own countries.

But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point....

Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism. During the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy establishment urged civil rights reform in order to counter Soviet propagandists’ gleeful reports that Americans fire-hosed black protesters and state police arrested African diplomats who violated Jim Crow laws. Rather than tell the rest of the world to respect states’ rights—an ideal as sacred in its day as free speech is now—the national government assured foreigners that it sought to correct a serious but deeply entrenched problem. It is useful if discomfiting to consider that many people around the world may see America’s official indifference to Muslim (or any religious) sensibilities as similar to its indifference to racial discrimination before the civil rights era.

The final irony is that while the White House did no more than timidly plead with Google to check if the anti-Muslim video violates its policies (appeasement! shout the critics), Google itself approached the controversy in the spirit of prudence. The company declined to remove the video from YouTube because the video did not attack a group (Muslims) but only attacked a religion (Islam). Yet it also cut off access to the video in countries such as Libya and Egypt where it caused violence or violated domestic law. This may have been a sensible middle ground, or perhaps Google should have done more. What is peculiar it that while reasonable people can disagree about whether a government should be able to curtail speech in order to safeguard its relations with foreign countries, the Google compromise is not one that the U.S. government could have directed. That’s because the First Amendment protects verbal attacks on groups as well as speech that causes violence (except direct incitement: the old cry of “Fire!” in a crowded theater). And so combining the liberal view that government should not interfere with political discourse, and the conservative view that government should not interfere with commerce, we end up with the bizarre principle that U.S. foreign policy interests cannot justify any restrictions on speech whatsoever. Instead, only the profit-maximizing interests of a private American corporation can. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad.

In other words, surrender before they hit us again.

| 18 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

AbrahamEltahawy.jpg

Abraham.jpgAbraham: Civil rights for me, but not for thee


Christina Abraham, who describes herself as a "human rights enthusiast," apparently believes that only certain people deserve human rights, and that the free speech of those she hates can be denied and spray-painted over.

It's not surprising. Abraham is "Civil Rights Director" of Hamas-linked CAIR's Chicago gang -- and Hamas-linked CAIR has never been a friend of the freedom of speech. In calling for more brownshirt activity against our pro-freedom ads, she joins her New York colleague, Cyrus McGoldrick.

| 30 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"Beasts" -- OK, "savages" -- vile racism.

Islamic supremacist logic is so complicated!

Actually, as I explained here, I think Mona Eltahawy's fascist vandalism of our pro-freedom AFDI ads was her attempt to get back into the good graces of her Islamic supremacist friends and colleagues, who have sharply criticized her for months for her honest piece in Foreign Policy criticizing Islam's institutionalized mistreatment of women.

"Egyptian-American Journalist Mona Eltahawy call [sic] raping Egyptians ‘beasts’ — but accuse [sic] NY metro ads of racism and vandalise them," from The Muslim Issue, September 26:

...Mona Eltahawy was sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square in Egypt during the so called ‘freedom’ protests in 2011. In the video above, with her arm in a cast, she gives her weepy testimony to the assault she experienced and calls her Muslim sex assaulter’s [sic] “wild beasts finding their prey… I was called a whore…. nonstop whore. That’s what I was called” and states that sexual violence (amongst Muslims in Egypt) comes from police and from non-police and they need a revolution of mind. But Eltahawy accuses Pamela Geller of racism for calling brutal Jihad savagery. Jihad and the call to slaughter innocent people is not savagery? How humanitarian of Eltahawy. She sure has priorities to her staged human rights ideals, and free speech is clearly only permitted by herself but not permitted from non-Muslims....

| 40 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

But remember: don't call this "savage," or Mona Eltahawy will get you with her pink spray paint.

"ASIA/SYRIA - Rableh: 280 Christians held hostage," from Agenzia Fides, September 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Homs (Agenzia Fides) – Christians kidnapped in the village of Rableh, on the border with Lebanon, in western Syria, spreads: after the maxi kidnapping which occurred yesterday, of 150 people (see Fides article 25/9), today another 130 civilians were detained and kidnapped by armed gangs in the area, creating a group of 280 hostages. As local sources of Fides report, the hostages were crammed into a school in the village of Gousseh, while the kidnappers released the women that had been stopped previously. The armed kidnappers announced that they intend to wait for their head and then discuss any possible ransom.

In the Christian community of Rableh there is a lot of fear as yesterday three Christians, who had been kidnapped in the village of Said Naya a few days ago, were found murdered on the side of a road. According to a local priest, who asked to remain anonymous told Fides, "This is not a persecution, but a maneuver to spread suspicion and mistrust and incite sectarian war." The local committee of the "Mussalaha", is looking for dialogue and a peaceful solution. The point is that we are talking about "unidentified armed gangs and out of control, they act independently and are not connected to the Free Syrian Army. This makes any negotiations much more difficult, " observes our source. According to Fides sources, in Syria there are currently about 2,000 armed groups not related to the FSE, with their own agenda, that try to pollute the ongoing conflict between rebels and loyalists. (PA) (Agenzia Fides 25/09/2012)

| 8 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

But don't you dare call this "savage," or Mona Eltahawy will come after you with a can of pink spray paint.

"Senior Jihadi Writer Suggests Killing Westerners, Putting Their Decapitated Heads On Display To Silence Attempts To Mock Prophet Muhammad," from MEMRI, September 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

On September 18, 2012, Muhib Ru'yat Al-Rahman, a senior writer on leading jihadi forum Shumoukh Al-Islam, suggested that Muslims living in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and the U.S. slaughter people, and display their decapitated heads along roads with a statement reading: "This is the punishment of those who insult our prophet."
| 22 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

It's hard to tell whether this malignant clown is an actual jihadist or just someone playing at being one -- but his bombs could have killed numerous people either way. "Clarkston bomb-maker linked to jihad training website: Faces 15 years imprisonment in national security case," by Thomas Clouse for The Spokesman-Review, September 25:

In what was described by federal prosecutors as a national security case, a Clarkston man – who posted a video honoring Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh – pleaded guilty in Spokane today to manufacturing an explosive device and attempting to provide material assistance to terrorists.

Joseph J. Brice, 22, faces up to 15 years in federal prison, although U.S. District Court Judge Lonny Suko indicated he could impose more or less time following a mostly-sealed federal investigation stemming from his posting of violent videos on YouTube in late 2010 and early 2011.

Authorities began to investigate Brice after he suffered life-threatening injuries from a bomb he made that exploded on April 18, 2010, before he could get out of the blast radius.

Federal investigators later learned that Brice posted videos advocating suicide bombings and another video in support of Timothy McVeigh. Investigators arrested Brice after he promised to provide plans to make a bomb to a terrorist who actually was an undercover federal agent.

Brice did not explain his actions Tuesday in court, but he acknowledged his guilt when prompted by Judge Suko. Brice’s attorney, Matthew Campbell, declined an interview request following the 1 p.m. hearing today.

According to unsealed court records, investigators searched Brice’s email accounts and IP addresses and found videos he posted that show his “arguably insatiable interest in manufacturing, detonating, and assisting others in manufacturing and detonating explosives,” court records state.

In February, 2011, Brice posted on YouTube about how he found an “FBI or ATF tracking device on his vehicle” and that federal authorities had investigated him in their investigation into the bomb placed along the route of the 2011 Martin Luther King Jr. Unity March in downtown Spokane. Kevin W. Harpham was later implicated and pleaded guilty in that case.

Federal court records confirmed that Brice had been viewed as a person of interest in their MLK bomb investigation and had sent an investigator to interview Brice on March 29, 2011.

After the officer “explained to Brice that he was not a suspect” in the MLK bomb, “Brice confessed to having manufactured the destructive device that caused his injuries on April 18, 2010, and provided statements relevant to his own expertise in explosives, destructive devices and weapons of mass destruction.”

Even after that interview, Brice continued his online activities.

In the privacy of his own apartment, court records say that Brice “consistently praised jihadi activities, uploading training manuals to a jihadi website, and made statements on the forum of a jihadi website that included, ‘I fight for the cause of Allah and Islam so I fear not.’”

He also posted six videos under the heading “Strength of Allah” each “glorifying Jihad and the use of explosives.”

Then on May 8, 2011, Brice engaged in an online chat with an undercover federal agent “during which Brice provided his expertise in manufacturing … explosives to a person he believed was a jihad terrorist planning retaliation for the elimination of Usama Bin Laden,” court records state.

The next day, federal agents raided his Clarkston apartment and took him into custody.

Within the first 15 minutes after his arrest on May 9, 2011, Brice acknowledged to FBI agents that his posts will make him look like a terrorist supporter.

“I was just toying with them. I drink beer every day,” he said according to court records. “I do, I do everything opposite of whatever it looks like. This is going to look so bad!”

During his interview with the FBI, Brice also downplayed his praise of McVeigh, who was put to death in 2001 after he was convicted of placing the bomb in 1995 at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people.

“The Defendant went so far as to create and post a dedication video about McVeigh on YouTube,” court records state. “The Defendant also stated, ‘(McVeigh’s) characteristics are nearly the same as myself, physically/politically.”...

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Magarief continues to give the lie to the Obama Administration's fallacious and deceptive narrative, and shows Obama's speech to the UN yesterday to be the mockery that it was. "Libyan president to NBC: Anti-Islam film had 'nothing to do with' US Consulate attack," from NBC News, September 26 (thanks to Block Ness):

Updated at 7:59 a.m. ET: An anti-Islam film that sparked violent protests in many countries had "nothing to do with" a deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi earlier this month, Libya's president told NBC News.

In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Ann Curry, President Mohamed Magarief discounted claims that the attack was in response to a movie produced in California and available on YouTube. He noted that the assault happened on Sept. 11 and that the video had been available for months before that.

"Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September," he said. "They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message."

Magarief said there were no protesters at the site before the attack, which he noted came in two assaults, first with rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate, then with mortars at a safe house....

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
Aslanvandalism1.jpg
Aslanvandalism2.jpg


Reza Aslan is a prominent "moderate Muslim," but he is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council, NIAC, which was recently definitively exposed as a front for Iran's bloody mullahcracy. He also has numerous other Islamic supremacist ties, and so it was no surprise to see the tweets above. (He has his tweets "protected" so that I can't see them, but he hasn't reckoned with my Zionist black arts.)

The Mondoweiss piece he is linking in the tweets celebrates and applauds the vandalism of our AFDI pro-freedom ads. So when Aslan tells New Yorkers to "get crackin'," he is calling for more vandalism of the ads.

This is consistent with his utter intellectual bankruptcy, illustrated here many times. The Left and the Islamic supremacists hate the freedom of speech. They cannot abide dissent. They cannot refute our arguments, so they shout us down, demonize us, defame us, and deface our message. They are liars, cowards, and thugs -- and it is no surprise that a desperately insecure boy like Reza Aslan, abjectly incapable of defending his positions except with scorn and abuse, would be among them. Maybe when Reza is back from Europe and Mona Eltahawy is out of the slammer, she can loan him a can of spray paint. Fascists help each other out.

UPDATE: And again. Isn't it illegal to exhort people to commit a crime?

Aslanvandalism3.jpg

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
In the comments section at the New York Post...


McGEltahawytweet.jpg...and tweeted


Cyrus McGoldrick of Hamas-linked CAIR's New York gang of thugs, who previously called for our AFDI pro-freedom ads to be vandalized, has predictably enough come out in enthusiastic support of Mona Eltahawy's act of brownshirt thuggery, both in the comments section at the New York Post and on Twitter.

This is no surprise, since Hamas-linked CAIR has long been a foe of the freedom of speech, and instead of dealing rationally with its opponents routinely engages in the most vile defamation of them. But it is interesting in light of Hamas-linked CAIR's recent hypocritical call for "robust political debate." By "robust political debate" Hamas-linked CAIR doesn't mean honest discussion of important issues, but "Palestinian" thugs menacing and shouting down Jewish students on college campuses, and fascist journalists spray-painting away political messages that they don't like. And the mainstream media, clueless and/or complicit as ever, continues to treat this unsavory gang as if it really were a "civil rights" organization.

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Yom Kippur, the most solemn and holiest day of the Jewish calendar, began last night.

I wish all Jewish Jihad Watch readers a safe and easy fast, and ask all lovers of justice and freedom to stand with Israel, which is as always on the front lines of the global jihad, and in this age of Obama, may have to stand alone against the jihad onslaught.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, let us all hang together, or we will assuredly hang separately. And that hanging day is drawing ever closer, so there is a great deal more work to be done. Am Yisroel chai!

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

A brief update on the big story from yesterday: the arrest of Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy after she spray painted our AFDI pro-freedom ad and assaulted blogger Pamela Hall in a New York subway station.

Why would a renowned and respected journalist resort to a juvenile act of vandalism and persist even when confronted? Here's a clue: reading this ABC News report on the arrest, these lines leapt out at me:

"This is non-violent protest, see this America" Eltahawy said in the video as police officers were arresting her. "I'm an Egyptian-American and I refuse hate."

You can see Eltahawy saying that in Pamela Hall's video, above.

Now, in my May 31 piece for PJ Media, I wrote this:

Mona Eltahawy’s piece in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy criticized a series of practices that are justified in Islamic law, including child marriage, wife-beating, and female genital mutilation. Counter-jihadist activists and writers have been calling attention to these human rights abuses for years, but Eltahawy’s piece was singular in that she is a Muslim journalist....Harvard professor Leila Ahmed confronted Eltahawy on MSNBC:
Mona, I appreciate what you do. I would love it if — I understand if you want to get your message across. It’s an important message. But if possible [you should not] give fuel, fodder to people who simply hate Arabs and Muslims in this climate of our day.

Eltahawy, you see, told unwelcome truths about Islam and was accused of spreading "hate" -- which is exactly what the Left and the Islamic supremacists do to those of us who have been telling those truths for years. But this was something new for Eltahaway, who had reliably been on the Left's media reservation throughout her career. Now she was suddenly being criticized by her old friends, probably not invited to the best parties, etc.

So instead of having the courage of her convictions, Eltahawy folded, and cast about for a way to distance herself from counter-jihad freedom activists and prove that she was on the right (Left) side and would not make waves again. What better way than to vandalize our pro-freedom message, all the while accusing us of the "hate" she was accused of when she told the truth about Islam?

The arrest, even if she didn't expect it or plan it, was icing on the cake: because of it, now she will be lionized as a hero and martyr by the very people who were shunning her for her Foreign Policy piece: the hate-filled Leftist totalitarians who despise free speech anyway.

Mona Eltahawy could have been a journalist of integrity, and almost was, for a brief moment. Instead, she is a fascist brownshirt.

| 18 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Over at FrontPage Magazine today (via RaymondIbrahim.com where links appear), I show how, if Western films and cartoons defame Islam, the Quran itself defames all other religions:

As the Islamic world, in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, continues to push for the enforcement of "religious defamation" laws in the international arena—theoretically developed to protect all religions from insult, but in reality made for Islam—one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.

To understand this, consider what "defamation" means. Typical dictionary-definitions include "to blacken another's reputation" and "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel." In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam. Accordingly, the OIC is agreeing that any expression that "slanders" the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam's core religious texts—beginning with the Quran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Quran 5:73 declares that "Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three," a reference to the Christian Trinity; Quran 5:73 says "Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary"; and Quran 9:30 complains that "the Christians say the Christ is the son of Allah … may Allah's curse be upon them!"

Considering that the word "infidel" (or kafir) is one of Islam's most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western movie appeared declaring that "Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God's curse be upon them"? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Quran defames Christians and Christianity.

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus supposedly will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, ordered someone wearing a cross to "take off that piece of idolatry."

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in the Ka'ba of Mecca—are "idolatry" and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the hadith defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam's most authoritative Quranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and having sex with the Virgin Mary...

Continue reading.

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 25, 2012

Eltahway.jpg


Pamela Geller has the blockbuster story:

Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy was arrested today after assaulting a defender of freedom who caught her in the act of vandalizing one of AFDI’s pro-Israel ads in the New York Subway Stations.

This again proves the Islamic supremacists and the Leftist thugs are dedicated to shutting down free speech. Anti-Israel ads ran all over the country without a murmur of protest; but this pro-Israel ad was hardly up an hour before fascist thugs like Eltahawy went to work to deface it.

At 12:42PM on Tuesday, September 25, Eltahawy tweeted: “Meetings done; pink spray paint time. #ProudSavage#FuckHate.”

Shortly thereafter, she was about to spray paint over AFDI’s pro-Israel ad in a subway station when freelance journalist and pro-freedom blogger Pamela Hall stood between her and the ad. Eltahawy thereupon sprayed Hall with paint; Eltahawy was arrested and Hall is pressing charges.

The attack was witnessed by Georgette Roberts of the New York Post. We look forward to the Post’s full report, since Roberts witnessed this entire incident.

This criminal behavior and fascism will be lauded in Leftist circles.

Eltahawy’s thuggish behavior is a telling indication of how relentlessly opposed the left and Islamic supremacists are to the freedom of speech, and how desperate they are to keep any pro-freedom, anti-jihad message from getting out.

AFDI’s ad reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”

Eltahawy’s behavior is all the more ironic in light of the fact that she was viciously sexually assaulted by “protesters” in Cairo’s Tahrir Square last year, and subsequently wrote a searching piece about the misogyny that is inherent in Islamic law. But she was roundly attacked by her fellow Islamic supremacist writers for that article, and made a full retreat. Now, in a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome, she is defending the same savages who brutally attacked her in Tahrir Square.

AFDI calls upon the NYPD to prosecute Eltahawy for her assault on Pamela Hall to the fullest extent of the law, and to guard the pro-Israel ads from further Leftist/Islamic supremacist vandalism.

Related: Left rejoices at vandalism of pro-freedom, pro-Israel ads

UPDATE: Eltahawy's Islamic supremacist anti-free speech thuggery caught on film:

New York Post story here. Now Mona Eltahawy has made up for her getting off the reservation a few months ago and criticizing Islamic supremacist mistreatment of women -- in this she has appeased her masters.

SECOND UPDATE:
The thuggish Eltahawy held overnight in jail -- heh:

Eltahawyheld.jpg

THIRD UPDATE: Here is Pamela Hall's video of the incident. Note Eltahawy's self-righteous posturing amid her anti-freedom thuggery:

| 205 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
Port-Authority2.jpgWhat race is the jihad murder of innocent civilians?


This is no surprise at all. The Left and the Islamic supremacists hate the freedom of speech. They cannot abide dissent. They cannot refute our arguments, so they shout us down, demonize us, defame us, and deface our message.

They are liars, cowards, and thugs.

UPDATE: Pamela Geller makes an extremely important point: "In a rational society, [this vandalism] would be looked down upon, but more importantly, the defacement is a metaphor for this entire conversation. Hundreds and hundreds of anti-Israel posters ran all over the country. Not one was defaced. One anti-jihad poster goes up, and it's defaced within an hour, while its creator faces defamation, smears and libel. Islamic supremacists and leftist thugs criminally defaced these ads within an hour. This is a physical manifestation of the entire conversation, or lack thereof. Anyone who speaks about jihad and sharia is attacked, defamed, destroyed -- just like these ads. This is exactly what’s happening in the media regarding jihad coverage in general. Anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-sharia hate is all over the airwaves, but anyone who dares to speak the truth about Islam and jihad in the media is immediately smeared and defamed. You can't have this conversation in the media, any more than I can present these pro-Israel ads, and receive any semblance of fair treatment."

| 29 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Obama spoke about the freedom of speech in his UN address, but he also said: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." How can the future be cleansed of such people without international laws curbing the freedom of speech, to which the U.S. also signs on?

"World Muslim group demands laws against 'Islamophobia,'” by Stephanie Nebehay for Reuters, September 25 (thanks to David):

GENEVA (Reuters) – The world’s largest Islamic body called on Tuesday for expressions of “Islamophobia” to be curbed by law, just as some countries restrict anti-Semitic speech or Holocaust denial.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the 56 countries that form the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), condemned a video made in the United States that defamed Islam and the Prophet Mohammad, igniting Muslim protests around the world this month.

“Incidents like this clearly demonstrate the urgent need on the part of states to introduce adequate protection against acts of hate crimes, hate speech, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation and negative stereotyping of religions, and incitement to religious hatred, as well as denigration of venerated personalities,” Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said in a speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The Obama administration has condemned the film entitled “Innocence of Muslims” as “disgusting”. But Western countries remain determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and have already voiced disquiet about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.

Akram said the crudely made video, as well as the burning of the Koran and the publication of defamatory cartoons, amount to “deliberate attempts to discriminate, defame, denigrate and vilify Muslims and their beliefs”.

Such acts constitute “flagrant incitement to violence” and are not protected by freedom of expression, Akram said. Rather, he said, Islamophobia must be acknowledged as a contemporary form of racism and be dealt with as such.

“Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism, especially in legislations.”

It was urgent to “establish an internationally acceptable threshold between freedom of expression and incitement to violence and hatred,” Akram added.

DIFFERENCES OVER FREE EXPRESSION

On Monday, the United States told the Council that it considered freedom of religion inseparable from free expression, countering calls from many Islamic countries for a treaty outlawing blasphemy.

Religious dignity is best protected where there is free speech, U.S. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe said. “When these freedoms are restricted, we see violence, poverty, stagnation and feelings of frustration and even humiliation.”

The OIC signalled last week that it would revive long-standing attempts to make insults against religions an international criminal offence.

A resolution submitted by African countries and backed by the OIC calls on states to introduce into domestic criminal law a provision ensuring that those responsible for crimes with racist or xenophobic motivation are prosecuted.

The text, which deplores “the targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons” is one of the most contentious of the 32 resolutions to be voted on by the 47-member forum this week.

Cyprus, speaking on behalf of the European Union in Tuesday’s debate, said an existing international treaty for combating all forms of racism and intolerance was sufficient, and the main goal should be to implement it effectively.

“...In several parts of the world, criminal penalties for hate speech may be used as a means to silence dissidence and suppress freedom of thought, conscience and expression,” Cyprus Ambassador Leonidas Pantelides said.

Yep.

| 49 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

August 2002 -- he must have foreseen that there would be a Muhammad movie. "Ohio mall terrorism defendant facing deportation," by Andrew Welsh-Huggins for The Associated Press, September 25:

Federal authorities are preparing to deport a Somali immigrant who federal prosecutors say plotted to attack an Ohio shopping mall.

Nuradin Abdi completed his prison sentence last month and is in federal custody in Louisiana while final preparations are made to return him to Somalia.

The Justice Department accused Abdi of suggesting a plan to shoot up an unidentified Columbus shopping mall during an August 2002 meeting at a coffee shop with two friends, both of whom were later convicted of terrorism charges. Early reports indicated the threat might also have included bombing a mall.

When investigators learned of the threat in spring 2003, authorities conducted top-to-bottom searches of Columbus malls late at night after shoppers had left, looking for possible explosive devices. None was found.

One of Abdi's friends at the coffee shop that day, Columbus truck driver Iyman Faris, pleaded guilty in May 2003 to terrorism charges stemming from allegations that he scoped out the Brooklyn Bridge for destruction at the behest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks.

The second friend, Christopher Paul, a convert to Islam who grew up in the Columbus suburb of Worthington, was charged with plotting to bomb European tourist resorts frequented by Americans, as well as overseas U.S. military bases. Paul also pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges. Both Faris and Paul were sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Abdi, 40, entered the U.S. in 1998 and received political asylum based on false statements, according to federal court records....

| 8 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Following news that Egypt's President Morsi is threatening the Coptic Church if Copts demonstrate against him during his UN speech tomorrow, Coptic Solidarity has just issued a press release calling "upon all those who do not want Egypt to turn into another Iran to join in the demonstrations." The press release, which follows, is also useful in that it summarizes the many ways Egypt has increasingly turned Islamist since the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi became president:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Coptic Solidarity is calling for a peaceful demonstration to tell Egyptian President Morsi that Coptic Christians deserve equal citizenship rights. This demonstration calls for peace, coexistence and equal human rights for all Egyptian citizens and that Egypt must not be turned into another Iran.

Egyptian President Morsi will be at the United Nations on Wednesday, September 26, 2012.

Ever since the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt's revolution of January 2011 and usurped the government's rule, several alarming changes have taken place:

¨ The increasing Islamization and Ikhwanization (from "Ikhwan;" Brotherhood in Arabic) of the State in Egypt with all its institutions;
¨ A constitution that codifies religious fascism is being hurriedly written;
¨ Hundreds of convicted terrorists were released from Egyptian prisons or allowed into the country, turning Egypt into a potential major harbor for Jihadist terrorism;
¨ The Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist allies led the barbaric incitement to attack embassies and U.S. interests in the newly Islamist-dominated Middle East countries;
¨ Mr. Morsi (emulating Iran's Ayatullahs) incessantly affirms his identity as an Islamist leader of an Islamist state;
¨ Just like under the Mubarak regime, journalists have been arrested and prosecuted for "insulting the president";
¨ Under Morsi, Islamist extremists have been appointed to head the State press and audiovisual media;
¨ There has been no progress with respect to the citizenship rights of Copts, but instead there seems to be a deliberate increase by the state and extremist elements in the society, in the Copts' marginalization, humiliation, persecution and treatment as submissive dhimmis in the Ikhwani-Salafist state;
¨ Unfair and biased "blasphemy" trials, with the aim to humiliate, repress, and intimidate, are conducted against Copts, in a way that is contrary to the axioms of justice in the civilized world;
¨ Calling for an international "anti-blasphemy" agreement that would undermine freedom of belief and expression and counter America's First Amendment;
¨ Copts and moderate Muslims are increasingly fleeing from Egypt to emigrate to places where they can live their lives in, freedom safety and peace.

Coptic Solidarity calls upon all those who do not want Egypt to turn into another Iran to join in the demonstrations...

Continue reading for contact and other information.

| 3 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Obama at the UN today:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

More on this soon.

| 53 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

And he said Israel would be eliminated. But that is not an insult, doncha know. "In New York, defiant Ahmadinejad says Israel will be 'eliminated,'" by Louis Charbonneau for Reuters, September 24:

(Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated," ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.

Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran's threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.

The United States quickly dismissed the Iranian president's comments as "disgusting, offensive and outrageous."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted Israel could strike Iran's nuclear sites and criticized U.S. President Barack Obama's position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iran denies it is seeking nuclear arms and says its atomic work is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.

"Fundamentally we do not take seriously the threats of the Zionists," Ahmadinejad, in New York for this week's U.N. General Assembly, told reporters. "We have all the defensive means at our disposal and we are ready to defend ourselves."

Ahmadinejad is due to speak at the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met Ahmadinejad on Sunday and warned him of the dangers of incendiary rhetoric in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad, who has used previous U.N. sessions to question the Holocaust and the U.S. account of the September 11, 2001, attacks, did not heed the warning and instead expanded on his previous rejection of Israel's right to exist. Western envoys typically walk out of Ahmadinejad's U.N. speeches in protest at his remarks.

"Iran has been around for the last seven, 10 thousand years. They (the Israelis) have been occupying those territories for the last 60 to 70 years, with the support and force of the Westerners. They have no roots there in history," he said, referring to the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948.

"We do believe that they have found themselves at a dead end and they are seeking new adventures in order to escape this dead end. Iran will not be damaged with foreign bombs," Ahmadinejad said, speaking through an interpreter at his Manhattan hotel.

"We don't even count them as any part of any equation for Iran. During a historical phase, they (the Israelis) represent minimal disturbances that come into the picture and are then eliminated."

In 2005, Ahmadinejad called Israel a "tumor" and echoed the words of the former Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, by saying that Israel should be wiped off the map....

At the meeting on the rule of law, Ahmadinejad said states should not yield to rules imposed "by bullying countries."...

Ahmadinejad also was asked about a move by an Iranian religious foundation to increase its reward for the killing of Rushdie in response to a California-made anti-Islam video called "The Innocence of Muslims" that has sparked anti-American protests around the Muslim world.

"Where is he now?" Ahmadinejad asked of Rushdie. "Is he in the United States? If he is, you shouldn't broadcast that for his own safety."...

Ahmadinejad appeared to reject Washington's position that while it condemns the video's content, freedom of expression must be upheld. "Freedoms must not interfere with the freedoms of others," Ahmadinejad said. "If someone insults, what would you do? ... Is insulting other people not a form of crime?"

It will be soon. But only certain people.

| 22 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Continuing our fight for the freedom of speech. "Federal Court Hearing Scheduled in AFLC’s Challenge to D.C. Transit Authority’s Refusal to Run Anti-Jihad Advertisement," from the American Freedom Law Center, September 24:

U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer has scheduled a hearing for October 4, 2012 on the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC)’s request for an injunction to halt the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)’s censorship of a pro-Israel/anti-jihad bus advertisement. The hearing will take place at 2:00 p.m. EDT in Courtroom 8 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia located at 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C. The hearing is open to the media and the general public.

At issue in the lawsuit is the WMATA’s decision to delay running a pro-Israel/anti-jihad advertisement on its Metro system until some unknown “future date” due to alleged concerns about “the situations happening around the world” and the “security and safety” of its passengers. The WMATA’s decision was based upon current events in which Muslims are engaging in violent jihad in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere in an alleged protest of free speech in the United States that is critical of Islam. As a result of the WMATA’s censorship of core political speech, AFLC filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the sponsors of the advertisement, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI) and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The lawsuit challenges the WMATA’s unconstitutional restriction on FDI’s right to engage in protected speech in a public forum.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented: “This lawsuit represents a clash between our American values and the fundamental right to freedom of speech on the one hand and those values espoused by sharia-adherent Muslims who want to suppress speech through violence on the other. In direct contravention of our Constitution, the WMATA is siding with the jihadists and silencing our clients’ political speech. This is known as a ‘heckler’s veto,’ which is impermissible under the First Amendment.”

The planned advertisement states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” ...

Read it all.

| 3 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Listen to this interview to hear Pamela Geller telling the truth while a sneering and willfully blind Geraldo Rivera heaps abuse on her. This interview epitomizes the uphill battle that freedom fighters have to get the truth out against the opposition of a thoroughly corrupt and deeply compromised mainstream media. But try as he might in this shameful performance, Geraldo never succeeds in derailing Geller's message or putting her on the defensive.

Audio thanks to Big Fur Hat.

| 25 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The story says that he will affirm the freedom of speech, but the "roots of Muslim rage" can only be "confronted" by abandoning it. So what he will actually do is unclear. "Obama to urge UN to confront roots of Muslim rage," by Ben Feller for the Associated Press, September 25 (thanks to Block Ness):

NEW YORK (AP) -- Campaign politics shadowing every word, President Barack Obama on Tuesday will challenge the world to confront the root causes of rage exploding across the Muslim world, calling it a defining choice "between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes we hold in common."

Obama will step before the United Nations General Assembly and declare that the United States will not shrink from its role in troubled, transitioning nations despite the killing of four Americans in Libya, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, and more than 50 people total in violence linked at least in part to an anti-Muslim film....

"Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers," Obama said of the U.S. ambassador, who was killed during an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that the White House has deemed a terrorist attack. "Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations."...

"Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained," Obama says in his speech. He adds: "That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."...

The dominant theme of Obama's U.N. speech will be his response to the protests raging in places across the Middle East and North Africa. As he has for days, Obama will condemn the violence, defend democratic principles of free speech and promise no U.S. withdrawal of outreach.

Much of the growing ire is aimed at the United States because of anti-Islam film produced in this country, but the White House has now deemed the attack on its consulate in Libya a "terrorist attack" and has not ruled out the possibility it was premeditated. Obama now says it "wasn't just a mob action."

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents," Obama says in the speech excerpts. "There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."...

Polling shows Obama has a clear edge over Romney when voters are asked who they think is a stronger leader and would better protect the country.

Which shows that the voters who were polled have not the first foggiest idea of what is going on in the world today.

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

At Atlas Shrugs I discuss the media's strange eagerness to endorse restrictions on the freedom of speech:

As the Muhammad movie riots continue to roil the world, prominent Muslim leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere are calling for restrictions on the freedom of speech, including the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood – and in the U.S., Sheikh Husham al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Michigan and Imam Mohammad Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, New Jersey. Given Sharia prohibitions on free speech, that is to be expected. What is more surprising – or should be more surprising, if the free press were doing its job -- is the alacrity with which the mainstream media has echoed these calls for self-censorship and submission to Islamic blasphemy laws.

In the wake of the worldwide Muhammad movie riots, the Los Angeles Times, for example, published its second op-ed in four weeks calling for restrictions on the freedom of speech. To be sure, the second piece, by Sarah Chayes of the Carnegie Endowment, was far more sophisticated and well reasoned than the crude call for censorship of the first, which was written by the thuggish Nathan Lean. Where Lean had ham-fistedly smeared and demonized those whose speech he hates and then called for them to be silenced, First Amendment be damned, Chayes argued on the basis of a fine distinction that already exists within American free speech law: “U.S. law makes a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.”

Indeed, but as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, the legal distinction to which Chayes was referring was formulated in response to the Ku Klux Klan’s advocacy of violence, and thus did not apply to the Muhammad movie filmmakers, who called for no violence from anyone. The Klan, said the WSJ, “advocated (but did not incite) violence on the part of their own supporters in order to promote their cause of racial supremacy. By contrast, the filmmakers provoked a violent reaction from the other side. To prosecute them would be analogous to punishing civil rights activists for inciting white supremacists to commit violent or lawless acts.”

A point well taken. But the larger question is, why is the Los Angeles Times coming down on the side of restrictions on the freedom of speech in the first place? Are they not aware that such restrictions, if implemented, can and probably will be used against them? While the Los Angeles Times editors are no doubt serene in their certainty that they will never print anything that will insult Islam or Muslims, there could all too easily come a time when a governing authority deems something they have published to be “hateful” or even “deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk,” and – if free speech by then has been restricted – that will be the end of the Times as an outpost of the free press.

| 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Muslims worldwide protest the documentary film "Innocence of Muslims." The film depicts their prophet as a child molester, womanizer and violent criminal. A simple entry in Wikipedia with all its links to original Islamic sources confirms that Muhammed had sex with a nine year old girl, had thirteen wives and waged bloody wars against the neighbouring towns.

We have all noticed the embarrassing fact that the protesting Muslims have not been able to produce any arguments against the documentary's claims. It seems that in their lack of evidence, they resort to childish screaming, setting fire to things, setting off explosives and killing innocents in a desperate attempt to silence their critics. The similarities between the film and Muslims' energetic protests against it are indeed striking. The truth is apparently hard to hear. It is noteworthy how the followers of a faith that they themselves name as the religion of peace so often behave violently, especially when trying to convince us that their prophet does not inspire Muslims to violence.

In order to gain voters and keep their relationship with oil-producing countries, our (mis)representatives give in to the terrorists' demands by apologizing for our using our right to free speech and our long standing tradition of keeping a healthily critical and often humorous attitude towards religion. The same happens when the politically correct media follow sharia laws by not showing pictures and clips from the documentary, in spite of their obvious relevance to the news coverage. It is imperative that the West looks strong in such situations, but by misrepresenting us Westerners as weaklings who take threats seriously, our policymakers actually negotiate with terrorists -- which is a no-go. If there is one thing that Muslims hate and makes them increase their wish to destroy, it is signs of cowardice. Our appeasing politicians and the media's show of respect is therefore not perceived as an invitation to reconciliation, but as a vulnerability that can be, and is and will be exploited further.

The behaviour of our timid leaders is an affront to the hundreds of thousands of Europeans and Americans who in the centuries before us gave their lives to create and defend our humanistic societies built on free speech and secular laws against brutal kings and medieval religious institutions. By not standing up against the fanatics, which apparently constitute the majority of Muslims, they put their voters and our children in danger.

Some day very soon this will be clear to all.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Italian Reactions to Muhammad Film Protests
by Enza Ferreri

The violent attacks on people and symbols representing the USA and the West in the Islamic world are one of those situations in which it becomes clear where people stand.

People are forced to make a choice here: they either point the finger at those whom they consider responsible for having provoked Muslim outrage, in other words guilty of exercising freedom of expression, or recognize that peaceful coexistence cannot be achieved by sacrificing the basic principles of our civilization, and that appeasement only leads to more and more aggressive demands.

It's similar to kidnapping and making ransom demands: governments are reluctant to give in to those requests, because they know that capitulation would encourage further kidnappings. But in dealing with the Muslim world, this logic - in fact any logic - is hardly ever applied.

Appeasement cannot work for the following reasons. Islam and European civilization are incompatible, not just because Islam is bent on destroying anything which is not Islam - what you may call the "supremacist reason" - but also because our fundamental principles and Islam's are in direct, logical contradiction, and trying to reconcile them is like squaring a circle. A conflict of interests can be solved with negotiations and compromises, but a logical contradiction, like that between a square and a circle, cannot be solved at all. We may call this the "cardinal reason".

It's interesting to note that Western authorities recognize the link between the religion of peace, specifically Friday prayers, and violence:

Meanwhile, police said that German embassies and consulates in Arabic countries would be on high alert after Friday, a religious holiday, as some experts fear that violence could again escalate. (Islam versus Europe)
France confirmed on Friday it would allow no street protests against cartoons denigrating Islam's Prophet Mohammad that were published by a French magazine this week. (Jihad Watch)

Why is it that when Muslims are closest to their religion, through mosques, Friday prayers, Ramadan, they get more enraged and aggressive?

Another criterion to separate people's positions is by looking at what they think of the "Arab Spring".

The Italian missionary-blogger-journalist Piero Gheddo in an article called "Where has the Arab Spring Gone?", after having praised both the revolts that brought democratically-elected governments in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia ("We cannot think that democracy, freedom of press and speech are positive only for us Christians") and Islam's glorious history ("Muhammad's religion spread by the sword but also gave rise to a civilization of great splendour, admired even by Christian sages and travellers"), writes:

We live in 2000 AD, Islam still lives, as a culture, religion and worship of its past, in 1400 after Muhammad. It has not yet adapted to modernity. Muslim peoples are attracted to it, while the political and religious authorities try in every way to exploit Islam to save their power.

Not only that, but there are objective difficulties in saving in the modern world the many good things that exist in Islam: the historical-critical reading of the Quran that would make it contemporary is not allowed because it is the word of God in the literal sense; in Islam there is no comparable authority to the Pope and the Bishops, every mosque or madrassa follows its own way; in Islamic law there is no notion of absolute dignity of every man and woman, which makes all creatures equal in their rights; and finally there is no distinction between religion and politics.

I said that people are forced to make a choice, but it seems that some, like Father Gheddo, are very skilled at avoiding it.

An on-the-fence position has been that of Pope Benedict XVI who, in his trip to Lebanon, invited to peace and dialogue among followers of the various religions. His situation is obviously complicated by his role of head of state and the fear that his words might be the trigger for new attacks on the Christian minorities who are like hostages in Muslim-majority countries.

A more robust answer came from a 2-day international conference on 15-16 September in Florence, organized by the association Una via per Oriana Fallaci on the problem and dangers of Islam, which was also a commemoration of the late Florentine journalist and thinker.

The focus of the conference was on the persecution of Christians inside and outside the Islamic world, Europe's progressive repudiation of its classical liberal values, and the sources of what the participants called "Christianophobia".

Christianophobia derives, according to expert on geopolitics Alexandre del Valle, from four myths, one of which is

The myth that Islam is compatible with freedom and that Islamic violence against Christians is only a reaction to wicked behaviours on the part of Christians in the past as well as today. The current violence is excused as indignation provoked by the film The Innocence of Muslims, considered blasphemous by many Muslims, even if its contents have the sacred texts of Islam as their sources.

I must admit that I don't particularly like the neologism "Christianophobia", simply because unintentionally it seems to legitimize its counterpart "Islamophobia" from which it is probably derived, and in so doing it establishes a prima facie, superficial equivalence between the two religions.

Nevertheless, it seems to be in fashion in the current Italian debate, partly because of the recent Venice Film Festival's screening of Paradise: Faith by Ulrich Seidl, a movie that has as its highest point a sequence in which the protagonist, actress Maria Hoffstatter, engages in autoeroticism using a crucifix.

The double standards between the treatment of Muslim and Christian sensitivities, in this case as in that of the "Piss Christ" "artwork", are so blatant to provoke nausea.

"Violence explodes in the Muslim world. Western politicians compete in apologizing for the blasphemous Islam film. Do we need to burn down embassies and kill for someone to apologize for the blasphemous movie about Christianity which received the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival?" asks the blog Basta Bugie (Enough of Lies).

The question of free speech and where, if anywhere, the line should be drawn is worth exploring, maybe in another article. But that double standards should not be tolerated is so simple that does not require further analysis.

One of Italy's main daily newspapers, Il Giornale, had an article by the Egyptian-born Muslim convert to Christianity and counterjihadist politician Magdi Cristiano Allam:

Behind the terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Benghazi and Cairo there is not a loose cannon, even enemy of 'true Islam', as our own relativists are preaching, from Obama who fell in love with the Quran and defends Muhammad to [Italian Prime Minister] Monti who has a wallet in place of a heart, from this European Union that generously and insanely funds our executioners from Morocco to Syria to that part of the Church which has become fascinated with dialogue for its own sake, culminating in the legitimacy of Islam which is the negation of Christianity.

This is not the truth! Open your eyes, look who crowded in front of the two embassies and watched the backs of the terrorists who made their way with bombs and rockets. They were men and women, young, adults and elderly, apparently people like all the others. Read what was written on the signs and open Qurans held high up, our condemnation to death for daring insult their prophet. Listen carefully to the incitement against the West uttered aloud by the instigators of hatred mingled happily in the crowd. No! It is not a loose cannon! The truth in front of our eyes, that we can hear with our ears, is that this Islamic terrorism is the tip of the iceberg of a widespread and deep-rooted popular reality which legitimizes, supports and finances it. And today, thanks to the success of the so-called 'Arab Spring', it gets full encouragement from ruling Islamic regimes which have not lifted a finger to prevent the attacks. The two embassies are located in very central areas, always under the strict control of the security authorities who, somehow, in this circumstance did not intervene. The terrorists have acted undisturbed both during the attack and looting of embassies and when they burned the American flag and replaced it with the black flag of al-Qaida, and finally when they executed the Ambassador Chris Stevens, a diplomat and two marines.

The truth is that the 'true Islam' by which Muslims are possessed is an ideology that promotes hatred, violence and death of non-Muslims. The truth is that, however, we cannot say that because this vile, ignorant, fearful, corrupt, suicidal West prefers to deny the truth and give up freedom in order not to offend the susceptibilities of the Muslims, not to acknowledge that the root of evil was not Bin Laden but the Quran and Muhammad that he blindly obeyed. Obama, in a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, had even apologized for spreading the video The Innocence of Muslims, ​​produced in the United States, in which Muhammad is portrayed as a paedophile. Why on earth can't we say that if Muhammad, as attested by his official biography, married Aisha when she was 6 years old and had intercourse with her when she was 9, he was a paedophile? It 'an objective fact! Why on earth can't we say that Muhammad, still according to his official biography, was a criminal for having been involved in 627 at the gates of Medina in cutting the throats of and beheading 800 Jews from the tribe of Banu Qurayza? It 'an objective fact!

Wake up! Redeem the right and the duty to use reason, to be fully ourselves, at least here in our home! We got it all wrong with Muslims. Just on the eleventh anniversary of September 11th, the attacks in Benghazi and Cairo bring home one elementary truth: with all those who have as their only ideological references the Quran and Muhammad it is not possible in any way to achieve peace, at most an armed truce like that of Hudaibiya stipulated in 628 by Muhammad with his Mecca's enemies and violated right after the balance of power was reversed. It was a huge blunder of Bush and Blair to imagine that by allying themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood they would split the radical Islamic camp and defeat al-Qaeda. Today the Muslim Brotherhood is in power on the southern shores of the Mediterranean and is spreading to the eastern shores, while Al Qaeda controls state-like territories in Mali, Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen. For this we should thank Obama and the Europeans who are enamored of the so-called 'Arab Spring' and who continue to support the ferocious enemies of Jews, Christians, Israel and women. Because the truth is that Islam is incompatible with democracy!

Libya should have been totally grateful to the United States that has taken on itself the greatest burden of the war of 'liberation' from Gaddafi's odious dictatorial regime. Just on the same day when, commemorating September 11th, Obama claimed that the United States is at war only against Al Qaeda and not against Islam, the answer was the murder of Americans. Probably the 'blasphemous' film or the confirmation of the killing of Al-Qaeda's number two, Anas al-Libi, are just pretexts. They would have done it anyway because it's only in this way that Islam will triumph! Wake up West! Enough of relativism! Enough of Islamically correct! Enough of dialogue for its own sake! Let's stop the Islamic invasion before it's too late!

I don't share Ayaan Hirsi Ali's optimism that people in Muslim countries will eventually, in a few decades maybe, get rid of their Islamic leaders.

What instead gives me a feeling of hope is the reaction in the West, and for once in Europe, where there are maybe for the first time signs, albeit few, of a resistance. Not only the French magazine Charlie Hebdo published Muhammad cartoons, defying the dhimmitude du jour, but also France's Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault defended Charlie Hebdo's right to publish them. And the German satirical magazine Titanic has done something similar, taking a stand in the row over the Muhammad video, by printing a picture of the former German first lady in the arms of a turban-clad man with a dagger.

Maybe, gradually, people in the West will come to see, even through the rampages currently going on, Islam for what it is.

Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born, London-based author and journalist. She has been a London correspondent for several Italian magazines and newspapers, including Panorama, L'Espresso, La Repubblica.

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Here's the announcement from FP:

Join The Jamie Glazov Show that will air on Tuesday, Sept 25, 2012 at 8-9 pm Pacific (11-12 pm Eastern) on Blog Talk Radio. We will be focusing on the war on free speech we are witnessing right before our eyes.

This week’s guest will be Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of twelve books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both Regnery). His latest book is Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins (ISI).

To listen to the program, click here.

Or go to: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2012/09/26/the-jamie-glazov-show.

The call-in # is: (347) 857-1380.

| No Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

How Islam Can Reject Bad Shariah Laws
But Is Islam Willing to Reform?
by James M. Arlandson, Ph.D.

In my series on shariah, posted at jihadwatch.org, readers who react to the series categorically deny that Islam can reform. Maybe they’re right.

These readers also seem to believe that demolishing Islam in one try is realistic, or calling it EVIL will solve problems. None of this is realistic or fixes the mess. But when one brick at a time is taken away from that religion, then we’re closer to a truce. For example, if a bad law like wife-beating can be removed, then that removal gives a little relief for women who suffer under the oppression.

However, on the other side, Muslim leaders must admit that Islam has made a mess of the world. It’s obvious to everyone that Islam has trouble relating to the modern age. If Muslim religious scholars, many of whom teach at Islamic universities and preach at mosques, do not act to change or reject parts of their religion, then the world will never know even a modicum of peace.

But if the scholars acknowledge that reform or rejection is needed and take steps to do this, then there will be some hope for humanity.

Westerners and other non-Muslims would feel confident that reform and rejection of many laws would take place in Islamic counties, if reformers follow these steps:

1. They must publicly acknowledge that the Quran and authentic hadith have misguided and oppressive penal, civil, family, and political shariah laws in them (see Thirty Bad Shariah Laws).


2. They must not cover up or pretend or tell the uninformed that
everything in the Quran and authentic hadith, the two main foundations of
shariah, is perfect, but they are just being misunderstood and misinterpreted.
There really are extreme and inhumane passages in them. If reformers withhold
the bad parts from the public, the reformers appear deceptive and so lose their
credibility.

3. Since there are inherent problems in the Quran, authentic hadith, and shariah, reformers must publicly acknowledge that those problematic verses and passages are no longer valid today and do not guide modern society.

4. They must publicly explain which interpretive theory they use to reject verses in the Quran and passages in the authentic hadith. Sunnis must back away from the belief that the Quran is “uncreated.” No, it really was part of its seventh century culture. All texts, including the Bible, have an historical context. One possible theory all Muslims can use is historicism , which “is a mode of thinking that assigns a central and basic significance to a specific context, such as historical period, geographical place and local culture” (see the next point).

5. They must publicly acknowledge that original Islam, including the Quran, absorbed too much of its seventh-century culture and does not guide modern society. Even if, hypothetically, Islam improved on its original culture, Islam did not go far enough by today’s standards. Those old laws have expiration dates – back in the seventh century.

6. They must write articles, books, and other works and hold conferences with their fellow scholars who are reluctant to reform, in their native language, explaining why many old shariah laws are no longer valid. If reformers do this already, they should report the results.

7. They must never reference the Quran, authentic hadith, or shariah in any modern declaration of human rights. Those source documents have too many specific outdated laws. Referencing a Creator, from whom humanity itself and our basic rights flows, is fine. But basing a declaration on a specific holy book (the Quran) and outdated religious law (shariah) leads to pitfalls and complications.

8. They must push to eliminate the Quran, authentic hadith, and shariah as a foundation of modern Islamic constitutions. Religion and state must be kept separate.

9. They must tell the defenders of old Islam to drop false labels, such as “Islamophobia” and “Islamophobic” (etc.), which are wrongly thrown at discerning critics of shariah.

10. They must never try to incorporate, by law, policies, or school curricula (etc.), any part of shariah into non-Islamic societies today. Religious shariah laws, like how to pray, keep a fast, wash or eat properly, do not need to be legislated. And other shariah laws, like the ones listed in Thirty Bad Shariah Laws, do not need to be legislated, because societies have their own modern and better laws.

Points nos. 4 and 5 about the absorption of a text’s historical context needs a little more explanation. Devout Muslim scholars – the kind who wish to impose archaic laws on us – believe the Quran is timeless and universally good and did not absorb its historical context.

However, a moment’s reflection shows this to be wrong.

Every text takes in its historical context. The ancient world surrounding Israel commanded execution for various sins and crimes, and so does the Old Testament. The ancient world practiced slavery, and the Old Testament assumes and regulates it, too. The ancient world sacrificed animals, and the Old Testament commands it, too.

The Quran follows the same pattern. Seventh-century Arab culture practiced polygamy, so the Quran permits it. Seventh-century Arab culture allowed males to initiate easy divorce, and so does the Quran. That culture allowed men to hit their wives, so does the Quran. The list could go on. The Quran is not “uncreated” apart from its culture.

Christians believe that the New Testament fulfills the Old. Jews don’t interpret the Torah apart from the Talmud. In other words, the Old is being updated. Can Muslims do the same with the Quran and the Traditions?

Are reformers willing to work on all of these ten suggestions at the same time? If so, please tell us the results, as things go along.

Right now, however, reform seems to be losing ground in many Islamic nations, if it is being attempted at all.

Conclusion

Thomas Jefferson said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs.”

This means that beliefs and practices that do not harm us monetarily or physically can be tolerated.

However, many parts in shariah have rulings that do indeed pick our pockets and break our legs. Just one example relevant to the Jefferson quotation: Shariah says to persecute and possibly execute atheists (who believe in no God) and polytheists (who worship many gods). That policy is wrong.

Thus, some parts of religions are so egregious and out of bounds that they need to be rejected, not understood or reformed.

But in the meantime, whether Islam succeeds or not in reforming and rejecting its bad parts, or whether it even tries or not, the West and other non-Muslims countries must remember our foundational rights, to prevent shariah from creeping any further into our society over the next decades.

Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident and fundamental truths and rights.

The Western intellectual elites, who are the decision and policy makers, must understand that any law in shariah that denies those three rights is unjust.

If we give up on those three God-given fundamental rights and truths and bend towards Islam, rather than seeing it bend towards us, then we will weaken our free and blessed nation.

| 14 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 24, 2012

More assaults on the First Amendment from Muslims in the U.S. "Leaders of Kansas City Muslim group petition Obama to limit free speech of American citizens," by Patrick Poole in PJ Media, September 24:

The leadership of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City have launched an online petition campaign for President Obama to back a bill to limit the free speech of American citizens they deem offensive.

The petition states:

The undersigned Board Of Directors and members of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City (ISGKC) urges you to sponsor a bill that outlaws any action that may insult one’s religion.  We utterly disagree with the violence that has taken place and the death of United States Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and other members of the United States embassy staff in Libya.  We support the apprehension and conviction of those responsible for such acts.

We understand the First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and, as such, prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, etc., but when the allowance of “free” speech incites violence it should be banned. 

The film behind the violence that is occurring in part of the Muslim world, “The Innocence of Muslims”, although it may be amateurish, its contents are very disturbing and insulting to the religion and has ignited an already volatile part of the world.  The film is repulsive to the sensibilities of Muslims and offends the religion of Islam in multiple ways; by denigrating the seriousness of Islam, our Prophet and the Muslims in general.  We believe that it would be in everyone’s interest to ban such actions from reoccurring.

Actions as such should not be tolerated as they are very offensive.  The violence that has taken place as a result of this film is very alarming.  As Muslims, violence of any sort is prohibited in our religion.  Those people who are carrying out these acts cannot possibly call themselves devout Muslims as they are acting out of pure rage and not out of religious duties.  We condemn the violence and feel that, in spite of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, action may be necessary to pass such a bill or, at least, censure such actions in order to calm the current situation as well as prevent future re-occurrences. 

American Muslims are hard-working, law abiding, and tax paying citizens.  Everyone respects freedom of speech and the First Amendment in general, however, when freedom of speech results in defaming and insulting others and provokes the killing of innocent people, it should be outlawed.  In light of the recent situation, the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City hopes you may take up this cause and urge other representatives to do the same.  We appreciate your time and efforts.

Read it all.

| 57 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

PJMediaBannerSpencer.jpg


In PJ Media today I discuss calls for the restriction of the freedom of speech coming from prominent U.S.-based "moderate" Muslim clerics:

As the Muhammad movie riots continued into a second week, two imams based in the United States joined the calls from the grand imam of Al-Azhar, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood for the U.S. to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Sheikh Husham al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Michigan, said about the worldwide Muslim riots that “the only solution is to replace the hate with love.” And “love,” in his mind, meant that “they should put a law not to insult a spiritual leader.”

Meanwhile, Imam Mohammad Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, New Jersey, said that “we, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” for while Americans do indeed have the freedom of speech, they have “no right” to talk about topics holy to Muslims, for to do so will lead to “hatred or war among people.”

Al-Husainy and Qatanani are not marginal, fringe characters. Al-Husainy last year was the featured cleric on All-American Muslim, a reality showed that aired on The Learning Channel and was dedicated to countering the chimerical threat of “Islamophobia” by showing Muslims as ordinary folks leading ordinary lives. Yet, according to Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, he is also “a signatory to the Jerusalem Document of 2009, which reads more like Mein Kampf. It refers to the war on Zionism as a war between “good and evil.” Zionism is considered an “aggression” that is infecting “the entire human race.” Muslims are told to “get ready for the holy Jihad.” The document also expresses support for a jihad terrorist group: “We remind our sons to get ready to carry out their duty in Holy Jihad and continue the path which our young valiant men in Hezbollah began in Southern Lebanon.”

Al-Husainy also gave an invocation at the Democratic National Committee’s Annual Winter Meeting in 2007. Al-Husainy prayed:

Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. … And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation.

He was echoing the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur’an and most common prayer of Islam. It asks Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional and mainstream Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam, while the path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians. Thus al-Husainy was condemning Judaism and Christianity right under the bowed heads of the assembled Democrats. And his reference to “occupation” was clearly, coming from this supporter of Hezbollah, a dig at Israel.

There is more.

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

In Egypt. Video thanks to Theodore Shoebat.

Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

In light of all this, until authorities get the courage to tell the truth about honor killing, there will be many more such murders.

| 19 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Shameful. Western governments should be standing strongly for the freedom of speech, and protecting those who are being threatened for exercising it. Instead, this. "Feds' advice to two Canadians linked to anti-Islam film: button your lip," by Joan Bryden for The Canadian Press, September 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

OTTAWA - The federal government has some advice for two Canadians who fear for their lives after being wrongly linked to an anti-Muslim film that has sparked violent protests around the globe: button up.

That response has infuriated Nader Fawzy, one of two Canadian Coptic Christians against whom Egypt has issued arrest warrants for alleged involvement in the production, distribution or promotion of the film, Innocence of Muslims.

Fawzy says he believes the arrest warrants are aimed at silencing activists who've criticized the persecution of Copts in Egypt.

And now, he said, the Canadian government is compounding the injustice by suggesting they keep quiet.

"Why I should be quiet?" Fawzy demanded in an interview, noting that freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Is the Canadian government, because they are scared from those people, they are going to change the way how you live in Canada? I'm so sorry, I'm Canadian citizen and when I came to Canada, I came to live in free country."...

Those days are vanishing quickly.

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

AbuHamza.jpg


Under slightly different circumstances, of course. "Court paves way for UK-based cleric's extradition to U.S.," from Reuters, September 24 (thanks to all who sent this in):

PARIS (Reuters) - The European Court of Human Rights gave final approval on Monday for the extradition of one of Britain's most radical Islamist clerics and four others to the United States, where they face terrorism charges.

The decision caps a long legal battle and means Abu Hamza al-Masri could be extradited within weeks. Britain's Home Office, or interior ministry, said it would hand over the suspects "as quickly as possible".

The Egyptian-born al-Masri, 54, filed an appeal, along with the four other suspects, after the court in Strasbourg authorized Britain to transfer him to the United States on charges he supported al Qaeda and aided a fatal kidnapping in Yemen.

Al-Masri, who could face a sentence of more than 100 years in an ultra-secure "Supermax" prison, had argued such treatment would contravene Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment....

The one-eyed radical with a metal hook for a hand who has praised the September 11, 2001 attacks, was once a preacher at a North London mosque but was later convicted of inciting murder and racial hatred. He is being held in a British jail.

He was indicted in 2004 by a federal grand jury in New York, accused of providing material support to al Qaeda and of involvement in a hostage-taking in Yemen in 1998 in which four hostages - three Britons and one Australian - were killed.

He was also accused of providing material support to al Qaeda by trying to set up a training camp for fighters in the Pacific state of Oregon and of trying to organize support for the Taliban in Afghanistan. (Reporting by Vicky Buffery in Paris and Alessandra Rizzo in London; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

| 18 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

While Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president allowed Muslims to “demonstrate” by attacking the U.S. embassy in Cairo—all in the name of a YouTube movie—human rights activist Magdi Khalil says he has evidence that President Muhammad Morsi’s administration is threatening the Coptic church in Egypt with “retaliatory measures” if Copts outside of Egypt dare demonstrate against him during his upcoming speech in front of the UN General Assembly, scheduled for September 26.

Describing such threats as “cheap blackmail” meant to silence Christians from exposing the suffering of their coreligionists in Egypt, Khalil called on Copts and others in America not to succumb to Morsi’s demands, but instead to respond to them by appearing and demonstrating in large numbers.

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Over at the Investigative Project on Terrorism (via RaymondIbrahim.com) I discuss why two imprisoned Christians -- a pastor in Iran and a girl in Pakistan -- were released, and the true lessons learned, which are far from heartening:

Two Christians living in the Islamic world under arrest and awaiting execution—the one charged with apostasy, the other with blasphemy—were just released.

According to a September 8 report on CNN, "A Christian pastor sentenced to death in Iran for apostasy was reunited with his family Saturday after a trial court acquitted him... Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, born to Muslim parents and a convert to Christianity by age 19, was released after being held in prison for almost three years under a death sentence.... Setting aside the death sentence, a trial court convicted Nadarkhani of a lesser charge—evangelizing Muslims—and declared that his prison sentence had already been served... His case drew international attention after his October 2009 arrest, and the 34-year-old pastor refused to recant his Christian beliefs."

In a separate story published the same day, "Pakistani authorities on Saturday released a teenage Christian girl detained over accusations of blasphemy," for allegedly burning pages of a Koran. Up till then, local Muslims were calling for the death of the 14-year-old Christian girl, Rimsha Masih, warning that, if released, they would "take the law into their own hands."

Why were these two Christians released—when both apostasy and blasphemy are great crimes in Islam, punishable by death? Is this a sign that Iran and Pakistan are reforming, becoming more "moderate"? One U.S. paper, for example, optimistically offers the following title, "Rescue of Christian Girl may be Turning Point in Abuse of Blasphemy Law."

Nadarkhani and Masih were certainly not released because their governments are acting according to universal standards of justice or reason. If so, they would not have been arrested in the first place. Nor do these releases suggest that Iran or Pakistan are rethinking their Islamic apostasy and blasphemy laws.

The fact is, there are many more Christians imprisoned in both countries for apostasy and blasphemy. Unlike Nadarkhani and Masih, however, the Western mainstream has never heard of these unfortunate Christians.

And that's the whole difference....

Continue reading for a long list of other Christians in Iran and Pakistan suffering for apostasy and blasphemy whose stories never made it to the mainstream media, and thus are doomed to continue suffering under Sharia.

| 3 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Clearly not very much is okay with her. "Pakistani Foreign Minister: 'Maybe We Do Need to Rethink How Much Freedom is Okay,'" by Michael W. Chapman for CNS News, September 24:

(CNSNews.com) – Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar told CNN's "Situation Room" last week that if freedom of speech in the United States provokes people in the Muslim and Arab world to take actions against Americans then “maybe we do need to rethink how much freedom is okay.”...

"I see that this certainly can get better," she said. "And I think what we need is more tolerance for each other's views. What we need is to be able to give mutual space for us to be able to demonstrate what is culturally, religiously important to us and not to hold each other--you know, not to judge each other for that, to give that space and to be able to create some space for ourselves.

"And really, Wolf," she said, "I think we have to be sensitive to religious sensitivities. I think it's not good enough to say it's free speech, it should be allowed. I think if this does provoke action against American citizens or Americans anywhere else in the world, then maybe we do need to rethink how much freedom is OK.

"Is freedom to the extent of harming lives also OK?" she said. "So, I think we need to find a way to manage this in a civilized manner in trying to bring all of our, you know, all of our minds together."

When asked about “awful things” said about other religions in the Arab and Muslim world and that there are no massive demonstrations and violence in response, Khar said, “Well, I don’t want to get deeper into that discussion because I quite frankly think that in Islam there is a lot of respect for both Judaism and Christianity. The Koran itself has a lot of respect, and that’s why this is why, I think, this is a common battle because Islam is a religion of peace.”

“Prophet Muhammed’s life is a life of peace,” said Khar. “He is called the messenger of peace, for instance. So this is very different than the Islam that is portrayed to you when you see that street violence."

| 28 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

What do Iran's nukes have to do with Islam? That is a question for the Washington establishment and the mainstream media to ponder, and there will be a test. They will fail it, for their presentation of Islam renders the Thug-In-Chief's statement completely nonsensical -- they simply have no way to understand it. Persisting in willful blindness and refusal to face unpleasant truths thus hinders one's ability to evaluate today's global situation.

"Iran Nuclear Tensions Key Topic at UN Assembly," by Scott Bobb for the VOA, September 24:

A key topic at this week's session of the United Nations General Assembly is Iran's alleged development of nuclear weapons and the threat by Israel and the United States to use military force to stop it. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his Cabinet Sunday that he would warn the U.N. General Assembly that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would be a global threat. He says he will argue that what he calls the most dangerous state in the world cannot be armed with the most dangerous weapons in the world. Netanyahu is due to address the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, one day after Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to speak to the world body....

Ahmadinejad on Monday slammed Western powers, saying their campaign against Iran's nuclear program was "sacrilege" against Islam. He spoke in New York at a U.N. debate on the rule of law and said the United States, Britain and France "violate the basic rights and freedoms of other nations....

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Traitors. Them, not him. "Ahmadinejad to Attend UN General Assembly Meeting for 8th Time," from the Fars News Agency, September 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will leave Tehran for New York at the head of a delegation in the next few days in a bid to attend a UN General Assembly meeting and hold talks with senior heads of state who will participate in the meeting.

President Ahmadinejad is scheduled to start his week-long visit to New York early on September 22. Manhattan's Warwick Hotel will host the Iranian President and his accompanying delegation....

Ahmadinejad is also set to meet American university students, artists, intellectuals and elites, including Occupy Wall Street anti-capitalist protestors, despite the ongoing efforts made by the pro-Zionist lobbies to prevent direct link between American people and the Iranian president....

| 14 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Here at last is a balanced article on my colleague Pamela Geller's fight for the freedom of speech and the truth about jihad. "Savaged For Daring To Name Savagery: Pamela Geller Attacked by Critics of Free Speech," by Lori Lowenthal Marcus for the Jewish Press, September 24:

Pamela Geller, conservative commentator and blogger provocateur, is the executive director of the American Freeedom [sic] Defense Initiative. AFDI created and paid for an ad campaign to run in several urban transit systems, in response to anti-Israel ads that ran in the same spaces.

The AFDI ads contain a paraphrase from the philosopher Ayn Rand: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” It concludes with: “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The ads are already running on the sides of San Francisco buses, they began running today, September 24th, in New York City, and they were scheduled to begin appearing in the Washington, D.C. metro system. However, the DC system balked, citing the violent rioting by Muslims allegedly inflamed by a YouTube video which presents an unflattering view of Mohammad, so Geller initiated an emergency court action at the end of last week to enforce her First Amendment rights.

Because there is so much misinformation both about Geller and her ad, The Jewish Press asked her to explain what her ad means, why it is scheduled to run this week, what the responses to it have been and, most importantly, why she continues to express her views so publicly, when she is repeatedly condemned by virtually the entire spectrum of mainstream media and even by other Jewish and pro-Israel groups.

First, let’s get the chronology and the geography straight.

2010, Seattle

In late 2010, in Seattle, Washington, anti-Israel groups sought to run advertisements on the side of municipal buses reading: “Israeli War Crimes: Your tax dollars at work. Stop30billion-Seattle.org.” Just before the anti-Israel ads were about to go up, the county executive crafted a new policy banning all non-commercial advertisements. The new policy enabled the municipality to reject not only the anti-Israel ad, but also two counter-ads that had been submitted, one of which was one proposed by Geller, the other one offered by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

September, 2011, New York

Last September, another series of anti-Israel ads went up in various transit systems including the one in New York City. This ad shows two smiling dads – one Israeli, one “Palestinian,” with their young daughters. The ad copy: “Be on our side. We’re on the side of peace and Justice. End U.S. military aid to Israel.” In other words, American tax dollars is being used to support Israeli militancy and injustice. These ads ran in 18 NYC subway stops for a month, in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.

That same month, Geller’s organization, AFDI, submitted the anti-Jihad ad. The MTA refused to run it, claiming the ad violated its advertising standards because it “demeans[s] an individual or group of individuals.” AFDI claimed that rejection violated the U.S. Constitution. On September 227, 2011, AFDI, Pamela Geller, and AFDI’s associate director, Robert Spencer, filed suit against the MTA claiming that the transit agency’s no-demeaning standard constitutes “viewpoint discrimination” and is unconstitutional and therefore the MTA’s rejection of AFDI’s ad unlawfully restricted their free speech.

September 2012, New York

On July 20, 2012, Judge Englemayer, the federal district court judge in New York before whom the matter was heard, ruled that the MTA’s prohibition on “demeaning” language is unconstitutional and the ad must run. Significantly, the court ruled that

the AFDI Ad is not only protected speech—it is core political speech. The Ad expresses AFDI’s pro-Israel perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, and implicitly calls for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict. The AFDI Ad is, further, a form of response to political ads on the same subject that have appeared in the same space. As such, the AFDI Ad is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.

While AFDI was the victor in the case, Judge Engelmayer threw more than a few crumbs to the ad’s opponents.

For example, there was a fundamental disagreement over the use of the term “savage” – Geller claims it refers only to those committing acts of barbarism against innocent victims in the name of Islam. Judge Englemayer, however, held that a reasonable person could conclude the term referred simply to Muslims.

What’s more, the judge practically wrote a recipe for the MTA to follow for rewriting its advertising policy so that a ban on an ad like AFDI’s could, in the future be upheld by a court.

But it would be wrong to conclude that while AFDI may have won the (legal) battle, it lost the war, because AFDI’s ad was specifically created to counter anti-Israel ads. If there is an MTA policy that constitutionally prohibits AFDI-like ads, presumably it will also cover anti-Israel ads. If not, AFDI will surely respond with another counter to any such permissible anti-Israel ads.

AFDI’s ads began running today, as the MTA conceded that under its “existing ad standards as modified by the injunction, the MTA is required to run the ad.” However, there were numerous reports that the MTA is planning on revising its standards in an executive sessions scheduled for this week.

Read it all.

| 23 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The idea that you have to have a degree in something in order to be able to speak about it competently and accurately is too absurd to warrant any serious reply. As Daniel Pipes points out here, when it comes to Islam, it is often just the opposite nowadays -- a fact for which we have the ideological straitjacket of the Middle East Studies Association to thank.

"MPAC Calls Me an 'Expert on Islam,'" by Daniel Pipes at History News Network, September 24:

Why thank you, Muslim Public Affairs Council, for this endorsement. It’s much appreciated, even if came in a 65-page pamphlet, Not Qualified: Exposing the Deception Behind America’s 25 Top Pseudo-Experts on Islam.

According to MPAC, a leading Islamist group based in Los Angeles, those 25 would be Andrew Bostom, William Boykin, Stephen Coughlin, Nonie Darwish, Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney, David Gaubatz, William Gawthrop, Pamela Geller, John Giduck, Sebastian Gorka, John Guandolo, Tawfik Hamid, David Horowitz, Raymond Ibrahim, Zuhdi Jasser, Andrew McCarthy, Walid Phares, Patrick Poole, Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer, Erick Stakelback, David Yerushalmi … and me.

The gravamen of MPAC’s analysis is that members of this group overwhelmingly are not what it calls experts on Islam, where this term is defined as

[A]n individual who has formal academic qualifications in Islamic Studies from an accredited institute of higher education in the West or those institutes of higher education in Muslim-majority countries that rank among the world’s top 500 universities. In order to be classified as "expert", as defined above, one’s credentials must also be publicly verifiable.

According to MPAC, "Of the 25 people examined, only 1 (4%) had the qualifications to be considered an ‘expert’ on Islam." That 4% would be me. In another place, MPAC contradicts itself and allows that Raymond Ibrahim also has "the formal and verifiable academic credentials to be classified as an expert." Even more contradictorily, as the pamphlet title implies, MPAC says I am a "pseudo-expert" expert on Islam.

My first question is, why does MPAC chose individuals who make no claim to expertise in Islam (such as John Giduck and David Horowitz), but exclude critics with academic credentials in Islamic studies, such as Fouad Ajami, David Cook, David Forte, Efraim Karsh, Martin Kramer, Bernard Lewis, Michael Rubin, Philip Salzman, and Kemal Silay?

My main objection is to the emphasis on credentials. The field of Middle East studies demonstrates -- only too colorfully -- that possessing a PhD does not guarantee competence. Sadly, it’s almost the opposite.

Indeed. Look at Omid Safi and Reza Aslan.

It’s not where a person went to school in his or her twenties, the languages he or she knows, or his or her years living abroad that matters but the capabilities, knowledge, energy, and intelligence he or she subsequently displays. Speaking as someone who has the requisite degrees, languages, and years abroad, I despise this self-serving emphasis on academic pedigree which would exclude non-PhDs from commenting on things Muslim.

It is a natural consequence of the Islamic supremacist/Leftist control of Middle East studies in the U.S. If they were on the outs in the nation's colleges and universities, you'd hear Islamic supremacist groups like MPAC railing against the entrenched, hidebound academic establishment, the good old boy network, and emphasizing the fact that academic credentials do not make for accuracy, or lack thereof for unreliability.

A number of individuals on the MPAC list of 24 have made real contributions. Take the example of Robert Spencer: he has a mere M.A. in religious studies, lacks fluency in Middle Eastern languages, and has not lived in a Muslim-majority country, to be sure, but he has developed a deep erudition on Islam demonstrated in his many books. Indeed, I challenge MPAC to put him toe-to-toe with any PhD’d expert on Islam of its choosing. I nominate that foremost credentialist, John Esposito, for the job.

This made me smile, because indeed, when I challenged Esposito to debate, he sent me his resume. In any case, the list of these puffed-up pseudo-academic clowns who have ducked my debate challenge is very long. I am still ready to debate any of them. But none of them will accept. They claim that it is because of all my hateful hatefulness, but that is an obvious dodge, and in any case, irrelevant, since my books have more readers than all of theirs put together: if I am really so horribly hateful, it would be all the more urgent to refute me and show me up by defeating me in debate, so as to end my baneful influence forever. But none of them do it, because they all know they cannot. They all know that I am telling the truth, and thus they won't debate me because the debate would make that fact all too obvious.

This next part is very funny, considering how Salam al-Marayati is one of the most arrogant and unpleasant people in a field crowded with them:

(Amusingly, by insisting that only those with a degree in Islamic studies may comment on Islam and Muslims, MPAC has just fired its own staff. Its leader, Salam al-Marayati has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry and a graduate degree in business administration. And yet MPAC mires itself in deep Islamic issues.)...

Read it all.

| 19 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

But remember: don't call him "savage." "Muslim 'cult leader' revealed," by Dan Oakes for The Age, September 24 (thanks to Lachlan):

IN THE bright sunshine on the steps outside the convention centre, a gaunt, bearded figure jabs his finger into the air and chants: ''Christopher Hitchens, burn in hell!''

The small group of men clustered around him repeat the slogan as they wave signs describing atheism as a cancer and Islam as its cure. They appear to relish the abuse rained down on them from the large crowd surrounding them.

The protest outside this year's Global Atheist Convention at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre - captured on video and posted on YouTube - was the Australian public's first glimpse of Harun Mehicevic and his band of devoted followers. But the next time the public spotlight fell on him, it would be in far more dramatic circumstances.

When federal and state police swarmed into properties across Melbourne 12 days ago, searching for evidence of terror-related offences, the al-Furqan Islamic bookstore in Springvale South was quickly identified as a common link between all of those targeted.

People within Melbourne's Islamic community then named Bosnian-born Mehicevic - also known as Abu Talha - as the spiritual leader of a deeply conservative group of men who congregate at the bookstore.

In the days after the raids, The Age managed to track down a number of people connected with al-Furqan and question them about their beliefs and activities. Some of Mehicevic's followers have also taken to social media to deny allegations of terror-related activities and criticise police over the raids.

But throughout all this, Mehicevic has remained a shadowy figure. The Age revealed that he was in Bosnia when the raids took place, and that he had given a statement to Bosnian police. Because Australian police had not issued a warrant for his arrest, he was allowed to walk free....

Sources have told The Age that he came to Australia from Bosnia as a young adult in the mid-1990s, and that he has a Pakistani-born wife and six children. They say he studied arts at Deakin University and possibly gained a diploma in teaching.

Somewhere along the way, Mehicevic turned to a conservative and purist form of Islam known Salafism. He became a follower of hardline Melbourne cleric Sheikh Mohammed Omran, and associated with Abdul Nacer Benbrika, who is serving a 15-year jail term for planning a terrorist attack in Melbourne in 2005. When Benbrika split from Omran, Mehicevic remained loyal to the senior cleric.

However, the relationship between Omran and Mehicevic began to sour last year when the Bosnian assumed powers some said he was not entitled or qualified to wield. Sources say he began to issue fatwas, or judgments, against people he accused of not being true Muslims, and began to select spouses for people and recommend divorces.

In a power struggle, Mehicevic and his followers wrested control of the al-Furqan centre from Omran's organisation, and effectively banished Omran's followers from the centre.

Sources within the Islamic community have described him as a ''cult leader'' and ''charismatic but totally delusional''. They say he has gathered a multi-ethnic group of 20 to 30 young men around him, and they are fiercely loyal to him.

''He tells them exactly what they want to hear,'' a source said. ''Hate the kuffar [unbelievers]; hate the system.''

Some families were so concerned about the hold Mehicevic had over their children they moved overseas to get them away from his influence.

Many of those standing around Mehicevic in the video taken at the atheist convention are believed to be from al-Furqan. While they engage in angry exchanges with the atheists confronting them, Mehicevic remains aloof, only occasionally chanting or talking intently to those around him.

Although some of them are of Bosnian origin, they wear clothes of Pakistani or even Saudi Arabian appearance as a way of proclaiming their hardline beliefs.

Some who have listened to Mehicevic preach say he has advocated violent struggle against Western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has gone as far as hailing suicide bombings aimed at civilians in other countries. However, they say they have never heard him advocate terrorist acts in Australia, and question whether he would jeopardise his hold over al-Furqan and his comfortable existence by doing so....

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

This is the kind of law that so many now want to bring to the United States. "Rights groups condemn detention of atheist on blasphemy charges," by Mai Shams El-Din for Egypt Independent, September 24 (thanks to Lachlan):

Human rights organizations have criticized the arrest of atheist activist Alber Saber.

Saber was originally arrested over claims that he published the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” on Facebook, but when it emerged that there was no evidence to support the claim, he was later charged on the basis of an atheist video that he had made.

Two days after protests and clashes between security forces and protesters broke out over the film near the US Embassy on 11 September, neighbors of Saber claimed that he shared the anti-Islam YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims” on his Facebook account, which led an angry mob to storm Saber’s house in Marg district, kicking out Saber and his mother.

Kariman Meseha, Saber’s mother, told journalists attending a press conference at the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression yesterday that she called the police to protect her son, but once police arrived, it was Saber who was arrested, not those who attacked his home.

“Police forces told me that he would be taken to the police station to protect him from the angry mob, and that I could come by the police station the next day to receive him,” Meseha said, adding that the next day, she discovered that he was arrested on blasphemy charges.

AFTE lawyer Ahmed Ezzat said police incited the prisoners against Saber, claiming that he was an atheist and insulted the Prophet Mohamed; one of the prisoners injured him in the neck with a razor blade.

“If the blade was sharper, it would have killed Alber,” Ezzat said....

| 2 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

It will certainly be back on right after the election, after all the easy marks have been fooled. "Obama cancels election-season meeting with Egyptian Islamist Morsi," by Neil Munro for the Daily Caller, September 24:

President Barack Obama has quietly cancelled a politically risky plan to meet this week with Egypt’s new Islamist president.

The plan was cancelled amid a wave of riots and attacks in Arab countries that have damaged Obama’s campaign-trail claim to foreign policy competence.

In 2011, Obama had “bilateral” meetings with 13 Arab and world leaders during the annual U.S. summit. This year, amid the foreign policy meltdown, his schedule shows no so-called bilats” with any foreign leaders.

The cancelled visit with Morsi was mentioned in a Sept. 23 New York Times article about Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, an Islamist who now governs the Arab region’s most important country.

Despite critical 2011 support from Obama for the revolt that removed Hosni Mubarak, Morsi is now demanding restrictions on U.S. free speech that is critical of Islam, demanding more U.S. support for the anti-Israeli Islamist governments in Gaza and the West Bank, and more financial aid to help the cash-strapped Egyptian government buy food and fuel for its population of 82 million people....

| 17 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

If 1944 had been like 2012: "German Troops Riot in Italy over Disney Film!," by Rand Simberg at PJ Media, September 23:

WASHINGTON (Routers) Outraged over the insult to their Fuehrer by a film recently released by RKO, German troops reportedly engaged in violent attacks on Americans attempting to consolidate a beach head in the area of Salerno, Italy, today. The attack was seemingly sudden and spontaneous, waged against the 36th and 45th Divisions near the villages of Altavilla and Battipaglia....

Titled Der Fuehrer’s Face, the short film that caused the uprising mocks not only Adolf Hitler, but also his aides Goering and Goebbels, and the Nazi belief system itself, and is clearly intended to do so. Featuring an insulting Donald Duck, it seems like crude propaganda, depicting Germans as cruel and stupid. It also makes fun of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It also includes a racist depiction of General Tojo, the Japanese military leader. It features a silly and insulting song released last year by the so-called “comic” musician Spike Jones that mocks the Nazi Party....

In hopes of tamping down the sudden and unexpected bloodshed, the State Department issued a press release:

The U.S. State Department condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the feelings of Germans, Nazis and other fascists — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all beliefs. Respect for others’ beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the feelings of others.
| 23 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

AmericansWeAreYourDeath.jpg


Reuters: "A supporter of the religious party Idara Sirat-e-Mustaqeem holds a placard during a rally with some 600 other protesters against an anti-Islam film made in the U.S. mocking Prophet Mohammad, in Lahore September 23, 2012...." (Thanks to Ravi)

Senate votes 81-10 not to cut aid to Pakistan

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us


Muslims' hearts are hurting, says the speaker toward the end of the video, and whatever hurts Muslims' hearts should be stopped.

I.e., criminalize criticism of Islam.

Video thanks to Tony.

| 8 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Hamas-linked CAIR is on a jihad against free speech, trying to obstruct our AFDI pro-Israel ad campaign in New York. CAIR thugs are calling in all their cards in the media and the beltway: the millions that the Saudis have given to CAIR have been spread, and spread thick. Hamas-linked CAIR has demonized America on official television of the bloody Islamic Republic of Iran, so it is not surprising that it would resort to tried and true Nazi-like tactics of repeating lies and defamation about the defenders of America's freedoms. Like Hitler and Goebbels, Hamas-linked CAIR is trying to dehumanize its enemy and drive us completely out of the public discourse.

We won’t go.

Not because of intimidation and lies from Hamas-linked CAIR. It is no accident that Hamas-linked CAIR objects to the word “savage” being used of jihadis, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt used it of Nazis. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed posters telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI.

Hamas-linked CAIR’s attempt to defame AFDI and dictate to New Yorkers what messages they can and cannot see is consistent with its long record of pro-jihad duplicity, deception and thuggery. One member of this unsavory gang has even previously called for these ads to be defaced. Although it has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign Islamic entities, it has not registered as a foreign agent as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), despite spreading Islamic supremacist propaganda within the United States.

Although it presents itself as a civil rights group, CAIR actually has numerous links to hateful and violent Islamic supremacist and jihad groups.

CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Niwad Awad (who still serves as CAIR's executive director) were present at a Hamas planning meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 where they and other Hamas operatives conspired to raise funds for Hamas and to promote jihad in the Middle East. CAIR has steadfastly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror:

-- Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, in 2009 received a 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million from the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation to the jihad terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians

-- Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, was in 1995 designated by the U.S. government in 1995 as a "terrorist and Hamas leader." He now is a Hamas leader in Syria.

-- Randall Royer, CAIR's former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres.

-- Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's former community relations director, was arrested for involvement with the Islamic Assembly of North America, which was linked to al-Qaida. After pleading guilty to visa and bank fraud charges, Khafagi was deported.

-- Rabih Haddad, a former CAIR fundraiser, was deported for his work with the Global Relief Foundation (which he co-founded), a terror-financing organization.

In 1998 Omar Ahmad, CAIR's co-founder and longtime Board Chairman, said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

After he received unwelcome publicity as a result of this statement, Ahmad denied saying it, several years after the fact. However, the original reporter, Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus, stands by her story.

CAIR's spokesman Ibrahim Hooper once said: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

New York deserves better. ACT NOW for FREEDOM:

  1. Write to New York's Mayor Bloomberg thanking him for affirming the freedom of speech regarding these ads: mbloomberg@ cityhall.nyc.gov
  2. Write to the MTA asking them to protect the free speech rights of opponents of jihad violence and hatred by protecting the ads from being defaced.Write to Joseph Lhota, Chairman, MTA, 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 or the general comment email at the MTA website at  http://mta-nyc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/mta_nyc.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php
  3. Starting on Monday, September 24, if you see Hamas-linked CAIR thugs defacing or obstructing view of these ads, tweet us the location at @atlasshrugs, or email us at writeatlas@aol.com
    • Go to the sites where CAIR’s hate cadres are leafleting and express your support for the ads.
    • Tweeting a photo of your efforts for us to share.
If you have other ideas, let us know. It’s time to organize and reclaim New York as a city that stands for freedom against lies and oppression.
| 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

But anyone who suggests that the Islamic religion might have something within it that incites violence will be charged forthwith with "bigotry," "racism" and "Islamophobia."

Video thanks to Benedict.

| 9 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

However, the district attorney who should be prosecuting the imam is instead defending him. It is likely that he will be cleared, because framing Christians for blasphemy just isn't that big an offense in Pakistan. "Cleric found guilty in blasphemy case," by Malik Asad for Dawn, September 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

ISLAMABAD: The investigation officer (IO) in the blasphemy case exonerated the minor Christian girl from the main allegation and declared Imam Khalid Jadoon as the prime accused.

The IO, Munir Hussain Jaffery, sub-inspector Police Station Ramna, however, irked the district attorney Islamabad, Mehfooz Paracha who wrote a dissenting note on the challan and expressed reservations over the IO.

In the much awaited challan of the blasphemy case submitted in the court of duty, magistrate Abbas Shah, the IO explained five reasons for declaring Imam Jadoon as the main accused.

The challan said that Imam Jadoon ripped two pages from the Holy Quran and mixed them in the half burnt pages of the prayer learning book.

According to the challan Imam Jadoon was the real blasphemer because he was a Muslim, an educated person, religious scholar and was the cleric of a mosque and was fully aware of the sanctity of the pages of the Quran.

The challan said that the minor Christian girl was mentally weak and uneducated and was not able to distinguish between the papers of the holy book or ordinary literature.

The challan pointed out that in their statements recorded on September 13, two female witnesses — Tasleem Akhtar and Mehreen Noor — of the area Mehra Jaffer where the incident took place, disclosed that the minor girl with another girl was going to throw ashes of fire-wood and pages, which they used in the stove as fuel.

The investigation officer also said that during the examination of the evidence, he found ashes of fire-wood and dry grass along with burnt pages of the prayer book, which means that the Christian family was using them in their stove and not deliberately disrespecting the pages.

The statement of Hafiz Zubair, an eye witness of the blasphemy case, who exposed the Imam, also incorporated this information in the challan.

There are at least three witnesses who claimed that they personally observed the Imam, while he was mixing the pages of Quran in the evidence to make the case more strong against the Christian girl but there was not a single direct evidence or eyewitness who claimed to have seen the minor girl burning the pages of the prayer book, the challan revealed.

Subsequently, the challan declared that there was not sufficient evidence against the girl and the name of Imam Jadoon was placed in column 3, which is for the prime accused.

District attorney Mehfooz Paracha, disagreed with the police challan and said that IO Jaffery wrongly declared him the prime accused.

In the dissenting note, he wrote in the challan, that the attorney said that IO Jaffery during the investigation created doubts over the girl and implicated Imam Jadoon.

Had Imam Jadoon inserted the pages prior to the burning of prayer pages, he would be declared as the prime accused but in present circumstances, the Imam could not be declared as the main accused.

IO Jaffery, on the other hand, insisted that the challan has been prepared after thorough investigation and he alleged that the district attorney was supporting the accused.

In a separate report submitted to the sessions’ court, IO Jaffery pointed out that being the district attorney the job of Mr Paracha was to argue the case of state and prosecution but apparently he was supporting the main accused, Imam Khalid Jadoon.

The report said that attorney Paracha during the scrutiny of the challan misbehaved with the IO and said that the investigation was incorrect as the IO wrongly implicated Imam Jadoon.

The attorney also used the word, “liar” and “incompetent” for the IO, a miscellaneous report of IO Jaffery added....

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 23, 2012

One thing must be said about this man: he has been consistent. As has the blindness of those of his followers who persist in believing that he is in any way pro-Israel. "Obama brushes off Israeli pressure over Iran," from AFP, September 23:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama likened Israeli pressure on him to draw a line in the sand over Iran's nuclear ambitions as noise he tries to ignore, according to remarks aired Sunday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently urged the United States to establish what he called a "red line" regarding Tehran's nuclear program beyond which the United States would be compelled to act....

Obama, interviewed for Sunday's edition of "60 Minutes" on broadcaster CBS, said he understands and agrees with Netanyahu's insistence that Iran not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons as this would threaten both countries, the world in general, and kick off an arms race.

But Obama added: "When it comes to our national security decisions -- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out -- any noise that's out there."...

Obama's contender for the presidency, Republican Mitt Romney, said this was no way to treat an ally.

The decision not to meet with Netanyahu, he said, also in an interview with "60 minutes", "is a mistake and sends a message throughout the Middle East that somehow we distance ourselves from our friends and I think the exact opposite approach is what's necessary."

Indeed.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Note his chutzpah, in complaining about Iran being threatened, when he has threatened Israel so many, many times. "Ahmadinejad: Zionists Are 'At the End of the Line,'" by Elad Benari in Israel National News, September 24 (thanks to Voice of the Copts):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reiterated that should Israel attack his country, the Islamic Republic will retaliate.

Ahmadinejad made the comments in an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan. The full interview will air on Monday, but excerpts were released on Sunday.

Asked by Morgan what his country’s response will be if it is attacked by Israel, the Iranian President replied, “The response of Iran is quite clear, I don't even need to explain that; any question in any nation has the right and will indeed defend herself. But my question is this, why should the world be managed in such a way that an individual can allow himself to threaten a rich and deeply-rooted historical, ancient country, such as Iran. A great country, such as Iran, based on an excuse of his own fabrication. So anyone can do this. Another country can say, I am guessing that country B is doing activity X, therefore I will attack that country. Can this be a successful formula for the management of the world?”

Morgan asked Ahmadinejad if he fears that war is imminent and whether he fears that there will be military conflict, perhaps before the end of this year, between Iran and Israel.

“Of course the Zionists are very much, very adventuresome, very much seeking to fabricate things and I think they see themselves at the end of the line and I do firmly believe that they seek to create new opportunities for themselves and their adventurous behaviors,” Ahmadinejad responded.

The interview also focused on the protests in the Middle East over the “Innocence of Muslims” film. Asked whether he condemned the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens was murdered, Ahmadinejad answered, “Fundamentally, first of all, any action that is provocative, offends the religious thoughts and feelings of any people, we condemn. Likewise, we condemn any type of extremism.

“Of course, what took place was ugly,” he added. “Offending the Holy Prophet is quite ugly. This has very little or nothing to do with freedom and freedom of speech. This is the weakness of and the abuse of freedom, and in many places it is a crime. It shouldn’t take place and I do hope the day will come in which politicians will not seek to offend those whom others hold holy, or sanctity. But we also believe that this must also be resolved in a humane atmosphere, in a participatory environment and we do not like anyone losing their lives or being killed for any reason anywhere in the world.”...

| 9 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

How long before laws criminalizing criticism of Islam are formulated, ostensibly so as to quiet these riots? "Prophet film protesters clash with Greek police," from the Associated Press, September 23 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greek riot police used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse Muslim protesters who clashed with officers Sunday during a rally against a film produced in the U.S. that denigrates Islam's Prophet Muhammad. No injuries were reported.

"Islam's Prophet Muhammad." There, that wasn't so hard, now, was it?

A general strike in Bangladesh shut down schools, transportation and businesses, while a few hundred people peacefully marched in Pakistan. Iranian students burned flags in Tehran to protest the recent publication of lewd caricatures of Muhammad by a French satirical weekly.

In Athens, six people were detained during the demonstration at a central square, police said. About 600 people attended the rally, which featured heated speeches, but was mostly peaceful.

The crowd then wanted to march to the U.S. Embassy, which is about three kilometers (two miles) away from Omonia Square. Some tried to break through police lines several times, but riot officers pushed them back.

The violence occurred at the end of the rally, when small groups of protesters threw objects at police. Three cars were damaged and three storefronts smashed.

Banners were displayed in English, denouncing the film and called on the U.S. to hang the filmmaker. One told President Barack Obama "we are all with Osama," referring to Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader who was killed in a U.S. raid in Pakistan in May 2011.

The amateurish film, which portrays the prophet as a fraud, a womanizer and a child molester, has sparked violent protests throughout the Muslim world for nearly two weeks. The violence linked to protests over the film has resulted in the deaths of at least 49 people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

About 300 Iranian students protested against the caricatures that appeared in the French weekly. They rallied in front of the French Embassy in Tehran, burning French, U.S. and Israeli flags and chanting "death to France" and "down with the U.S." They called for the expulsion of French ambassador to Iran.

In Bangladesh, schools and businesses were closed and transportation was disrupted across the south Asian country as hardline Islamic groups protesting the film enforced a general strike.

The strike was called in response to police action Saturday against supporters of the groups who rallied in the capital, Dhaka, to denounce the film. Dozens of people were arrested and scores injured Saturday as protesters clashed with police. Several vehicles were burned, including a police van. No violence was immediately reported during Sunday's strike.

About 300 Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims peacefully rallied in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, to protest the film.

"There will be no peace in the world until we respect each other's religion," Sikh leader Deedar Singh said....

I.e., until we all submit to Sharia.

| 31 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

If the U.N. does this, will the riots stop? Maybe for awhile. But then they will start again over some new demand. "U.N. urged to criminalize Islam insults," by Marwa Awad for Reuters, September 24 (thanks to David):

CAIRO: Egypt’s president and other Muslim leaders should demand the U.N. criminalize contempt of religion after the release of an anti-Islamic film and cartoons which demonstrate growing racism, said the leader of the biggest ultra-orthodox Islamist party. Despite doctrinal and political differences with President Mohammad Mursi’s Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafist Nour Party played a key role in supporting it during presidential elections in June.

Led by Emad Abdel Ghaffour, it now ranks as the second-largest party in parliament and plays a formidable force in Egypt’s new politics.

We call for legislation or a resolution to criminalize contempt of Islam as a religion and its Prophet,” Ghaffour, one of four permanent assistants to the president, said Saturday.

“The voice of reason in the West will prevail if there is mutual respect, dialogue and efficient lobbying for this critical resolution,” he said in an interview.

The recent violent unrest in some Muslim countries caused by anger at the anti-Islam film made in California and the French cartoons published by satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo is expected to be a closely watched theme.

“A proposal to look into the root causes of the obvious racism against Muslims and Arabs as the recent fierce campaign against their Islamic beliefs shows is much needed,” Ghaffour said....

| 25 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

They're standing firm, but it is hard to see that they have much of a future in Muslim Brotherhood Egypt. "Christian Families in North Sinai Face Threats, Refuse To Leave," by Milad Zaki for al-Monitor, September 21 (thanks to Lachlan):

Rev. Gabriel Habib, priest at the Church of the Virgin Mary and the Archangel Michael in Al-Arish, said Christian residents had refused to leave temporarily to avoid fulfilling the extremists’ goal of forcing them out of their city.

Habib added that some Christians told him, “Even if we die, we are not better than the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the sake of their homeland and religion,” adding that they will stay with their Muslim neighbors.

Seven Christian families saw leaflets posted on the walls of their shops or homes, commanding them to leave within 48 hours or else have their property destroyed.

Habib said, “The church of Rafah was destroyed during the January revolution [of 2011] and has not been renovated yet.” He added that “prayers have stopped there, because of the security situation in the Sinai.”

Rev. Carlos Victor, secretary of the diocese of North Sinai, quoted security sources as saying that investigations have shown that [the warnings to Christians] were random and no organizing group was behind them, and that it is likely that these leaflets were distributed by Muslim residents angry at the film that insults Prophet Muhammad.

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Worldwide madness. "Silwan woman tries to stab officer 'over anti-Islam film,'" by Noam (Dabul) Dvir for Ynet News, September 23:

A woman from east Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood tried to stab an officer at the parking lot of the Shalem police station on Sunday.

Police suspect the attack, which took place at around 7:30 am, was linked to the anti-Islam film 'Innocence of Muslims,' which mocks the prophet Mohammed.

Whose prophet?

According to an initial investigation, the 32-year-old woman approached the police officer as he was walking in the parking lot and attempted to stab him with a knife. Following a short struggle the officer restrained the woman. No one was injured in the incident.

Arab youngsters recently rioted near the Old City's Damascus Gate in protest against the film, which sparked fierce riots by Muslim worldwide. The protesters began marching towards the US Consulate but were blocked by police officers who used stun grenades against them. Several officers were lightly injured by stones. Some protesters were detained.

On Thursday the Jerusalem District Court rejected a request filed by Arab leaders who sought a temporary injunction to block Israeli web access to the anti-Islam film....

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

After all, there are more U.S. Consulates to attack.

"Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say," from FoxNews.com, September 20:

Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved.

That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act.

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday....

Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News' intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008.

And reconciliation was wonderfully achieved!

His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate.

Olsen, repeating Wednesday that the FBI is handling the Benghazi investigation, also acknowledged the attack could lead back to Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

"We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates, in particular Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb," he said at the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing....

"Obama to Release One Third of Gitmo Inmates," by AWR Hawkins for Breitbart, September 22 (thanks to Alonzo):

President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.

The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.

Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too "unsettled" at the time.

A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn't represent a shutdown of the facility, it's certainly indicative of a move toward that end....

The ACLU has praised the releases as "a partial victory for transparency."

| 9 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Surprise: it was Islamic jihadists again. There have been no reported demonstrations over this in the Islamic world yet, even though Islamic jihadists have murdered thousands of Muslims and Muhammad cartoonists and moviemakers haven't killed anyone. "Iraq attacks kill six, including a brigadier," from AFP, September 23 (thanks to Voice of the Copts):

BAGHDAD — Attacks in Iraq on Sunday killed at least six people, among them a police brigadier general and two soldiers, security and medical officials said.

Gunmen using silenced weapons opened fire on a vehicle carrying police Brigadier General Nayef Abdul Razzaq, head of the interior ministry's complaints office, in the Al-Yarmuk area of west Baghdad, killing him and his driver, an interior ministry official said....

In Sadr City in north Baghdad, a magnetic "sticky bomb" attached to a minibus killed two people and wounded six, the interior ministry official said, while a medical source put the toll at three dead and eight wounded.

And in the northern Iraq city of Mosul, a roadside bomb killed two soldiers when it exploded near their patrol, army First Lieutenant Walid Hammoud and Dr Mahmud Haddad said.

The latest violence brings the number of people killed this month to at least 175, while more than 670 have been wounded in attacks, according to an AFP tally based on security and medical sources....

| 1 Comment
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

After Egyptian Muslims attacked the US embassy, tore its flag, and chanted anti-American slogans of death and destruction, here comes the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt asking Americans for a little more "respect."

"US must respect Arab values, says Egypt’s Morsi," by David Kirkpatrick and Steven Erlanger for the New York Times, September 23:

CAIRO — On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt’s new Islamist president, Mohammed Morsi said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger.

A former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mr. Morsi sought in a 90-minute interview with The New York Times to introduce himself to the American public and to revise the terms of relations between his country and the United States after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, an autocratic but reliable ally.

He said it was up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world and to revitalize the alliance with Egypt, long a cornerstone of regional stability.

If Washington is asking Egypt to honor its treaty with Israel, he said, Washington should also live up to its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian self-rule. He said the United States must respect the Arab world’s history and culture, even when that conflicts with Western values.

And he dismissed criticism from the White House that he did not move fast enough to condemn protesters who recently climbed over the United States Embassy wall and burned the American flag in anger over a video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad.

“We took our time” in responding to avoid an explosive backlash, he said, but then dealt “decisively” with the small, violent element among the demonstrators...

Mr. Morsi, 61, whose office was still adorned with nautical paintings that Mr. Mubarak left behind, said the United States should not expect Egypt to live by its rules.

“If you want to judge the performance of the Egyptian people by the standards of German or Chinese or American culture, then there is no room for judgment,” he said. “When the Egyptians decide something, probably it is not appropriate for the U.S. When the Americans decide something, this, of course, is not appropriate for Egypt.”

He suggested that Egypt would not be hostile to the West, but would not be as compliant as Mr. Mubarak either....

He praised Mr. Obama for moving “decisively and quickly” to support the Arab Spring revolutions...

Indeed, and the repayment for Obama's intervening and throwing America's three-decade-long ally, the "reliable" and "compliant" Hosni Mubarak, under the bus and thus empowering the Muslim Brotherhood has been more anti-Americanism in Egypt than ever before. But this was only to be expected. For once you play the dhimmi and start to appease, you must be prepared to go all the way, or else.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

World War III. But what side would Obama be on? "Iran could launch pre-emptive Israel strike-commander," from Reuters, September 23 (thanks to Geoffrey):

(Reuters) - Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel if it was sure the Jewish state was preparing to attack it, a senior commander of its elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, made the comments to Iran's state-run Arabic language Al-Alam television.

"Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it," Al-Alam said, paraphrasing the military commander.

Hajizadeh said any attack on Iranian soil could trigger "World War Three".

"We can not imagine the Zionist regime starting a war without America's support. Therefore, in case of a war, we will get into a war with both of them and we will certainly get into a conflict with American bases," he said.

"In that case, unpredictable and unmanageable things would happen and it could turn into a World War Three."...

"The Zionist entity is militarily incapable of confronting Iran ... the circumstances of the region do not enable it to wage war tomorrow or even in the near future," Hajizadeh said.

"Our response will exceed their expectations," he said. "Their assessment of our missile capabilities is wrong. Our response will not only be missiles."

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Does he get any virgins if he doesn't manage to murder any infidels? A question for the learned imams to ponder. "Nigeria: suicide bomber killed and 3 hurt in church attack," from AGI, September 23 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

(AGI) Kano - Another attack has targeted Christians in Nigeria's Muslim north. A suicide bomber blew himself up outside St. John's Catholic Church in Bauchi, the capital of the federal state of the same name in northern Nigeria. Yushau Shuaib, a spokesman for the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), told AGI that bomber died and three people were injured in the attack. . .
| 21 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"The majority of schools, offices and shops are closed for the strike." Oh yes, this is just what Bangladesh needs. "Islam: national strike in Bangladesh in film protest," from AGI, September 23 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

(AGI) Dhaka - A national strike has been called in Bangladesh in protest against the amateur film mocking the Prophet Muhammad. The majority of schools, offices and shops are closed for the strike called by opposition parties. Thousands of police flooded the streets of the capital of a country with a population of 153 million, a large majority of whom are Muslims. Forty activists were briefly detained after trying to set up a barricade in one of the city's central streets. . .
| 15 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 22, 2012

81-10. All 81 of those Senators should be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity. Evidently they think this meretricious jihad state has been a reliable U.S. ally, and that their imprisonment of the man who helped the U.S. find bin Laden is just. This is the kind of insanity that is pandemic in Washington.

"US Senate defeats bill to cut aid to Pakistan," from the Daily Times, September 23:

WASHINGTON: The US Senate overwhelmingly defeated a bill that would have denied American aid to Pakistan until the release of the imprisoned Pakistani doctor who helped CIA to trace Osama bin Laden.

The bill was defeated by 81 to 10 votes. Dr Shakil Afridi was sentenced to 33 years in jail in Pakistan on May 24 under the system of tribal justice for treason over alleged ties to Lashkar-e-Islam and not for working for the CIA, for which the court said it did not have jurisdiction.

Introduced by Senator Rand Paul, the bill also called for cutting all US aid to Libya and Egypt until those who were responsible for attack on American missions in these two countries were arrested and handed over to the US.

Following the defeat of his bill, which was opposed even by senators from his own Republican Party, Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky in a statement vowed to keep this important issue front and centre.

“When nearly 80 percent of Americans believe foreign aid should be reduced, it is inconceivable why their views are ignored by so many in Congress,” he said....

Indeed.

| 48 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"We are pained by this deliberate insult against our religion under the pretext of freedom of expression." Well, we are pained by this deliberate assault upon our freedom of speech under the pretext of an insult to your religion.

The Tiny Minority of Extremists numbered in the tens of thousands in Nigeria; the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims was nowhere to be seen. "Tens of thousands protest anti-Islam film in Nigeria," from the Daily Times, September 23 (thanks to Kenneth):

KANO: Tens of thousands of people on Saturday protested on the streets of Nigeria’s second city of Kano against an anti-Islam film made in the US that has stirred outrage across the Muslim world.

The crowd of demonstrators stretched several kilometres (miles) through the city, the largest in Nigeria’s mainly Muslim north, with protesters shouting “death to America, death to Israel and death to the enemies of Islam”.

The rally was organised by the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, which has operated in Africa’s most populous country since the late 1970s. “We are out today to express our rage and disapproval over this blasphemous film,” said Muhammed Turi, a protest leader and member of the Islamic Movement. “This protest is also aimed at calling on the US government to put a halt to further blasphemy against Islam,” he added.

Demonstrators carried pictures of US President Barack Obama, as well as American and Israeli flags as they marched towards a palace owned by the Emir of Kano, the top religious figure in the city of roughly 4.5 million people. Others were seen waving Iranian flags.

Turi addressed the crowd outside Kano’s central mosque, adjacent to the Emir’s palace, before the rally ended with no incidents of violence reported. “We are pained by this deliberate insult against our religion under the pretext of freedom of expression,” he told the protesters....

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Chris Christie quite recently called Qatanani his "friend." Will he explain to his friend about the importance of the freedom of speech now?

Investigative journalist Daniel Greenfield reports that “despite the fact that Mohammed Qatanani was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that is behind both al-Qaeda and Hamas, despite his own guilty plea to being a member of Hamas, and despite the fact that even in the United States, he had defended a charity that provided funds to children of suicide bombers (this is done as an incentive to reassure terrorists that if they die their families will be taken care of), Qatanani was not deported.”

"Free Speech That Mocks Islam Is National Security Threat for U.S., Prominent NJ Imam Tells TheBlaze," by Tiffany Gabbay for The Blaze, September 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

...In fact, so grave is mockery of the prophet considered, that the cleric – Mohammad Qatanani, who leads one of the largest mosques in New Jersey – even believes free speech that criticizes Islam poses a national security threat to the U.S. and that those responsible should be investigated by the Department of Homeland Security.

“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” Qatanani, leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), told TheBlaze. He explained that while Americans may ”have the freedom“ to speak their mind, ultimately, they “have no right to [talk about Muslim] holy issues“ as it will incite ”hatred or war among people.”

Qatanani said he thinks agitators who slander Islam, or, more specifically, the Prophet Muhammad, incite violence and hence, pose a national security risk that threatens the safety of Americans at home and abroad. Thus, America should disregard its First Amendment as it is typically applied and instead act in accordance with sharia law for the ultimate “good” of society.

In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze, the cleric, who was nearly deported in 2008 for failing to disclose his former ties to the terrorist organization Hamas on a 1996 Green Card application, explained that Muslims are required by Islam to respect the law of the land in their host-countries. He followed up that statement, however, with a treatise on how those who slander the prophet be pursued legally.

While some leaders within the Muslim community have spoken out against the anti-America driven violence in the Middle East, many have qualified their condemnation with moral equivalence, treating a film dubbed “Innocence of Muslims” (which some claim served as the catalyst for the attacks), with even harsher disdain than they do murder. Qatanani said the Obama White House should take legal action against the filmmakers.

“My position is that White House has to say strong in its condemnation [of the filmmakers] and take this person to court. If he is innocent, we will accept that… The government has strong case against this person.”

When asked what can be done to prevent future attacks, Qatanani invoked Homeland Security again, suggesting that the department actually step-in to prevent artists, composers, movie-makers, or satirists (among others), from producing works critical of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. He believes it is in America’s best interest to quell this kind of free speech as it “ruins” America’s image abroad and will ultimately hurt people.

Qatanani’s statements make it appear that, in so many words, the cleric is advocating for the U.S. to operate by sharia law – the religious law of Islam – when it comes to freedom of speech as it relates to Islam. If so, it would seem to echo comments in a previous report on TheBlaze outlining Islamists’ “10-year plan” to make slandering Islam unlawful on an international level.

American freedom versus Islamic freedom

One of the most revealing insights made by the controversial faith leader came when he juxtaposed American freedom with the type of freedom permitted under sharia law.

The imam acknowledged that observant Muslims view freedom only through the lens of that which is permitted by the Quran and Sunnah, the two sacred texts of Islam, and is therefore much different from the way Americans view freedom.

“They [Muslims] think our [American] freedoms are too much,” Qatanani said. “The freedom of the American people is so different from their [Muslims'] freedoms. We believe freedoms have limits and rules, otherwise we will get people into trouble…Freedom according to Islam must be according to the Quran and Sunnah. You can do [anything] you like within the teachings of these two resources. This is the difference and main reason [for the conflict].”

A different standard of freedom?

“People there [in the Middle East] don’t understand the American Constitution and freedom of speech,” Qatanani said. We have to understand each other because misunderstanding is a killing issue… The issue of Prophet Muhammad is very delicate – they [Muslims] will not accept in any way, anybody who talks badly about Muhammad.”...

| 52 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Over the years at Jihad Watch I've exposed many "journalists" who are in the tank for Islamic supremacists, including Niraj Warikoo, Michael Kruse, Kari Huus, and many, many others -- but this latest tactic to abet the defamation of counter jihadists is something new. "SI Advance Lies to Readers to Advance Hamas: Maura Grunlund Was Unavailable for Comment," by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, September 22:

It has become a pattern in the mainstream media: if they don't like what I say, if it makes too much sense for them or they can't spin it in a negative enough light, they pretend I didn't say it at all. Edith Honan of Reuters did the same thing recently.

Yesterday Maura Grunlund of the Staten Island Advance sent me this email:

Dear Pamela: Will the “savage” ads be appearing on Staten Island? Is it true that you opposed the proposed MAS center in Midland Beach on Staten Island? What response do you have to the following comments by Hesham El-Meligy of Staten Island?
 


This is the same fascist group that sabotaged the Midland Beach Mosque process. 

The 2 partners/founders of that fascist hate group are Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer who on June 6, 201 organized a rally at Ground Zero against the Park 51 Community Center that was attended by all text book nut cases.  Two extremist Egyptian Christians attended to support and film the rally, but were almost killed by the crowd thinking they are Muslims because of the way they looked and spoke.  Three days later, they bussed in large numbers to attend and sabotage the Midland Beach Civic Association Meeting that was designed to allow the community to meet the people of MAS and get to know them.  Long before the meeting, this fascist group bombarded the area with flyers and emails containing all kinds of islamophobic material, such as the last thing the terrorist said before striking the twin towers was Allah Akbar.  That flyer had an image of the burning twin towers.  They had established relations with some of the most hateful from the area who were manning the microphone that night and allowed Robert Spencer to be the first one to ask questions and he took 10 full minutes.  Robert Spencer does not in New York State, let alone NYC.  I saw him with Pamela Geller and Frank Santarpia (the head of the Staten Island Tea Party) after the meeting was ended as if they were cheering each other on a job well done.

I sent her back this answer yesterday:

Dear Pamela: Will the “savage” ads be appearing on Staten Island?

We plan to roll them out everywhere we can.

Is it true that you opposed the proposed MAS center in Midland Beach on Staten Island?

Yes. The MAS is a Muslim Brotherhood entity. The Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house."

What response do you have to the following comments by Hesham El-Meligy of Staten Island?

Smears and defamation. It's "fascist" now to stand against the murders of innocent civilians, and to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law?

But in the story below, Maura Grunlund writes: "Ms. Geller, who didn't respond to a request for comment..."

So I sent this to her a short while ago:

"Ms. Geller, who didn't respond to a request for comment,"
Below is the my email responded to your request for comment 9/21/12.
You lied. Does your editor know you are deceiving your readers? Why wouldn't you publish my response? You should lose your press credentials. 
Your answer will be published.

Maura Grunlund's email is mauragrunlund@siadvance.com. The paper's contact link is http://www.statenislandadvance.com/index.html. Write to both and let them know what you think of their style of "journalism": ignoring responses from people they don't like and advancing Hamas' agenda.

Staten Island spokespersons respond to 'Savage' anti-Muslim ads scheduled to appear in subway stations Maura Grunlund, Staten Island Advance, September 22

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- "Savage" anti-Jihad ads are bringing the politics of religion in the Middle East and North Africa speeding into New York City faster than the subway trains on which they'll be seen, starting Monday.

The ads are sponsored by Pamela Geller, an anti-Muslim blogger (Atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com) who opposed the Muslim American Society (MAS) in its unsuccessful attempt to open a center in Midland Beach -- although the MAS ultimately established its current location in Dongan Hills.

Note again the savage defamation of the term "anti-Muslim." This is tantamount to painting a target on my back, and Maura Grunlund knows it. My work is not anti- any group of people, and to portray it as such is to serve the Islamic supremacist propaganda agenda of portraying it as "racist." What race is jihad terror against innocent civilians? My work is in defense of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and equality of rights for all against a violent and repressive ideology that denies all three. Muslims as well as non-Muslims would benefit if free societies prevail over the Islamic supremacist imperative to impose Sharia.

Ms. Geller also was one of the people who protested passionately against the Park51 Community Center and Muslim prayer space now located near the 9/11 World Trade Center site in Manhattan.

The protest was never against a "Muslim prayer space" being "located near the 9/11 World Trade Center site." The protest was against a multistory triumphal mosque being built at Ground Zero. And we stopped it; it has not been built. If the Islamic supremacists start to build it, we will be there.

Meanwhile, Ms. Geller's infamous "savage" ads that are headed to New York City have sparked widespread controversy for their use on public transit in San Francisco, Calif. Ms. Geller also has filed suit to post the ads in the public transit system in Washington, D.C.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority initially refused to run Geller's ad but has no choice because U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that is protected speech under the First Amendment, according to the Associated Press.

As a result, Ms. Geller reportedly plans to post ads with the following statements in 10 New York City subway stations: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."

"We recognize the freedom of speech, and her right to be a bigot and racist, but we also recognize the responsibility of New Yorkers to denounce that bigotry," said Awad, referring to the ads.

Ms. Geller, who didn't respond to a request for comment, alleges on her blog that CAIR is connected to HAMAS and the Muslim Brotherhood. She points to CAIR's status as an unindicted co-conspirator in a U.S. Department of Justice prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development where five former foundation leaders were convicted in 2008 of funneling millions of dollars to HAMAS.

Awad described Ms. Geller's comments about CAIR as "arguably one of the most poorly thought-out conspiracy theories of the year.

"Geller has invested her time and energy into resuscitating attention on CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator, an issue that has already been settled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Department of Justice in CAIR's favor."

Awad is lying. Actually, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did not remove the unindicted co-conspirator designation. It just said that it shouldn't have been made public. This has been public knowledge for almost two years; why couldn't Maura Grunlund find it? And why doesn't she mention any of this? According to Robert Spencer, "CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups....Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror, and...CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements....CAIR’s California chapter distributed posters telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI."

Read it all.

| 14 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

If the government and mainstream media narrative about Islam being a Religion of Peace that has been "hijacked" by a Tiny Minority of Extremists were true, we would be seeing this kind of thing frequently: Muslims not only registering their public disapproval of those who riot and murder in the name of Islam, but taking real action to stop them. Instead, there are only a handful of such stories, at best, since 9/11. Now, why is that? The learned analysts dare not ask that question, or answer it.

"Decrying attack, protesters overtake Islamist group's HQ in Benghazi," by Arwa Damon for CNN, September 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Ten days after four Americans were killed in their Libyan city, hundreds marched in Benghazi and took over the headquarters of a radical Islamist group tied to the attack.

Thousands of protesters had taken to the street earlier Friday, loudly declaring that they -- and not those behind last week's deadly attack -- represent the real sentiments of the Libyan people.

"I am sorry, America," one man said. "This is the real Libya."

In the evening, an offshoot of several hundred people then headed toward the headquarters for Ansar al-Sharia, a loosely connected radical Islamist group.

As militia members fled, the protesters torched a vehicle and took over the group's building without firing a single shot. Some of those involved claimed to have freed at least 20 captives held inside, and expressed their intent to assume control over other Ansar al-Sharia buildings.

Army General Naji al-Shuaibi said the citizens, whom he referred to as "revolutionaries of the February 17 uprising," later asked that the Ansar al-Sharia headquarters be handed over to the Libyan army.

"Indeed, we rushed here and we will now take it over," said the general. "There are also other places that we intend to take over (which belong to armed groups) if the revolutionaries and the people allow us to do so."

But some of the protesters gathered at locations that house forces loyal to the national authority, he said, including the headquarters of the Rufallah al-Sihati battalion. Gunfire could be heard at the headquarters, but it was not initially clear who was responsible.

Mohamed al-Magariaf, president of Libya's General National Congress, thanked the protesters for helping evict "armed groups. He also said the Rufallah al-Sihati brigade was actually "under the command of -- and committed to -- the national authority," the case appeared to be one of mistaken identity. Magariaf asked demonstrators to stop their activities and go home....

Initial reports indicated that, ahead of the consular attack, Ansar al-Sharia had organized a protest to decry an inflammatory film that mocks the Prophet Mohammed and also protest the United States, where the film was privately produced.

On Thursday, Libyan Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagur said eight detained in connection with that assault include members of Ansar al-Sharia, though he added that not all the attackers came from one specific group.

Responding to the report from Benghazi, U.S. Sen. John McCain applauded the citizens' efforts Friday and said it represented the true, freedom-loving Libya that he and other U.S. officials involved in the country knew.

"Somewhere Chris Stevens is smiling," the Arizona Republican said. "This is what we knew ... about Libya."

We'll see.

| 47 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

I hope Rimsha can be spirited out of Pakistan, and that her case will herald the repeal of Pakistan's blasphemy laws. If she stays in Pakistan, she will probably be murdered by a Muslim mob, despite the clear evidence that a Muslim cleric set her up. "No evidence found against blasphemy accused Rimsha: police," by Shakeel Qarar for AFP, September 22 (thanks to Zulu):

ISLAMABAD: In a startling development on Saturday, the Islamabad police claims to have found no evidence or witness to prove that blasphemy accused girl Rimsha Masih was seen desecrating holy papers, according to a copy of the revised charge sheet available with Dawn.com.

In the charge sheet, the police claim that the cleric of a nearby mosque, Mohammad Khalid Chishti, was guilty of tampering with evidence by adding holy pages into a shopping bag the girl had been carrying. The police claim the investigation proves the holy papers had also been burnt.

The evidence is now being sent to a forensic science laboratory in Lahore for further examination.

The Islamabad police submitted the charge sheet in a district and sessions court today.

“We have also told the court that there are witnesses and evidence against the local imam for framing a false blasphemy case against Rimsha,” Investigating Officer Munir Jafri told AFP.

Judge Ghulam Abbas Shah adjourned the case till Monday, Sept 24 to decide on whether Hafiz Mohammed Khalid Chishti should face trial.

Rao Abdur Rahim, the counsel for Rimsha’s neighbour Hammad Malik who had accused her along with Chishti, said he was not satisfied with the police report.

“This report is based on the bad intentions of the investigators and is made to prove Rimsha innocent. But, I will fight the case and make her face trial,” he told AFP.

Rimsha and her family, who fear for life after the blasphemy charges, were moved to an undisclosed location since her release on bail on Sept 8.

The district attorney, who signed the charge sheet along with a note of objections, observed: “Had Khalid Chishti burnt the Holy Quran, prior to adding them in the evidence, he could be declared accused under 196 PPC.”

According to the charge sheet, no witness has so far identified the place where Rimsha was alleged to have burnt the holy papers.

The police also claim that, in reality, it was Rimsha’s six year old younger sister Savera who had come to throw the garbage in front of the house of one Maqbool Ahmed. This account has been testified by two witnesses.

The police are also accusing the complainant of hiding the actual facts from the police.

The police investigation further states that the burnt holy papers were first seen by Mehreen Noor, Maqbool’s daughter, who had told the same to her mother. The burnt pile of papers was then sent to the cleric Mohammad Khalid Chishti through Mehreen Noor.

The police also says that Chishti is “an educated person and knows religion and the sanctity of the Holy Quran.”

Moreover, the police accuse Chishti of deliberately tearing two papers from the Holy Quran to add them into the pile of burnt papers, and preparing a false testimony. Chishti had also signed the testimony as a witness.

The police report further claims that Rimsha, a minor Christian girl, is illiterate and her mental age is not according to her actual age, which is 14....

Earlier on Sept 7, the additional district and sessions court of Islamabad had granted bail to the girl. Later on Sept 8, Rimsha was airlifted from Adiyala jail to an unspecified location within Islamabad under the protective custody of police after completion of legal formalities by her lawyers.

The girl belonging to the Christian community is said to be suffering from Down’s Syndrome. She had been arrested on Aug 16 under Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws, prompting concern from Western governments, the Vatican, and rights groups.

The girl’s arrest had also triggered an exodus of several hundred Christians from her poor neighbourhood on the edge of Islamabad....

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

paul-lutheran-church-mardan-reu-2-670.jpg


They shouldn't hold their breath. "Mardan Christians unhappy with security; demand reconstruction of burnt church," by Zahir Shah Sherazi for Dawn, September 22 (thanks to Zulu):

MARDAN: The Christian community of Mardan, on Saturday, demanded reconstruction of the Paul Lutheran Church which was burnt down by angry mob during the anti-Islam film demonstrations in the cantonment area on Friday.

The Christian community staged a demonstration near the burnt church and said that the police had failed to protect their worship place when angry protestors set the church on fire along with two Pastor houses and the adjacent head-teacher’s house.

Vice president of the church Andaryat, speaking to reporters in Mardan, on Saturday said that the Christian community equally condemn the sacrilegious film and demand action against the pastor and the filmmaker.

A threatened dhimmi community does what it has to do to survive.

“Due to personal acts of a few fanatics the Christian community and its worship places in Pakistan are becoming unsafe, which is regrettable.”

He remarked that the church and the Christian school had been looted and the newly-installed computers had been stolen by the miscreants while the looters also take away other stuff from the church

The protestors carrying placards and banners also condemned the act of violence and decried the police for its failure for not protecting the church....

Andaryat to a query said: “we are Pakistanis first and than Christians, so we would condemn any such act which would be against Islam or any other religion and would expect the same treatment from our Muslim brothers as well.”

“We are peaceful and hold Muslim and their religious faith in high esteem and condemn the individual act which had become a source of embarrassment and outrage for the Muslims across the world, but we also need protection and respect from them.”

Good luck.

| 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

This is the second Muslim arrested for calling for the death of Charb, the editor of Charlie Hebdo. "French cops arrest man for calling for Charlie Hebdo head," from Sapa-AFP, September 22 (thanks to Wimpy):

French police arrested a man for apparently calling on a jihadi website for the decapitation of the editor of a magazine that published cartoons mocking Mohammed, a judicial source said.

The man was detained in the western city of La Rochelle for calling on the radical website for the head of satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, which on Wednesday published cartoons of a naked Prophet.

"The essential thing is not to let him live in peace," the man allegedly wrote.

Police have opened a preliminary probe on charges of incitement to commit murder, the source said.

France's Muslim leaders on Friday urged militants not to defy a ban on protests over the cartoons, as a security alert closed the country's embassies across the Islamic world....

A rowdy protest at the film close to the US embassy in Paris last weekend led to 150 arrests and there have been calls on social networks for another demonstration in central Paris on Saturday.

| 10 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

But don't call them "savage." That would be demeaning. "Anti-Islam film: Pakistan minister offers bounty," from the BBC, September 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Pakistani government minister has offered a $100,000 (£61,616) reward for the death of the maker of an anti-Islam film produced in the US.

Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour told reporters that he would pay the reward for the "sacred duty" out of his own pocket.

He suggested the Taliban and al-Qaeda would be eligible for the reward.

His comments came a day after at least 20 people died in clashes between anti-film protesters and police.

"I announce today that this blasphemer who has abused the holy prophet, if somebody will kill him, I will give that person a prize of $100,000," the minister said....

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

It is good to see that he is aware of this, and cares. "Romney: PA State Airspace Would Endanger Israel," from Israel National News, September 21 (thanks to Jan):

In Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's now famous “secret” video, Gov. Romney reveals and intuitively explains another existential threat to Israel from a Palestinian State in any part of Judea and Samaria.

He warns of the danger of Palestinian Arab State airspace 7 miles from Tel Aviv, abutting 70% of Israel’s Jewish population and 80% of Israel’s industrial base.

This is what Gov. Romney actually said:

"And then how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation?

"Are we going to allow military aircraft to come in? And weaponry to come in? And if not, who's going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are going to say, "We're not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land at our airport."

These are problems, and they're very hard to solve, alright?"

All right.

| 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

A few more Sharia finance initiatives should fix this right up. "'US officials blame Iran for cyber attacks on banks,'" from the Jerusalem Post, September 21 (thanks to Benedict):

US National Security officials accused the Iranian government of carrying out cyber attacks against the websites of US banks JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, NBC News reported Thursday.

A Middle East group of hackers claimed credit for the denial-of-service attacks, that made both websites unavailable to some customers earlier this week, citing the anti-Islam video that mocks the Muslim Prophet Muhammad as the reason behind the attacks.

Denial-of-service (DDos) attacks seek to disrupt websites and other computer systems at the targeted organization by overwhelming their networks with computer traffic.

US security sources rejected the hackers' claims of responsibility, telling NBC News that this is "a cover" for operations of the Iranian government, and suggesting the attacks are in response to US sanctions on Iranian banks....

| 1 Comment
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"Israel may find itself 'confronting an even more determined, uncontrollable and fanatical enemy than the Assad regime has ever proved to be.'" Indeed.

"Rebels with an anti-Semitic cause," by Kapil Komireddi for Haaretz, September 21 (thanks to Lachlan):

What will happen in Syria? The answer to that question holds immense significance for Israel. Yet, preoccupied with Iran's nuclear program, Israel is neglecting the more immediate threat to its security that's crystalizing on the other side of the Golan Heights. What began as a limited but genuine people's uprising against a kleptocratic dictatorship has now been overtaken by a Saudi-backed project to destabilize Syria.

Bashar Assad, like his father Hafez, was never a friend of Israel's - but nor was his worldview shaped exclusively by antagonism toward the Jewish State. The foreign fighters seeking his ouster, on the other hand, receive sustenance from a medieval theocracy that, in the words of John R. Bradley a preeminent Middle East expert who predicted the Egyptian revolution as early as 2009 "spews out a kind of anti-Semitic hatred not known since the Nazis."

The results of Saudi Arabia's tireless efforts were on display in Al-Midan, a suburb in southern Damascus where I recently interviewed rebel fighters. Mateen, a fighter who claimed to have traveled from Afghanistan, shared his ideas for Syria's future after ridding it of the Assad dynasty.

"We have to build a society of respect and brotherhood in accordance with the Prophet's commandments," he told me in Urdu. "We will treat non-Muslims kindly, but we have a big fight against the Jews ahead of us. We will take that up, God willing." This manifesto for the future was identical - almost word for word - to what Yahya Mujahid, a senior leader of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based outfit charged with carrying out the Mumbai attacks in November 2008, told me in Lahore in 2009: that the LeT would take up the "fight" with the Jews after "liberating" Kashmir from Indian rule. One was a Kashmiri, the other a Pashtun; neither had met a Jew in his life. But both were united by a deep hatred, completely alien to their richly syncretic native cultures, exported by a distant Wahhabi monarchy that has suffused countless young minds in Islamic seminaries across South Asia with a fervor for jihad against non-Muslims.

This evangelical effort is now being replicated on an even more ambitious scale in Syria. The result is that a once-pluralistic society has descended into sectarian chaos. In the province of Homs alone, rebel fighters have driven some 80,000 Christians out of their homes. The opposition fighters have even carried out beheadings, a phenomenon unknown to Syrians. Young Shi'ite and Christian women, who mix freely with men in Damascus, told me they had to cover their faces and assume fake Sunni identities when traveling through rebel-held areas.

The man currently being groomed by Saudi Arabia as a possible replacement for Assad is Manaf Tlass, a high-ranking official in the Syrian army and a once-close friend of Assad's, who fled Syria in July with the help of French intelligence. Tlass has now adopted the vocabulary of the "moderate," but his family history should be of concern to Israelis. Tlass' father, Mustafa, a former Sunni defense minister who wielded tremendous clout under Hafez Assad, is something of a scholar. I came across one of his best-sellers, "The Matzah of Zion," in Damascus this summer. Complete with a lurid cover depicting ravenous Jews draining the blood of a Christian priest into a large bowl, the book attempts to revive the blood libel....

We have been here before - most glaringly in the 1980s, when the prospect of humiliating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan trumped every concern about arming the Taliban. Israel must now ensure that its best allies in the West don't end up creating a launching pad for the most implacably anti-Israeli Islamists who have congregated in Syria. Otherwise, as John R. Bradley recently warned in Britain's Jewish Chronicle, Israel may find itself "confronting an even more determined, uncontrollable and fanatical enemy than the Assad regime has ever proved to be."

I tried to tell you.

| 12 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"Amnesty international urges the Afghan Government to promptly enforce the law on Elimination of Violence Against Women." Good luck with that. Amnesty clearly doesn't realize that Sharia is far more important to the Afghan Government than "the law on Elimination of Violence Against Women," and the Afghans will never discard the one for the other.

"Afghanistan: 100 lashes for teen shows why climate of violence against women must be tackled," from Amnesty International, September 20 (thanks to Lachlan):

The flogging in public of a 16-year-old girl by a local mullah in the southern Ghazni province of Afghanistan for an “illicit relationship” with a boy is abhorrent and testifies to the precarious situation of women and girls in Afghanistan, said Amnesty International.

The girl was sentenced to 100 lashes on 16 September, which was carried out in a verdict issued by three Mullahs in Jaghori district of Ghazni province.

It has been reported that the Afghan Parliament’s lower house – the Wolesi Jirga – has initiated an investigation into the brutal and unlawful assault on the teenager.

“Flogging, whether in public or not, constitutes cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment”, said Horia Mosadiq, Amnesty International’s Researcher for Afghanistan.

“Such punishment is outrageous and is forbidden under national Afghan and international law. The fact that the girl in question is only 16 years old only makes this case even worse”

“The parliament’s decision to investigate this case is a great first step. Now the Afghan authorities must follow up and ensure that all unsolved cases of violence against women get the same treatment.”

“Impunity for violence against women is endemic in Afghanistan. The Afghan authorities have, for example, still not investigated the case of Najiba, who was illegally unlawfully killed in Parwan province in July after being accused of adultery.

“Amnesty international urges the Afghan Government to promptly enforce the law on Elimination of Violence Against Women. The law criminalises forced marriage, rape, beatings, and other acts of violence against women. It was enacted in August 2009, but is still only sporadically enforced....

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Oh course, Mahmoud. Of course the Zionists are behind it. They're behind everything, Mahmoud. You cannot possibly hope to outwit or defeat them, Mahmoud. Do not rest. Do not sleep. They're right behind you. "Ahmadinejad: Anti-Islam film an Israeli ploy," from the Jerusalem Post, September 21 (thanks to Lachlan):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Israel of being behind the anti-Islam film that has sparked violent protests in the Muslim world, AFP reported on Friday.

Speaking at a military parade in Tehran, Ahmadinejad called the film an Israeli plot "to divide (Muslims) and spark sectarian conflict."

The parade, displaying military hardware, marked the anniversary of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. According to Iranian state media, the military displayed Shahab 3, Sejjil, Qadr, Sahab and Zelzal missiles during the parade.

Iran has claimed the Shahab 3 has a range that can reach Israel and they have reportedly experimented with integrating a nuclear warhead onto the missile.

Ahmadinejad's comments on the anti-Islam film came after Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said earlier this week that the American-made video is tied to "Islamophobic policies of arrogant powers and Zionists."

Khamenei added that it is incumbent upon Western governments to prove to the Muslim world that they are against attacks against Islam. "Leaders of [the US and European countries] must prove that they were not accomplices in this big crime in practice by preventing such crazy measures,” he said.

The 13-minute English-language movie, which was circulated on the Internet under several titles including "Innocence of Muslims," mocks the Prophet Muhammad and portrays him as a buffoon....

Whose prophet?

| 10 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

One wonders if the Islamic schools in Central Java teach Catholicism to the Catholic students. Somehow I doubt this is an issue. "Catholic schools in Central Java threatened with closure for not teaching Islam," by Mathias Hariyadi for Asia News, September 20 (thanks to :

Jakarta (AsiaNews) - The demand to include Islamic teaching in Catholic schools is proving controversial again. A few months ago, the Education Department in Tegal District (Central Java) warned St Pius Catholic Schools to include Islamic courses for Muslim students.

Local authorities summoned Sister Madeleine, of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, to meet the district council to discuss the issue. The woman religious runs the Asti Dharma Foundation, which manages various St Pius schools, from primary to secondary as well as vocational training.

In yesterday's meeting with Tegal administration, the nun used all her eloquence and power of persuasion, backed by the moral and political support of Catholic lawyers and Fr Frans Widyanatardi Pr, who is in charge of Sacred Heart parish.

The row over Islamic education for Muslim students goes back a while, first raised by the Education Department and then the Religious Affairs Bureau, until local media, radio and TV, picked up the story and made it public.

The situation is critical because the sisters of the St Pius Catholic Schools have received threats and warnings, including the threat of having their schools shut down if they do not comply with the requests.

In response to critics, Sister Madeleine said that only two Muslim kids attend the St Pius Catholic Kindergarten, nine are in primary school, 12 in junior high and nine in high school, this out of a total school population of around 1,400 pupils, Fr Frans told AsiaNews....

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 21, 2012

This should put paid forever to the notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is "moderate" and that the U.S. Government should work with it. But it won't.

"US Relied on Muslim Brotherhood for Benghazi Consulate Security," by Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage, September 21:

The more we learn about what happened in Benghazi, the clearer things become.

Two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance.

The Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade is Islamist and linked with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was repeatedly accused of engaging in atrocities during and after the Libyan Civil War.

Many more-secular politicians in Libya are suspicious of Mr. Bukatef and his brigade because of their own Islamist reputation. He has been a member of Libya’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and one of his group’s commanders reporting to him is Ismail al-Salabi, who leads a group of Islamist fighters and is the brother of Libya’s most prominent Islamist thinker, Ali al-Salabi.

Read it all.

| 30 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Double standards and dhimmi pandering exposed. Christians don't kill people for being insulted, and Obama knows that. "WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork," by Todd Starnes for Fox News, September 21:

Religious groups are blasting President Obama for not condemning am anti-Christian art display set to appear in New York City and one Republican lawmaker said he is “fed up with the administration’s double standard and religious hypocrisy.

“Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan on Thursday. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”

The artwork debuted in 1989 and was funded through prize money provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. The art gallery hosting the retrospective salute to Andres Serrano is privately owned.

Religious groups and some lawmakers have already started sounding off – and making comparisons to the controversy over a recent anti-Muslim film. The low budget movie “Innocence of Muslims” sparked violent and deadly clashes across the globe.

It also brought strong rebukes, condemnations and apologies from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a host of administration officials.

The administration tried to have the film removed from YouTube – but Google rebuffed their request. The State Dept. spent $70,000 on a Pakistani television advertisement rebuking the film. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff personally telephoned a Christian minister in Florida to ask him to withdraw his support of the film.

Rep. Michael Grimm (R, C-NY) wants to know why President Obama hasn’t denounced the exhibit and said he’s fed up with what he called the administration’s “religious hypocrisy.”

“The Obama administration’s hypocrisy and utter lack of respect for the religious beliefs of Americans has reached an all-time high,” Grimm told Fox News. “I call on President Obama to stand up for America’s values and beliefs and denounce the ‘Piss Christ’ that has offended Christians at home and abroad.”

So will the Obama Administration condemn the anti-Christian art display? Will they air a television ad denouncing the exhibit? Will the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask the gallery to cancel the exhibit?

The White House did not return calls seeking comment. Neither did the Pentagon.

The State Dept. referred to a previous statement Clinton made in reference to the anti-Islamic film.

“America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation,” Clinton said. “And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”

Grimm said the lack of response from the White House is unacceptable.

“Perhaps they’ve forgotten the controversy that surrounds this deplorable piece depicting a crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine,” Grimm said. “It outraged Christians in American and throughout the world.”

Grimm, who is Catholic, said he found the artwork to be vulgar and offensive, “just as many in the Islamic world found ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be highly offensive.”

“Like most Americans, I condemn both yet remain tolerant as the First Amendment demands,” he said. “Unfortunately, this administration has yet to echo these views in regards to the religiously offensive ‘art’ here at home.”...

| 74 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The MEK is waging an all-out public relations campaign to whitewash its image, but it is nonetheless a jihad terror group just as dedicated to Sharia and Islamic supremacism as the Iranian mullahs are. The mullahs are just their rivals in a huge turf war. And so while it might be refreshing to see Obama actually do something that annoys the mullahs, this doesn't do anything to reassure those who are hoping the U.S. will someday mount an effective resistance to the global jihad.

"AP sources: Obama administration to strike Iranian opposition group from US terrorism list," from the Associated Press, September 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will remove from the U.S. terrorism list an Iranian militant group formerly allied with Saddam Hussein, officials said Friday, describing a move that will infuriate Tehran and end years of high-profile campaigning by the group.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will notify Congress of her intent later Friday, the officials said. A court order had given her until Oct. 1 to make a decision about the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak about the matter.

Clinton’s decision comes just days after the last big batch of the Iranian exiles reluctantly left their decades-old paramilitary base in northeastern Iraq, relocating for now to a refugee camp outside Baghdad. The U.S. had insisted that the MEK’s 3,000 members comply with an Iraqi demand to leave Camp Ashraf as a condition of the MEK’s removal from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Derided by its critics as a cult, the group has journeyed through multiple countries and the shifting alliances of the Middle East over its four-decade history. The MEK helped Islamic clerics overthrow Iran’s shah before carrying out a series of bombings and assassinations against the Iranian government. It fought in the 1980s alongside Saddam’s forces in the Iran-Iraq war, but disarmed after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. It has since suffered violent recriminations from Iraq’s new Shiite-dominated government.

The decision to remove the MEK list rested on two factors: whether it still had the capacity and intent to commit acts of terror. Several American military officials and defense contractors were killed by the MEK in the 1970s, U.S. officials maintain, and its attacks have killed hundreds of Iranians. But the group contended it swore off violence more than a decade ago and now only seeks a peaceful overthrow of Iran’s theocratic government.

But they're mujahedin. So they would just replace it with a theocratic government of their own.

The MEK assembled a high-profile roster of champions even as it remained on the U.S. blacklist. Luminaries who’ve advocated for the MEK’s removal from the list include former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and James Jones, President Barack Obama’s first national security adviser.

That led the Treasury Department earlier this year to examine whether the officials were providing illegal material support to designated terrorists; that civil inquiry probably would be nullified now. Removal from the list also should make it easier for the MEK to raise money and recruit in the United States....

The group has an ideology mixing Marxism, secularism, an obsession with martyrdom and near adoration of its leaders....

Secularism? Unlikely.

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Yet Hillary Clinton continues to kowtow before violent intimidation. "Deadly Anti-U.S. Riots Despite Obama's Ad Denouncing Video," by Dana Hughes for ABC News, September 21 (thanks to Kenneth):

Deadly anti-U.S. protests erupted in Pakistan despite an unusual ad on Pakistani TV featuring President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the movie "Innocence of Muslims," the anti-Islam video that has fueled much of the Pakistani fury.

The ads have been running this week on seven different Pakistani television stations in an attempt to cool tempers over the film, but today's protests were the largest seen so far since the controversy began in Pakistan last week with the attempted storming of the U.S. embassy.

The Pakistani government declared a national holiday to honor the prophet, sending people into the streets in cities across the country. In several cities the protests turned deadly with reports of at least 15 people killed.

In Karachi, where there was the most violence, at least 12 people were killed, including two policemen. The police were able to keep the protesters away from the United States consulate there.

In Peshawar, protesters torched two movie theaters and at least two people were killed, but the violence occurred a significant distance from the U.S. consulate.

Clinton spoke about the violence before a meeting with her Pakistani counterpart, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar. Calling the video "offensive, disgusting, and reprehensible," Clinton reiterated that the video may be provocative, but is still not a justification to commit violent acts.

"It's important for responsible leaders, indeed responsible people everywhere to stand up and speak out against violence, and particularly against those who would exploit this difficult moment to advance their own extremist ideologies," said Clinton....

| 28 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Al-Husainy is a virulently antisemitic supporter of Hizballah. "Protesters to rally in Dearborn against anti-Islam film," by Niraj Warikoo for the Detroit Free Press, September 21 (thanks to Twostellas):

The largest mosque in Michigan is holding a rally this afternoon against the anti-Islam movie that has sparked controversy and violence around the world. It’s believed to be the first rally in the U.S. against the video, say Muslim leaders.

Hundreds are expected to rally after Friday prayers today outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, a Shia congregation that sits off Ford Road. Christian leaders are also expected to attend and speak at the rally, which will denounce both the video that ridicules Islam’s prophet and also the violence that ensued. So far, 45 people have died as a result of the video, according to the Associated Press. Today, at least 15 died and 168 were injured in Pakistan in protests over the film.

The rally in Dearborn will be a peaceful demonstration, say organizers. While there have been Muslim-American vigils across the U.S. for the killing of the U.S. Ambassador in Libya, “this is the first” rally in protest of the video, said Ibrahim Hooper, national spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights and advocacy group.

The Islamic center where today’s rally will be held has been the focus of controversy over the past year as anti-Islam groups have targeted it for protests. Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones fought a yearlong battle to protest outside the mosque and in June, a Christian group holding up signs denigrating Islam’s prophet rallied outside the mosque. A 47-year-old Dearborn man was charged after trying to run over the anti-Islam protesters.

Kassem Allie, an official with the Islamic Center, said the mosque respects free speech, which includes the right to state “abhorrent speech that is considered hateful.”

But he added “that good people of faith will not stand idly by and allow hate to triumph over truth, love and respect.”

At the same time as the rally at the Islamic Center, a similar protest will be held at the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center, also in Dearborn. Imam Husham Al-Husainy said there should be restrictions on some speech that offends major religious figures, such as Jesus or Mohammed.

“They should put a law not to insult a spiritual leader,” Al-Husainy said. The U.S. government has said that while it doesn’t like the anti-Islam video, it respects free speech.

Regarding the tensions over the video, Al-Husainy said: “The only solution is to replace the hate with love.”

And a Sharia blasphemy law.

Dawud Walid, head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is to speak at the Islamic Center of America rally. He said he fully supports free speech, but added that the insulting and crude nature of the video wasn’t the type of civil discourse that America’s founding fathers had in mind.

Hooper said his group has been calling for peace, putting out statements and videos urging Muslims to be calm: “It’s a really tragic situation. You have a tiny minority of extremists who are intentionally provocative. They got exactly what they sought.”

"Tiny minority of extremists." Honest Ibe Hooper must have been laughing up his sleeve as he used that phrase, even to so credulous and pro-jihad a reporter as the thoroughly corrupt and compromised Niraj Warikoo.

| 47 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
Loveandpeace.jpgOh yeah, I'm feelin' it


And they'll get it, too. Once they do, the ones who get to decide what constitutes "religious hatred," as opposed to the telling of unpleasant truths, will wield immense political power, and become a protected class within society.

Note also that the police carted off one pro-freedom voice, while Islamic supremacists are allowed to heckle and shout down counter-jihadists with impunity.

"Protests against US anti-Islam film reach Scottish Parliament," from The Scotsman, September 21 (thanks to Twostellas):

AROUND 150 Muslims have demonstrated outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh calling for a ban on offensive material such as the anti-Islam film which has sparked protests around the world.

Demonstrators waved banners reading “No religion is allowed to insult any other religion” and “We demand international law to stop religious hatred”.

The amateur film Innocence Of Muslims, made in the US, has sparked international unrest which has claimed lives including US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

Protest spokesman Akeel Umar said the demonstration outside Parliament is peaceful, while likening those involved in the violence elsewhere to football fans who get carried away on match day.

Police removed a bystander who shouted at the protesters: “20,000 terrorist attacks since 2001. How do you justify that?”

Mr Umar said the protesters come from a range of local Islamic organisations.

“We want to raise our concerns with the Scottish Parliament so that some necessary changes can be made with reference to Ofcom and the regulators to stop promotion of any hateful media clips,” he said.

“Perhaps the laws need to be looked at and reassessed.”

He said Muslims in Edinburgh are “more hurt than angry” about the film.

“The video itself was made by a director who conned some of the actors,” he said.

“The purpose of this video does not appear to be positively motivated. It appears to be a very negative, very poor piece of filmed documentary.”...

| 46 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Where is the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims to rein these people in? "Thousands attend anti-Innocence rallies in Malaysia," from AGI, September 21 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

(AGI) - Bangkok, 21 Sep - Thousands attended today's anti-Innocence movie rallies in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur. Two separate demonstrations converged on the US embassy at which point four delegates handed the embassy's chief of security a statement demanding that the US acknowledge full responsibility for the Innocence of Muslim's release. During the rallies US and Israeli flags were burned to cries of "Allah is great." (AGI)
| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

When will this all end? When the West abandons the freedom of speech and adopts Sharia blasphemy laws. And that is coming down fast, especially after Obama's reelection. "Thousands of Bangladeshis join Dhaka anti-Innocence protest," from AGI, September 21 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

(AGI) - Dhaka, 21 Sep - Anti-Innocence movie protests usher in today's Friday prayers in 90pc Muslim Bangladesh. Some ten thousand demonstrators took to the streets of the capital Dhaka in protest at the US release of the Innocence of Muslims and at the publication of satirical cartoons by French weekly Charlie Hebdo. Demonstrators also gathered in front of the Bangladeshi capital's biggest mosque, the Baitul Mokarram, burning effigies of US president Barack Obama as well as French flags. Security has been heightened in the lead-up to Friday prayers.
| 9 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

But...but...I thought all the Muslims in the Balkans were staunch "moderates" who loved America and embraced Western values!

"Serbia: Thousands of Muslim football fans protest anti-Islam film," from AKI, September 21 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Novi Pazar, 21 Sept. (AKI) - Several thousand fans from a local football club in Serbia's Muslim-majority Sandzak region held a peaceful march on Friday against a US-made film deemed insulting to Islam.

Defying a ban on political slogans at the march from town square in the main town of Novi Pazar, supporters of Torcida Sandzak football club waved banners reading ‘Freedom for Palestine, Afganistan and Libya’, as well as 'The Prophet is in my heart' - the only one sanctioned by local authorities.

There was a heavy police presence at the march, where protesters also waved the flags of Turkey and Bosnia.

"The Islamic community in Serbia did not take part in organising the protest but it has its full support, as Muslims have the right to protest against such insults," said Sandzak's mufti Muamer Zukorlic....

| 10 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Greasy Islamophobia in Tunisia! "Interior Minister Ali Larayedh told Tunisian radio that authorities sensed that some groups were planning to pillage and carry out violence after weekly communal prayers at mosques Friday." After prayers at mosques? Why the widespread misunderstanding of the Religion of Peace?

Muhammad rage too much even for Tunisia's new Islamic supremacist regime: "Tunisia bans protest over French Muhammad cartoons," by Bouazza ben Bouazza for the Associated Press, September 20 (thanks to Maxwell):

TUNIS, Tunisia (AP) — Tunisia's government has banned any protests Friday against a French satirical weekly's publication of lewd, crude caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Interior Minister Ali Larayedh told Tunisian radio that authorities sensed that some groups were planning to pillage and carry out violence after weekly communal prayers at mosques Friday.

"To repel any risk and in the interest of preserving the security of people, property and our foreign guests, we have decided to forbid any demonstration in the country," the minister told Shems FM....

| 2 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

French authorities know they are a seedbed for mayhem and violent jihadist thuggery. "France bans protests over Prophet Mohammad cartoons," from Reuters, September 21 (thanks to Block Ness):

PARIS, Sept 21 (Reuters) - France confirmed on Friday it would allow no street protests against cartoons denigrating Islam's Prophet Mohammad that were published by a French magazine this week.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said prefects throughout the country had orders to prohibit any protest over the issue and crack down if the ban was challenged.

"There will be strictly no exceptions. Demonstrations will be banned and broken up," he said.

| 25 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

UPDATE: Death toll now 17. Feel the love!

----------

Loving their prophet in a way they know he would appreciate. "3 killed in prophet protests in Pakistan," by Riaz Khan for the Associated Press, September 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — Protests by tens of thousands of Pakistanis infuriated by an anti-Islam film descended into deadly violence on Friday, with police firing tear gas and live ammunition in an attempt to subdue rioters who hurled rocks and set fire to buildings in some cities. Three people were killed and dozens injured on a holiday declared by Pakistan's government so people could rally against the video.

Thousands of Muslims protested in at least half a dozen other countries, some burning American flags and effigies of President Barack Obama.

In the Pakistani city of Peshawar, police fired on rioters who were torching a cinema. Mohammad Amir, a driver for a Pakistani television station, was killed when police bullets hit his vehicle at the scene, said Kashif Mahmood, a reporter for ARY TV who was also sitting in the car at the time. The TV channel showed footage of Amir at the hospital as doctors tried to save him.

A protester who was shot during a demonstration in the city also died, said police officer Rohhullah Khan.

In Karachi, armed protesters among a group of 15,000 fired on police, killing one and wounding another, said police officer Ahmad Hassan. The crowd also burned two cinemas and a bank, he said.

Clashes between police and stone-throwing protesters also occurred in Lahore and Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. Police fired tear gas as well as warning shots in an attempt to keep them from advancing toward U.S. missions in the cities. At least 55 people, including nine police, were injured in the nationwide unrest, according to police and hospital officials.

The film denigrating the Prophet Muhammad — "Innocence of Muslims" — has sparked unrest in many parts of the Muslim world over the past 10 days, and the deaths of at least 33 people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, have been linked to the violence. Much of the anger has been directed at the U.S. government even though the film was privately produced in the U.S. and American officials have criticized it for insulting Muslims.

In Iraq, about 3,000 protesters condemned the film and caricatures of the prophet in a French satirical weekly. The protest in the southern city of Basra was organized by Iranian-backed Shiite groups. Some protesters raised Iraqi flags and posters of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, while chanting: "Death to America."

Protesters burned Israeli and American flags and raised a banner that read: "We condemn the offences made against the prophet."

In the Sri Lanka capital of Colombo, about 2,000 Muslims burned effigies of President Barack Obama and American flags at a protest after Friday prayers, demanding that the United States ban the film. In Bangladesh, over 2,000 people marched through the streets of the capital, Dhaka, to protest the film. They burned a makeshift coffin draped in an American flag and an effigy of Obama.

They also burned a French flag to protest the publication of the caricatures of the prophet. Small and mostly orderly protests were also held in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Thousands gathered in Lebanon's Bekaa valley for the latest in a series of protest rallies organized by the Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Protesters carried the yellow Hezbollah flag.

Hezbollah appears to be trying to ensure the gatherings don't become violent, planning them only in areas where Hezbollah has control. None of the rallies targets the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy in the hills outside Beirut.

Police clamped a daylong curfew in parts of Indian-controlled Kashmir's main city, Srinagar, and chased away protesters opposing the anti-Islam film. Authorities in the region also temporarily blocked cell phone and Internet services to prevent viewing the film clips.

Pakistan has experienced nearly a week of violent rallies against the film in which five people have died. The government declared Friday to be a national holiday — "Love for the Prophet Day" — and encouraged peaceful protests.

In Peshawar, several hundred protesters set ablaze two cinemas and the city's chamber of commerce, and damaged shops and vehicles. Police beat demonstrators with batons. Later in the day, tens of thousands of protesters converged in one of the city's neighborhoods and called for the maker of the film, an American citizen originally from Egypt, to be executed.

Police clashed with over 10,000 demonstrators in several areas of Islamabad, including in front of a five-star hotel near the diplomatic enclave where the U.S. Embassy and other foreign missions are located. A military helicopter buzzed overhead as the sound of tear gas being fired echoed across the city.

The government temporarily blocked cell phone service in 15 major cities to prevent militants from using phones to detonate bombs during the protests, said an Interior Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media. Blocking cell phones could make it harder for people to organize protests as well.

U.S. officials have struggled to explain to the Muslim world how they strongly disagree with the anti-Islam film but have no ability to block it because of the freedom of speech in the country....

Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf called on the international community Friday to pass laws to prevent people from insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

"If denying the Holocaust is a crime, then is it not fair and legitimate for a Muslim to demand that denigrating and demeaning Islam's holiest personality is no less than a crime?" Ashraf said during a speech to religious scholars and international diplomats in Islamabad.

Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany, but not in the U.S.

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry on Friday summoned the U.S. charge d'affaires in Islamabad, Richard Hoagland, to protest the film. Pakistan has banned access to YouTube because the website refused to remove the video.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also lashed out at the West over the film and the caricatures in the French weekly, Charlie Hebdo.

"In return for (allowing) the ugliest insults to the divine messenger, they — the West — raise the slogan of respect for freedom of speech," said Ahmadinejad during a speech in the capital, Tehran.

He said this explanation was "clearly a deception."

Clearly!

| 17 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Imagine if a Christian or Jewish cleric issued a theological argument for the killing of anyone -- it would be front-page in the New York Times for a week, and all over CNN. But no one will take any particular notice of this. "Prominent Salafi-Jihadi Cleric Issues Fatwa Sanctioning Killing Of U.S. Ambassadors, Including Chris Stevens," from MEMRI, September 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following the September 11, 2012 killing of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, a number of queries were sent in to the Salafi-jihadi website Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad (MTJ) regarding the legitimacy of this action. Answering on behalf of the website's shari'a committee, Sheikh Abu Mundhir Al-Shinqiti issued a fatwa in which he approved of the killing of the U.S. ambassador and other U.S. diplomats, and refuted religious arguments raised by some Islamic scholars against such actions.
| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

No doubt the cinema was just about to start showing "Innocence of Muslims." More Muhammad movie rage madness: "Pakistan TV Channel Says Driver Killed in Protest," from the Associated Press, September 21:

A Pakistani TV reporter says his driver was killed when police fired to disperse protesters of an anti-Islam film who were torching a cinema in the northwest city of Peshawar.

Kashif Mahmood says he was sitting with the driver, Mohammad Amir, in their vehicle covering the protest when police opened fire Friday.

He said three bullets hit the vehicle, including one that critically wounded Amir. He later died at a hospital....

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Projection Alert: "Israel root cause of all world problems: Iran envoy," from Press TV, September 20 (thanks to Lachlan):

Iran’s Ambassador to Beirut Ghazanfar Roknabadi says although Israel is the main reason behind all international problems, Washington continues to support the Zionist regime.

“The security of the Zionist regime [of Israel] is the most important issue for Washington officials and they consider it sacred,” Roknabadi added in an interview with Lebanon’s Al-Manar television.

Referring to Israel’s recent military drills, he stated that Iran’s response to any foolish act by the Zionists will be very painful.

Turning to the 16th Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, Roknabadi said the fact that 120 countries agreed to the establishment of the Palestinian government with al-Quds as its capital has enraged the Zionist regime of Israel....

| 18 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

And police are bracing for more. If only Australia would criminalize criticism of Islam, then a new era of peace would dawn. "Man arrested over text messages," from AAP, September 21 (thanks to Vijay):

Hundreds of police will be out in force in Sydney and Melbourne to deal with any protests that may be occurring in Sydney or Melbourne this weekend.

A man has been charged with inciting violence in Sydney's CBD this weekend.

The 20-year-old was arrested at a business in Ingleburn, in the city's southwest, on Friday afternoon by police investigating last Saturday's Muslim riots.

Detectives have been monitoring social networking sites this week and allege the man used websites and text messages to incite more violence at the weekend.

He was charged with recruiting persons to engage in criminal activity and printing or publishing to incite, urge or aid the commission of a crime....

A second man, aged 21, was arrested in The Rocks, central Sydney, on Friday afternoon on suspicion of inciting and promoting violence through social networking websites....

It comes as police ramp up their presence in Sydney's CBD this weekend over fears of a repeat of the violence.

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Here is my weekly segment on Michael Coren's Sun TV show. The segment even has its own logo now!

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

And converts face an especially hard time, since Sharia forbids Muslims to leave Islam, on pain of death. "Christians face arrest, persecution in Iran, U.N. experts say," by Stephanie Nebehay for Reuters, September 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

GENEVA (Reuters) - More than 300 Christians have been arrested since mid-2010 in Iran where churches operate in a climate of fear and Muslims who convert to Christianity face persecution, United Nations human rights investigators said on Thursday.

They welcomed the release earlier this month of Yousof Nadarkhani, a Christian pastor who spent three years in prison before his death sentence for apostasy and evangelism was commuted, but voiced deep concerns for those still detained.

In a joint statement, the independent investigators called on authorities in the Islamic Republic to "ease the current climate of fear in which many churches operate, especially Protestant evangelical houses of worship".

Ahmed Shaheed, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, estimated that based on his own interviews and reports from activist groups, "over 300 Christians have been arbitrarily arrested and detained throughout the country since June 2010".

They included at least 41 people detained from one month to more than a year, sometimes without official charges, said Shaheed, a former foreign minister of the Maldives, who has not been allowed into Iran despite repeated requests.

"Scores of other Christians appear to remain in detention for freely practicing their religion," he said, noting the Iranian constitution and a landmark international treaty ratified by Iran protect the right to practice that faith.

"Churches continue to report undue pressure to report membership, in what appears to be an effort to pressure and sometimes even detain converts," he said.

Nadarkhani, born to Muslim parents, converted to Christianity at age 19 and joined a Protestant church in the northern city of Rasht....

| 3 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

What an interesting place to end the interview -- just a coincidence, I'm sure! But it actually didn't end there. Pamela Geller has the story:

Here is the video of my interview with Erin Burnett on CNN earlier. The video cuts off at the end of the description of the ADL. Here is a transcript of the portion that CNN didn't run. I secretly recorded my interview and included the audio of the missing portion in the video as well. The interview was 14 minutes long, but CNN cuts it off at discussion of Hamas-CAIR, 9 minutes in. Much thanks to Big Fur Hat for dropping the secretly recorded audio of the entire interview into the video above.

This is what CNN's Erin Burnett censored:

PG: And CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood group --
 
EB: That is the organization, right, Council on American-Islamic Relations, they said these are hate ads and part of a larger problem.
 
PG: CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history. They were named as Muslim Brotherhood. They’re a Hamas group in America. Hamas is – the first paragraph of their charter calls for the annihilation of Israel. Is CAIR ever gonna support me and support freedom? Of course not. They’re not -- to me, they’re not a legitimate group. To me they’re a subversive group whose stated goal, according to an internal captured document in the Holy Land trial, was to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within. So that is a compliment. Seriously.
 
EB: OK, let me ask you about this issue about savages again, because I think that is part of the problem here. At least -- when people look at that ad -- it is a word chosen – will you admit this? – to make people recoil and pay attention.
 
PG: No.
 
EB: To poke up. To perk up and say, Look at this.
 
PG: No, it’s an accurate word. The definition of savage works, because any war on innocent civilians is savagery. Would you call those that beheaded a colleague, Daniel Pearl, savages?
 
EB: I would call them murderers.
 
PG: You wouldn’t call them savages? I would. I would call them savages. I would call Nazis, that slaughtered millions and millions of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals, I would call them savages. So I think now it’s not arbitrary: I think when you go to a dictionary and you look up what savage means, and that’s the definition –
 
EB: Uncivilized and barbarous.
 
PG: That’s right.
 
EB: So lemme ask you something else. When people see your name, you are a controversial person, which I know that you say that you’re not, but you are. I’m gonna say that I think that that is the case.
 
PG: You’re allowed, you’re allowed.
 
EB: All right. You have done other things as well. Obviously, as I mentioned, you were against the Ground Zero Mosque.
 
PG: I was against the Ground Zero Mosque.
 
EB: You have questioned the authenticity of President Barack Obama being born in the United States.
 
PG: No, that’s not true. That is absolutely not true. I ran a digital forensic examination calling into questions alterations that were made to the Certification of Live Birth. I don’t know what’s on the long form. I don’t know what’s on the vault copy. But I did say – and I didn’t say it, an actual digital forensic examination specialist said, there were alterations made to the original COLB. All I said was, What’s on the original vault copy that he doesn’t want us to know? That was all I said. Now, they change it, and they morph it – listen, I’ve written hundreds of articles. Two books. I update Atlas Shrugs, my blog, every day. You don’t have to guess as to my position. There’s no ambiguity to my position. You can read me.
 
EB: You said the president was a Muslim.
 
PG: I never said that. I never said he was a Muslim. I said, whether he is or he isn’t, what would he be doing differently? And--
 
EB: But isn’t that – but see, that, this -- these are the rhetorical games that one can play. Saying that let’s look into a digital forensic of an American citizen’s birth certificate is calling into question whether they were born here. Saying whether you are or aren’t a Muslim when you’ve been very passionate about your Christian faith is raising the question of someone, whether someone is or isn’t a Muslim, as if somehow being a Muslim is perceived as being negative.
 
PG: But you’re accusing me of something I never said. Let’s discuss what I said. I’m happy to discuss everything that I said. The same thing with Barack Obama. I don’t know what’s on the vault copy. Every other president has released the vault except him. It makes you question. Now you’re gonna say, “Pamela, you’re not allowed to question.” This is America. I can question. And frankly, I still think it’s a question. I do, I think it’s a question. And I do think that Obama is Islamophilic – yes, that’s what I said. I didn’t say he was a Muslim. There’s no way to know what’s in the man’s heart. And frankly, by their fruits ye shall know them, so we know him. I don’t know what’s in his heart, and I don’t care.
 
EB: The Center for American Progress calls you an “Islamophobia grass roots organizer.”
 
PG: Yeah. And American Center for Progress is an uber left-wing, Soros-funded, subversive organization. I mean, these are not legitimate organizations if you’re a rational, thinking person that loves individual rights, that believes in individual rights over statism, that believes in individual rights over collectivism. I’m sorry, but these are not legitimate organizations.
 
EB: Who you gonna vote for?
 
PG: Really? I’m voting for President Romney. So here we go: Geller Endorses Romney, there’s your headline!

| 38 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

I tried to tell you -- back in January 2011. But such concerns were dismissed as "fearmongering."

"The common refrain you hear in the US: The Middle East is being overrun with religious radicals bent on oppressing women and destroying Israel. That is nonsense, of course." -- Islamic Republic of Iran tool Reza Aslan

"Amending treaty with Israel 'a matter of time,' says presidential adviser," from Al-Masry Al-Youm, September 19 (thanks to Geoffrey):

An adviser to President Mohamed Morsy has said that amending the 1979 peace treaty signed with Israel is "a matter of time," adding that such a move is necessary to restore full Egyptian control over Sinai.

Mohamed Essmat Seif al-Dawla, who has been publicly advocating the move, told Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jareeda in an interview published on Wednesday, "There is no reason for keeping a treaty unchanged for three decades."

He added that the 1979 accord "preserves Israel's national security more than Egypt's, which constitutes a blatant violation of Egyptian sovereignty," and that it would not endure under Egypt's new leaders.

Dawla, a member of the activist Kefaya movement and one the opponents of ousted President Hosni Mubarak, is an engineer and a researcher for national issues. He also belongs to an anti-Zionist group, according to state news agency MENA.

"While Israel has only three kilometers of limited armament zones within its soils, known as Zone D, Egypt has A, B, and C zones in the Sinai Peninsula with different degrees of armament," he said.

Dawla said the agreement means Egypt is deprived of control over large areas that have turned into a hotbed for criminal activity and "espionage networks."

"I am reflecting the opinion of the Egyptian public and the political forces which, despite their disagreement, concur on the need to amend, or cancel, the treaty," Seif al-Dawla added....

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 20, 2012

Pamela Geller has the story:

Today AFLC filed our lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority.

After our historic win in our first amendment lawsuit against the NYC MTA, our pro-Israel ads were scheduled to run in New York and DC Metro stations. The ad was submitted and approved. We signed contracts and paid for the ads.

Back on Tuesday, the DC Transit authority canceled our pro-Israel ads. DC Transit said, "due to the situations happening around the world at this time, we are postponing the start of this program ..." "The reason for this decision is one of security and safety for the commuters using the DC Metro rail system."

This is exactly the reason our pro-freedom ads should run.

It is precisely because of the current political situation that it is important that I be able to express my message now, and I consider any delay to be government censorship of my core political speech. I demanded that the transit authority change their position. Short of that, we will file a lawsuit tomorrow.

Clearly, DC is kowtowing to the threat of jihad terrorism. Dhimmi DC transit is not alone. Others have criticized the use of the word "savage." But it is entirely apt. They claim that the ad refers to all Muslims, or all opponents of Israel. It doesn't. It refers to those who rejoice in the murders of innocent civilians. The war on Israel is a war on innocent civilians. The targeting of civilians is savage. The murder of Ambassador Stevens was savage. The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish people is savage. The torture of hostage Gilad Shalit was savage. The bloody hacking to death of the Fogel family was savage. The Munich Olympic massacre was savage. The unspeakable torture of Ehud Goldwasser was savage. The tens of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel (into schools, homes, etc.) are savage. The vicious Jew-hatred behind this genocide is savage. The endless demonization of the Jewish people in the Palestinian and Arab media is savage. The refusal to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state is savage. The list is endless.

9/11, 7/7, 3/11, Fort Hood, Christmas day bomber, Times Square bomber, Bulgarian bus bombing, Mumbai, Bali, etc., are savagery.

Today our legal team, Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of American Freedom Law Center filed suit against Washington Metropolitan Authority:

Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Wash. Metro Area Transit Auth.

"AFLC Files Federal Lawsuit Against D.C. Transit Authority for Refusing to Run Pro-Israel/Anti-Jihad Advertisement" American Freedom Law Center

Citing concerns about “the situations happening around the world” and the “security and safety” of its passengers, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has decided to delay running a pro-Israel/anti-jihad advertisement submitted by the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI), a human rights organization, until some unknown “future date.” As a result, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of FDI and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The lawsuit challenges the WMATA’s unconstitutional restriction on FDI’s right to engage in protected speech in a public forum. AFLC also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking a court order to permit the advertisement to run immediately as scheduled.

The planned advertisement states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The WMATA does not want to display a message that it deems to be critical of Islam, critical of jihad, or supportive of Israel in light of the current ‘world events.’ However, it is precisely because of the current political situation unfolding in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere that FDI should be permitted to express its message, and any delay amounts to government censorship of speech. Because FDI’s speech is core political speech, it should be accorded the greatest protection under the First Amendment.”

By policy and practice, the WMATA has leased its advertising space for a wide variety of commercial, noncommercial, public-service, public-issue, political, and religious advertisements. As such, the WMATA has permitted political and social commentary advertisements covering a broad spectrum of political views and ideas. For example, the WMATA leased its advertising space for a pro-Palestine advertisement, which displayed the anti-Israel message: “End U.S. military aid to Israel.”

In response to the pro-Palestine advertisement, FDI entered into a contract with CBS Outdoor – the advertising agent for WMATA – on September 6, 2012 to place the pro-Israel advertisement on four dioramas in area subways from September 24, 2012 to October 21, 2012. At the time of the contract, the advertisement was approved for display, and it satisfied all of the WMATA’s guidelines.

Nevertheless, the WMATA – presumably intimidated by the ongoing violence perpetrated by Muslims who claim to be angered by a YouTube video critical of Islam – informed Geller on September 18, 2012 through its CBS Outdoor agent that they will not run the advertisement as scheduled. Geller requested that the WMATA change its position, but the transit authority confirmed its decision, citing “world events and a concern for the security of their passengers.” Consequently, AFLC promptly filed its federal lawsuit and a request for a temporary restraining order so as to allow the advertisements to run during the period of time agreed upon by the parties. The lawsuit argues that the WMATA’s speech restriction is censoring FDI’s core political speech on the basis of its content and viewpoint because the restriction is based on the perceived negative response that FDI’s message might receive from certain viewers, most likely Muslim viewers who might engage in violence as a result.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented, “Under the First Amendment, speech cannot be punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob. The WMATA’s speech restriction is based on the perceived negative response that FDI’s message might receive from certain viewers based on its content and viewpoint. However, a viewer’s reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. This is known as a ‘heckler’s veto,’ which is impermissible under the First Amendment.”...

More here.

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

This will fix everything. Doubtless a rosy pro-American future looms in the Islamic world, courtesy of the Film Critic-In-Chief. What this ridiculous campaign will do for the freedom of speech, however, is not quite so rosy. "State Department spending $70G on Pakistan ads denouncing anti-Islam film," from the Associated Press, September 20 (thanks to Kenneth):

The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video.

The State Department said Thursday the embassy had compiled brief clips of Obama and Clinton rejecting the contents of the movie and extolling American tolerance for all religions into a 30-second public service announcement that is running on seven Pakistani networks. Obama and Clinton's comments, which are from previous public events in Washington, are in English but subtitled in Urdu, the main Pakistani language.

Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the aim was to get the messages to the widest possible audience in Pakistan, where tens of thousands of protestors angry about the film tried to reach the U.S. embassy before being turned back by Pakistani police. She said embassy staffers had decided the ads were the best way to spread the word. The seven networks have a potential audience of 90 million people, she added.

"The sense was that this particular aspect of the president and the secretary's message needed to be heard by more Pakistanis than had heard, and that this was an effective way to get that message out," Nuland told reporters in Washington. The ads are not running in other countries, she said.

In the ad, Obama is seen talking about America's tradition of religious tolerance and Clinton is seen saying that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the video that contains vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

"We absolutely reject its content and message," Clinton says in the advertisement.

A caption on the ad reads: "Paid Content" and it ends with the seal of the American Embassy in Islamabad....

They could have taken the opportunity to explain the importance of the freedom of speech. But no.

| 57 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

So what are they supposed to do? Not fight jihad, because fighting jihad will only lead to more jihad? Apparently they have decided to stay quiet and hope they will be OK. "Germany postpones posters aimed at countering radical Islam," by Chris Cottrell for Reuters, September 20 (thanks to Twostellas):

Germany’s Interior Ministry has postponed at the last minute a poster campaign advertising a hotline aimed at countering radical Islam because of fears it could have incited violence by extremists....

The posters had been due to go up in German cities with large immigrant populations from Friday. They were aimed at those who suspected that a friend or family member might be drifting towards radical Islam.

“With everything that is going on right now, we’re afraid that it wouldn’t take much to trigger more religiously motivated violence,” an interior ministry spokesman said.

“We’re talking specifically about fanatic individuals who could use events they perceive as being Islamophobic as an opportunity to take action.” The spokesman said the ministry had no reason to believe such an attack was imminent.

Protesters angered by the California-made film stormed the German embassy in Sudan on Friday and Berlin withdrew some staff.

Sudan had criticized Germany for allowing a protest last month by far-right activists carrying caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad and also for giving an award to a Danish cartoonist whose depiction of the Prophet in 2005 sparked global protests.

Some Muslim groups had criticized the planned poster campaign because they said it stigmatized them....

Of course.

| 19 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

It's a staple of Leftist and Islamic supremacist smears of freedom fighters that we are like the Nazis, when in reality neo-Nazis are allied with the jihadis, and with their shared Jew-hatred and taste for authoritarianism, it is easy to see why. Paleocons also tend to move in these circles. Some anti-interventionist paleocons I have known keep their antisemitism well hidden, only revealing it in its full ugliness after a few drinks; but Raimondo is right up front with his, even appropriating Nazi terminology, and calling those of us whom he thinks form a pro-Israel network behind the Muhammad movie "vermin."

In this piece, Raimondo sees the Muhammad movie, with which I actually had nothing to do, as part of a nefarious plan by us pro-Israel vermin to get the Muslim world to act out, thus requiring more U.S. intervention -- because what we really want is for our troops to bleed and die on foreign shores while we cackle and count our shekels, doncha know. This Jew-hating clown doesn't know, or doesn't care, that I opposed U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan -- that wouldn't fit his nasty little antisemitic scenario.

"The ‘Pro-Israel’ Network Behind the Innocence Video," by Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, September 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

If someone had planned to upend US foreign policy — to utterly destroy the very basis [.pdf] of all our diplomats (and military personnel) have been working to achieve in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world — they couldn’t have done a better job of it than whoever put together Innocence of Muslims.

Yes, because US foreign policy was going so very well up until the film appeared.

As violent protests spread, the consequences continue to roll in: the suspension of joint US-Afghan military operations, the suspension of US aid talks with Egypt, the rapid decline of US prestige in the region, and the growing influence of the radical Islamist movement US support for the “Arab Spring” was designed to counter. The Obama administration’s effort to split the Islamist upsurge and lend its support to “moderates” has been stopped cold....

Recall who the Obama administration had defined as "moderate": remember the talk of the "moderate Taliban," and the "largely secular" Muslim Brotherhood -- yes, clearly we pro-Israeli vermin have upset a carefully thought-out and delicately complex pathway to certain peace!

Anyway, Raimondo then indulges in a few paragraphs of empty speculation and baseless insinuation about why the film was made and by whom, and then tries his best to link the filmmakers to Pamela Geller (who had nothing to do with the film either) and me. He confuses "Innocence of Muslims" with the movie project of Ali Sina of Faith Freedom, even though Sina is working on a completely different project, so as to suggest that Pamela Geller called for funding of the movie that everyone is upset about. And then:

The idea that these vermin, who deliberately set out to make a “movie” that would inflame the Muslim world, are “free speech” heroes is worse than nonsense: it is valorizing villains. We don’t yet know where the money, or the impetus to make the film, came from, but what we do know is this: the driving force behind Innocence was a desire to create an international incident that would bring discredit on the United States, and empower radical Islamists who hate America and everything it stands for. And the promoters of this garbage pose as “patriots”!

Free speech has nothing to do with this issue: the President requested of YouTube that they reconsider the video’s place on YouTube in light of their terms of service. YouTube refused, and that’s the end of it. Unfortunately, however, that’s not the end of this imbroglio, the consequences of which we’ll be living with for a long time to come....

Raimondo's "reasoning" here is so contorted that it is hard to follow, but it does seem as if he is saying that we vermin made the movie in order to incite the Muslims to riot, so as to justify more American intervention. I doubt if Justin Raimondo knows or cares that I have consistently opposed these misguided Wilsonian hearts-and-minds adventures since before we entered Iraq in 2003, and have called for a complete reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy in light of the reality of the jihad -- a reevaluation that would coincide in many ways with his thirst for non-intervention, but would not involve what he clearly wants most: the U.S. abandonment of Israel. For as he goes on, he makes it clear that this is all really about...the Jews:

Defense of the Jewish state is a major theme of the Islamophobe network: they use it as a shield to deflect criticism. A key leader of this network is former New Leftist and Black Panther groupie David Horowitz: his “David Horowitz Freedom Center” (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), sponsors Spencer’s “Jihad Watch.” Horowitz’s “Frontpage” site — ablaze with stories decrying the “betrayal” of Israel by the American government and the perfidy of all things Islamic — recently speculated Innocence was created by the very Salafists now leading the protests. Since the video sprang from the same bigoted milieu of which Frontpage is the online Jerusalem, this “theory” isn’t merely ironic — it’s a moral obscenity.

It isn’t hard to imagine where the money to create this deadly provocation came from. Of the many millions in neocon money sloshing around this country, it’s hardly inconceivable a hundred thousand or so would find its way into the hands of a twice-convicted felon and all around dubious character like Nakoula, who is, I suspect, just a con man rather than an ultra-Zionist ideologue like the promoters of his “work.”

Why, those lousy vermin! Call the exterminator, eh, Justin?

| 18 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Everyone knew this was coming. If only we would outlaw criticism of Islam and submit to Sharia, all would be well and all manner of thing would be well. It's so simple! "French man held over Mohammad cartoon revenge plan," from Reuters, September 20 (thanks to David):

PARIS/MARSEILLE, France Sept 20 (Reuters) - Police detained a young man in southern France on Thursday on suspicion that he was planning a revenge attack on the staff of a satirical magazine which published cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammad.

Anti-terrorism magistrates near the Mediterranean port city of Toulon questioned the 18-year-old after he threatened in a message on Facebook to cut the throats of anyone he could find at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a judicial source said.

The magazine's publication of cartoons ridiculing Mohammad added to the anger of Muslims already outraged over an anti-Islam film produced in the United States and posted on the Internet.

The suspect had no police record but he was already known to security services, the source said, without giving further details....

| 16 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Actually, oddly enough, it was a jihad-martyrdom suicide bomber, claiming the promise of Paradise given in the Qur'an to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah (9:111). No doubt the jihad murderers were just fed up with all the "Islamophobia." "Suicide bombers kill at least six in Somali capital," from Reuters, September 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Two suicide bombers walked into a restaurant in central Mogadishu and blew themselves up, killing at least six people, witnesses said, less than a week after militant bombers targeted the country's new president.

A Reuters photographer said he could see six bodies as well as the severed heads of the two bombers. Chairs and tables were strewn across the restaurant and pools of blood covered the flooring.

"Two suicide bombers targeted a restaurant called 'The Village' opposite the theatre. There are bodies and there are wounded people," said Mohamed Sheikh, a security guard at the National Theatre located opposite the blast site....

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
AslanMar20112.jpgReza Aslan exposed


Islamic supremacist Boy Reza Aslan is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC); his Twitter tag line says: "Simultaneously an American spy working to bring down Iran and an Iranian agent working to bring down America." Apparently only the second part is true. I have long warned that this arrogant clown was not the "moderate" he is assumed to be, and now that is incontrovertible.

"Iranian Regime Loses to Legal Project in Federal District Court," by Sam Nunberg for the Legal Project, September 18:

PHILADELPHIA, September 14, 2012 – Federal District Court Judge John B. Bates for the District of Columbia yesterday granted summary judgment for Seid Hassan Daioleslam, editor of the English Iranian Lobby website "In Search of Truth: Reports on Mullahs's lobby in US," the defendant in a defamation suit brought by Trita Parsi and the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Judge Bates also ordered sanctions against Parsi for failure to comply with the discovery phase of the litigation. The Legal Project coordinated and financed the defense of Mr. Dai; Sidley Austin LLP represented him pro bono.

Trita Parsi sued Seid Hassan Daioleslam for defamation in April, 2008 after Mr. Dai's investigative reporting exposed Parsi's and NIAC's deep and incontrovertible ties to high-level agents of the Iranian regime. The suit went through 53 months of litigation that included 24 months of discovery and over 30 court motions. These ultimately confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Dai's investigative reports.

The case reached national prominence when Parsi's e-mails (produced during discovery) not only confirmed his ties to the mullahs but also that he has delivered lectures to the CIA, briefed Secretary Hilary [sic] Clinton and visited the Obama White House starting in 2009. As recently as this past July, he was hosted by Senior Adviser to the President Valerie Jarrett.

"Judge Bates decision in favor of Seid Hassan Daioleslam is a victory for both the First Amendment and our national security," said Sam Nunberg, director of the Legal Project. "Mr. Dai has been the victim of a predatory lawsuit simply because he exposed the direct connection between the Iranian Regime and NIAC. In light of the sanctions ordered against Parsi, this decision should also serve as a warning to all Islamists who seek to use our courts as a shield in order to intimidate researchers who work to expose them. I also would like to commend Sidley Austin LLP and specifically Mr. Timothy E. Kapshandy for his tireless effort in defending Mr. Daioleslam's rights under the First Amendment."...

| 20 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Pat Condell on the latest Muslim riots.

| 50 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Still more demands for curbs on the freedom of speech.

"The Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing [sic]." -- Reza Aslan

"Egypt Islamists demand French action on cartoons," from AFP, September 20 (thanks to Wimpy):

Egypt's influential Muslim Brotherhood demanded Thursday that France act against cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohamed in the same way as against the topless pictures of Prince William's wife Catherine.

Its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, called for "firm and rapid measures against the (French) magazine" Charlie Hebdo which printed cartoons mocking the prophet on Wednesday.

The movement, from which President Mohamed Morsy emerged, pointed out that "the French judiciary has taken dissuasive measures against a magazine which published the photographs" of the former Kate Middleton, the British royal.

French authorities on Tuesday banned the magazine Closer from any further publication or resale of the pictures and launched a criminal investigation into how they were obtained.

The FJP also stressed "the tough stand (of French authorities) against those who deny the Holocaust" in France....

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has said anyone offended by the cartoons could go to court, but he also stressed that in France "freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature."...

| 8 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

YouTube videos about Muhammad: haram. Murdering nuns: halal. "Outrage over Anti-Islam Film Worries Christians in Pakistan," from International Christian Concern, September 19 (thanks to Benedict):

Washington, D.C. September 19 (International Christian Concern) – Unidentified gunmen opened fire on a Catholic Cathedral in Hyderabad, Pakistan on Sunday, local activists told ICC. Violent protestors angered by an anti-Islamic film released in the US have killed at least 28 people throughout the region, including 14 foreigners in Kabul yesterday. Christians in Pakistan—often associated with the West because of their beliefs—fear being the targets of future attacks.

Several armed men on motorbikes shot at Christian and Hindu demonstrators outside St. Francis Xavier Catholic Cathedral in Hyderabad on September 16. Religious minorities had gathered at the cathedral to condemn a film, titled ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ which portrays the Muslim prophet Mohammed in a demeaning way. According to Amanat Masih, a human rights activist, the gunmen’s target may have been a foreign nun working at a nearby hospital.

“When Mother Christina, who is in charge of Lady Gram Hospital, reached the gate of the Cathedral, a few men on motorbikes opened fire on the church,” said Masih. “Mother Christina’s driver received two bullets in his legs, but Mother Christina was not hurt.”

Aamir Ashiq, Mother Christina’s driver, said the men wore “green clothes” on their heads and carried green flags. Ashiq was immediately admitted to a hospital for medical treatment.

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Rage not abating. "Hundreds of Pakistani protesters clash with police over anti-Islam film," from the Associated Press, September 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

ISLAMABAD — Hundreds of Pakistanis angry at an anti-Islam film that denigrates the religion’s prophet clashed with police in the Pakistani capital Thursday, the most violent show of anger in a day that saw smaller demonstrations in Indonesia, Iran and Afghanistan.

The vulgar depiction of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in an American-made movie has angered Muslims across the world, with many taking to the streets to rally against the film. In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension.

In Pakistan, a crowd of more than 1,000 people tried to make their way to the U.S. Embassy inside a guarded enclave that houses embassies and government offices.

Riot police used tear gas and batons to keep stone-throwing demonstrators away from the enclave, and hundreds of shipping containers were lined up to cordon off the area. Some protesters were students affiliated with the Islamist hardline Jamaat-e-Islami party.

The demonstrations are expected to grow in Pakistan on Friday, the traditional day of prayer in the Muslim world. The Pakistani government has called a national holiday for Friday so that people could come out and demonstrate peacefully against the film....

About 50 students from an Islamic university gathered in Makassar, the capital of South Sulawesi province in Indonesia. They burned tires and forced a McDonald’s restaurant to close. The door was later covered with a sign saying, “This must be closed as a symbol of our protest of the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ made in the U.S.,” referring to the title of the film.

In Iran, hundreds of students and clerics gathered outside the French embassy in Tehran to protest the publication of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in the French weekly.

Protesters chanted “Death to France” and “Down with the U.S.” and burned the flags of the United States and Israel. The demonstration ended after two hours.

In Kabul, a few hundred people demonstrated in the downtown area against the film, chanting ant-American slogans before dispersing peacefully.

| 8 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Stepping up their quest to criminalize criticism of Islam. "Egypt's Interpol office seeks warrant against anti-Islam filmmakers," from Al-Masry Al-Youm, September 20 (thanks to David):

An Egyptian Interpol official said Wednesday that theoffice [sic] sought the issuance of a red bulletin, an international wanted persons alert, against the eight defendants implicated in producing an amateur film that denigrates Islam and Prophet Mohamed.

"The warrant of arrest was issued [in Egypt] against the defendants after the prosecutor accused them of committing crimes harming the unity of the nation and defamation of the Islamic religion," said the head of Egypt's Interpol office, Brigadier General Magdy al-Shafei.

He added that his office had asked its counterpart in the US to arrest the defendants. While the US has condemned the film as reprehensible, it is unlikely the American government would prosecute the filmmakers given protections for free speech and expression in that country.

However, this has not stopped Muslim protesters around the world and some political leaders, including President Mohamed Morsy, from calling for action.

Responding to protests against the film last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton upheld the US Constitution and the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech.

"Our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our constitution and in our law," she said. "We do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."

Public Prosecutor Abdel Meguid Mahmoud referred the eight people believed to be involved in making the "Innocence of Muslims" to Cairo Criminal Court on Tuesday, and ordered that they be taken into custody on charges of producing a film that defames the Prophet Mohamed.

Shafei told Al-Masry Al-Youm that Egypt's Interpol office will send a request to the Department of Legal Affairs to issue a red bulletin against the defendants in 190 countries after receiving a copy of their court referral.

Shafei added that Interpol's Department of Legal Affairs should examine the request and issue the bulletin if all the legal requirements are met. The defendants can then be arrested and extradited to Egypt, he said.

| 18 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Something approaching common sense in, of all places, the New York Daily News, which is ordinarily no friend of freedom. "Radical Islamic terror ‘flicks’ insult humanity far more deeply than an idiot film about Muslims by a felonious con man," by Denis Hamill in the New York Daily News, September 18 (thanks to Stewart):

C’mon, who’s obscene?

I’m having a hard time believing that Islamic extremists from more than 20 countries actually hold 300 million Americans responsible for a single amateur film, an incoherent anti-Islamic screed made by a convicted felon on parole for credit-card scams.

Okay, maybe one or two offended people could be that dumb. But no way could tens of thousands of folks in 20 countries believe the same line of nonsense that this film is representative of the entire American people.

And yet in the wake of four Americans murdered in Libya last week, here were fiery images from around the world as outraged Muslims attacked our consulates, embassies and even an American fast-food joint to avenge the twisted vision of one American con man with a camcorder. A film that esteemed Daily News movie critic Joe Neumaier says would have more social significance, as the old Hollywood line goes, if you cut it up and sold it for mandolin picks.

But somehow this obscure film has caused the Arab Spring to bloom into American funeral wreaths.

It got me thinking that we live in New York City, home of the United Nations, host of every one of those Islamic nations now erupting in irrational anti-American violence. Suppose New Yorkers decided to retaliate and storm all their diplomatic outposts, killing ambassadors and other innocents because we were outraged by an Islamist film that we found offensive?

The NYPD riot squad, hate crime unit, FBI and National Guard would be out rounding us up in orange fishing nets.

And, believe me, we have lots more than one dopey fictional film to be offended by.

Go online and you’ll find authentic real-life footage detailing radical Islamist atrocities that any rational person would find far more blasphemous to the human spirit than anything in the YouTube trailer that has set the Muslim world ablaze.

Start with these 10 videos:

1) The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl on an Al Qaeda website, perhaps one of the most evil videos ever shot.

2) American hostage Eugene Armstrong being beheaded in Iraq.

3) Hooded terrorists killing Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games.

4) The second plane smashing into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

5) Human beings leaping to their doom from the Trade Center.

6) The collapse of the twin towers as people are obliterated inside.

7) A woman being stoned to death for adultery in Saudi Arabia.

8) The bodies of four U.S. contractors hanging from a bridge above the Euphrates River in Fallujah, Iraq....

Read it all.

| 9 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

CH1.jpg

CH2.jpg

CH3.jpg

CH4.jpg

CH5.jpg

CH6.jpg

CH7.jpg

CH8.jpg

CH9.jpg

CH10.jpg

CH11.jpg

CH12.jpg

CH13.jpg

Here are the latest Muhammad cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, via Bivouac-ID. Important interview with the editor, Charb, here.

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The riots and murders around the world are designed to intimidate the West into discarding the freedom of speech, and so it is not surprising that Islamic supremacists have used the opportunity to try to connect every freedom fighter they can (including me) to the film. In "Islamists Seek to Settle Score by Framing Filmmaker," by Eric Allen Bell in FrontPage, September 20, the filmmaker details how Islamic supremacists have threatened and blamed him for the Muhammad movie that is being used as a pretext for their latest offensive against the freedom of speech:

What if there was one historical figure that just simply could not be lampooned?  I’m not talking about a George Orwell book now.  I’m talking about reality.  What if people in the free world, who had the right to free speech, would not dare lampoon this figure, because so many people on the planet had become brainwashed into thinking he was a “prophet”?  Maybe this seems just too mind-numblingly absurd to even entertain, but what if – what if the fear that these people would be offended, and then hurt you, or kill you, kept everyone silent – kept everyone afraid to poke fun at the imaginary holy man and to shudder in fear at the thought of exercising their right to free speech?

Is there even a word for something so absurd, so incredibly ridiculous?  In fact there is.  It is called being “Sharia-compliant.”

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2012:Sharia and the Constitution” was the name of the panel I was speaking on the night before, in Orange County, California.  I spent the night at a motel and got on to the freeway for a long drive home, after the traffic had let up.

A friend called and we started to discuss how the event had gone the night before.  “It had gone well, but we should be speaking to much bigger audiences,” I said.  “What’s it going to take?” she asked. “Seriously, what’s it going to take for people in America to realize that we aren’t all paranoid nutcases for pointing out that political Islam is at war with us and on the rise?”

Good question.

I thought about this and answered:

Hate to say it, but probably another 9/11.  And come to think of it, Egypt has about enough rope to hang itself with, having elected a terrorist organization – The Muslim Brotherhood – to run their country.  Sooner or later, the other shoe is going to drop, and when it does, perhaps people will rise from their slumber.  It’s just a matter of time before the Islamists in Egypt go off their meds and start demanding the usual death to America kind of stuff.

There was an uneasy moment of laughter, followed by a mutual realization that this was probably indeed true.

When I got off at my exit in Los Angeles, I said goodbye and we hung up.  I turned on a talk radio program and listened, when I heard someone say that Islamic protesters were storming the embassy in Egypt.  Muslim men had scaled the sides of the embassy and broken in.  Crowds shook their fists yelling, “Death to America!”  There was rioting.  I turned up the volume.  This was turning into one of those days where it just sucks to be right.  Everything I had been saying was going to happen as the result of the “Arab Spring” was beginning to happen.  Then things took an even worse turn, as the radio voice said, “… protesting an anti-Islam filmmaker in Los Angeles…”   Uh-oh.

I am the only filmmaker I know of in Southern California who is known for expressing views which are critical of Islamic law.  Maybe there were other filmmakers who were opposed to political Islam as well, but I was the only one writing articles about it, going onto the radio, television and speaking out at public events.  This could not be good.

When I got home, I sat down in front of the computer to try to find out more about what was going on.  The media was claiming that a YouTube video called “The Innocence of Muslims” had sparked all of this rage.

So I found the video on YouTube.  It didn’t (yet) have that many views.  The production quality was dismally awful.  The storyline was incoherent and it promised to be a “trailer” for an upcoming Hollywood film.  There is a saying in Hollywood that showbiz is about 90 percent delusion.  Still, there is no way any Hollywood studio would be connected to something like this.

The news went on to say the “film” was made either by an Israeli-American or a Coptic Christian.  This was about the time my bullshit detector went off.  How convenient, I thought, for the Islamists in Egypt – especially given that this cheesy video had been up on YouTube already for several weeks, at least.  Clearly, this “film mocking the prophet” was being used as a false pretext for a newly emboldened Islamist movement to strike at an American target at an appointed time – the anniversary of 9/11.

And then Libya was hit, and the rest is history – history still very much in the making.

The real filmmaker was soon identified as a man calling himself “Sam Bacile.” I received phone calls from members of the press asking me if I was Sam Bacile.  I said no.  They asked if I had heard of him.  I had not.  And no one in the Western media printed anything about me as being in any way connected to this project.  By now, most reporters I’ve spoken to know that when it comes to speaking out against political Islam, I don’t hold back.  And if I had made a movie that was critical of Mohammed, I’d have said so.  I’m not opposed to “mocking the prophet.” I’m opposed to making bad movies.

Since I first called out the blog LoonWatch.com as being a “terrorist spin-control network” I have made a few enemies.  I also exposed the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro for their many lies and terrorist ties.  Websites have gone up that list my personal information, smear my character, give out my home address and declare that I am the enemy of Islam.  It took me nine weeks to get one of these removed from Facebook, and the rest came down by legal action.  Many of my articles target the Muslim Brotherhood in America.  So I can’t say I was all that surprised when this photo surfaced on Facebook:

I have received death threats from Muslims before.  I even published a handful of them in my last article, “The True Face of Facebook.”  But nothing could have prepared me for what was about to come.

I was suddenly being hit with wave after wave of death threats from members of the Religion of Peace.  I’ve taken the liberty to publish a few of them for you below, complete with the name of each person who is threatening me and a link to their Facebook account.

As of the time that this article was published, Facebook continues to receive countless complaints about the death threats, but refuses to take any action whatsoever.  After all, that might be offensive to Muslims.  Instead, Facebook once again locked me out of my own account.

Now this could just be a coincidence, that this publicly traded company has blocked my account the very moment an international newspaper, The Guardian UK (hard-Left turn ahead), released an article, smearing the entire counter-jihad movement as paranoid lunatics.  This article did of course point out that I was reaching hundreds of thousands of people per week on Facebook with criticisms of political Islam.

So, I submit for your review, some of the love letters I have recently received from the Religion of Peace:

WARNING:  VERY GRAPHIC CONTENT

| 38 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

On this week’s Glazov Gang, Ben Shapiro, Leon Weinstein and Gershon Kelman gathered to discuss Obama Hands Middle East to Islamists. The discussion focused on the assassination of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the overall catastrophe of Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East. See all three parts of this three part series below.

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

HighNoonGlazov.jpg


In High Noon For America - The Coming Showdown, my main man Jamie Glazov, the ace editor of Frontpagemag.com, has gathered together a superbly scintillating, searing series of symposia featuring a seminal set of serious conservative thinkers to address the most vital issues of our age -- including Robert (Bud) McFarlane, Natan Sharansky, Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, Vladimir Bukovsky, and many others, including me. It's a succession of lively, thought-provoking discussion about a variety of timely topics that sheds light on fundamental issues affecting the future of America and the world.

"Jamie Glazov is magnificent." --Ann Coulter

"These symposia are so intellectually fascinating that you will be glued to your seat once you open the first page. High Noon for America is one of the most riveting intellectual roller coaster rides you will ever take. This book is a must read." --Steven Emerson, Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

"A Rabelais, a Swift for our times, Jamie Glazov has his finger on the pulse of our troubled age, and the clarity of vision to offer workable solutions, with an engaging wit and clarity of style that is unparalleled." --Robert Spencer, author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.

| 3 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

September 19, 2012

HenryMcFarland.jpgThe jihadist formerly known as Henry Dewitt McFarland III


See? If it were illegal to make derogatory comments about Islam, Henry Dewitt McFarland III, convert to Islam, would never have had to make his bomb threat. He would be free today, and all would be well. Repeal the First Amendment! "Derogatory comment against Islam motive in UTB bomb threat," by Sergio Chapa for ValleyCentral.com, September 17:

Court records show that a derogatory comment made against Islam was the motive in a weekend bomb threat at the University of Texas at Brownsville.

UTB police arrested 25-year-old Henry Dewitt McFarland III on a terroristic threat charge on Sunday afternoon.

The Harlingen man is accused of phoning in a bomb threat to the UTB campus early Sunday morning.

Court records released on Monday show that McFarland made the threat to the National Veteran's Crisis Hotline.

McFarland allegedly told the operator is a Marine Corps veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and in the process of converting to Islam.

According to the records, McFarland was planning to detonate a bomb in retaliation to a classmate making a derogatory remark against the Muslim faith.

McFarland told the operator that he had a pressure plate bomb in his living room.

The Harlingen veteran told the operator that he receiving counseling for anger management and domestic violence....

Oh, good. That'll fix everything.

| 21 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"Let us stab them in their economy." Watch for it. Meanwhile, note the open hatred of and incitement against Jews and Christians. But no one will take any note of this, or call for any restrictions upon the speech of hate-filled imams in mosques. No, the problem is not this imam, it is movies about Muhammad and cartoons mocking him!

"Benghazi Friday Sermon Preacher, in Wake of Killing of US Ambassador, Calls to 'Detonate Our Wrath upon Them' and 'Stab Them in Their Main Artery' - the Economy," from MEMRI, September 14:

Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon in Benghazi, Libya, which aired on Libya Al-Hurra TV on September 14, 2012.

Preacher: Oh nation of Islam, I was so overwhelmed with grief that I could not express it. How could I possibly depict the tragedy that had happened? We remained quiet when they butchered the elderly. We remained quiet when they slaughtered the children. We were restrained when they violated the honor of women. All that is left is the mocking of our Prophet. No, a thousand times no.

[...]

Oh nation of Islam, who will come to the aid of the Messenger of Allah? Who will come to the aid of Muhammad, who sacrificed everything he had in order to deliver us this religion?

Oh, how he suffered for our sake! Oh, how often his honorable face was spat upon for our sake! Oh, how many times he was banished from his land for our sake! After all this, how can we not boycott anyone who attacks our beloved Prophet?

Indeed, oh Muslims, the time has come for us to adopt a firm stance, and to detonate our wrath upon them, with deeds they will not be able to ignore. Let us stab them in their main artery, the secret behind their power. Let us stab them in their economy. The Prophet Muhammad said: "Wage Jihad against the polytheists, using your wealth, your hands, and you tongues."

Oh Allah, destroy the rancorous Christians. Oh Allah, destroy the rancorous Christians and the corrupting Jews. Oh Allah, destroy them for they cannot withstand you.

| 15 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The Wall Street Journal generally tends to be a reliably dhimmi publication, so it is refreshing to see it come down on the side of freedom in this latest battle in the war against the freedom of speech. "Vive la France," by James Taranto in the WSJ, September 19 (thanks to Paul):

Another day, another "wave of outrage," a cliché the New York Times deploys in reporting on a French humor magazine's publication of "a series of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad":

The illustrations, some of which depicted Muhammad naked and in pornographic poses, hit newsstands across the country on Wednesday and were met with a swift rebuke from the government of François Hollande, which had earlier urged the magazine, Charlie Hebdo, not to publish the cartoons, particularly in the current tense environment.

But we were struck--favorably--by the language the government used. "In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should not be undermined," Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told France Info radio. "In the present context, given this absurd video that has been aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?"

To be sure, this is one of those "Yes, but . . ." constructions in which the first clause is a qualification and the second is the main message. Fabius's statement is an inversion of Voltaire's most famous aphorism: He may defend to the death your right to say it, but he does not agree with what you have to say.

But that's fine. Free speech does not mean government-sanctioned speech, and Fabius's criticism of the magazine's editorial decision is an entirely reasonable and prudent one. The qualification, however, is crucially important--and, as we noted last week, it was missing from the statements of President Obama and Fabius's counterpart, Hillary Clinton, about the YouTube film that the Obama administration blames for the recent anti-American violence in North Africa and elsewhere (though the Washington Examiner reports that the White House press secretary today put in a word for "the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution").

France's free-speech regime, it should be noted, is weaker than America's, a difference that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is evidently shrewd enough to grasp:

Mahmoud Ghozlan, a spokesman for the group, noted that French law prohibits Holocaust denial and suggested that similar provisions might be made for comments deemed blasphemous under Islam.
"If anyone doubts the Holocaust happened, they are imprisoned," Mr. Ghozlan told Reuters. "It is not fair or logical" that the same not be the case for insults to Islam, he said.

Whether or not Ghozlan's conclusion is correct, American law is both fair and logical in forbidding the censorship of both types of disagreeable speech.

On the op-ed page of the Los Angeles Times, Sarah Chayes, who formerly worked for both NPR and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, makes an argument for punishing blasphemy as an incitement to violence. (Incidentally, it's not the first time the L.A. Times has published an op-ed arguing for limiting freedom of expression.)

Indeed it isn't.

Chayes cites the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that even speech advocating violence could not be criminalized absent both the intent to incite violence and the imminent likelihood of violence or lawbreaking.

Here's the weakest link in her analysis:

As for imminence, the timeline of similar events after recent burnings of religious materials indicates that reactions typically come within two weeks. [Nakoula] Nakoula's video was deliberately publicized just before the sensitive date of Sept. 11, and could be expected to spark violence on that anniversary.
While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Based on my understanding of the events," 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, "I think this meets the imminence standard."

Blogress cum law prof Ann Althouse wonders if the octogenarian Lewis really said that. So do we. Lewis always struck us as an old-time liberal where free speech was concerned.

In any case, here, from Chayes's own piece, is the refutation of her claim that the violence was imminent:

According to initial media investigations, the clip whose most egregious lines were apparently dubbed in after it was shot, was first posted to YouTube in July. . . .
According to the Wall Street Journal, when the video failed to attract much attention, another Coptic Christian, known for his anti-Islamic activism, sent a link to reporters in the U.S., Egypt and elsewhere on Sept. 6. His email message promoted a Sept. 11 event by anti-Islamic pastor Terry Jones and included a link to the trailer.

So the reaction took not two weeks but two months. More important, it required the film's propagation by mass media, including the Egyptian TV station Al Nas. NPR's Steve Inskeep has the details in a piece on The Atlantic's website:

The offensive film clip was almost unknown--an irrelevant piece of trash on the Internet--until a film producer managed to place a tiny item in an Egyptian newspaper. But it wasn't until the TV broadcast that things really blew up.
The hosts played an extended clip of the video dubbed in Arabic, pondering what should be done. One, Khalid Abdullah . . . asked if anyone had apologized. His co-host Mohammed Hamdy declared, "An apology is not enough. I want them convicted."

Should the U.S. prosecute them for incitement? Good luck with that. Inskeep reports that "in presenting the video, the broadcasters explained that they spread offensive speech because the public needed to be informed of [an] injustice." Maybe they're being disingenuous, but it's hard to imagine a prosecutor could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's an even worse problem with Chayes's idea of prosecuting the filmmakers under the Brandenburg standard. The defendants in Brandenburg were members of the Ku Klux Klan. They advocated (but did not incite) violence on the part of their own supporters in order to promote their cause of racial supremacy. By contrast, the filmmakers provoked a violent reaction from the other side. To prosecute them would be analogous to punishing civil rights activists for inciting white supremacists to commit violent or lawless acts.

Read it all.

| 14 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us
MuhammadMirror.jpg


Over the last few days the truth of the old adage that the devil cannot endure to be mocked has been confirmed again and again. Today the forces of oppression cannot endure to be mocked, and are eager to pass laws to make such mockery impossible. Such laws would be the death of free societies and the inauguration of tyranny. Consequently, such mockery is all the more necessary in these dark times.

| 33 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Truth is controversial in these insane times. Here is the latest on the battle for free speech on the home front, which my colleague Pamela Geller is leading: "Controversial 'Defeat Jihad' ad to appear in NYC subways," by Erinn Cawthon for CNN, September 19 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

New York (CNN) -- A controversial advertisement that critics say is hateful toward Muslims will appear in New York City subway stations starting next week, despite the city's attempts to halt the campaign.

New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority initially rejected the ad, which reads: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."

The authority's decision was overturned last month when a federal judge ruled that the ad is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Jihad -- Arabic for "struggle" -- is considered a religious duty for Muslims, although there are peaceful and violent interpretations of what it means.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative, which produced the ad, has been fighting to place the message in New York's subway system since last year after the authority refused to display it.

"We don't think it's controversial," said Pamela Geller, the executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. "It's truth. The MTA has run anti-Israel ads before and no one had an issue about it. 'Any war on innocent civilians is savagery': What's controversial here?"

Starting next week, the ads will be displayed in 10 of the city's more than 400 subway stations. The exact locations have not been selected by the transportation authority.

Geller said she had no qualms about releasing the message amid ongoing protests against an American-made anti-Islam film clip that led to the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya last week.

"If it's not a film, it's a cartoon, it's always some event," Geller said. "I will not sacrifice my freedom."

She noted that other places such as San Francisco have had these ads appear on buses with disclaimers next to them.

It's the latest controversy fueling the debate over free speech versus hate speech. In addition to protests over the film clip, a French satirical magazine published cartoons on Wednesday featuring a figure resembling Islam's Prophet Mohammed, triggering security concerns.

"These hate ads are part of a larger problem," said Muneer Awad, executive director of the [Hamas-linked] Council of American-Islamic Relations. "We're trying to make sure MTA has policies to discourage hate speech."...

I.e., to forbid honest and truthful reporting about jihad and Islamic supremacism.

| 14 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Has the whole world gone mad? Why is this even a question? Let's say you call me a racist, bigoted Islamophobe. I am deeply insulted. At that moment I have a huge range of options before me. I can calmly explain to you that Islamic supremacism is not a race, fighting for free speech and equality of rights for all is not bigotry, and "Islamophobia" is a manipulative concept used by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to stifle resistance to Islamic supremacism and jihad. Or I can start yelling and calling you names. Or I can start muttering into my vodka tonic about the injustice of it all. Or I can murder you, drag your body through the streets, set fire to your embassy, and demand laws against insulting me. Or I can do any number of other things.

Which one will I choose? It's up to me, not to you. You might have a strong hunch as to how I will react, and say to your companion, "That Spencer, he is going to come out with another windy, closely reasoned refutation of my charges that everyone will ignore," or "That Spencer, he is going to burn down my embassy," but you still can't be absolutely sure what I am going to do, because I am not an automaton, I am a human being endowed with the faculty of reason, and I may always choose to react in a way that will surprise you.

Or I may not. But in any case, it is up to me. If I kill you, there is absolutely no justifiable basis on which anyone could say, "Well, he had it coming. Look how he provoked him." My choice was my own, and only I bear responsibility for it.

But today that basic and elemental truth is lost. If Muslims rage, riot and murder for any reason, they bear no responsibility. The only ones who bear any responsibility for their raging, rioting and murdering are the non-Muslims who somehow provoked them.

That I have to take the time to explain this at all, and that it will be universally ignored, is an indication of how much our public discourse has degenerated. The road is being swiftly paved for the destruction of the freedom of speech. When, in another year or so, I am safely imprisoned for daring to speak the truth and a new era of peace has dawned between the West and the Islamic world, and yet the jihad keeps coming, and the full implications of the new "hate speech" laws start to become clear in the quashing of all political dissent, don't say you weren't warned.

Of course, maybe none of that will happen, and the freedom of speech will suddenly sport a thousand articulate defenders who have not yet been completely demonized and marginalized out of the public square. But I don't see them on the horizon right now.

"‘I’m not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs’: Charlie Hebdo editor rejects responsibility for violence over naked Mohammad cartoons," by Nicholas Vinocur for Reuters, September 19 (thanks to Kenneth):

The editor of French magazine Charlie Hebdo has said that when his magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by portraying him naked in cartoons, he and his organization were not responsible for fuelling the anger of Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a video depicting him as a lecherous fool.

The editor, Stephane Charbonnier, also known as Charb, rejected criticism. “We have the impression that it’s officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental Islamists,” he said.

“It shows the climate. Everyone is driven by fear, and that is exactly what this small handful of extremists who do not represent anyone want: to make everyone afraid, to shut us all in a cave,” he told Reuters.

“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he said in an interview at the weekly’s offices on the northeast edge of Paris. “I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law; I don’t live under Koranic law.”

Charbonnier said he had no regrets and felt no responsibility for any violence.

“I’m not the one going into the streets with stones and Kalashnikovs,” he said. “We’ve had 1,000 issues and only three problems, all after front pages about radical Islam.”

One cartoon alluded to the scandal over a French magazine’s publication of topless photos of the wife of Britain’s Prince William. It showed a bare female torso topped by a beard with the caption “Riots in Arab countries after photos of Mrs Mohammad are published”....

“We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our constitution,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

“In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published, we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.”...

That's the first step.

| 15 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

He speaks about "insults against religions," but only Muslims particularly care about what everyone else is saying about their religion, and only Muslims would decide what constitutes an "insult" against Islam. This would establish Muslims as a privileged class, above criticism, and allow the jihad against the West to continue unimpeded. More on this story. "Islamic states to reopen quest for global blasphemy law," by Robert Evans for Reuters, September 19 (thanks to David):

(Reuters) - A leading Islamic organization signaled on Wednesday that it will revive long-standing attempts to make insults against religions an international criminal offence....

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said the international community should "come out of hiding from behind the excuse of freedom of expression", a reference to Western arguments against a universal blasphemy law that the OIC has sought for over a decade.

He said the "deliberate, motivated and systematic abuse of this freedom" were a danger to global security and stability.

Separately, the Human Rights Commission of the OIC, which has 57 members and is based in Saudi Arabia, said "growing intolerance towards Muslims" had to be checked and called for "an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material"....

Critics say the law is widely misused to persecute non-Muslims, and cite this month's case of a Muslim cleric detained on suspicion of planting evidence suggesting that a 14-year-old girl had burned Islamic religious texts.

Pakistani Christians and Hindus at the WCC gathering said a global law against blasphemy, or "defamation of religion", would only endorse on an international scale the religious intolerance seen in Pakistan and in other Islamic countries.

| 20 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

He could just as well have said that if you riot and kill, we will give you what you want. It amounts to the same thing. "UN chief says anti-Islam filmmaker abused freedom of expression," from Reuters, September 19 (thanks to David):

(Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday the maker of an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests across the Muslim world abused his right to freedom of expression by making the movie, which he called a "disgraceful and shameful act."

The film, posted on the Internet under several titles including "Innocence of Muslims," mocked the Prophet Mohammad and portrayed him as a womanizer and a fool.

It sparked days of deadly anti-American violence in many Muslim countries, including an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in Libya in which the U.S. ambassador died.

"Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose," Ban told a news conference.

"When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way."

"My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act," he said....

| 30 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

"The region's mainstream Muslim leaders are largely disturbed that America values one troublemaker's freedom of speech rights over the aggrieved feelings of Muslims worldwide." And who is standing up for the freedom of speech? It doesn't appear to be long for this world.

"Jailed Indonesian cleric: mimic attacks on U.S. in Libya," by Patrick