Recently in anti-dhimmitude Category

Here is a terrific piece in WND about our new SION/AFDI billboard campaign, a response to Muslim Brotherhood-linked ICNA's deceptive pro-Sharia campaign. Pamela Geller has more here and here. "Billboard offers defense to Shariah threats: 'They don't want Americans to know truth about gendercide, honor killings, stonings,'" by Michael Carl in World Net Daily, February 7:

A patriotic organization is launching a billboard campaign intended to undermine the efforts to advertise and promote Shariah, the Islamic law that calls for beheadings, executions and amputations, across America.

The group, Stop Islamization of Nations, is buying ad space for a billboard calling on people to learn the dark side of Shariah law.

The effort’s leader, Pamela Geller, says her group, has one real purpose – to counter the impact of the pro-Shariah billboard campaign of the Islamic Circle or North America, an alleged Muslim Brotherhood front organization.

“ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group, according to a captured internal document of the Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood groups in America are trying to norm Shariah, mainstream Shariah,” Geller warned.

The billboard will lead people to the Refuge from Islam site.

“The Muslim Brotherhood group ICNA needs to lie to Americans about Shariah and advance a false narrative about the most extreme and radical ideology on the face of the earth. Period,” Geller said.

“They don’t want Americans to know the truth that the gendercide of honor killings, the clitorectomies, the stonings, and the 1,400 years of cultural annihilations and enslavements are all Sharia-mandated,” Geller said.

Geller said that people asking the ICNA tough questions about Shariah will be ineffective.

“People telling ICNA facts on the phone won’t do any good. We need to counter this campaign publicly. We must educate America and arm freedom lovers with facts,” Geller said.

Geller says Muslims have to take a bold step to truly become Americans.

“The U.S. should be calling upon Muslim groups in America to renounce and reject Shariah if they want to be American citizens,” Geller said.

Geller’s billboard campaign directly opposes the ICNA’s Kansas City pro-Shariah billboard project.

The Islamic Circle’s billboard at Interstate 70 and 38th Street in Kansas City, Kan., says, “Shariah: Got questions? Get answers? Call 1-855-Shariah.

The Islamic Circle of Kansas City chapter website says the campaign was launched to defend “religious freedom” and promote understanding of Shariah.

The group’s website says the campaign is broader than a single sign along the highway.

“During this campaign, which will run from Jan. 23 until Feb 19, 2012, ICNA-KC will air messages on Shariah through KMBZ 980 AM radio and post a billboard on Shariah at I-70 and 38th street,” the ICNA said.

“The campaign messages are expected to reach over 200,000 people per week. The messages will invite the public to call the 1-855-SHARIAH hotline or visit our website to learn and ask questions about Shariah and Islam. Visitors to the website and callers to the hotline can request a free copy of the English translation of the Quran and other free literature on Islam and Shariah,” the group said.

ICNA Kansas City spokesman Riyaz Lareef declined to respond to questions from WND.

But Jihad Watch publisher and Islam analyst Robert Spencer said the ICNA campaign is an effort to muddy the waters on Islam.

“ICNA is trying to whitewash Shariah, to hoodwink Americans into thinking that concerns about it are all due to ‘misconceptions’ that can easily be cleared up,” Spencer said.

Spencer adds that any inquiries about Shariah’s darker side will receive soft replies.

“I expect that if any inquirers asked about stonings, amputations, the denial of the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women and non-Muslims, they’ll be told that none of that is really part of Shariah,” Spencer said.

“ICNA’s goal is to foster complacency and ignorance about Shariah on the part of Americans,” Spencer said. “I don’t think people phoning in with questions like that will rattle ICNA. Only a counter-campaign calling attention to those aspects of Sharia would accomplish that.”

Spencer echoes the reason Geller gives for her group’s campaign.

“The U.S. should be undertaking its own campaign to raise awareness about how Shariah is incompatible with constitutional freedoms, and calling upon Muslims in America to reject those aspects of it,” Spencer said....

Read it all.

Jihad Watch readers, we need your action now. James Lafferty, chairman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force (VAST) and SIOA board member, has been working hard to get Sharia prohibition legislation passed.

Delegate Bob Marshall of Virginia has introduced HB 825, which restricts any Virginia court from using "foreign law" as the basis for any decision or action. An odd alliance of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Virginia Bar Association, Muslim Association of Virginia and the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center of Northern Virginia testified against Marshall's bill Friday and are working against the bill's supporters -- the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force (VAST), SIOA and elements of the Tea Party.

Please contact Virginia House Speaker Bill Howell. Tell Speaker Howell to vote for HB825 with no amendments.

It is up to you to fight Muslim Brotherhood groups and the imposition of their anti-freedom agenda. Please contact Speaker Howell and get this out to everyone you can. We are the soldiers in this battle. It is up to us.

It is one thing to be unidentifiable in a society where one is always under the control of a male guardian and a perpetual minor, but in a free and open society, full participation requires being identifiable as an individual and not merely in relation to another.

For that matter, in the West, unlike other places where the supposed equivalence has been stated very crassly, the bottom line is that the female face is not a private part.

"Dutch plan ban on Muslim face veils next year," from Reuters, January 27 (thanks to Kenneth):

(Reuters) - The Dutch minority government plans to ban Muslim face veils such as burqas and other forms of clothing that cover the face from next year. The ban would make the Netherlands, where 1 million out of 17 million people are Muslim, the second European Union country to ban the burqa after France, and would apply to face-covering veils if they were worn in public.

"People should be able to look at each other's faces and recognize each other when they meet," the interior affairs ministry said in a statement Friday.

The ban will also apply to balaclavas and motorcycle helmets when worn in inappropriate places, such as inside a store, Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen told reporters, denying that this was a ban on religious clothing.

Geert Wilders' anti-Islam Freedom Party (PVV), which helps give the Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition a majority in parliament, has set considerable political store on getting the so-called burqa ban passed into law.

Few Muslim women in the Netherlands wear the Arabic-style niqabs which leave the eyes uncovered and Afghan-style burqas that cover the face with a cloth grid. Academics estimate the numbers at between 100 and 400, whereas Muslim headscarves which leave the face exposed are far more common.

The coalition has agreed to submit a new law to parliament next week stipulating that offenders would be fined up to 390 euros ($510), the ministry said.

Verhagen said the ban was intended to ensure that a tradition of open communication cherished in Dutch society was upheld, and to prevent people from concealing their identity in order to do harm....

In Human Events this morning, I discuss Newt Gingrich's anti-Sharia statements:

Just before his stunning victory in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich drew the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the deceptive Islamic supremacist group that bamboozles many with its pose as a neutral civil rights organization. Gingrich, fumed a CAIR spokesman, was "one of the nation's worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry." How did Gingrich earn this dubious honor? By telling the truth about Islamic law, and making clear his determination to resist it.

It all started last Tuesday, when Gingrich took a question about whether he would ever endorse a Muslim for President. "It would depend,” Gingrich answered, “entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Sharia,” the Islamic legal code that mandates stonings, amputations, and restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

"A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat,” Gingrich continued, but “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Sharia, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat." He even came out in favor of a federal law banning the use of Sharia in American courtrooms.

Gingrich also displayed an admirable grasp of the realities of Sharia, noting that the “rising Islamization of Turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400% increase in women being killed,” and pointing out other negative manifestations of Sharia: “The application of Sharia in places like Iran … churches being burned in Nigeria and Egypt, and … the decline of Christians in Iraq from a million, 200 thousand, when the Americans arrived, to about 500,000 today.”

Gingrich concluded: "I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism. I don't think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don't think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us."

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has challenged politically correct pieties so directly, and spoken so forthrightly about the realities of Islamic law. In August 2010, Gingrich made a point that our political elites of both the Left and the Right have still largely failed to grasp: “This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. … One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law, which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.”...

There is more.

Now when will the United States follow suit? Probably not as long as Barack Obama is President; after all, these attacks are happening with increasing frequency, and yet after every one, U.S. officials affirm our commitment to keep training these jihadis-in-waiting.

"France deplores 'assassination' of troops as it threatens to pull out of Afghanistan," by Ben Farmer and Henry Samuel in the Telegraph, January 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

France has suspended all operations with the Afghan army and threatened to withdraw its forces early from the country after an Afghan soldier shot dead four French troops.

Alain Juppé, France's foreign minister, said the unarmed soldiers had been victims of an "assassination," and President Nicolas Sarkozy ordered an immediate review of security for troops training Afghan soldiers.

The killings during a training exercise at the Gwan military base in Kapisa province followed a similar attack last month when an Afghan soldier shot and killed two members of the French Foreign Legion.

Friday's attack wounded a further 15 and brought the total French death toll in the Afghan campaign to 82. The Afghan attacker was captured alive.

Scores of Nato troops have been shot dead in recent years by their Afghan partners raising fears of widespread Taliban infiltration and underlining the tense relations on the ground between the allies.

Gérard Longuet, defence minister, and the army's chief of staff are due in Afghanistan to investigate recruitment policy in the Afghan army, Mr Sarkozy said.

"If we are not satisfied with the level of security, we will draw the consequences," he said. "I will go so far as to order an early withdrawal of our troops. We are there as friends of the Afghan people. We cannot accept that an Afghan soldier fires on French troops."...

Newt Gingrich's unhappy ex is just about to torpedo his presidential run, but I am glad to see he slipped in a few more home truths before departing the national stage. Hamas-linked CAIR is, surprise of surprises, lying about the nature of Sharia. It teaches the things they say it does, broadly interpreted, but also denies the freedom of speech, mandates death for apostates, and institutionalizes discrimination against women and second-class status for non-Muslims. Western apologists for Sharia such as Islamic Republic shill Reza Aslan lie about Sharia when they claim it is so multiform that it has no particular character that anyone can point to; in reality, wherever and whenever Sharia has been implemented, historically and today, it has looked pretty much the same, and has contained the elements of Sharia that Western Islamic supremacist spokesmen routinely deny are essential to it.

Don't believe me? Fine. Show me evidence of any Sharia state -- not a majority-Muslim state, but a Sharia state -- that did not have as part of its basic law the oppressive items I listed above, and many more. I'll be right here, at director[at]jihadwatch.org.

"Group blasts Gingrich for limiting hires to Muslims who renounce Shariah law," by Joy Lin for FoxNews.com, January 18 (thanks to Nawid):

The largest Muslim civil liberties group in the United States on Wednesday condemned Newt Gingrich for saying he would only hire Muslims to his administration if they renounced the use of Islam's Shariah law as a tool for U.S. government.

Calling Gingrich "one of the nation's worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry," the Council of American Islamic Relations suggested the Republican presidential candidate is a segregationist.

"Newt Gingrich's vision of America segregates our citizens by faith. His outdated political ideas look backward to a time when Catholics and Jews were vilified and their faiths called a threat," said CAIR Legislative Director Corey Sayolor [sic] in a statement.

"The time for bias in American politics has passed and Newt Gingrich looks like a relic of an ugly era," Sayolor said.

CAIR said the release was prompted by the candidate's remarks Tuesday in Columbia when, asked if he would ever endorse a Muslim running for president.

"It would depend entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Shariah," Gingrich said.

"A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat, a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Shariah, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat," Gingrich told the crowd, adding that he's "totally opposed" to Shariah law being applied in American courts and favors a federal law that "preempts" its use.

This month, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Oklahoma ban on the application of "Sharia law" and "international law" in courts.

Pointing to the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, CAIR defends Shariah law as a set of beliefs that "teaches marital fidelity, generous charity and a thirst for knowledge," and mandates that Muslims respect the law of the land in which they live.

Gingrich had a different interpretation of Shariah law, pointing to the, "rising Islamization of Turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400 percent increase in women being killed."

"When you look at the application of Shariah in places like Iran, when you look at churches being burned in Nigeria and Egypt, and that the decline of Christians in Iraq from a million, 200 thousand when the Americans arrived to about 500,000 today, I think it depends entirely on the person," he said.

"If they are a modern person integrated in the modern world and they are prepared to recognize all religions, that's one thing. On the other hand, if they're Saudis, who demand that we respect them while they refuse to allow Christians to worship in Saudi Arabia, that's something different," he continued.

Later in the day during a question and answer session in Aiken, S.C., Gingrich also called the Ground Zero mosque "a deliberate and willful insult to the people of the United States who suffered an attack by people who are motivated by the same thing."

"I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism. I don't think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don't think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us," he said.

Indeed.

Here it is from Yahoo News:

NEW YORK, Jan. 17, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The human rights organizations Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) are joining together to create a new global force determined to defend free societies globally: Stop Islamization of Nations (SION).

SIOA and SIOE are the foremost organizations in America and Europe dedicated to defending human rights, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the West.

At the helm of SION as its founding President is the internationally renowned human rights activist and Executive Director of SIOA, Pamela Geller. The founder of the Stop Islamization movement worldwide, Anders Gravers, explained: "Pamela Geller was chosen for the leadership because when she took over SIOA she transformed it from a little-known group to a mass movement in the USA. Her groundbreaking work included her freedom bus ad campaign, her anti-honor killing taxi ad campaign, and most of all in her marshaling of nationwide resistance to the mosque on Ground Zero, which even the President supported. She is the right person to bring synergy into our SIO movement, and I have full confidence in her." Vice President is the acclaimed bestselling author and Islam expert, Robert Spencer.

The confirmed list of Board of Advisors for SION currently includes Dr. Ali Sina, the renowned ex-Muslim author and founder of FaithFreedom.org; Dr. Wafa Sultan, the ex-Muslim human rights activist and author; the German pro-freedom activist Stefan Herre of Politically Incorrect; the Israeli author Dr. Mordechai Kedar; the Hindu human rights activist Babu Suseelan; and Anders Gravers of Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE). More prominent pro-freedom activists will be added to the Board shortly.

A worldwide summit of SION freedom activists is currently being organized; location, date and other details will be announced in the coming weeks.

SION establishes a common American/European coalition of free people determined to stand for freedom and oppose the advance of Islamic law, Sharia. Islamic law is not simply a religious system, but a political system that encompasses every aspect of life; is authoritarian, discriminatory, and repressive; and contradicts Western laws and principles in numerous particulars. SION respects Muslims as fellow human beings and rejects Islamization as a comprehensive political, religious, cultural and social system of behavior and ideology.

SION stands for:

-- The freedom of speech - as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of
"blasphemy" and "slander," which are used effectively to quash
honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
-- The freedom of conscience - as opposed to the Islamic death
penalty for apostasy;
-- The equality of rights of all people before the law - as
opposed to Sharia's institutionalized discrimination against
women and non-Muslims.

A foremost objective of SION is to establish a network of free nations that work to free the oppressed and to call worldwide attention to the persecution, slaughter and subjugation of non-Muslims and free women enslaved by the Sharia. SION will act only through democratic and non-violent means, and categorically rejects all acts of violence and vigilantism. It aims to preserve the fundamental freedoms and rights articulated in the Constitutions of the Western democracies, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Immediate SION actions will include publicizing the names of politicians, academics, journalists, artists and their networks that promote the Islamization of Western policy and culture. The organization intends to make the public aware of the issues involved and the implications of this Islamization for Western freedoms, and engage in public discussion and debate on these questions.

SION will also work to winning back the culture, with a particular focus on the academic world, as the Islamic teaching of history is based on faith and Sharia, not on the Western objective criteria of truth. In the West, history must be thought according to the truth, not according to the dictates of ideology.

SION also offers diversity and sensitivity training to corporations and government agencies at the local, state and national levels. This diversity training is designed to help these entities understand the jihad threat in all its different manifestations, including Islamic supremacist cultural initiatives to assert Islamic law and practice in the American workplace. It helps them protect their business practices in the face of demands for special accommodation for Muslim employees.

David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise have ably represented AFDI in our freedom of speech cases against several cities that refused to run our ads offering help to those threatened because they left Islam, or in fear of honor killing. Yerushalmi has also been at the forefront of crafting truly effective anti-Sharia legislation. Now they've joined forces to create the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC):

Lawyers Join Forces to Create Formidable Organization

Having collaborated for over four years on many high-profile cases, attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert J. Muise have decided to formalize their working relationship by together launching the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC). Yerushalmi, an orthodox Jew, and Muise, an orthodox Catholic, describe AFLC as the Nation’s first truly authentic Judeo-Christian, public interest law firm.

According to Yerushalmi and Muise, they formed AFLC because they share the firm conviction that the strength of our Nation lies in its commitment to a Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in God and His Providence. This intersection between our Judeo-Christian values and the preservation and security of our Nation has garnered the interest and support from several prominent leaders, including former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan and current President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney; Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice; former Inspector General for the Department of Defense Joseph Schmitz; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney and current contributing editor to National Review Andy McCarthy, all of whom will be serving on the AFLC advisory board.

Through AFLC, Yerushalmi and Muise seek a return to what they describe as “America’s founding commitment to receive God’s continued blessing for America.” Yerushalmi commented, “AFLC will fight for faith and freedom by advancing and defending America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation through litigation, education, and public policy programs. Fighting for our Judeo-Christian values is more than simply defending religious liberty; it is fighting for the very survival of our Nation.” He added, “Throughout history, great nations have fallen from within. Make no mistake, America is a blessed Nation, but only so long as it remains faithful to the Judeo-Christian values upon which it was founded.”

Yerushalmi and Muise have pledged to aggressively fight those who seek to undermine and destroy our Nation’s founding principles. They view secular progressives and organizations such as the ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as domestic enemies to the Judeo-Christian values reflected in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They vow to fight the “civilization jihad” being waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and other sharia-driven Muslims operating within the United States, including CAIR.

What is AFLC? It is first and foremost a public interest litigation firm. Muise explained the pressing need for an organization like AFLC: “To great effect, elite secular progressives are systematically assailing and destroying our Nation’s moral foundation. Driven by a transnational world view that is hostile to our Nation’s Judeo-Christian values, progressives are zealously sweeping religion from the public square, foisting sharia law and other harmful international precedents into our courts and Constitution, assaulting the traditional family, and weakening our national defense by — among other things — undermining the strength of our military through social engineering and political correctness. Our traditional liberties hang in balance. And for good or ill, this battle for America’s soul is being waged in the courtrooms across America.”

Rick Santorum in last night's debate skewers Obama for banning the truth about Islam and jihad. It was good to see him bring this up, as it should be a much bigger issue than it is. The Administration has ruled out of bounds any investigation of the beliefs and goals of an international group dedicated to our destruction, and no one seems to care. So Santorum on that score deserves gratitude.

In light of Rick Santorum's surprising showing in the Iowa caucus, I thought it would be appropriate to republish this Jihad Watch post from March 12, 2011:

----------------

Santorum is going to get a lot of heat for this. When the Islamic supremacist tools in the mainstream media challenge him on it, he should ask them if they think the death penalty for apostates, stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, the denial of the freedom of speech, and institutionalized second-class status for women and non-Muslims is not evil. They will then, following some smooth Islamic supremacist deceiver, claim that those things are not part of Sharia; Santorum should then challenge them to name one Muslim country that has ever implemented Sharia without implementing those measures, or one school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach such things.

"Rick Santorum: Sharia 'is evil,'" by Kendra Marr for Politico, March 11 (thanks to Jack):

DURHAM, N.H. — Rick Santorum on Friday asserted that Sharia law has no place in America.

“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” he said at the Strafford County Lincoln-Reagan dinner, remarks that show how the former Pennsylvania senator continues to establish himself as the candidate most-aligned with the Republican Party’s conservative base.

“We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”...

Santorum added, “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”...

On the remarkable and unprecedented pretext that halal meat "is offensive to many of their non-Muslim colleagues" -- a fact that if one brings up in the U.S., one is immediately charged with "bigotry" and "hate." We are all supposed to eat halal meat, even when it is not labeled as such, and like it, on pain of charges of "racism" and "Islamophobia."

In 2012, SIOA will be working for truth-in-labeling provisions that will ensure that people aren't served halal meat unwittingly.

"We won't eat halal meat, say MPs and peers who reject demands to serve it at Westminster." by Chris Hastings for the Daily Mail, January 1 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Muslim MPs and peers have been told they cannot have meat slaughtered in line with Islamic tradition because the method – slitting an animal’s throat without first stunning it – is offensive to many of their non-Muslim colleagues.

The stance has infuriated some parliamentarians who have eaten meat in the Palace’s 23 restaurants and cafes, having been assured that it was halal.

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham said: ‘I did feel misled. I think a halal option should be made available.’

In 2010, the Mail on Sunday revealed schools, hospitals and restaurants were serving halal meat to unwitting customers.

Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Somerfield and the Co-op all said they stocked meat slaughtered according to Islamic tradition without letting customers know.

Fast-food chains including Domino’s Pizza, Pizza Hut, KFC, ­Nando’s and Subway are also using halal meat without ­telling customers, it was revealed.

Leftists and Islamic supremacists have picketed Max Brenner's chocolate shop in Australia, and called for a boycott, because it supplies chocolate to the IDF. So while I was in Australia for a speaking tour recently, I was proud to stand with Max Brenner against the jihad.

Give the one you love Max Brenner chocolate this Christmas: I just did! Go here. (Thanks to Mary.)

Video: Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan speak about Islam -- not exactly about Islam as a religion of peace, as the video heading claims. Hitchens speaks about the Muslim war against the freedom of speech and Islam's doctrine of deception of unbelievers. Ramadan spouts airy nonsense that ultimately adds up to nothing.

Hitchens on Islam: "What is needed from the supporters of this very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-righteousness"

I seldom agreed with him, although even when I didn't, I found him compelling -- as when he slaughtered Dinesh D'Souza in a debate on the existence of God. He makes some excellent points above, and was a superb writer, of a level I shall never attain. For the truths he enunciated, and the power and verve with which he did so, I salute him.

These workers refused to clock out to pray. They weren't being denied breaks. They were just not being allowed to get paid to pray. And so, of course, they are suing. But Hertz, unlike most American businesses when faced with Islamic supremacist intimidation lawsuits, is fighting back.

A refreshing instance of anti-dhimmitude and an update on this story. "Hertz to fight Muslim workers' suit over prayer breaks," by Laura L. Myers for Reuters, December 9 (thanks to Twostellas):

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Hertz rental car company, facing a religious discrimination suit by 25 fired Muslim drivers, said on Thursday it would "vigorously defend" itself in a dispute involving prayer breaks at its Seattle airport office.

Hertz says the drivers, all of them Somali natives, refused to clock in and out for the 10-minute paid breaks they took twice daily, as required under their union contract, and abused their breaks by failing to return to work promptly.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in King County Superior Court, accuses Hertz of intentionally creating a "hostile work environment owing to religious, race and national origin discrimination" by terminating the drivers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in late October.

The lawsuit says Hertz employees at the airport have been allowed to take bathroom or smoking breaks for the past 15 years without clocking in or out. It also says Muslim workers among them have long been permitted to take prayer breaks off the clock and that their labor contract does not require clocking out for such breaks.

Their lawyer, Jack Sheridan, said the Muslims [sic] workers, whose job it was to shuttle rental cars for cleaning and refueling, typically prayed in privately designated spaces twice daily for three to five minutes at a time.

Besides Hertz, the lawsuit names two Hertz managers as defendants, accusing them of addressing Muslim workers in a harsh tone, peering into the women's designated prayer space for no reason and banging on the women's restroom door.

It's funny how Muslim claims of mistreatment at the hands of non-Muslims so frequently have sexual overtones, isn't it?

In a written statement issued on Thursday, Hertz spokesman Richard Broome said, "this situation has absolutely nothing to do with religious or discrimination."

"The employees refused to accept our only requirement -- that they clock out first to ensure that when prayers ended they returned to work promptly, which wasn't happening in many instances," he said.

Other workers suspended for not clocking out on prayer breaks were reinstated after agreeing to the rules, he said.

Sheridan said the lawsuit seeks job reinstatement with back pay for the 25 fired workers, plus damages for emotional pain and suffering....

Poor dears! How they have suffered!

Bosch Fawstin recently joined The Jamie Glazov Show to discuss how he uses images to wage his battle for freedom.

Fawstin is an Eisner Award nominated cartoonist currently working on a graphic novel, The Infidel, of which the first chapter is now available as a digital comic. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a companion to The Infidel, and the 1st print appearance of Pigman.

Listen to Bosch Fawstin on The Jamie Glazov Show by clicking here. Or go to:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2011/12/07/the-jamie-glazov-show

This could lead to a direct confrontation between Muslims upholding Islamic law and practice and Australian authorities. In such instances, Muslims are used to non-Muslim authorities giving way to their demands. We'll see if that happens here. "Parents may be jailed over forced marriages," from AAP, November 23 (thanks to Kenneth):

Parents who force their adult children into marriage could be jailed under draft laws the federal government plans to bring before parliament next year.

The government today released an exposure draft of a new bill aimed at toughening Australia's laws against forced marriage, forced labour and other slavery-like practices.

The bill will explicitly outlaw coercing, threatening or deceiving anyone - underage or adult - into a marriage they don't want.

Until now, prosecutions have been mounted only against people for forcing minors into marriage.

Offenders - including the other party to the marriage or the victim's parents - could face up to seven years' jail in aggravated cases and four years' jail in other cases.

Status of Women Minister Kate Ellis says everyone has a right to choose whether to marry and whom to marry.

"These offences will reinforce that a marriage must be entered into with the full and free consent of both parties and that forcing someone into marriage is an abuse of human rights," Ms Ellis said.

The laws will apply both to marriages occurring within Australia and those involving Australians in other countries.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said it was hard to put a figure on how many people were currently being forced into marriage because it was difficult to detect the crime.

"But even if it's one or two, it's a serious enough issue considering the impact on that person's life for the government to pay it the necessary attention," Mr Bowen said.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill 2012 will also introduce a new offence of forced labour.

It will also outlaw harbouring or receiving a victim of trafficking or slavery and improve the availability of reparations to victims....

The opposition welcomed the announcement but warned the laws would only be as good as the enforcement behind them.

Aye, there's the rub.

Here's something to be thankful for on Thanksgiving Day. The American people are seeing through the propaganda piece that is TLC's All-American Muslim reality/dawah show, and responsible advertisers are fleeing in droves. The show aims to combat a trumped-up problem, "Islamophobia," by presenting Muslims who are just ordinary folk, and mostly non-religious -- while of course the only reason why anyone is concerned about Muslims in the first place is not because of those who are opening up clubs and going about ordinary lives, but because of those who take serious and act upon the doctrines that mandate warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

"Advertisers fleeing 'All-American Muslim' 'propaganda': Sears, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, others drop support for program," by Bob Unruh for World Net Daily, November 22:

"All-American Muslim," a new program on The Learning Channel that is being touted as a "powerful series" that carries viewers "inside the rarely seen world of American Muslims," is being dropped by advertisers.

Critics say the program is nothing more than video jihad propaganda, and the Florida Family Association says it is contacting companies whose advertising appears on the show to ask them to quit. So far, 18 of 20 companies contacted have done so, the group said.

The organization said that among the companies that initially supported the program, but later did not have any advertising aired, were Airborne Vitamin, Amway, Diamond Foods, Dyson Vacuum, Estee Lauder, HTC Phones, Home Depot, McDonald's, Petsmart, Pfizer, Sears, Sonic, T-Mobil and Wal-Mart.

The Florida group said it sent out an email alert to constituents only a week ago, who then contacted the sponsors.

"The Learning Channel's new show 'All-American Muslim' is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Shariah law," the organization's report on its work said. "The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish."

The association cited a "troubling scene" in which a Muslim police officer stated, "I really am American. No ifs, ands or buts about it."

"This scene would appear to be damage control for the Dearborn [Mich.] police who have arrested numerous Christians including several former Muslims for peacefully preaching Christianity," the association report said.

"Dearborn police falsely arrested Nabeel Qureshi and Paul Rezkalla in 2010 and Sudanese Christian Pastor George Saieg in 2009 for preaching Christianity at the annual Arab International Festival," the report said.

The association's suggested message from consumers to sponsors said the show is trying to manipulate Americans into ignoring the threat of jihad and Shariah, which is Islamic religious law.

The report said Dearborn, the site of the biggest mosque in North America, is one of the most densely populated Muslim communities in the United States. In recent years, it has gained national attention for taking a pro-Muslim stance and for the arrest and intimidation of Christian evangelists for engaging in protected speech activity, the report said.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, has handled several legal disputes over the arrests of those individuals.

"But Americans aren't suspicious of Muslims who are trying to get married, open clubs, and play football. Americans are suspicious of Muslims who are trying to blow up American buildings, subvert American freedoms, and assert the primacy of Islamic law over American law. The problem people have with Islam is not with every Muslim person. It is with Islam's teachings of violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers. It is with the supremacist ideology and the fervent believers in those noxious doctrines of warfare and subjugation," the report said....

Actually I wrote that, here.

Defiance in the face of Islamic supremacist intimidation and thuggery. Bravo. "French paper reprints Mohammad cartoon after fire-bomb," by Brian Love for Reuters, November 3:

(Reuters) - A French satirical weekly whose office was fire bombed after it printed a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad has reproduced the image with other caricatures in a special supplement distributed with one of the country's leading newspapers.

The weekly Charlie Hebdo defended "the freedom to poke fun" in the four-page supplement, which was wrapped around copies of the left-wing daily Liberation on Thursday, a day after an arson attack gutted Charlie Hebdo's Paris headquarters.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, which took place hours before an edition of Charlie Hebdo hit news stands featuring a cover-page cartoon of Mohammad and a speech bubble with the words: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter."

The weekly, known for its irreverent treatment of the political establishment and religious figures, bore the headline "Charia Hebdo," in a reference to Muslim sharia law, and said that week's issue had been guest-edited by Mohammad.

The incident pits Europe's tradition of free speech and secularism against Islam's injunction barring any depictions seen as mocking the prophet. The publication of cartoons of Mohammad in a Danish newspaper in 2005 sparked unrest in the Muslim world in which at least 50 people were killed.

While French Muslim groups criticized Charlie Hebdo's work, they also condemned the fire-bomb attack. The head of the Paris Mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, told a news conference on Thursday: "I am extremely attached to freedom of the press, even if the press is not always tender with Muslims, Islam or the Paris Mosque."

"French Muslims have nothing to do with political Islam," he said.

Abderrahmane Dahmane, a Muslim former presidential adviser on religious diversity, said he was not shocked by the Charlie Hebdo front-page and joked himself about the matter.

"We have a sense of humor in the world of Islam ... what we sometimes say about Islam and the prophet, among ourselves and in the presence of Imams, is worse than what Charlie Hebdo wrote," he quipped.

Pull my other leg, Dahmane. If that were true, then why was Charlie Hebdo firebombed, and why is the OIC pursuing an all-out campaign to force the West to criminalize criticism of Islam?

Following the fire bombing, Charlie Hebdo staff moved temporarily into the offices of Liberation. The two publications jointly produced Thursday's supplement, which reproduced the Charlie Hebdo cartoon in an article on the back page.

One headline in the supplement said: "After their office blaze, this team defends the 'freedom to poke fun'."

"We thought the lines had moved and that maybe there would be more respect for our satirical work, our right to mock. Freedom to have a good laugh is as important as freedom of speech," Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier said in the supplement.

The supplement included several new drawings by Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. In one, a prophet-like figure tries to restrain his billowing robes in a pose reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe as a draft blows up from Charlie Hebdo newspapers below him. Another shows an airborne fire-bomb with a face in the flames and the caption, "So, is this how you see the prophet?"...

Charbonnier told Reuters his newspaper planned to print another 175,000 copies of this week's edition in the coming days after the first print run of 75,000 copies sold out fast.

Luz, the cartoonist who drew the cover cartoon at the center of the controversy, said it was still unclear who had carried out the attack.

"Let's be cautious. There's every reason to believe it's the work of fundamentalists but it could just as well be the work of two drunks," he said in the Thursday supplement.

Hey Luz, keep up the wishful thinking at that high a level, and pretty soon you'll be working for the Obama Administration.

Here's a startling Islamophobic admission from one of the dhimmi auxiliaries of Malaysia's ruling (i.e Muslim) political party UMNO, namely that implementing part of Sharia called hudud (Islamic laws that deal with apostasy, theft, sexual crimes and the consumption of alcohol) may not be in the best interests of all Malaysians. Normally, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) can be relied upon to follow orders from its Muslim superiors in UMNO, but this isn't the first time MCA has spoken out against the ongoing encroachment of Islam in Malaysia. Such truth telling about Islam is especially noteworthy for its novelty. Even considering the tactically limited scope of MCA's 'Islamophobic' stances, the 'infidels' of MCA are increasingly the lone public voice of anti-dhimmitude to be found anywhere in the country. From "Hudud turns back the clock," The Star, 29 October 2011:

JOHOR BARU: PAS' intention to carry out hudud law will cause the nation to backslide and scare away investors, said MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

The impact would be great on foreign direct investments and also tourists who would shy away, he said, adding that several countries practising hudud law were backward except for their rich natural resources.

Speaking to reporters after attending a function at the Hock Lin Gong Chinese temple here yesterday, Dr Chua stressed that even non-Muslims in the country would be affected, especially in terms of economy and education.

“It is misleading and a lie to say that the implementation of hudud will not affect non-Muslims,” he said.

Islamophobic indeed. Is it not also true to say that countries that practice Sharia, or countries that practice Islam, are also backward except for their rich natural resources? And that the practice of Islam in said states might have something to do with this backwardness?

Avpixlat.info is a new Swedish-language pro-freedom website. In this video, I welcome it to the front lines and tweak a Swedish "journalist" who was prematurely celebrating the demise of freedom in Sweden.

I do not support the burning of books. Still, there is absolutely no doubt that if Ernesto Rojas Abbate had burned a Bible, he never would have been arrested or prosecuted. It is a good thing that he was acquitted, but he never should have been arrested or tried in the first place. The specter of Muslim outrage is now beginning to override the rule of law. "No reprisals for Frenchman who burned Koran," from AFP, October 25:

An appeals court on Tuesday confirmed the acquittal of a Frenchman accused of inciting racial hatred after posting an internet video of himself burning a Koran and then urinating on it.

Ernesto Rojas Abbate was arrested in October 2010 after posting footage of himself wearing a devil mask and tearing pages from the Islamic holy book before setting it on fire and later urinating on it to extinguish the flames.

Prosecutors, who had been seeking a three-month suspended sentence and €1,000 ($1,400) fine, appealed after a court acquitted him in May on charges of inciting racial hatred.

In the footage Rojas Abbate, a 31-year-old resident of a suburb of the eastern city of Strasbourg, used pages of the Koran as a prop in a simulation of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York.

He made paper airplanes from pages of the Koran, threw them at glasses meant to represent the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, then burned the pages and the book before urinating on them.

The appeals court ruled that, while the video was "wilfully outrageous and deliberately provocative", there was no evidence Rojas Abbate had intended "to arouse feelings of hostility... aimed at provoking discrimination, hate, or violence towards Muslims."

His lawyer, Renaud Bettcher, hailed the ruling, saying: "In a secular and republican society, it is incomprehensible that my client was prosecuted. Blasphemy does not exist in France."

Police arrested Rojas Abbate after local Muslim leaders in Strasbourg reacted with outrage at the video.

Causing Muslim outrage is increasingly a cause for arrest all over the Western world.

I recently received this letter from the South African human rights activist Fayzal Mahamad:

To: Robert Spencer Jihad Watch

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I am a 56-year-old South African citizen, a secular humanist and an advocate of human rights.

On the 29th August, 2011 I filed a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) indicating that in my opinion Abdullah Yusuf Ali, author of the world-famous and renowned interpretation of the Quran entitled "An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran," advocates and propagates violence and unlawful conduct against women when he interprets / proposes a verse in the Quran, namely verse 4:34 as:

"As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance."

I requested the SAHRC and CGE to either stop the distributors located in Johannesburg from distributing Yusuf Ali's interpretation of the Quran or alternatively to censure the specific verse giving rise to my complaint.

I have requested the support of a number of religious organization (Muslims included) and secular organizations in my complaint to the SAHRC and CGE. None of the Muslim organizations have even bothered to reply to my request and a few Muslim organizations have even written to the SAHRC opposing my complaint.

My complaint if successful would be the first of its kind in the world where state institutions in a democracy are used to act against abuse of human rights.

Secularly yours
Fayzal Mahamed.
(Human Rights Activist)

Academic Qualifications:
Philosophy of Religion - University of Witwatersrand
Philosophy of Ethics - University of Witwatersrand
Islamic Studies - University of South Africa
Religious Studies - University of South Africa

This is reminiscent of The Calcutta Quran Petition. Fayzal Mahamad has a strong case, made even stronger by the fact that the word "lightly" was added in by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and is not in the Arabic. And Abdullah Yusuf Ali is not the sole offender, as nearly all translations of the Qur'an into English render this verse in some way that denotes beating a woman. Of course, authorities are not likely to interpret the law objectively and fairly in this case. Here is the text of Fayzal Mahamad's complaint to the SAHRC:

Complaint to the Human Rights Commission – Violence & Discrimination against women.

On the 26^th August 2011 I purchased a book titled “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” by author Abdullah Yusuf Ali from Al Huda Publications CC, an Islamic media publisher, distributor and bookseller in Johannesburg. (see attached invoice labeled DOC 1)

Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” is not the only interpretation of the Quran but it is the most popular and renowned of all the English interpretations of the Quran. His interpretation is extensively used in Islamic religious schools throughout our country as well as in academia and universities. His interpretation is often quoted in Islamic Fatwas i.e. religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar.

In the book “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” on page 118 and page 119 section 6 author Abdullah Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes verse 4:34 as follows: (DOC 2)

“As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance.”

Abdullah Yusuf Ali unambiguous interpretation of verse 4:34 proposes that in a domestic dispute women (wives) should, as a last resort, be beaten up in order to obey her husband.

The interpretation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali clearly advocates, sanctions, propagates and promotes violence or unlawful conduct against women in a domestic dispute and infringes the rights of women in a variety of ways, namely in respect of:

Equality.

Women (wives) are being unfairly discriminated upon when Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute as men are not subjected to the same beating as women even though they (men) may be equally at fault in a domestic dispute.

Muslim women are being unfairly discriminated against when Yusuf Ali interprets / proposes that Muslim women be beaten since similar violent punishment against women are not interpreted or prescribed by the majority of other religious / cultural / secular beliefs.

Human Dignity

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute or when they are “disloyal or display ill conduct” is an unlawful, inhumane act that is intended to bring fear and harm to women in order that they submit to the commands and the will of men (husbands). The act of beating women causes the dignity of women (wives) to be impaired, disrespected and disregarded in violation of the human dignity of women as proposed by our constitution.

Freedom and Security

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute infringes /violates the freedom and security of women to all forms of violence from either public or private source.

Freedom of Expression

The interpretation / proposal by Yusuf Ali that women be beaten up in a domestic dispute violates / infringes the freedom of expression because Yusuf Ali advocates hatred that is based on gender and constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Intended Relief sought or expected outcome

For the SAHRC to demand / interdict Al Huda Publications CC stop distributing or supplying of Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran”.

Or alternatively

For the SAHRC to demand / interdict Al Huda Publications CC to remove the offending interpretation by blocking or alternatively covering the offending interpretation that violates the rights of women.

Or alternatively

For the SAHRC to use any action within its mandate to prevent the distribution or supply of Yusuf Ali’s “An English Interpretation of the Holy Quran” and / or any Islamic religious interpretation / proposal that advocates the beating of women in a domestic dispute.

It is important to note that I am not asking the SAHRC to censure or stop the distribution of the Quran, the holy scripture of Muslims. From a religious perspective the Quran is a book written in Arabic in and around the year 632CE. As I understand it, the Quran in Arabic is a religious scripture protected by our constitution but the interpretations thereof are personal renditions offered by various authors and are not religious scriptures protected by our constitution but religious literature that fall within the ambit of our constitution and subjected to the rules of the constitution.

Attached (DOC 3) is a digest “Jihad Against Violence: Muslim Women’s Struggle for Peace” initiated by WISE (Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality). On page 6, 7 and 8 WISE acknowledges that the offensive interpretation of verse 4:34 by many Muslim authors contribute towards the violence against women and suggest that non offensive interpretations by Muslim authors such as Laleh Bakhtiar be accepted in place of offending authors.

I am appealing to the SAHRC to accept and act on my complaint in the manner that will hear the cries of WISE (Muslim Women’s Struggle for Peace) and stop the distribution of a book that advocates violence, propagates violence, sanctions violence and promotes violence against women.

Mohamed Fayzal Mahamed

Sympathy for the devil. "Press release: - We defend students' free speech," from SAIH (Norwegian Students' and Academics' International Assistance Fund), October 14 (thanks to James):

SAIH annual campaign has created reactions. This year's campaign focuses on the students' role as critics and democracy builders. Students throughout the world experience to be censored, monitored, persecuted and imprisoned for their social commitment. The campaign is fronted by a poster put up on all Norwegian university and college towns. The poster shows the dictators Adolf Hitler, Muammar al-Gadafi, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-il, Joseph Stalin - and the Ayatollah Khomeini who flee from the protesting students. This poster made the Iranian embassy to react.

- Unfortunately, the poster contains a picture of our great late leader Imam Khomeini, next dictators like Hitler. You have offended the feelings of a great nation, says the email that SAIH has received from the press chief of the Iranian Embassy in Oslo, Mohammad Javad Hosseini. - The Embassy of The Islamic Republic of Iran strongly protests against this action and wants your organization to remove this picture as soon as possible; it is further stated in the email from the embassy.

Anette Remme, president of SAIH, finds the reactions from the Iranian Embassy to be both provocative and unacceptable.

- The embassy is asking us to remove the poster, and this illustrates the problem. All over the world critical students who struggle against oppression are being censored and threatened. We defend the students’ rights to assembly and freedom of speech. It is not our intention to demonize Iran or other states, but it is clear that the embassy does not respect our freedom of expression when they ask us to remove the poster.
- We have been told that the image of the poster now has begun to circulate among students in Iran. I hope that this gives the Iranian students the feeling that we stand together, and that it can provide inspiration in the struggle for justice.

SAIH is aware that images are much stronger than words and understand that this can lead to different interpretations and reactions.

- Our message is not about individuals in the photo, but about a range of undemocratic leaders. They all have human rights violations on their conscience and they have felt threatened by students as opponents. It is important to note that the students on the poster only threaten them with books and words, not weapons. While students who try to protest by peaceful means and free speech, are in fact often met with weapons from dictators.

Reactions have also come from Iranian students in Norway, both from those who go against and those who defend the poster. One of those who reacted against the poster is the Iranian Hatef Khaledi Alidoosti, studying at NTNU in Trondheim. On the Iranian blog kharchangzadeh.com he has written a post. - It is stupid and ridiculous to put Khomeini in the stall with brutal dictators from other countries. This is an insult to me and other Muslims, writes Alidoosti on his blog, which has now been removed from the web. Most of Iranians who contact SAIH congratulate and welcome the campaign, but many do not want to speak publicly in fear of reactions from the Iranian government....

And he spoke honestly about the UN's demonization of Israel. "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Addresses U.N. General Assembly, Says Palestinians Are Not Interested in Peace," from FoxNews, September 23 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

In addressing the U.N. General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to Palestine’s request for statehood. Netayahu said, “It’s here, year after year that Israel, is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined.”

Netanyahu said that he didn’t come to the United Nations for applause, but instead came to speak the truth. He continued, saying, “The truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East, at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security.”

He argued that peace can’t be achieved through U.N. resolutions, but only through direct negotiations, which Palestine isn’t interested in.

Netanyahu went onto describe militant Islam as a “malignancy [that] is growing between East and West,” that seeks to destroy.

Indeed.

Bravo. A Palestinian state would become just another jihad base for a renewed onslaught against a diminished Israel. There has never been a Palestinian state or even a distinct Palestinian nationality. The whole thing was invented in the 1960s to distract from the reality of tiny Israel surrounded by a large number of hostile Arab Muslim states. A return to reality and honesty about these matters in Washington would be refreshing, albeit wildly unlikely.

"Hatch: Defund UN if it votes for Palestinian state," by Joel Gehrke for the Washington Examiner, September 21 (thanks to Wimpy):

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, introduced the Solidarity with Israel Act today, a bill that would defund the United Nations if that body votes to recognize Palestine as a state.

“This vote undermines Israel’s security, and should the United Nations change Palestine’s current status, this legislation would prevent valuable American resources from funding the United Nations," Hatch said. "Make no mistake, there will be consequences associated with efforts to undermine the security of America’s friends and allies."

And that's exactly what this push toward Palestinian statehood is.

The United States will veto any vote by the UN Security Council that recognizes Palestine as a state, but Hatch's bill would pull funding if the General Assembly voted to classify Palestine as an "observer state," which the United States cannot interdict.

More on this story. From MarketWatch:

NEW YORK, Sept. 21, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- AFDI/SIOA co-founder and Executive Director Pamela Geller has won an important victory for free speech. Omar Tarazi, a lawyer linked to the Hamas front group the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has dismissed his ten-million-dollar libel lawsuit against Geller with prejudice: it cannot be re-filed.

Geller explained: "This is a huge victory for the First Amendment, truth, and the anti-Sharia movement in this country, which is exposing an insidious cancer that brings progressives and Islamic supremacists together in common cause to attack anyone who criticizes Islamic supremacism with the threat of lawsuits, actual lawsuits, or even worse, violence."

"The message," she added, "is that we will not be silent. We will continue to fight the implementation of Sharia blasphemy laws restricting free speech under the guise of the fictional construct of a 'phobia.'"

Tarazi, an Ohio-based lawyer, represented the parents of Rifqa Bary, the teenage girl who fled from her home in fear for her life in 2009, after converting from Islam to Christianity. He sued Geller for $10,000,000 after she criticized him in a series of blog posts at her award-winning website, AtlasShrugs.com, pointing out his ties to Hamas-linked CAIR and his efforts to harass and demoralize Rifqa Bary by, among other initiatives, denying her the Christmas cards that Geller had encouraged her readers to send to the girl.

Geller pointed out the larger implications of Tarazi's lawsuit: "This lawsuit was filed as part of the Islamic supremacist lawfare campaign against critics of Sharia, jihad, Islam's death penalty for apostates, and honor killings, and I refused to capitulate. At the end of the day, Tarazi blinked and folded. The years-long battle is over, and Islamic supremacism has suffered a stunning and well-deserved defeat."

The voluntary dismissal with prejudice followed the filing of a court document by David Yerushalmi of the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C., and Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center (who represented Geller pro bono because of the important free speech implications of this case), asking the court to rule in Geller's favor. It prevents Tarazi from refilling the lawsuit in the future. The settlement requires Geller to pay no money, and stipulates only that she remove five of the dozens of AtlasShrugs.com blog posts about Tarazi's role in the Rifqa Bary case.

Although Geller agreed to remove these posts criticizing Tarazi, dozens of other posts remain at AtlasShrugs.com detailing his conduct in the Bary affair, and the settlement places no restrictions on Geller writing about Tarazi's role in the Bary case in the future. Tarazi had complained that Geller had libeled him by linking him to CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas front group that U.S. Department of Justice has named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case.

However, during discovery, Geller's lawyers established that Tarazi did in fact have personal and professional links to CAIR, and that Geller's statements could not be defamatory because they were true.

Geller also reported information from other sources critical of Tarazi's actions - including allegations that he had perjured himself in court filings in the Ohio juvenile proceedings on the Bary case. Here again, however, Geller's lawyers explained how Tarazi had indeed not been completely honest with the juvenile court, and that Geller's statements were true. Geller thus asked the court to dismiss Tarazi's lawsuit entirely.

The case began when Tarazi sued Geller for libel in September 2010, demanding damages of $10,000,000. He filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Two months later, Yerushalmi and Muise filed a motion to dismiss Tarazi's suit on the grounds that Geller's remarks were protected speech under Ohio Free Speech law and under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court never ruled on that motion.

In August 2011, Tarazi filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that he had proven his case and asking the court to grant judgment on liability and to schedule a trial to determine the amount of damages. On September 19, 2011, Yerushalmi and Muise countered this, arguing that not only had Tarazi not proven his case, but that all of Geller's published statements were true and not defamatory.

On September 20, Tarazi gave up, asking Yerushalmi for a settlement. Geller refused Tarazi's request to keep the terms of the settlement confidential in light of the important implications of the case for the freedom of speech.

AFDI/SIOA is one of America's foremost organizations defending human rights, religious liberty, and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the United States.

This is the kind of leader that the President of the United States should be. "Palestinian UN statehood gambit ‘counter-productive,’ Harper says," by Campbell Clark for the Globe and Mail, September 20 (thanks to Wimpy):

Stephen Harper is telling Palestinians to go back to the negotiating table with Israel if they want a sovereign state, rather than seeking recognition at the United Nations.

The Palestinian Authority’s campaign for a United Nations vote that would recognize their statehood – even if it has no effect on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza – is dominating discussions as world leaders descend on New York for the opening of the UN General Assembly.

Mr. Harper has made it clear that Canada will oppose the Palestinian bid, but he warned forcefully Tuesday that it could damage Mideast peace prospects, and appeared to put the onus on the Palestinian Authority to restart peace talks .

“I think there’s no likelihood of this initiative by the Palestinian Authority doing anything to further the peace process. I think it’s possible that it could be counter-productive,” Mr. Harper told reporters at UN headquarters in New York after a high-level conference on Libya.

“But I would say if the Palestinian Authority is serious about establishing a sovereign state, the method to do that is not a declaration here at the United Nations. It’s to get back to the negotiating table and negotiate peace with Israel.”...

Enjoy this superb takedown by Michael Coren of the slick and sinister Islamic supremacist Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf of the Ground Zero Mosque initiative, and his claim that Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are compatible. Be sure to watch it all. Seldom has Sharia been so fully, concisely, and magnificently exposed.

Video thanks to the incomparable Kathy Shaidle.

This story doesn't even mention the fact that Hamas-linked CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas jihad terror funding case. But it does contain useful information about Hamas-linked CAIR, amid the usual cluelessness. At least the right thing was done in part here.

"Catholic school won't host Ramadan dinner," by Denise Smith Amos for the Cincinnati Enquirer, August 26 (thanks to Andrew):

WESTWOOD - Mother of Mercy, a Catholic girls high school, complied with a request from Archbishop Dennis Schnurr and backed out of hosting an interfaith Ramadan dinner at the school Friday night.

Instead, the dinner will be held in the Catholic Center at St. Monica-St. George Parish in University Heights, which is not a school.

Schnurr on Monday asked Mother of Mercy to cancel its plans to host an Iftar, an evening meal, with a local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

During the holy month of Ramadan, observant Muslims fast during the daylight hours and break their fast with a large meal at night. For some groups, the Iftar is a chance to share some aspects of their faith with non-Muslims and others in the community.

Mother of Mercy had planned to co-host an Iftar with CAIR’s local chapter since spring, when groups of Mercy students and students linked with CAIR performed community service together.

But recent emails and other contacts with school and Archdiocese officials changed their plans.

Mother of Mercy President Kirsten MacDougal said Schnurr has received complaints from people – she didn’t know how many. Most of the complaints were emails from people who do not live in this region but who follow the news and activities of CAIR’s national office, she said.

The emails “were not hostile, they were not threatening, but they were emotionally charged,” she said.

Schnurr could not be reached for comment. Archdiocesan spokesman Dan Andriacco said that Schnurr received complaints – not threats – about CAIR’s involvement.

Twice they have to say they didn't receive threats. This is because of the relentless campaign by Hamas-linked CAIR and others to depict the resistance to jihad and Islamic supremacism as inherently violent. Yet much more likely to issue threats, and carry them out, are the Islamic supremacists themselves, not their opponents.

MacDougal said her school and the Archdiocese still support interfaith dialogue, especially with Muslim groups, but the closeness to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 plays a factor.

“The fact that Mercy was co-hosting this Ramadan meal with the Council on American-Islamic Relations specifically had become too great a distraction from the positive intent of building relationships and understanding with our Muslim neighbors,” MacDougal wrote in her letter to staff.

“While the Archdiocese appreciates our good intentions, there is now some concern for the safety of those who would attend the meal due to the negative reaction this has garnered from some. As a result, the Archbishop has asked that we cancel our hosting the meal.”

Mother of Mercy’s parents and students Thursday disagreed about the school’s decision.

Some parents said they had read negative things about the national CAIR group and didn’t want Mercy associated with even the local group.

“I’m glad it’s canceled; it wasn’t a good thing,” said Kelly Jennings, a Mercy parent who lives in Bridgetown. “There were a lot of parents who were up in arms about it. … It would have really given Mercy a bad name.”

Casey Tegenkamp, a freshman from Miami Heights, was disappointed that the dinner won’t be held at the school, because she’d wanted to attend. She said she thinks it’s important for young people to understand other people’s faiths.

“We’ve got to know what other people’s religions are,” she said. “We need to know how other people think. If we don’t know, that might get us into trouble.”...

I couldn't agree more.

Andriacco said the complaints seemed mostly focused on CAIR’s national organization, which “has been the subject of U.S. government concern,” Andriacco said. “Archbishop Schnurr thought (it) had become a distraction from building relationships and understanding with our Muslim neighbors. … When you have a high emotional temperature surrounding an issue you start to worry about how the children might be affected by it.”

CAIR, based in Washington D.C., is the largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization in the United States. Its stated mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam and build coalitions that promote mutual understanding.

Local chapters of CAIR operate independently, like franchises, raising funds and supporting causes based on local priorities.

The national CAIR group has been scrutinized for years as one of many Islamic groups on the radar of federal agencies investigating terrorism.

Critics of CAIR say it supports an extremist agenda. They point out that at least five people with ties to the national group or its leadership have been convicted or deported because of links to terrorist groups.

The Washington, D.C.-based CAIR was among 275,000 nonprofits nationwide that the Internal Revenue Service stripped of tax-exempt status in June. None of the groups filed required tax returns, known as Form 990s, for three years, and any donations to them can be taxed, the IRS reported.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said his group filed accurate, on-time returns but lost its tax-exempt status over an incorrect filing from several years ago. But employees couldn’t produce CAIR’s latest Form 990 and critics suggest the charity avoided filing to hide financial dealings from the public.

Local and national CAIR spokespeople said their groups are not involved in criminal cases and advocate against terrorism and violence.

Yet the Cincinnati FBI office, along with other FBI offices around the country, was told several years ago by top FBI officials to limit contact with CAIR. Local offices are not permitted to participate in an event sponsored by CAIR and are not allowed to invite CAIR leaders to sit on boards or community groups set up by the FBI, said Mike Brooks, the FBI’s spokesman in Cincinnati.

But local agents do talk to CAIR officials and have investigated claims of civil rights violations against Muslims, he said.

“They are not considered to be a terrorist organization or anything like that,” Brooks said. “If they want to talk, we will talk.”

The meal at Mercy had been planned as a potluck, with about 100 adult and student participants bringing dishes to reflect their culture to the school cafeteria, CAIR organizers said. MacDougal said she knew of only two families from her school who had confirmed they would attend.

Roula Allouch, board president of the local CAIR group, said she was told Monday of Mother of Mercy’s decision to not host the dinner and she considered canceling it....

“It’s unfortunate for an event with the purpose of bringing together people of faith” was almost cancelled, Allouch said.

Bill Lonneman, the Franciscans Network’s advancement coordinator, said the Archdiocese didn’t want the gathering at a school, given the complaints and the 9/11 anniversary.

“I think the Archdiocese was just being very cautious,” he said. “It’s a shame the Archdiocese bowed to some pressure from outsiders.”

MacDougal said the Archdiocese still plans to participate in other events that include Muslims, such as the upcoming community 9/11 anniversary gathering on 3 p.m.
Sept. 11 at the Cincinnati Museum Center.

“I am sorry for any concern or sadness this may have caused, for Christian and Muslim alike,” she wrote in her letter....

Each year, Mercy seniors in the Comparative Religion class tour the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati in West Chester. Shakila Ahmad, a trustee at the Islamic Center, said it is “very, very rare” for an interfaith event to be canceled or moved.

“I’m really sad because it was an opportunity for people to break bread and build understanding,” she said. “If you don’t have opportunities to talk to each other, how are we going to understand our differences and build respect?”

I'm all for that. But how can we genuinely understand our differences and build respect on false pretenses? If a Hamas-linked group is involved with this, it should be known, and not made a taboo to discuss it.

Wednesday at American Independence Park in Israel we had the dedication of the Aqsa Parvez Memorial Grove, dedicated to her memory and those of all victims of honor killing. This was the first public declaration anywhere by anyone that we will not allow these girls to be forgotten, and will keep speaking out against this barbaric practice until law enforcement authorities take decisive action to stop it spreading further in the West.

Video thanks to the generous and indispensable Shai.

Pamela Geller has photos and more details here.

Of course Israel should not apologize. Remember that the peaceful, humanitarian folks on the flotilla were actually armed -- and they were also chanting the genocidal jihadist chant, "Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return."

An update on this story. "'Netanyahu tells Clinton he won't apologize to Turkey,'" from Reuters, August 17 (thanks to Cowardly Link Troll):

Officials say they're waiting on Palmer report; comes after Clinton calls PM; Turkish PM says no closer ties without 'Marmara' apology. Israel will stick to its refusal to apologize to Turkey for killing nine of its citizens aboard a Gaza-bound ship, an official said on Wednesday, dampening any prospects for reconciliation between the former allies.

The decision, which the official said Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu conveyed to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a telephone call, was made days before the publication of the findings of a UN inquiry into the seizure of the Mavi Marmara last year.

The so-called Palmer report was repeatedly delayed to allow for Israeli-Turkish rapprochement talks amid concern in Washington at the rift between two countries that had been strategic partners in an increasingly stormy Middle East.

Officials, citing advance copies of the report, have said it would vindicate Israel's blockade on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Turkey, which like Israel had a delegate on the UN panel headed by former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, has said it would not accept such a finding.

The Mavi Marmara was part of an activist flotilla bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza when it was boarded by Israeli marines on the Mediterranean high seas on May 31, 2010. The marines shot dead nine Turks, including a dual US citizen, during fierce deck brawls.

Netanyahu voiced regret over the killings. But Turkey insisted on a formal apology and compensation for those bereaved and injured, which Israel initially rejected as tantamount to admitting culpability for an action it deems self-defense.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday it would be impossible for Turkish-Israeli ties to improve unless Jerusalem apologized and paid compensation for the killing of nine Turks.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a centrist in Netanyahu's conservative coalition government, has since stirred debate inside the cabinet by proposing Israel offer a diluted apology in hope of restoring ties with what was once a rare Muslim ally of the Jewish state.

"We're firm on not apologizing," the official said.

Asked if Israel might change tack after the Palmer report's publication, the official said: "Why would we do that? We know the report supports our position."...

West's reply here recalls my own reply to Hamas-linked CAIR a few years ago when they tried to strong-arm the YAF into cancelling a speech I was giving. It is not surprising that Hamas-linked CAIR would characterize the response of the heroically defiant McAuliffe as "baseless rhetoric and schoolboy insults."

I can't think of a better response to an attempt to intimidate West, smear freedom fighters, and smooth the way for the stealth jihad. Can you?

Oh, and regarding the contention that people fighting for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people are "anti-Islamic extremists": Nuts.

"Allen West's Response to Request That He Cut Ties With Anti-Islamic Extremists: 'NUTS!,'" by Matthew Hendley by the Broward-Palm Beach New Times, August 15 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

​The Florida chapter of the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations sent a letter to Rep. Allen West at the beginning of the month with a request -- quit palling around with Islamophobes.

The letter, from [Hamas-linked] CAIR South Florida Executive Director Nezar Hamze, specifically asked West to cut his ties with Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Joe Kaufman, and Joyce Kaufman, among others.

In classic Allen West elegance, he responded to the letter -- under his official congressional letterhead -- with one word: "NUTS!"

Check out the letter in its entirety after the jump:

​
Hamze tells the Pulp he thinks West's use of "NUTS!" is likely a reference to the phrase of World War II lore, which translates to "go to hell."

Hamze's official response: "Allen West continues his baseless rhetoric and schoolboy insults."

A rapidly Islamizing Turkey is unlikely to respond with contrition and generosity. "House Panel Approves Resolution Calling on Turkey to Return Confiscated Christian Churches," by Tierney Smith for CNSNews.com, August 5 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

(CNSNews.com) – The House Foreign Affairs Committee recently voted 43 to one in support of a resolution that calls upon the Republic of Turkey “to safeguard its Christian heritage and to return confiscated church properties” – a step the Turkish Embassy described as “deeply regrettable.”

The resolution (H.Res. 306), introduced by Reps. Edward Royce (R-Calif.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.), cites the “Ottoman Empire’s oppression and intentional destruction of much of its ancient Christian populations, including over 2,000,000 Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Pontians, and Syrics,” and adds that Turkey “has been responsible for the destruction and theft of much of the Christian heritage within its borders.”

The Ottoman Empire, from 1300 to 1922, was an Islamic-governed empire that covered much of southeastern Europe and parts of North Africa and the Middle East. In 1923, with the empire’s official dissolution, Turkey became one of its successor states.

According to the congressional resolution, which was passed on July 20, Turkey, “through official and unofficial acts of discrimination, intolerance, and intimidation, has hindered the remaining Christians on its territory from freely practicing their ancient faiths.”

The resolution urges the Turkish government to “end all forms of religious discrimination” and, among other related issues, “return to their rightful owners all Christian churches and other places of worship,” and “allow the rightful Christian church and lay owners of Christian church properties, without hindrance or restriction, to preserve, reconstruct, and repair, as they see fit, all Christian churches and other places of worship … within Turkey.”

According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a bipartisan federal commission that reviews violations of religious freedom, “The Turkish government continues to impose serious limitations on freedom of religion or belief, thereby threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority religious communities in Turkey."

The USCIRF also says, “Over the previous five decades, the [Turkish] state has, using convoluted regulations and undemocratic laws to confiscate hundreds of religious minority properties, primarily those belonging to the Greek Orthodox community, as well as Armenian Orthodox, Catholics, and Jews. … The state also has closed seminaries, denying these communities the right to train clergy.”

Aram Hamparian, director of the Armenian National Committee of America, told CNSNews.com that Turkey’s human rights violations “are far-reaching and widespread, having been extensively documented by the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and many others.”

He added, “The Turkish Government must sincerely accept responsibility for the genocidal crimes that led to the confiscation of these churches, and then work – in partnership with Christian churches, minority communities, and key stakeholders in the international community -- to restore their rightful ownership.”...

Don't hold your breath, Hamparian. Outrage is a much more likely response.

After the anti-democratic terrorist attack in Norway, a Dutch survey was made. It contained good news for those who do not dare to speak out about their views on Islam because they think that they stand alone with in holding such views.

On Friday a survey showed that 52 percent of Dutchmen do not see any reason for Wilders to moderate his rhetoric following the terror attacks in Norway. 44 percent think he should.

29 percent say they agree with Wilders' view on Muslims.

"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

Anti-dhimmitude in an Australian court: "Man who had relationship with primary-school girl jailed for 10 years," by Mark Dunn for the Herald Sun, July 22 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A MAN who claimed it was culturally acceptable for him to have a sexual relationship with a primary-school child who later bore him a son will spend up to 10 years in jail.

The 31-year-old, now classified as a pedophile, had claimed his cultural background meant age was not a relevant factor in choosing a wife or sexual partner, the County Court in Melbourne heard.

But in sentencing the man, who migrated as a refugee from a north-Asian country, Judge Lisa Hannan said his continued sexual relationship with the girl - from the age of eight until she fell pregnant - was repulsive and defied morality.

The court heard the man, who was married to an adult at the time of the offending and already had a child, had an IQ in the bottom 5 per cent for his age group.

"Your conduct is abhorrent to anyone with even a shred of decency or moral compass,'' Judge Hannan said.

"Whether or not it may or might have been acceptable in any culture in any part of the world is irrelevant.''

The court heard the man, who pleaded guilty to charges of persistent sexual abuse of a minor and child stealing, had told authorities in his cultural background "there were no restrictions on age'' for a relationship.

But Judge Hannan said the man knew he was breaking Australian law, that he initially lied about having sex with the child and attempted to procure an abortion before a baby was born in 2010.

"You knew what you were doing was wrong,'' the judge said.

Judge Hannan, in setting a seven-year minimum, said his "disgraceful desires'' had "robbed her of her childhood''.

Judge Hannan also disputed the extent of the man's remorse, noting he continued to try to justify his relationship with her - including saying he loved her "for real''.

"I do not think you are truly remorseful ... indeed you still seek to justify it.''

In the above video, presidential candidate Herman Cain talks mosques, Sharia and the Muslim Brotherhood (from The Other McCain, with thanks to Pamela Geller).

"The fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions."

"Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques," from FoxNews.com, July 17 (thanks to Rand):

Presidential candidate Herman Cain on Sunday defended his opposition to a new mosque in Tennessee, expressing concern about Shariah law and declaring Americans "have the right" to ban mosques in their communities.

Cain, who stirred controversy this year by saying he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet if elected, first expressed concern Thursday about the controversial mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. That mosque has been the subject of demonstrations and legal challenges in the wake of the controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is "hallowed ground" to Murfreesboro residents and that they're concerned about "the intentions of trying to get Shariah law" -- the code governing conduct in Islamic societies.

"It's not just a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to," he said.

Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should.

"They have the right to do that. That's not discriminating ... against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about," he said.

Cain again argued that residents were objecting to "the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions."

But while Cain said he expects the case to come before the Supreme Court, a local judge has allowed the project to go forward.

Cain is taking heat for his comments about Muslims. The [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations, which accused him of using "bigoted" language with his Cabinet comments, said Sunday that he should "apologize" for his latest remarks.

[Hamas-linked] CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, describing Cain's stance on the Tennessee mosque as a possible "sign of desperation," said other Republican candidates and leaders should also distance themselves from that kind of rhetoric.

"It's incumbent on reasonable people within the Republican Party to come out strongly and repudiate these kinds of un-American unconstitutional views," he said. "It's just so bizarre."

What is bizarre is that these Islamic supremacist unindicted co-conspirators at Hamas-linked CAIR are presented even by Fox as reasonable commentators on news events.

The 'holy month' of Ramadan  -- which takes place roughly during the month of August -- is fast approaching, and Muslims in Malaysia and elsewhere are eagerly preparing for it. One way the Muslims are doing precisely that in the Malaysian state of Kedah is that the Muslim authorities have issued a pre-emptive, sweeping shutdown decree in advance affecting 13 different types of "entertainment establishments" in the state. These "entertainment establishments" include restaurants. And this decree is not just for the Muslims, mind you, but for everyone and every concern in the state of Kedah, both believer and kufr alike. The livelihoods and wishes of the so-called infidels matter not at all. From "Ban violates human rights of non-Muslims, says Chua" in The Star, 14 July 2011:

PETALING JAYA: The move by the Kedah government to stop 13 types of entertainment outlets from operating during the Ramadan month violates the human rights of non-Muslims, MCA Young Professionals Bureau chief Chua Tee Yong said.

He said non-Muslims had the absolute freedom and rights to visit these entertainment outlets.

“This policy is not only disrespectful of the non-Muslims but it will also affect their livelihood,” he said in a statement yesterday.

He said Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak should explain the matter while the DAP must also protect the interests of the non-Muslims by ensuring that such an unfair policy was abolished.

It was reported that the Kedah government had prohibited entertainment outlet operators from renewing their monthly licence and operating during the fasting month.

The state government also restricted the opening hours of restaurant chains, which are only allowed to open after 3pm during the fasting month.

“PAS has always claimed that its policies only apply to Muslims but such a move has definitely violated the human rights of non-Muslims, as provided for under the Constitution. Can the party still say that its policies will not affect the non-Muslims?

“This shows that PAS has never given up on forming an Islamic state,” Chua said, adding that he is worried that other Pakatan Rakyat-run state governments will follow suit to show their consistencies in their implementations.

No, PAS, which is part of the political opposition, have most certainly not give up their plans for an Islamic state in Malaysia, one totally compliant with barbarous Sharia.  Why would they?

Usually MCA, which is one of the dhimmi auxiliaries of the ruling party, the Malay-Muslim political entity called UMNO, can be relied upon to faithfully follow the orders of their Muslim overlords. The fact that MCA is attempting to speak for the rights of their infidel brothers, even in this tactically limited fashion, is noteworthy. Almost certainly the effort is doomed to fail before it even gets off the ground, but yes, such efforts are rare in Malaysia.

Note that the organization called MCA is making its challenge in a rather obsequious manner, by 'requesting' clarification and 'urging' various so-and-so's to 'look into' the matter. This is an acknowledgment of the blatantly obvious fact that Muslims rule supreme, and any challenge to their rule, or to Islam, or to Shariah, no matter how limited or reasonable, could carry severe consequences -- for the infidels of course. MCA knows it's their necks (politically or perhaps even physically) on the line, not the Muslims of PAS.  

And speaking of PAS, they are indeed part of the opposition. Hence, if the opposition in Malaysia advances to power in the national government, as is possible in the next general election, they will be in a position to make decrees like this Ramadan proclamation for the entire country. And if UMNO stays in power, Islam will also advance. So you see, it matters not if UMNO or the opposition in Malaysia is in power; Islam continues its advance in this country regardless. 

And let us not forget one last thing. This affair shows that Shariah, a system of tyranny and a comprehensive violation of human rights unlike the world has ever seen, a system that Muslims assure us is solely reserved for Muslims, is inevitably imposed on the rest of us. It is always imposed by those very same Muslims the moment they are in a political position to do so.

A pledge to stand firm against attempts to erode the freedom of speech and the principle of equality of rights of all people before the law. "Update: Bachmann is first to sign Family Leader’s pro-marriage pledge," by William Petroski for the Des Moines Register, July 7 (thanks to Benedict):

The Family Leader, a prominent Iowa group that promotes Christian conservative social values, said Thursday it is asking all presidential candidates to sign a pledge regarding their personal convictions on traditional marriage.

The pledge is entitled, “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.” [...]

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, quickly signed the pledge Thursday, while an aide to to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said he never signs any pledges. A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said the congressman has reservations, while a representative of President Barack Obama’s Democratic campaign committee declined comment.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, is reviewing the pledge, a spokesman said Thursday night. Several other GOP presidential candidates didn’t respond to requests for comment, including former Michigan Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and retired Georgia businessman Herman Cain.

Presidential candidates who sign the pledge must agree to personal fidelity to his or her spouse, the appointment of “faithful constitutionalists” as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy and divorce law.

The Marriage Vow also outlines support for the legal advocacy for the federal Defense of Marriage Act, humane efforts to protect women and children, rejection of Sharia Islam, safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. military service members, and commitment to downsizing government and the burden upon American families....

Two great freedom fighters discuss this initiative, and this one.

The Hindus have a great deal of historical experience with Islamic supremacism, and don't want to see it advancing in Canada. An update on this story. "Hindus protest Muslim prayers at public school 283," by Tom Godfrey for the Toronto Sun, July 4:

TORONTO - Hindus from across Toronto plan to protest outside a North York middle school until a controversial Friday prayer session for 400 Muslim students is stopped.

The Canadian Hindu Advocacy is one of a number of Toronto-area groups who are opposed to the 30- to 40-minute services that occurred in the cafeteria of Valley Park Middle School on Overlea Blvd. from November to March.

An imam from a local mosque is brought to school to head the service, officials said. During the service male students are made to sit in front of the girls.

“This is alarming and unacceptable,” said Advocacy director Ron Banerjee. “We respect the separation of church and state.”

He said his group will be sending letters of protest to the Toronto District School Board in the next few days and calling for an end of the noon-time services. That will be followed by protests in November, when the services resume, if the prayers are to continue next school year.

“There’s not supposed to be any religious classes taking place in public schools,” Banerjee said. “We will be asking the board to stop the practice.”

He said school officials stopped students from reciting the Lord’s Prayers [sic] years ago and his group will picket the Muslim classes if the practice isn’t stopped....