As Wafa Sultan said, in a moment of wits-end insistence on the no-nonsense truth, uncompromisingly declared at the end of a panel discussion yesterday, the problem "is not 'radical' Islam. It is not 'extremist" Islam. It is Islam."

Posted by: Hugh at November 18, 2007 6:03 PM

does anyone know if there is video of this?

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at November 18, 2007 6:09 PM

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied. "Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

Translation: "How dare you attempt to expose my pompous obfuscation of the issue!"

Posted by: USBeast at November 18, 2007 6:09 PM

Of course she does.
"Do not put one religion above the other."
What she meant was "don't put Christianity on the same level as islam".

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 18, 2007 6:10 PM

"Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

Oh what a wonderful world it would be if Muslims like this woman would only practice what they preach!

"That is below me"?

Practice what you preach my dear, practice what you preach.

"Do you take us for idiots, for people who have no appreciation of our history?" she asked. "Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition."

So who's doing the "belittling" here? Practice what you preach.

Posted by: PMK at November 18, 2007 6:11 PM

She wasn't there toask a question...she was there to pontificate a monotonous monologue to disrupt the proceedings.

Then, when he nails her to the wall, her proclamations suddenly become "opinions", hiding behind her veil...pathetic, but hilarious sham on her part.

That was an islamist setup from the word "go",
and everyone in our camp sees it for what it is.
We call it "CAIR target aquisition" attempts.

Posted by: jcom972 at November 18, 2007 6:11 PM

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied. "Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

Seein' as to how that is EXACTLY what Islam does, is this not the epitome of irony? I nearly peed my pants I laughed so hard.

I wonder if we'll hear about or from Elhamoumi again in the news? Probably not. Someone will want an answer to the question she so deftly and obviously avoided. We know what she wants though...don't we? After all...she's clearly a devout Muslim.

Oh...and that Islamatard that was rantin' about how Muslims are superior cause they have nearly seventy rules for defecation and urination...one of his whines was that non-Muslims wear colored underwear, making us/them unable to see our filth in them. That's cause most civilized people don't wait until they see that their underwear is dirty before changing into clean ones. We change our underwear every day as a matter of (a new word for him) hygiene.

Posted by: Alaskan at November 18, 2007 6:11 PM

Wafa Sultan's comment (as reported by Hugh) is a change for her. I guess now she's wholly extracted herself from the silly belief system she was born into.

Tancredo deserves our support. He gave up his Congressional seat and is going full-steam ahead with what he knows is a losing battle for the White House. His purpose seems to be to say truths that others will not.

Here's his Web site, including his ad about terrorists among the illegal immigrants:

http://teamtancredo.org/

Posted by: StillBreathing at November 18, 2007 6:22 PM

http://teamtancredo.org/home/
Click on the video "Someone had to say it."
Yes they did, Tom.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 18, 2007 6:23 PM

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied. "Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

The sharia law question is fast becoming a powerful truth arrow, not least because it is impossible for Muslims to scream racist and hide behind a smoke screen of victim hood. Although, I think that is what Elhamoumi was trying to do, but it disintegrated into a very weak incoherent babble.

Excellent.

Posted by: LivingVictory at November 18, 2007 6:25 PM

StillBreathing:

Wafa Sultan's comment (as reported by Hugh) is a change for her.

No, it isn't.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 18, 2007 6:34 PM

"I speak the same language as the people that flew into the towers; I speak the same language as all the Iraqis we are killing; I speak many languages, and I'm proud of it," said Siham Elhamoumi, 22, who recently graduated from St. Michael's College in Vermont and traveled to the event with a group from the college. "Am I the enemy?" Elhamoumi then pulled her shawl over her head, so it covered her hair. "Am I the enemy if I do this?"

This is probably privileged Arab. Why do we allow these privileged racist-aparthied-pigs into this country? We should be reserving her education for lower-income-middle class GIs. Many of these people are very privileged. (in fact, I know one who is a slum landlord-and a doctor to boot. I guess he thinks those Kuffir African Americans and Spanish people have to pay the jiza to the Doctor.)

Posted by: Frank at November 18, 2007 6:37 PM

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD176707

This is slightly OT, but it's a great comparison of Islamism and secularism. Who is more uninformed of the history of Islam, both ancient and modern? An Egyptian cleric thinks the Spanish are still yearning for Andalusia and challenged the Syrian author:

Did the Muslims ever annihilate any people, or even a nation of animals?

Posted by: PMK at November 18, 2007 6:44 PM

Tancredo may have a chance after all:

stranger things have happened. Peanut Khadr was president of the US against all odds, who would have thought? Unfortunately he caused incredible damage, but he was the flavor of them day's gone by...

But the question whether the soldiers of Allah want to replace the constitution with the sharia is one that should be asked of every Muhammad worshipper. No doubt the Islamic propaganda machine is already spinning like an Iranian centrifuge and the members of the religion of Peacenix are consulting their clerics on how best to obfuscate and to deflect from this issue.

Doesn't work: the cat is out of the bag..!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 18, 2007 6:49 PM

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied. "Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

Truly spoken by an arrogant _______ - ______.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 18, 2007 6:54 PM

I had thought that Wafa Sultan had spoken well of Islam as Islam is supposed to be; but I can't find the citation and perhaps it was just a passing comment, not reflecting her work.

Posted by: StillBreathing at November 18, 2007 6:55 PM

With regard to my post above: Any decent human being would be ashamed to exploit people like the Doc. But his kids will go to Harvard because the "liberal"-bourgeois shit-heads can't see reality because of their PC. "Justice" is just a word.

Posted by: Frank at November 18, 2007 6:57 PM

What I find interesting, is why nobody brought this up yet: Islam cannot be practiced in the US according to the concept of separation of church and state. The first amendment prohibits establishment of preferred religion, therefore establishment of sharia law is possible only if congress is not the law making body.

That means, that the only possibility for practicing Islam on American soil requires abolishment of the congress, which is against the constitution.

Islam is unconstitutional.

Posted by: Charles Martel at November 18, 2007 6:58 PM

Translation: We have taken advantage of your foolish laws and are already here. This is our uniform. We demand that the level of resistance we have met so far continue.

If you think I'll sit around while you chip away my brain
Listen I ain't foolin' and you'd better think again.
You got another thing coming.

http://www.completealbumlyrics.com/lyric/33265/Judas+Priest+-+You+Got+Another+Thing+Coming.html

Well done Tancredo.

Posted by: pez at November 18, 2007 7:02 PM

http://www.colorblue.dreamhosters.com/mp3/Psychedelic/08%20Youve%20Got%20Another%20Thing%20Comin.mp3
Sweet!

Posted by: jcom972 at November 18, 2007 7:08 PM

"I speak the same language as the people that flew into the towers; I speak the same language as all the Iraqis we are killing; I speak many languages, and I'm proud of it," said Siham Elhamoumi, 22, who recently graduated from St. Michael's College in Vermont and traveled to the event with a group from the college. "Am I the enemy?" Elhamoumi then pulled her shawl over her head, so it covered her hair. "Am I the enemy if I do this?"

Umm... Yes, you are the enemy but not because of a histrionic gesture but because of what you believe and you hope for and perhaps aid and abet: censorship of any defense of Western values and imposition of sharia over all the world.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 7:13 PM

Greetings:

Charlie don't surf and Mohammed don't rock 'n' roll.

Posted by: 11B40 at November 18, 2007 7:30 PM

Charles Martel,
Islam might still be constitutional. The First Amendment says only that CONGRESS shall make no law. It doesn't stop individual states from doing so.
At the time (original intent is the buzzword of conservatives) it was adopted, individual states had established state churches.
Individual state constitutions might be the next source to check on that score. Is the Mormon Church the official church of Utah? At this point in time it might be just a technicality but it could be on the books.

Posted by: PMK at November 18, 2007 7:56 PM

"Do you take us for idiots, for people who have no appreciation of our history?" she asked. "Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition."

This, of course, is an oft-used implicit threat, which could be paraphrased: "We will soon outnumber your kind, so start submitting to us or face the consequences."

I hope and FBI file has been opened on this Islamist or Islamist-leaning fanatic. That is a danger that should keep Islamists inline, but of course we know that it does not. Fear of being investigated by the police simply does not work against Muslims, as it does against even a lot of Leftists, because they know that CAIR will come in if they do eventually get in trouble for their in-your-face subversive activities. Moreover, they are crazed into injudicious boldness by their own zealotry and supremacism.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 7:58 PM

Right then and there He(Tancredo) should have asked her where her allegence was, as she stated that it's your country. She should have immediatly been deported to her country of her peoples!

Posted by: AMartinez at November 18, 2007 8:04 PM

From sheik:

"But the question whether the soldiers of Allah want to replace the constitution with the sharia is one that should be asked of every Muhammad worshipper."

Yes it should. Immediately. In any discussion or debate with a muslim. First question to ask. It is the quintessential question that will expose their agenda, or tell you ( if you believe them, taquiyya notwithstanding) whether it is someone you would be willing trust and befriend and be proud to call a fellow citizen.

It is not an insulting question. It is really quite an intelligent one. It's short and to the point. A Yes or NO answer tells us so much about that person's character and politics. It shows the questioner knows something more about Islam and will likely know what taquiyya means as well.

All other discussion can flow from there.

Has it ever been asked of Kieth Ellison?
Of any legal muslim immigrant upon entry?
Of any legal muslim refugee upon entry?
Of military personal on initial application?
Of FBI or CIA application?
Of any state or federal law enforcement application?
Of any attorney being sworn into the state bar?
Of any civil service application right down to the municipal dogcatcher?
Of University professors?

It ought to start tomorrow. How much space on an application can it take? I've filled out bar membership applications that were 20 pages long, and took me 2-3 days to complete. Hell, you can put 2 checkboxes and make it ridiculously simple.

Yes or No. Do you think Sharia Law should eventually implemented as the governing law of this country?

Posted by: USorThem at November 18, 2007 8:12 PM

Islamists are their own worst PR enemies. If there is such a thing as Islamophobia or, more accurately, rational (rather than irrational) fear of Islam, it is because of the actions and words of Islamists. They generate fear in the hearts of average people with their bellicosity, just as this woman has done. Even "savvy" Islamists operating in the West, like CAIR, are unable to muzzle themselves and act civilly because they are so intoxicated with their own absolute conviction of rightness and so disdainful of the weakness of the West.

I think that this is what will ultimately be their undoing. In the US, there is hope, even if the government has not done nearly enough to protect its citizens against the assaults of Islamists. Still, there are enough average people in the US who can see and think and vote for themselves. And, if the government is unable to protect them, they will form militias to survive. The Second Amendment helps, in this regard, if it comes to virtual civil war (or, more accurately, war against violent usurpers).

Of course, the situation is worse in Europe. I hope that in Europe, where the citizens are far more disenfranchised than in the US, can overcome their Eurabian governments and express their outrage. This is why any judgement of European responses should be measured and well-considered, unlike the recent antics of certain Euro-haters within the American blogosphere.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 8:15 PM

Charles Martel,

You were right after all. Allow me to correct myself. Although not originally written to apply to the states, the court ruled in 1947 that the protections of the first amendment apply at all levels of government. (See below)

For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law... .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause.

Posted by: PMK at November 18, 2007 8:20 PM

Ms. Elhamoumi said many things that betray her ignorance and lack of compassion for anyone but herself. However, her first sentence virtually ensures that the FBI will open a file on her. An FBI operative or a computer program that searches the web for "high-risk" juxtaposition of words will flag her, if only for this. Very ill-considered Ms. Elhamoumi. You should consider your choice of words before your emotions take control of whatever higher brain functions you have.

"I speak the same language as the people that flew into the towers."

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 8:29 PM

Sheik yer'mami:

You might be amused by the irony and hypocrisy in this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27957_Palestinian_Enablers_Hopping_Mad_at_Kos

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 8:32 PM

"Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

Tom Tancredo should, from now on out, whenever he has the chance, mention this encounter and the Muslimah's reaction. He should take care to quote what she said, and then to quote from the Qur'an and the Hadith, especially where Muhammad makes clear that Islam is superior to all other faiths. The quotes can easily be supplied by Robert Spencer (or, for that matter, by any number of apostates), and he should turn the tables on tha girl, and make the occasion a Teaching Moment about Islamic supremacism.

And he should be prepared to, to discuss, with specific provisions, the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and those rights in their "Islamic" version, found in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. Make Siham Elhamoumi rue the day she umplied that the mere presence of some Muslims in this country meant that they could contemplate doing away with our political and legal institutions as they have up to now existed -- for how else to interpret that sinister statement, full of threat, she made to Tom Tancredo: "Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition." He, Tom Tancredo, understands his country, and its Constitution perfectly. It is this Siham Elhamoumi who thinks that the country has or will change, because, as she puts it, "of its composition." If there were ever a walking advertisement for halting all Muslim immigration, of removing from our midst all those Muslims who are here illegally, and then all those who, whether through sham marriages or sham oaths of allegiance to the Constitution (which oath, if they are true to Islam, must of course be sham, for the Shari'a flatly contradicts, in letter and spirit, the American Constitution), have managed to obtain citizenship. This is the minimum that the present citizens of the United States, if they are indeed faithful to the Constitution, owe those from whom they inherited it, and is part of what it means to "defend" the Constitution.

Posted by: Hugh at November 18, 2007 8:32 PM

That 1947 decision was accompanied by a newly found and still invisible part of the Constitution called the Doctrine of Subcorporation, or something close to that. According to this doctrine, the First Amendment applied to the states.

It was legislation from the bench by Hugo Black, and has no constitutional basis. It deserves to be overturned flatly. The 10th Amendment reserves all rights to the states that are not explicitly assigned to the feds. If the Hugo Black doctrine of subcorporation(sp?) is overturned the extension of the 14th to all the states woud also fall by the wayside.

This doctrine of Black's is the lifeline of the ACLU and their allies. Their every step depends of this doctrine, a doctrine that is not in the constitution and was never legislated by Congress. I would think however that the Congress could overturn it. But it would not be a Democrat Congress that would overturn it.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at November 18, 2007 8:55 PM

"Am I the enemy?"

Yes, unless you renounce Islam. It's the least you can do for the privilege of living in the West.

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied.

The set containing "things below a Muslim" is empty, honey.

Posted by: venividivici at November 18, 2007 9:14 PM

"Am I the enemy?"

Yes, unless you renounce Islam. It's the least you can do for the privilege of living in the West. See, here we don't believe that Allah created the earth for Muslims, so you are entitled to exactly nothing.

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied.

The set containing "things below a Muslim" is empty, honey.

Posted by: venividivici at November 18, 2007 9:15 PM

"Do you take us for idiots, for people who have no appreciation of our history?" she asked. "Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition."

She stated clearly - 'our history' means Islamic history!!!

'understanding of your country' - means not 'our country'

"Do you believe that we should replace the Constitution with Sharia law?" - a good question, but already answered in her statements when read carefully.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at November 18, 2007 9:21 PM

Correction to last post. It was a 1940 Supreme Court Decision that manufactured this doctrine, and the correct name of the doctrine was Doctrine of Incorporation.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at November 18, 2007 9:25 PM

Ms. Elhamoumi appears to have a history of activism in world health, multicultural, anti-Iraq war causes, both in her college days and present employment, as a quick search reveals.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 9:33 PM

gee...what a shock, eh?
lol

Posted by: jcom972 at November 18, 2007 9:37 PM

By not answering the question, she answered the question. If she wants to walk around all covered up with a vitamin deficiency because of it, that's on her.

From the tally I've seen, it is Muslims who are killing Iraqis, not us. People like her are a burden to society.

Posted by: Prickzilla at November 18, 2007 9:51 PM

Keep asking the question; the enemy finds it embarassing.

Posted by: supercargo at November 18, 2007 10:12 PM

Siham Elhamoumi said that we are ".......people who have no appreciation of (her) history......."

Ahem,....... look baby, thanks to the, uh, eeevil Robert Spencer, and Hugh, and Mark Steyn, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Nonie Darwish, and Brigitte Gabrielle, and Bruce Bawer, et al ( AND my fellow Jihad Watchers/Dhimmi Watchers! ) at this point I DO have a pretty damn good "appreciation" of your history, and I know, in a complete and profound way, that YOU are an ULTRA-VIOLENT MAHOMETAN THUG CULTIST.
I also know that your hokey-baloney "holy" book, the Koran (based on the rantings of a psychopath paedophile bandit chieftan/desert pirate) is a Fascist, supremacist screed, and, boy does it show! You have been so thoroughly brainwashed since the day you were born that you can't NOT have a chip on your shoulder, you arrogant little dimbulb. You Mussulmen are so arrogant that you almost always forget your taqqiya training and let your true colors show.
Which is why people are slowly starting to WAKE UP!
God bless Tom Tancredo!!

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at November 18, 2007 10:34 PM

Jimmy Bones,

that is called Incorporation of the Bill of Rights and it applies to all ten of them. That theory evolved over about three decades, not just one decision. Are you trying to say that a state can limit free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, limit due process, or the right to a jury trial? The states are required to preserve those rights that are also stated in the US Constitution. The US constitution gurantees rights to all citizens, and the states are also required to preserve those rights. Either all those rights apply to the states or none of them do.

The courts have used to Ist Amendment to ban school prayer, Ten Commandments in public buildings, invocations at football games, and a myriad of other things that go beyond the simple words of the amendment.

The courts have ruled that any religious themed activity is an endorsement of a particular religion. If we want to prevent Islamic themed activities in a school for example, all religius themed activities would have to be banned.

It is theoretically possible to implement Sahria law in the US through constitutional amendments.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 18, 2007 10:42 PM

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied.

Bullshit. There ain't much of anything lower than a woman in Islam. Stupid, stupid co-dependent enabler. Just exactly what does this chick think she will accomplish by destroying all her own personal rights?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 18, 2007 11:17 PM

In all of recorded history there has never been two documents more antithetical to each other than the U.S. Constitution and the Koran.

Posted by: feralcat9 at November 18, 2007 11:25 PM

You are all idiots, Siham is not a fundamentalist Muslim. She is an open-minded individual who is questioning fundamentalist beliefs, whether they be Judeo-Christian or Islamic.

Tancredo would just as soon see an America that prays in schools and holds the ten commandments about its laws. What we need to fear is religious fundamentalism in all its forms, at home and abroad.

You are all so quick to get out the torches and pitchforks to fry the next terrorist that you attack an innocent girl from Morocco who would not be as quick to impose her beliefs on you as you all have on her. Please keep your "American values" to yourselves, we here in Vermont do not want to hear about them.

Posted by: Violaleeblues at November 18, 2007 11:48 PM

The new face of racism...

Just look at who the article focuses on and the others who are treated like mere statistics.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rhodes19_bothnov19,0,5867387

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 11:50 PM

Yes, God bless Tom Tancredo.

What would happen if Tancredo took Hugh's comments to heart and began to speak specifically of Islamic immigration? I'm reminded of Goldwater's loss in 1964, in the sense that Tancredo might be even further marginalized (imagine a talking head saying, "We're down to the wire in this nomination process, we don't need haters in these debates"); but the words of Tancredo would help make it acceptable for people to express themselves in the following way, as events transpire: "Look at the evidence! Does a commitment to pluralism mean we must accept people who do not embrace constitutional guarantees, or to accept so many of them? Do we have to accommodate a political system and social order as if it were a private religion?

Twenty years after Goldwater, Reagan was President. By twenty years after Tancredo is marginalized, most Americans will agree that we need to protect ourselves from people who bring with them a supremist worldview and who have the intent to form a fifth column or who have the effect (in this generation or in subsequent generations) of being a fifth column.

Tancredo has responded to at least one debate question in a way that tells us he might be willing to be a spokesman for something akin to Hugh's point of view.

Congressman, do we benefit from having new, legal citizens from Saudi Arabia; or from the use of Saudi money in mosques; or from the conversion of felons to Islam? We see what's happened in Malmo, Sweden and in the suburbs of Paris and in the much endangered mother country. Can't we stop or much reduce the immigration of Sharia-lovers to our shores?

Posted by: StillBreathing at November 18, 2007 11:54 PM

Violaleeblues:

"That is below me. Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs..."

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 11:55 PM

Violaleeblues said:

"You are all idiots, Siham is not a fundamentalist Muslim. She is an open-minded individual who is questioning fundamentalist beliefs, whether they be Judeo-Christian or Islamic."

Violaleeblues obviously knows Siham or is Siham.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 18, 2007 11:59 PM

Violaleeblues ,
Oh the horror!
You are describing the America I grew up in....it was a hell of a lot better place then than now.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 19, 2007 12:16 AM

Sounds like the above poster is one of the secessionists that no longer want to be counted as a citizen of the good old USA.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 19, 2007 12:21 AM

This is why I support Tom Tancredo:
http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/letterslist/?id=685

Posted by: Alert at November 19, 2007 12:23 AM

Violaleeblues:

How dare you desecrate the litany of the Grateful Dead. Take two acid tablets and go back to bed.

The aged hippie facade embracing the oppressive principles of Sharia in the hills of Vermont. Take a look at all the people enjoying the "peace love and understanding" of Islamism around the world.

Posted by: Briars at November 19, 2007 12:24 AM

"[Siham] is part of the rebel alliance and a traitor. Take her away."

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 19, 2007 12:48 AM

Haha, this nut graduated from St. Mikes? That's about a half mile from where I'm sitting right now. Moonbattery runs rampant around here guys, I'm at the nexus of the Looniverse here smack dab in the middle of St. Mike's and UVM.

BTW, Truthers were out holding their stupid signs and yelling at traffic just a couple hundred yards from St. Michaels campus a couple of weeks ago (and later on our busiest bridge over the interstate in Burlington). I think it's safe to say they're students. It's also safe to say they're pieces of garbage, in that the reason they were there is because it placed them directly across the street from the entrance to Camp Johnson.

Posted by: Unclaimed Money at November 19, 2007 12:54 AM

This rare moment of clarity is brought to you by Tom Tancredo, the only politician brave enough to call a spade a spade.

Though I personally think his statement that targeting Mecca could be a useful strategy is his best, this timely gem could likely become the tool that is most effective in giving us legal leverage to weed traitorous followers of demon-inspired-Mohammed out of our country forever.

Every other politician, with the exception of Cheney and Rumsfeld, and probably Guliani, has either caved in to pc pressure, attempted appeasement, or has been blinded by democratic delusion. Peace with Muslims will only come after they are conquered in open confrontation, for they refuse to back off their ambitions to kill us all and rule the world. You don't negotiate with a charging rabid dog; you disable its ability to come at you and kill it if you have to.

Tancredo simply forced this woman to show her colors. Which she did. ("Do not put one religion above another," she said...ha.ha.ha...what a joke!! For that is EXACTLY what she does and all Muslims do and why they all should be deemed unconstitutional [read:illegal] for they seek for Sharia to overthrow the Constitution.)

Posted by: angryeagle at November 19, 2007 1:03 AM

This rare moment of clarity is brought to you by Tom Tancredo, the only politician brave enough to call a spade a spade.

Posted by: angryeagle at November 19, 2007 1:03 AM

Sounds so refresing, doesn't it? If you looked at Tom Tancredo's record, it is not that rare. Tom has consistently spoken and stood for America. And yes, Tom is a true American patriot and America should value this true American. Tom has warned Americans that America is 'In Mortal Danger' and he is doing the right thing to 'Take America Back'.
Tom Tancredo's record speaks for himself:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/letterslist/?offset=10&length=10&issue=1&id=685
http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com

Posted by: Alert at November 19, 2007 1:23 AM

I'm new to all of this--but does anyone know about what happened at the Summit of the Americas? Was not our Constitution signed away as it were? An article by Joan Veon, a journalist to the Summit for the Americas wrote an article 'New Constitution' for the 21st Century'. Someone more up to date--please fill us in. I just remember hearing something about this beginning back in 1995 with Clinton and Brazil in the regular news and nothing again after.

Posted by: gottaclue? at November 19, 2007 1:41 AM

anyone who thinksthat Muslims do not want sharia law in the USA
should read the following
Maududi likewise wrote that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth, nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.”
all we have to remember is that Muslims do not considered infidels to human beings because we have not accepted allha and Islam

If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”

But Qutb and Maududi did not originate these ideas. They are an extrapolation of Qur’anic passages such as 9:29, which assumes that Muslims will wield state power over Jews and Christians, exacting from them a poll tax (jizya) and making sure that they pay it “with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” There is no concept in the Qur’an, Islamic tradition, or Islamic law of non-Muslims living as equals with Muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims must be in a superior position. The Muslim prophet Muhammad emphasized this when he told his followers:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

Posted by: mowasaperv at November 19, 2007 2:37 AM

It never ceases to amaze me that many people think that what Tom Tancredo is doing here in controversial whereas he is simply raising the issue of the conflict between Sharia law and the American Constitution.

An American President, Richard Nixon, was forced to resign for perceived crimes against the American Constitution.

America fought a Civil War in order to protect the Constitution, in which over half a million people died.

Why?

Well as George Bush put it in his none-too-articulate fashion but essentially-right way, “There ought to be limits to freedom.”

Every democracy worthy of the name has a constitution.
A Constitution is there to prevent the dangers of elected dictatorship, to stop those who would use democracy to dismantle democracy, to remind us that democracy does not mean that the majority is always right.

All Americans have citizenship under certain constitutional limits, what is essentially a contract of citizenship.

Does it not mean you agree to abide by the American Constitution?

If you try to set up Sharia law does it not mean you have broken your contract of citizenship?

Would it not be legal and right for the American Government to revoke that citizenship?

The first Amendment covers elements of Islam which can genuinely be classified as religious i.e. the right to pray to a deity called Allah.
It does not cover elements of Islam which can be genuinely be classified as a political system i.e. Sharia law

Would it not be legal, constitutional, moral and right to re-settle such people in a country of their choice where they can live in a Sharia State?

Posted by: Odyessus at November 19, 2007 5:41 AM

You are all idiots, Siham is not a fundamentalist Muslim. She is an open-minded individual who is questioning fundamentalist beliefs, whether they be Judeo-Christian or Islamic.

Posted by: Violaleeblues at November 18, 2007 11:48 PM

***

Hi, Siham. Nice to see you could make it to the discussion. Don't post and run -- stay a while. As a matter of fact, I have a few questions of my own for you, so pull up your chair and your keyboard and let's have a civil discussion in the hopes of creating greater understanding between peoples. I'll start with an easy one.

Which verses of the Koran do you believe were written for a specific place/time and no longer apply to Muslims in the 21st century? After all, even fundamentalist Christians consider many of the Old Testament laws specific to a certain people/time and not relevant for today. I'm sure as a moderate Muslim, you have the same philosphy towards the Koran. Take your time -- and don't worry about being too thorough. You'll find many people here who have studied the Islamic texts for years.

Posted by: CJ at November 19, 2007 7:58 AM

"Violaleeblues" above is, no doubt, with her mention of Vermont ("St. Michael's College" is in Winooski)a former classmate or fried of Elhamoumi, or perhaps Elhamoumi herself. She attempts, not very successfully I'm afraid, to depict the criticism of Elhamoummi as a matter of the ever-present KKK (those "pitchforks" that came out from the mob at Jihad Watch). But she has yet to explain Elhamoumi's refusal either to ask a question of Tancredo, but instead to make a long statement, or to answer his direct question.

Nor does she explain how Islam, that does not recognzie freedom of speech -- and those who have wanted to murder Salman Rushdie and issued a formal judgment or rukh that he should be killed (and for which the government of Iran has offered millions to the killer), those who threaten to kill any brave apostate who, having apostasized, also dares to speak out about Islam -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan (both of whom this "Violalesblues" would do well to read, instead of relying on her knowledge of Islam from the sweet assurances of Elhamoumi, unless of course Elhamoumi is herself "Violaleeblues," in which case she might also take the same advice, and read Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan, and if she does not know what it is like to be raised in a society suffused with Islam, though a Muslim, she can learn from them, and from many other women who have endured that experience, and in the West, found the freedom to think about it, to make sense of it, and now even to write about it).

Is it those waving "pitchforks" who raise the little matter of how Islam, the texts and tenets of Islam, flatly contradict the principles of the American Constitution? Is it those who wave "pitchforks" who play to the vulgus mobile, the mob, by putting a hijab on and saying, in true demagogic fashion, "does that make me a threat" when, in fact, an intelligent answer cannot be given at once, though one possibility would be to say that "depending on the spirit and meaning of that hijab-wearing, yes -- it could indeed make you a threat, for it symbolizes a willingness to accept the tenets and attitudes of Islam,and it is those tenets and attitudes which we have a perfect right to hold up for close inspection, beginning with Sura 9 but hardly ending there."

The Elhamoumis of this world, with their sweetness-and-light to their young and impressionable friends, who believe that Islam is whatever their nice friendly Muslim roomates -- so pious! so impressive in that piety! -- tell them it is, are a menace, and a menace because they are practitioners of taqiyya, and of kitman, and of course, of every other kind of perfected rhetorical method of confusing, distracting, waylaying those who wish to make a remark, or even to express a desire to study, the texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira (I'm sure Elhamoumi's friends have never, not once, bothered to read the Qur'an with adequate -- i.e., non-Muslim -- scholarly guidance, and probably have never looked, even on-line, at the Hadith, or found out about little Aisha, the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, the decapitaetion of the Banu Qurayza, and a good deal else.

No. They are "finding out about Islam" by talking to, by being deeply impressed by, their college friend, Siham Elhamoumi. In the same way, some of the classmates of that early propagandist for Hitler, Putzi Hanfstaengl, Class of '10 (or was it '09?) at Harvard, learned all about the Nazis and their splendid plans.

God save us from such people, who haven't learned how to study, or how to think. Some of them, perhaps, one hopes, will.

Posted by: Hugh at November 19, 2007 8:33 AM

"If there were ever a walking advertisement for halting all Muslim immigration, of removing from our midst all those Muslims who are here illegally, and then all those who, whether through sham marriages or sham oaths of allegiance to the Constitution (which oath, if they are true to Islam, must of course be sham, for the Shari'a flatly contradicts, in letter and spirit, the American Constitution), have managed to obtain citizenship."

Right on Hugh!

Re Tancredo's ad. Probably most readers of JW are too young to remember the 1964 election when the Democrats ran an ad against Goldwater showing a little girl picking a daisy followed by a mushroom cloud. All of the liberals thought it was amusing and appropriate. They can dish it out; taking it they're not so good at.

Posted by: RBLA at November 19, 2007 8:45 AM

Yep...I remember...
"The Countdown"
(implication was if you voted for Goldwater, we're all gonna die-they weren't joking-they were dead serious)
They also tried that with Reagan in 1984, but backfired terribly & stomped on by the "Bear in the woods" response commercial, since everyone already got taken for that ride 20 years before & saw it coming a mile away.

Posted by: jcom972 at November 19, 2007 9:21 AM

"God save us from such people, who haven't learned how to study, or how to think. Some of them, perhaps, one hopes, will."

Amen. That any woman on the face of the planet could defend and promote Islam, when they will get absolutely nothing out of it except a lot of unpleasant surprises once future Muslim hubby moves them back to some Islamic hellhole in the ME and suddenly they've lost all their rights and protections under western constitutional law and their screeching dissent will be met with the back of some guy's hand, is beyond all reason or logic. But you've got to admit, our university system is very effective at turning out brainwashed automatons who are ready to do the bidding of whichever radical group is reigning on campus, which at this time happens to be Islam.

Poor little Siham (and Violaleeblues.) If you only knew what Allah and the ME male population have in store for you. You can kiss your clitoris goodbye.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 19, 2007 11:05 AM

You are all so quick to get out the torches and pitchforks to fry the next terrorist that you attack an innocent girl from Morocco who would not be as quick to impose her beliefs on you as you all have on her.

What is wrong with Morrocco? Why isn't she living there?
/rhetorical question, I know they are colonists

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 19, 2007 11:23 AM

You are all so quick to get out the torches and pitchforks to fry the next terrorist that you attack an innocent girl from Morocco who would not be as quick to impose her beliefs on you as you all have on her.

What exactly do you mean by our beliefs? The belief that Islam is our enemy?

But we don’t need to impose it on that “innocent girl from Morocco”. If she is a Moslem and follows her Koran she had it imposed on her in the cradle.

As for us being “all idiots”; you are quite right.

As long as we allow our enemy to invade our lands with armies of “innocent girls” (and boys) from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan… Somalia etc, so they may “impose their beliefs on us” under Sharia when the “composition” of our country changes to include a sufficient number of moslems, we are bloody idiots indeed.

Posted by: thomas. h at November 19, 2007 1:17 PM

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied. "Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

So, she is insisting as many of our American multiculti's do, that despite my fervent Roman Catholic beliefs, I must ascribe to and practice SYNCRETISM!

Posted by: bevc at November 19, 2007 4:41 PM

I attended this event, and I have known Siham for over a year now, and I just want to defend her. Siham is a truly wonderful, gentle, elegant human being who was brave enough to stand up for herself against Tancredo. In no way does she deserve all of you saying such evil things against her.

MusHuntCowboy said:

"Do you take us for idiots, for people who have no appreciation of our history?" she asked. "Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition."

She stated clearly - 'our history' means Islamic history!!!

'understanding of your country' - means not 'our country'

~you couldn't be more wrong. The "us" that she was referring to was the audience, was American citizens that Tancredo is attempting to brainwash with his xenophobic, racist ideas.

She was, of course referring to the fact that America was created by immigrants, and as we all learned in middle school social studies, is a diverse melting pot of culture. This is of course, one of our greatest strengths.

If any of you were actually there, you would have heard Siham explain how much she loves America, she asked him if he thinks he loves the country more than she does.

And Violaleeblues is NOT Siham. Trust me, Siham is an intelligent human being who is never afraid to stand up for herself, she would never hide behind another person to make a point, she's proud of the ones she has.

Since I have known her, I have always looked up to Siham. She is the kind of person you don't meet every day, a truly intellectual, open minded, peaceful human being, and I think most of you have taken what she's saying out of context and distorted it with hate and ignorance.

ESPECIALLY to 11B40, who said:

Greetings:

I'd like to marry Siham so I could give give her a beating, but I'm not a Muslim.

How dare you make such threats to ANYONE. You are the enemy here.

Posted by: madisonmarie88 at November 19, 2007 5:20 PM

~you couldn't be more wrong. The "us" that she was referring to was the audience, was American citizens that Tancredo is attempting to brainwash with his xenophobic, racist ideas.
--Posted by: madisonmarie88

I thought Islam was a religion! Are you claiming that Islam is a race, madisonmar88?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 19, 2007 5:36 PM

@madisonmarie88

I really think 11B40 was being disingenous when he remarked that he would like to mary Siham so that he could give her a beating.

It was a joke. Maybe a tad insensitive, but he was alluding to the fact that a Mohammedan male gets a free pass to beat his wife, unlike us infidels in the West who are taught from a young age never, never, NEVER, to strike a woman.

ps. rather than vent your spleen at 11B40 (which could be a female for all you or I know), take it out on Mohammed, the Daddy of all misogynists.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 19, 2007 5:40 PM

This is the 'question', it has to be asked and every muslim should be ready to answer it. I am Pagan, and if someone asks me, do I wish to replace the constitution of my country with my Pagan laws, of course it is below me, but still I have a clear answer for that: "No". I do not consider it as insult to me, or to my beliefs, but as an opportunity to clear up things. There are many questions below many of us, but still they can be answered. On the otherhand, any attempt to not answer indicated that the questions are above us. It

Posted by: pagan at November 19, 2007 5:48 PM

madisonmarie88 -

You claim to know Siham. You vouchsafe her character and intellect. Please contact her to ask her to come to this website to defend herself. I'm of the opinion you were not in her mind, and therefore do not know what Siham meant when she made statments that have been challenged here. Ask her to come here to answer the questions posed. I want to see if she can defend her "faith"/political ideology. It could be enlightening for everyone including yourself.

Posted by: omvi at November 19, 2007 6:04 PM

did she just call us "the enemy"???
LOL
Man, now I like the sound of THAT!
*WEG*

Posted by: jcom972 at November 19, 2007 6:07 PM

madisonmarie88

Trust me, Siham is an intelligent human being who is never afraid to stand up for herself, she would never hide behind another person to make a point, she's proud of the ones she has.

Since I have known her, I have always looked up to Siham. She is the kind of person you don't meet every day, a truly intellectual, open minded, peaceful human being, and I think most of you have taken what she's saying out of context and distorted it with hate and ignorance.

"Trust me"?

Why in the world should anyone trust you when the stupid, hysterical and almost incoherent ranting of your "truly intellectual" star is still available for everyone to read.

And all her BullS**t of her "loving America" (as long as America behaves) doesn't impress anyone here. The only thing that really matter is that America, or the vast majority of Americans doesn't love her at all. If she is an honest "peaceful human being" she should face that fact and go back to Morocco. That would be the only honourable thing for her to do. But that is too much to expect from a mohammedan.

Posted by: thomas. h at November 19, 2007 6:31 PM

That reminds me...since our voices echo that of the overwhelming majority of Americans...
if WE Americans are "the enemy", then why the hell is she HERE? (other than for invasion, as if we don't already know).

Posted by: jcom972 at November 19, 2007 6:41 PM

mm88--

Nice or not, if your friend wishes to impose Islamic law in the United States, then she is an enemy of the United States. Islamic law means permanent, non-negotiable subjugation of all non-Muslims to Muslims. It means that abuse and subjugation of wifes to their husbands is a permanent fixture of society.

Islam is about the most horrible form of government possible, and you are an idiot as long as you don't face facts.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at November 19, 2007 6:50 PM

To Ynkedoodl2:

Trancedo's entire speech, although he likes to deny this, implies racism. And this is something that most of his audience that night commented on. Siham was not the only person who asked a question. Many people in that audience were appalled at what Tancredo had to say.

And for another thing, domestic violence, or any violence against women is not limited to people outside of our own culture. I have personally been the victim of domestic violence, by an AMERICAN man. Not to mention the thousands of women all over this country who are beaten and raped every single day by AMERICANS. Before you start belittling other people's cultures, why don't you take a good look at your own.

To jcom972:

No, in fact, I did NOT just call YOU the enemy. See, although Tancredo hates other people's languages, one thing that ours lacks is a different word for "you" singular and "you" plural. I was, of course, referring to the person who physically threatened Siham. Speaking of misogyny.

To thomas. h:

You have no right to claim that anything she says is bullshit. You've never met her before, and therefore have no right to make such accusations against her. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing so. You've made it very clear that you consider yourself to be above other people, so I cannot expect you to listen to me, but in the end, I really hope God is listening to the horrible things you've said.

And please, do not generalize about America. I think its quite clear that you, like Tancredo, are unaware of the composition of this country. But I suppose that if these views really do represent the majority opinion of Americans, than that will show when the election comes around, wont it?

Posted by: madisonmarie88 at November 19, 2007 7:07 PM

He doesn't hate other peoples languages, what a load of BS that is.
My colleagues here have the same position I do, and you called one of them "the enemy", so if you call one, you call all...
Nobody "threatened: your "friend",
and we certainly don't need lessons in "understanding" anything...I have kids older than you, and have been on this planet long enough to see right through your BS.

She wouldn't answer Tancredo's question for obvious reasons, and it wasn't "beneath" her, it was a legit question...we're well aware of taqqiyah, as well as the islamist propaganda machine. As Judge Judy says:
"Don't pee on my leg & tell me it's raining"
That's exactly what you're doing, kid.
You're not fooling anyone, least of all, us, who see right through the islamist lies fraud and deceit.
speaking of narcissism.

We know what your game is...it failed, just as your friend did.
Actually, you & your friends antics only strengthened our position nationwide, so don't expect me/us to silence you...you're doing us a favor, since we already know the entire islamofascist playbook.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml

So go ahead...keep on screeding.
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at November 19, 2007 7:24 PM

By the way, the question has still been put to you...
If any of us Americans are "the enemy", then why are you HERE?

Posted by: jcom972 at November 19, 2007 7:29 PM

madisonmarie88 -

Were and HOW have you been "educated" and taught to think?

You say to "thomas h." - he has no right to claim that what your friend Siham says is BS on the grounds he has never MET your friend Siham. Well, I never MET Nancy Pelosi, but I've heard and read what she has said and it's BS. You've never MET thomas have you, so have you a "right" to call BS on him?

You say that Trancredo is a rascist. He's not. He is a "culturalist". That term is perhaps meaningless to you because I suspect you're a multi-culti tranzi. I happen to believe Western civilization is superior to every other culture in the world in every respect, especially any so-called muslim culture. You've been taught to hate western civilization. You've been taught not to appreciate the benefits of Western civ. which you unknowingly enjoy on a daily basis. That is a relection of how you were raised and educated.

I agree with you when you say you did not call jcom972 The Enemy. You actually called 11B40 The Enemy. I read 11B40's comment and he/she sounded like he was making a joke. Lighten up.

You say that DV happens in America by American men. So, what's your point? Mine is this: muslims are given the okay to beat their women, cut off the clits of their women, and kill their women if the family "feels" dishonored. This happens everyday in muslim cultures throughout the world. Does American culture condone this? No, it does not. If a muslim male kills a female family member in any muslim culture he might get away with it if he claims he did so to protect the family honor. Think that defense works in the USA? You've got a lot to learn about islam. Don't trust your firend Siham to teach you what you need to know.

Speaking of Siham, I ask you again to urge her to come here to debate. It could be enlightening for everyone including yourself. Perhaps this is diffucult for you since you've admitted to "looking up to her". You admire her and wish to protect her from debate. You'll make a good dhimmi. Hell, you already are a good dhimmi. Don't know the term dhimmi? Find out what it means and study it's historical legacy then get back to us.

Posted by: omvi at November 19, 2007 7:49 PM

You know, jcom972, I should not have been so drastic to say that Tancredo hates other people's languages. That is true. And I'm sorry if that offended you.

And again I quote, "I'd like to marry Siham so I could give give her a beating, but I'm not a Muslim"

Sounds like a threat to me. Regardless of it being a "joke" or not, it was still extremely inappropriate and should never have been said.

And I guess I don’t know what you are referring to when you say, "and we certainly don't need lessons in "understanding" anything...I have kids older than you, and have been on this planet long enough to see right through your BS." Please elaborate, if you quote me that would be best so I can know specifically what you are talking about. If you do so, I can better respond to what you are saying.

On a side not, I guess I don't know how you could possibly know how old I am.

I don’t mean any harm by coming onto this site; I simply want to make my voice heard. Although I do not agree with mostly everything that you ( I mean this in the plural sense because as you said, your "colleagues here have the same position" that you do) are saying, I still feel very strongly that no matter how much you hate Islamic people, you (again plural, see above) have absolutely no right to generalize and accuse Siham of belonging to this group that you hate just because of some short article you read about a confrontation she had with someone.

And I don’t know what you mean when you said, "You're not fooling anyone, least of all, us, who see right through the islamist lies fraud and deceit.
speaking of narcissism" Are you talking about me here? I'm not trying to fool anyone. Again, I just want to stand up for my friend (no quotation marks). And I'm sorry if I come of as being narcissistic, I don’t know why you would say that, or are you talking about her?

And again, no game, none. I just feel strongly that people shouldn’t generalize and assume things about others and hate them for those assumptions. That's all.

Posted by: madisonmarie88 at November 19, 2007 7:56 PM

You have no right to claim that anything she says is bullshit. You've never met her before, and therefore have no right to make such accusations against her. …. so I cannot expect you to listen to me, but in the end, I really hope God is listening to the horrible things you've said.

I don’t need to meet her personally to see that she is full of it. It is enough to read her frenzied rant to form an opinion of her. BTW, neither had I met Mohammed, but I have a pretty good idea about the ogre. Don’t you?

About “God listening to the horrible things" I’ve said.
I hope He does. But as He, like Tancredo and myself, doesn’t like the idea of Sharia replacing the Constitution I am sure He rather likes what He hears.

But I suppose that if these views really do represent the majority opinion of Americans, than that will show when the election comes around, wont it?

Not necessarily. People are very slow to rally behind someone who speaks the uncomfortable truth. That is why the British applauded Chamberlain and thought Churchill warmonger until the very last moment. I don’t expect anything to happen until things start getting very bad.
And, with an increasing immigration of Mohammedans, they will.

Posted by: thomas. h at November 19, 2007 8:02 PM

Oh, and sorry again jcom972, I wasn't aware that that question was being posed to me specifically.

For everyone else, here is the question to me, "If any of us Americans are "the enemy", then why are you HERE?"

I guess I'm having trouble with this question because I believe that it's taking something that I was saying out of context, but I guess I will try to answer you. I was simply trying to make a point, that if people who make threats are an enemy, then that person would be considered one too. In all actually, I don't believe in "the enemy" I don’t believe that anyone really is to be considered an enemy. Does that answer your question?

If you want something specific, I'm here because not only was I born here, and have a considerable amount of Native American ancestry, but I believe in democracy. And I believe that it is not only the right, but the responsibility as an American to question your laws. I have the right to free speech and education, and I intend to use it.

And omvi, I do not intend to respond to most of what you've said for several reasons. The first of course being that no matter what I say, you believe yourself to be superior to me, and frankly, I don't know if you really deserve an answer.

But for your first question, "Were and HOW have you been "educated" and taught to think?"

Although this is one of those that does not deserve an answer, no one actually had to teach me to think. I was some how able to figure that one out on my own.

"You've been taught to hate western civilization. You've been taught not to appreciate the benefits of Western civ. which you unknowingly enjoy on a daily basis. That is a relection of how you were raised and educated."

Please do not tell me how I was educated. And I don't hate. That seems to be a hard concept for you to understand, but no, actually, I do not hate anyone. And yes, that is a reflection of the loving environment I was raised in.

To this, "You say that DV happens in America by American men. So, what's your point? Mine is this: muslims are given the okay to beat their women, cut off the clits of their women, and kill their women if the family "feels" dishonored. This happens everyday in muslim cultures throughout the world. Does American culture condone this? No, it does not. If a muslim male kills a female family member in any muslim culture he might get away with it if he claims he did so to protect the family honor. Think that defense works in the USA?" Again, you are making a generalization about other people's cultures. No, not every Muslim is involved in genital mutilation. In fact, the Muslim religion is very different based on geography. But you already knew that, I'm sure.

And it's not up to me to make her come on here; that is for her to decide.

Posted by: madisonmarie88 at November 19, 2007 8:25 PM

madisonmarie88-

On the contrary, when I speak of honor killings, female genital mutilation, and scripture approved beating of wives I am not generalizing all peoples. I'm speaaking of those who follow the religion of islam.

You say you're part native american. Know any tribe that currently practices female mutilation? Honor killings? No, and neither do I. What about the Amish? Baptists? Buddhists? Catholics? Jews? Do they pratice such barbarism? Nope. But muslims in the USA do and moreso throughout the world. So much for geography.

I'm not generalizing when I condemn muslims for their barbarity toward those they consider inferior. I'm being very specific. This isn't hate speech. These are facts.

Posted by: omvi at November 19, 2007 9:22 PM

Ms. Elhamoumi is a self-obsessed idiot. She brings up 9/11 with absolute callousness, completely indifferent to what that means in the US. She rants and raves and flatly refuses to answer a plain and simple question. She deserves all of the approbation she is getting and will continue to get. She deserves the FBI file that is no doubt open on her.

Ms. Elhamoumi has been brain-washed by leftists and Islam. She is certainly a victim, but clearly a very willing one. She has no compassion for anyone, as evident in her self-indulgent statements that belittle and equate the deaths of 3,000 Americans for no reason with the deaths of Iraqis, largely at the hands of Islamists (a bit disingenuous but then perhaps she has bought into both leftist lies and Islamist lies that only the US kills).

In balance, though, methinks Ms. Elhamoumi is just an angry idiot. She appears not to have the intelligence to be sinister.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 19, 2007 9:30 PM

I am sure ARD, Inc. (http://www.ardinc.com) is very happy to employ someone as terminally stupid as Ms. Elhamoumi.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 19, 2007 9:32 PM

Well, a lot of what was said here is mind-boggling. Not only are the reactions completely misguided but most of them are taken out of context. There is so much here to respond to, unfortunately there is not enough memory on this site to correct all of you. What we have here is a real threat to America, and it is found in all your responses to Ms Elhamoumi pointing out just how ridiculous Tancredo is as a human being, never mind a candidate.
What you are all doing is focusing in on an aspect of a religion that is contorted by extremists. Not every practicing Muslim follows these radical beliefs. We would not generalize Christianity as the conservative radicals who believe women should be kept out of the workplace and in the kitchen. Or to assume that every Christian is like the misguided Reverend Phelps. Just because there are a number that disgrace their religion does not mean that the religion is represented entirely by them. What Ms Elhamoumi is saying by referencing the language she speaks is pointing out that there is a danger in associating someone’s language or culture or religion to the people who claim to practice those things but advocate violent and inhumane as avenues for doing so. You assume that she is a terrorist because she may be part of more than one culture (ours included) that you do not understand. Her reluctance to not answer his off-topic loaded question was smart. It would be like me asking all of you, “do you want replace our government with a neo-Nazi ideology?” Obviously you would say no, or if you were smart you wouldn’t dignify it with answer, just as she did not. I speak the same language as people who enslaved a race for over for over 100 years, I speak the same language as people who pushed a race off their native land so we could live here instead. Am I the enemy? Are you all? Because you all speak the same language as well.

Posted by: kevin at November 19, 2007 10:28 PM

Your sterotypical "Anti-World, Pro-USA Patriotism" is nauseating. It's people like you who make me hate being an American.

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied. "Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

She OBVIOUSLY means that all religions are equal and that we as people of the WORLD should not try to raise one religion above all others.

Kevin is the only person that understands what she is saying. Thanks for putting these douchebags in their places.

Posted by: ChocolateFrog87 at November 19, 2007 11:11 PM

Its good to finally hear some voices of sanity in this dark, delusional corner of the internet. You are all obviously angry misguided individuals who misplace your irrational fear and anger on the Muslim world, many of whom admire America for the rights it affords its citizens. Not least of all among these is freedom of speech and religion, which you all obviously take full advantage of with your xenophobic rantings against a culture that is no more predisposed to violence than our own. You all speak of Sharia replacing our Constitution, which is about as likely as the majority of Americans agreeing with your interpretation of the Muslim world and our own Constitution. Unfortunately it is impossible to have a rational debate with people who arm themselves with the malicious lies and mis-truthes you have exposed on this page.

Oh yeah and while I'm here I would just like to help you guys with the immigration issue and little bit and clarify a statement from Tancredo's disgraceful TV ad. The terrorist attacks mentioned in Britain, Spain, and Russia were all homegrown terrorist groups that didn't have to cross borders to cause the senseless devastation inherent in misplaced acts of violence, just like the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have lost their lives in an unnecessary war. Its too bad our foreign policy for the past 7 years has been this type of American unilateralism. This trend will only continue to bring more attacks until we are able to realize our mistakes in the Middle East and seek to engage the Muslim world in a dialogue that will be able to prove that we have something to offer these people who have lived under oppressive regimes for too long. Being Muslim does not require jihad, it is only when the culture feels threatened in its own land that it resorts violence.
So does anyone here propose that we abandon the Middle East completely as we have Cuba and North Korea? Obviously not because they hold the world's largest reserve of liquid gold, something we Americans cannot get enough of and in process have been the main monetary suppliers of terrorism. Does anyone here drive a V8? Guess what, you've indirectly given money to terrorists. America's presence as the world's leading power leaves us vulnerable to attack and criticism, especially when we all put in the same sinking ideological boat with all you idiots. I hope next time the terrorists get it right and instead of killing innocent, open-minded New Yorkers they find your homes and kill the people the jihad was meant for, pompous, racist, xenophobic assholes.

Posted by: Violaleeblues at November 19, 2007 11:18 PM

And I'm not Siham, I'm a white male who was brought up in the Catholic faith most of you pretend to practice. Jesus Christ's message was one of compassion for all the world, not just people of your own nation. If we are to survive as a race much longer we must reconnect ourselves as humanity, not further polarize the planet with ignorant fear-mongering and generalized hate for giant swathes of our fellow brothers.

Peace and Love will win.

Posted by: Violaleeblues at November 19, 2007 11:23 PM

Where'd everyone go? You all asked for a thoughtful discussion of the ideas at play here and now individuals of differing viewpoints have made themselves available to your attacks and no one feels the need to comment. Shows how defensible your ideas are.

Posted by: Violaleeblues at November 19, 2007 11:58 PM

Kevin:

"Not every practicing Muslim follows these radical beliefs. We would not generalize Christianity as the conservative radicals who believe women should be kept out of the workplace and in the kitchen. Or to assume that every Christian is like the misguided Reverend Phelps. Just because there are a number that disgrace their religion does not mean that the religion is represented entirely by them."

Been there, done that. There is a world of literature out there to contradict the moral equivalency of these kinds of statements. While not all Muslims are bad, by any means, and not all Christians are good, by any means, there is a difference between Islam and Christianity. Not the individuals who may practice it, but the religions themselves and the corrosive or positive elements that each may or may not have. Look into it. The information is out there. Just look into it.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 19, 2007 11:58 PM

Is this statement claiming that Christianity is better or preferable to Islam or a rejection of religion all together?

I'd have to say that’s a vague response
"Look into it"
was this statement sponsored by Google?

its an easy cop out to say "there’s info out there, look into it." when i posted my thoughts i gave an example of how we cannot bring out rash presumptions of religions based on people who do not practice them appropriately. I’d much rather you give me an example of why the inherent difference of each religion counteracts what I said. The fact is I have looked into it, that’s why I said what I said.

Posted by: kevin at November 20, 2007 12:12 AM

Violaleeblues

I don’t actually drive a V8, I prefer those extra things like a leather seat, cup holder, windshield and a CD player, so I drive a big truck with V8 power. Unless you walk absolutely everywhere you go and refuse to buy all plastic and nylon products, you shouldn’t pretend that you aren’t also giving your money indirectly to terrorist either.

By the way Canada is the number 1 importer of crude oil into the US, followed by Mexico and then Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at November 20, 2007 12:13 AM

Violaleeblues:

Look up the definition of Sharia law.

Then get back to us and answer why Ms. Elhamoumi was not able to answer the question. Why was she not able to answer a simple question?

Let us also engage in a thought experiment. Let us take Ms. Elhamoumi's outburst and simply shift its reference to another group and ask, was it appropriate or was it even reasonable?

"I speak the same language as the people that [lost their lives in the Twin Towers]; I speak the same language as [all those who are being killed by jihadis]; I speak many languages, and I'm proud of it. Am I the enemy?" [X then pulls out a picture of Ayaan Hirsi Ali], "Am I the enemy if I do this?"

"Do you take us for idiots, for people who have no appreciation of our history? Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition."

Y repeatedly broke in, asking X to pose a question. Y finally asked Y a question of his own: "Do you believe that we should replace [Sharia law with the Constitution]?"

"That is below me," X replied. "Do not belittle people's opinions and people's beliefs and people's religions. Do not put one religion above the other."

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 20, 2007 12:20 AM

Violaleeblues said:

"I hope next time the terrorists get it right and instead of killing innocent, open-minded New Yorkers they find your homes and kill the people the jihad was meant for, pompous, racist, xenophobic assholes."

Care to further explain how "a white male who was brought up in the Catholic faith most of you pretend to practice" could say such a thing?

Sounds most Christian to me. BTW, there are atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews and even Muslims who post to JihadWatch, so it is strange that you characterize this as a Christian website. Please investigate further before venting raw emotion. Thank you.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 20, 2007 12:29 AM

ChocolateFrog87 said:

"She OBVIOUSLY means that all religions are equal and that we as people of the WORLD should not try to raise one religion above all others.

Kevin is the only person that understands what she is saying. Thanks for putting these douchebags in their places."

ChocolateFrog87 is putting non-douchebags above douchebags. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Please look into the definition of Sharia law. The question was that Ms. Elhamoumi would not answer was: "Do you believe that we should replace the Constitution with Sharia law?"

Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason, that as a reasonable person, you would look up the definition of Sharia law before posting?

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 20, 2007 12:36 AM

So there is a straightforward and unanswered question to Ms. Elhamoumi and her supporters:

"Do you believe that we should replace the Constitution with Sharia law?"

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 20, 2007 12:40 AM

I appreciate you seeing me as a non-Douchebag, but I would still like an answer to my previous comment.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter whether you say Sharia Law or something else in the stead of his query, the question itself is flawed and off topic. That is why she didn’t answer, out of principle. The question should not be dignified with an answer. Its drastic change from what she was saying is only used as a tool gathering support by making her seem like an extremist. I wouldn’t answer the question either, and wont for that matter. If we want to discuss the relevance of asking that seems like a good starting point

Posted by: kevin at November 20, 2007 12:54 AM

kevin:

Questions cannot be flawed. They are just questions. They may be pointed or silly, but they cannot be flawed. Think back to your first freshman class when the instructor said: there is no such thing as a stupid question.

Answers, however, can be factually correct or not, depending on whether the question was a fact-based question or not. Answers to questions of opinion, on the other hand, simply reveal opinion.

But a question is never flawed or wrong. It is just a question.

So the question is:

"Do you believe that we should replace the Constitution with Sharia law?"

It's a simple yes or no. You can qualify your answer, if you wish, but there is no reason why it cannot be answered, unless you are afraid of revealing something. Silence can be more revealing than a "flawed" answer.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 20, 2007 1:02 AM

you prove everything I've just said, I rest my case

Posted by: kevin at November 20, 2007 1:09 AM

kevin:

You may be suspicious of a question as a trap. However, the following statement by Ms. Elhamoumi begged the question:

"Do you take us for idiots, for people who have no appreciation of our history? Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition."

At once, the statement was unclear as to whom she was referring to as "people" and the second sentence contains a veiled threat. So it was perfectly reasonable for Tancredo to respond:

"Do you believe that we should replace the Constitution with Sharia law?"

And the question was no trap. By not answering it, Ms. Elhamoumi revealed something about herself.

She could have said something like: "Of course not, and I think the question implies that I may have divided loyalties, an implication to which I object."

But she said no such thing. There would be no "news story" had she just responded to a fundamental and salient question that she herself provoked.

But in the context of her preceding and subsequent statements, any rational person is left thinking: this woman seems to believe that Sharia law - orthodox Islamic religious law over all of civil society (and all the illiberal things that that entails: read up) - in whole or in part should be implemented in the US.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 20, 2007 1:14 AM

kevin said:

"you prove everything I've just said, I rest my case"

It's this kind of stuff that gives liberals a bad name and makes it easy for non-liberals, whether moderate or conservative, to lambast you. It's also what makes much of middle American vote against liberals time and again. No, you can't just say "I am right and you are all idiots." Sorry, but people don't respond to that: they just conclude either you are an idiot or that you are just someone who is so arrogant that you expect everyone to automatically think just like you.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 20, 2007 1:19 AM

Ok, here is how Wikipedia, the internet sources of all wisdom, breaks down modern Muslim society, including Sharia. I didn't need to "look it up" none of us here, including Siham, is looking to replace the US Constitution with anything, we are trying to protect its principles against a Fascist mob looking to take rights away from legal citizens. Because a person manifests their personal beliefs in a different way does not necessarily make them incompatible with the Constitution. So long as they keep their practices to themselves and do no harm to others they are free worship anyway they see fit. Not everyone is involved in a conspiracy to undermine the principles of our Constitution.

Contemporary practice

There is tremendous variety in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic Law in Muslim societies today. Liberal movements within Islam have questioned the relevance and applicability of sharia from a variety of perspectives; Islamic feminism brings multiple points of view to the discussion. Several of the countries with the largest Muslim populations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have largely secular constitutions and laws, with only a few Islamic provisions in family law. Turkey has a constitution that is officially strongly secular. India and the Philippines are the only countries in the world which have separate Muslim civil laws, framed by Muslim Personal Law board, and wholly based on Sharia and the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines. However, the criminal laws are uniform. Some controversial sharia laws favour Muslim men, including polygamy and rejection of alimony.

Most countries of the Middle East and North Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence, and religious police assert social compliance. Laws derived from sharia are also applied in Afghanistan, Libya and Sudan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts.[9] In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the re-introduction of harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony. The punishments include amputation of one/both hands for theft, stoning for adultery and apostasy.

Posted by: Violaleeblues at November 20, 2007 1:21 AM

Violaleeblues:

"Do you believe that we should replace the Constitution with Sharia law?"

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 20, 2007 1:24 AM

That is funny that you think the original article was about how "crazy" Siham was.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071118/NEWS01/711180314

Here is the article from the Concord Monitor for anyone who wants to go back and see what the article was really getting at- how outlandish and flat-landed Tancredo's position seems in the face of continued globalization.

Posted by: Violaleeblues at November 20, 2007 1:29 AM

This is getting interesting. Kevin says:

What you are all doing is focusing in on an aspect of a religion that is contorted by extremists. Not every practicing Muslim follows these radical beliefs.

Mohammed says:

2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don't believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don't be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101 The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
5:57 Don't choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians.
6:106 Stay away from disbelievers.
8:55 The worst beasts in Allah's sight are the disbelievers.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
9:28 Disbelievers are unclean.
9:30 Christians and Jews are perverts. Allah himself fights against them.

In fact Kevin every ‘practicing’ Muslim must follow these ‘literal’ beliefs. Those who don’t ma