It's a shame that the leaders of our nation have no clue as to the true nature of the enemy. It's starting to make me ill.

Posted by: Infidel One at September 4, 2005 2:06 AM

In being optimistic, I think that some of them do have a clue, remember this is more of a chess game and not poker.

Posted by: Truth at September 4, 2005 2:33 AM

Dumb hags... Shouldn't they be slaving over a stove somewhere instead of running the State Department.

Posted by: have_mercy at September 4, 2005 3:03 AM

OK. I'm going to 'revert to Islam'.

As long as Karen Hughes becomes one of my 'right hand possessions'...

You think that will fix it?

Posted by: Terminator at September 4, 2005 5:50 AM

Let's see, we have feckles Dr. Condi Rice, former Texas soccer mom and arch spimmeister, Karen Hughes conservative and Undersecretary for Public Bafflegab bleeding heart for ISNA conventioneers kvetching about NSA intercepts of their cell calls to al Qaeda relatives in the ummar abroad. How dumb can we get? Don't ask!! After all we have Muslim convert Harvard Grad Grover Norquist and his Palestinian Muslim wife and USAID PR flack at State, too!! My, my, how Saudi millions seduces the unwary or greedy, eh?

Well read Joel Mowbray's trenchent FrontPage piece on the feckless one, Karen Hughes attendance at the ISNA convention. Maybe we should parachute Bob's "PIG book on islam and...the Crusades" into Foggy Bottom for her and Condi Rice to crack open, that is, if they have the temerity.

Karen Hughes' Big Mistake
By Joel Mowbray
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 2, 2005

One of President Bush’s closest confidantes, Karen Hughes, this weekend is scheduled to address the annual conference of an organization whose primary purpose is the propagation of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabist Islam—and which has praised suicide bombers, whose president has publicly denied that al Qaeda was behind 9/11, and whose web site to this day sells a book that lavishes praise on Osama bin Laden.

Not only is Hughes publicly endorsing the Islamic Society of North America with her mere presence, but this is the first major public address in her new role spearheading outreach to the Muslim world. In the process, she’ll be seen as signaling whom the administration does—and does not—support in the U.S. Muslim community.

Asked whether the woman who was instrumental in Bush winning the White House knew the true nature of the group she is speaking to in Chicago this weekend, State Department spokesman Noel Clay responded, “Karen Hughes has been briefed on the organization.”

Somehow, it just doesn’t seem likely that Hughes has been fully briefed on ISNA. If she had, she almost certainly wouldn’t be headlining its annual conference—let alone as her first major appearance in her new post.

If this weekend’s ISNA convention is anything like its 2002 predecessor, Hughes will be surrounded by unsavory figures. At the 39th annual ISNA conference, held in Washington DC, several speakers on a panel agreed emphatically that there was no proof that bin Laden was behind 9/11—and this occurred just shy of the one-year anniversary of the attacks, just miles from the Pentagon.

During a session dedicated to the aftermath of 9/11—not on how Muslims can help strip the religious justification of future such terrorism, but rather on how to fight back against “attacks on Islam”—a questioner expressed his anger that the Muslim leadership in the U.S. had “asked [Muslims] to accept the blame for 9/11.”

The three prominent members of the panel all rushed to assure the questioner that, in fact, they weren’t really sure that al Qaeda was behind 9/11, or for that matter, if any Muslim was. According to a transcript provided by the Investigative Project, panel moderator Jamal Barzinji, the then-director of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, responded, “It is not only that we don’t have any proof, but the FBI doesn’t have any proof. They are still looking.”

Former ISNA president Muzammil H. Siddiqi, who was still on the board, added, “We cannot say in surety whoever did it or not.” Rounding out the bizarre denials of al Qaeda’s culpability for 9/11, the then-president of Muslim-American Society, Suhail al Ganouchi, opined, “Probably we’ll never know who actually did it, or who, what, or what groups.”

But ISNA does more than just provide a forum for 9/11 deniers. For sale on its online bookstore is a tome by former Illinois Congressman Paul Findley, published in the summer of 2001, which lavishes praise on Osama bin Laden.

The book, called “Silent No More: Confronting America’s False Image of Islam,” contained the following description of the terrorist who had already orchestrated the murder of Americans in the East Africa embassy bombings and the U.S.S. Cole attack: “Outsiders do not seem to recognize that bin Laden is one of the pre-eminent heroes of Afghans, occupying a role similar to the Marquis de Lafayette, a Frenchman who fought at the side of the Colonials during America’s Revolutionary War.”

Also available at ISNA’s online bookstore is “More in Common Than You Think” by William Baker, who is only well-known to radical Muslims and neo-Nazis. According to a lengthy investigative piece in Orange County Weekly, Baker in 1984 was chairman of the Populist Party, which was “established and directed by Willis Carto, head of the now-defunct Liberty Lobby. …Carto also founded the Costa Mesa-based Institute for Historical Review, a group whose central purpose is Holocaust denial.” Seven months after the article was published, Baker was a panelist at the same ISNA annual conference in September 2002 where Siddiqi and others denied al Qaeda’s perpetration of 9/11.

When asked about much of the above, State spokesman Clay seemed uninterested. He first argued that Hughes’ appearance was no big deal, since the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security were also sending representatives. But DHS and DOJ are sending low-level department lawyers who are neither principals nor political appointees. Not the same thing as sending someone who’s logged countless hours by the President’s side.

Clay also defended the appearance before ISNA by noting, “They do not support terrorism.” Except when they do. In a January 2000 press release, ISNA declared, “In order to honor the Shaheeds and the Mujahideen of Chechnia, ISNA has decided to dedicate Shawwal 1, 1420, the day of Eid al Fitr as ‘Solidarity with Chechnia Day’ throughout North America.”

“Shaheeds” is the term used by jihadists for glorification of suicide bombers. U.S. law officials think that the “shaheeds” and “Mujahideen” in Chechnya are terrorists; many of the most high-profile terror cases since 9/11 have involved support for those forces.

Even giving Clay the benefit of the doubt that he did not know of the Chechnya statement, is lack of support for terrorism the only bar which an organization must clear?

But either because the State Department did not do a thorough investigation of ISNA or because it willfully disregarded the group’s open praise of “shaheeds,” Karen Hughes is more than likely going to share the stage with the man who signed that statement and who publicly denied bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11: Siddiqi. He is speaking at one panel, moderating three others, and given that he is still on the executive committee and the board of directors, Siddiqi is more than likely going to be at the head table when Karen Hughes delivers her speech.

It is hard to imagine that Hughes knows of Siddiqi’s unseemliness, yet given his continued prominence within ISNA, she is likely to be shaking the hand of—and affording untold legitimacy to—a 9/11 denier and vocal supporter of terrorists. Never mind what she does for ISNA’s credibility. Or what her appearance means for the Muslim groups she has not yet addressed who are genuinely moderate.

If Hughes feels that outreach to U.S. Muslims is important—which it is—why not instead meet with someone like Sheikh Hisham Kabbani, the spiritual leader for Sufi Muslims? Or Free Muslims Coalition President Kamal Nawash, who this spring organized the first-ever Free Muslims March Against Terrorism—which was boycotted by ISNA, MSA, and almost every other major national Muslim organization?

Administration officials—particularly someone of Hughes’ prominence—should embrace the organizations fighting the Saudi takeover of Islam in America, not the group perhaps most responsible for perpetrating that very takeover.

Spun off of the Saudi-created and funded Muslim Students Association (MSA) over 20 years ago, ISNA is likely the largest single provider of Islamic materials to mosques in America.

For a sampling of what might be contained in Saudi-sponsored pamphlets and literature, one need look no further than the Freedom House report issued earlier this year. Using Muslim volunteers to gather Saudi-published or sponsored materials in more than a dozen prominent mosques across the country, Freedom House found shocking intolerance, anti-Semitism, and even explicit endorsement of violence.

Though the Freedom House report does not specify if ISNA was responsible for funneling any of the most offensive literature into mosques, ISNA’s own track record suggests that it would do so willingly.

Assuming Hughes goes forward and addresses ISNA this weekend, she deserves the benefit of the doubt—this time.

But if groups like ISNA keep getting courted, the question must be asked: Is this embrace happening out of ignorance or out of some cunning—and dangerous—strategy?

Posted by: Chinese Gordon at September 4, 2005 7:32 AM

Mrs. Hughes is a woman and an infidel. No one at that convention will regard her or her speech with anything but distaste and contempt. She is there to shore up the "flagging" image of the US in the overseas Muslim world. What her speech should say very bluntly is that when and if bombs start going off in malls in the US, there will be an overwhelming demand by the American public for mass deportations. Therefore, American Muslims should turn in their fellow believers/bombers to the nearest cop shop or risk a much bigger public relations problem than they can or would want to imagine. The article also mentioned that Secretary Rice and Mrs. Hughes would be working on several programs, including interfaith dialogues. Since when is it the place or business of the State Department to sponsor interfaith dialogues? The Bush administration doesn't get it and I don't thing that it ever will.

Posted by: maryrose at September 4, 2005 7:34 AM

What, nothing about winning their "hearts and minds"? Guess that's because even Ms. Hughes knows that's a non-starter.

Posted by: scaramouoche at September 4, 2005 7:39 AM

Thanks, Chinese Gordon, for your comments and the article by Joel M. Also, thank you for reminding us about Grover Norquist and his new wife. I have read that Norquist is best friends with Karl Rove and that they remain in constant communication. I don't think that relationship can be underestimated as we at JW shake our heads and wonder what is going on at the highest levels of our government.

Posted by: maryrose at September 4, 2005 7:40 AM

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH? YOU ARE NO LONGER WELCOME HERE IN OUR COUNTRY.

We welcomed you as brothers with open arms and you have repeatedly stabbed us in the back.

Muslim and Allied Illiberal Left Reaction: Hey you’re a bigot! You can't due that. What about all of the innocent Muslims who haven't done anything wrong or they don't agree with the killing of innocents? (Only innocent Muslim by standards of course, Not Kuffurs)

An American Leadership with some Sack Response: No, no I’m sorry that is not going to work anymore. You’ve had countless opportunities too prove your allegiance to our country and our values (which you knew before you came here) it’s time too stop the insanity. We’re not going to let a minority 6th century death cult dictate our lives and destroy our country and our values or way of life that we have fought so hard to attain, and we will not disgrace our dead soldiers and patriots who fought so hard to obtain our freedom.

Allied Illiberal Left Reaction: You can’t due that; I don’t want to live in a fascist tyrannical country like Amerika anyway!

An American Leadership with some Sack Response: You are more than welcome to join them (Muslims going back to Crapastan), as a matter of fact the US Government will gladly pay for all of your expenses, all you have too due is sign an agreement that your giving up your citizenship, that you’re a sworn enemy of the state, and that you will never return to the United States or face immediate execution on that day without trial or fifth column media coverage.
And my fellow Americans don’t worry it won’t cost you a thing from your tax money. All of the deportees asset’s will be liquidated to pay for the cost of there removal as well as the removal of there commi pinko allies. Any surplus will go toward social needs of the American citizens. And I mean ONLY THE AMERICAN CITIZENS.

“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil” ‘Thomas Mann’

Posted by: Cpt at September 4, 2005 7:50 AM

Chinese Gordon

Maybe we should parachute Bob's "PIG book on islam and...the Crusades" into Foggy Bottom for her and Condi Rice to crack open, that is, if they have the temerity.

It won't help.
They cannot understand what is written.
It was tried with a former Russian political prisoner being sent to Washington to explain to Rice, and her boss(??), his book on Democracy but to no avail.
Much to his disgust they continued handing out free passes and he resigned from the current scene.
Sometimes not even hindsight helps in these cases.

Posted by: Cynic at September 4, 2005 8:41 AM

maryrose

Mrs. Hughes is a woman and an infidel. No one at that convention will regard her or her speech with anything but distaste and contempt.

I don't know what info will be available on the attendees' opinions, but it was instructive hearing the coffee and teashop clients express their opinions when Rice took part in the "TV chat show's" while visiting Egypt, Rammalah and Beirut and seeing how accurate your observation is with respect to that situation.

Then again Hughes should be made aware of Taqyia and that most probably she is being played, along with those naive enough to believe in the cheek rubbing, hand holding, present bearing messengers of the new caliphate, for a big one.

Posted by: Cynic at September 4, 2005 8:54 AM

Would Churchill, I wonder, have held a convention with the Nazis in the Forties? I think we all know the answer to that question! Would Churchill, I wonder, have worried about Britain's "flagging image" with the Nazis of Germany? I think we all know the answer to that question, too! Moreover, would Churchill have cared what the Nazis thought, and would he have cared about Britain's "flagging image"? I think we all know the answers to these and similar questions.

It seems to me that what Karen Hughes is undertaking with this convention underscores all that is wrong with the West's approach to the problems we are facing with Islam. It is also the reason why, if we don't change tack, we are going to fail, why we are going to lose this war.

At the cost of sounding belligerent - and don't get me wrong, I am not a person given to belligerence unless it is absolutely necessary; no sane person wants war of any kind - there is but one way to win a war, and that's to be on the offensive. No war, as far as I am aware, was ever won on the defensive. And that's what the West is on: the defensive.

A country should go into a war with one objective in mind: To win that war come hell or high water. If this is not done, if the leaders are not prepared to take the necessary measures - however brutal - to win that war, then they shouldn't engage in a war in the first place. Wars cannot be won with kid gloves on!

Politicians today, both sides of the Atlantic, are far, far too concerned with their popularity ratings. That's one of the main reasons why they are not successful when it comes to conflict. It's one of the main reasons why they are not prepared to do what it takes to get us out of this goddamn awful mess we are in with Islam.

Bush started out talking tough; but he seems to be suffering from a bout of butterflies in his weak stomach!

The electorate, too, must shoulder some of the blame. The West has become a weak place: decades of liberal ideas have taken their toll! A soft life - the kind of life the electorate has grown used to over the years since the end of WWII - is not conducive to fighting an implaccable enemy.

It seems to me that we in the West have some bellyaching to do! We have to decide what's important to us: the maintenance of our liberty and the values of Western civilisation, or the relinquishment of our way of life in the name of peace and appeasement. If we wish to maintain and uphold our values and way of life, then we shall jolly well have to fight for those values and way of life. There is no other way, especially with the kind of enemy we are now up against.

Interfaith dialogue just won't cut the mustard. In any case, what is the purpose of having interfaith dialogue with a people who will not give an inch, with a people who will not budge? They have their ways, and they are not about to change them. After all, they haven't yet in fourteen hundred or so years! And they are not about to start to change them now, for our sakes.

Karen Hughes says that we have a common interest in confronting terror. This comment of hers shows me that she just doesn't understand what's going on in this wicked world we now inhabit!

I'm afraid that if she and others like her are not prepared to toughen up their act, if they are not prepared to get a grip on the situation, then it would be a service to the public if such politicians resigned, moved over to make room for people who are able to take the necessary tough decisions. The sort of weak talk we are hearing from the likes of Karen Hughes is neither confidence-inspiring nor helpful. Our leaders are there to lead; and it is their duty to keep our countries safe for citizens. I, for one, do not feel safe anymore!

Posted by: Mark at September 4, 2005 10:38 AM

"if the leaders are not prepared to take the necessary measures - however brutal - to win that war, then they shouldn't engage in a war in the first place. Wars cannot be won with kid gloves on!"

The "hot war" in this war on terror -- the Iraq War -- has more or less been waged with kid gloves since it began, prematurely ended, then clumsily began again.

At the very least, we should have commandeered every single mosque and completely ignored the sensibilities of Muslims (busting down doors where their wife-slaves might be cowering; using dogs; etc.) when searching house-to-house. And these measures with ground troops should have been conducted only after the entire brunt of our air force had effectively pacified the entire country.

Anyway, enough fantasizing. Back to nauseating reality.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 4, 2005 12:34 PM

These people are advising our President!?

We're in big trouble here, people! We have Grover Norquist(who recently converted to Islam in order to marry a Palestinian woman) in one corner http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/451 and in the other we have Karen Hughes... What's wrong with this picture?

Who's fighting for us?

PS Grover Norquist's best friend is Karl Rove, the White House chief of staff....

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/gaffneyletter.pdf

Posted by: Kemaste at September 4, 2005 1:13 PM

"At the very least, we should have commandeered every single mosque and completely ignored the sensibilities of Muslims (busting down doors where their wife-slaves might be cowering; using dogs; etc.) when searching house-to-house. And these measures with ground troops should have been conducted only after the entire brunt of our air force had effectively pacified the entire country."
-- from a posting above

That is one way. And it would have been preferable in some ways. But the expectation that the scenes in Iraq would mimic those in Europe during the liberation by Allied forces, based on judgments about Iraq based on meetings with completely unrepresentative, thoroughly-westernized Iraqis who were eager for the Americans to get rid of Saddam Hussein for them, and on an even more disastrous, because continuing, misunderstanding of Islam and of the psychology of Muslims ("The Arab Mind" by Patai, which is apparently being relied on, does not relate this "Arab Mind" as it should, to the tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam), effectively prevented such action.

The Administration was interested only in "regime change." It did not realize that "regime change" would do nothing about the underlying ideology of Islam. For under the Ba'athist veneer, there was and remains, Islam.

Something good -- something not exactly victory to be pulled from something not exactly like defeat, from the Briarpatch, out of the sticky arms of the Tarbaby, of Iraq. But this requires some understanding that the belief-system of Islam not only prompts Muslim terrorism, but the entire world-view of Muslims that causes them to engage in Jihad, and which makes Islam permanently menacing. Then, instead of ignoring obvious ways to divide and demoralize Believers, Infidels will seize at the chance to do so -- and Iraq is a very good place to do so. It takes real perversity not to see that chance, and not to take it. So far the Administration, both obstinate in its "resolve" to "stay the (ill-thought out) course" and timid in its refusal to look a little more deeply into Islam for fear of what it might discover, has been just as perverse as it can be.

Posted by: Hugh at September 4, 2005 2:29 PM

"The Administration was interested only in "regime change." It did not realize that "regime change" would do nothing about the underlying ideology of Islam."

It did not and does not realize this because it has, in the place of knowledge of the underlying ideology of Islam, a fifth-grade-level whitewash of Islam -- you know, the kind that professors of history lectured to me (often in parenthetical remarks) in the American university I attended (or the kind that forms the basis of PBS specials on the history of Islam).

I remember one Jewish professor whose speciality was the history of modern Israel telling us (in the late 1970s) that before the European Zionists came to ruin things in the late 19th century, Arabs and Jews had lived in harmony for centuries. Another professor, of comparative religions, would go on at length about the expansion of Islam without once mentioning violent conquest, let alone imposition of dhimmitude, as though that expansion were a process of benign osmosis. Visiting professors from elsewhere were invited to give talks about the intellectual sophistication of Islam, the wonderful tolerance of Islamic Spain, the contributions to science and architecture of the Golden Age of Islam, etc.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 4, 2005 3:27 PM

Here is where the State Department FSO droids get all of their information on Islam:

Georgetown University, one of America's oldest and most prestigious universities, is located in Washington, D.C. at the crossroads of international politics. The Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding functions within the University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, the oldest and largest school of international affairs. Among its graduates are a host of world leaders, as well as diplomats, corporate leaders, and academics. Georgetown's School of Foreign Service has more graduates who have served as ambassadors and diplomats than any other university.

Its faculty is anchored by two penultimate 21st century dhimmis, John Voll and John Esposito. Future generations of Americans will despise their memory as traitors to the spirit for which more than a half million Americans gave their lives in battle to defend our freedom and for which more than 42 million have worn a uniform and taken up arms against the enemies of our civilization.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at September 4, 2005 10:47 PM

Its faculty is anchored by two penultimate 21st century dhimmis, John Voll and John Esposito. Future generations of Americans will despise their memory as traitors to the spirit for which more than a half million Americans gave their lives in battle to defend our freedom and for which more than 42 million have worn a uniform and taken up arms against the enemies of our civilization.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at September 4, 2005 10:47 PM

What turns smart men into Satan's sycophants? Is it money, power, prestige? Do they actually believe the tripe they regurgitate? Why does no one challenge or refute their carefully constructed obfuscations, canards, and blatant lies?

Not only are they dhimmis, they are self-hating obscurantists of the worst kind; appeasers, promoters, and apologists for the nemesis and anathema of mankind-----Islam.

Posted by: Susanp at September 5, 2005 12:09 AM

John Voll is an idiot like Esposito.

Here is his letter supporting Sami Al-Arian, the terrorist on trial:

24 December 2001

Dr. Judy Genshaft, President
University of South Florida
Office of the President
4202 E. Fowler Ave.
Tampa, FL 33620

Dear President Genshaft:

RE: Dr. Sami A. Al-Arian

I was surprised and concerned to read of the dismissal of a tenured professor from his position on the faculty of the University of South Florida. The news reports covering the dismissal of Dr. Sami Al-Arian make it appear that the University took this action as a response to popular pressure, giving as reasons for the dismissal that University fundraising efforts were hurt by the media coverage and that death threats and security concerns because of possible actions by opponents of the dismissed professor might result in disruption at the University. Regardless of who the particular individual is who has been dismissed, this type of action by a major university is cause for alarm. I would welcome receiving information from you that would correct the

impression given by media reports. Dismissal of a tenured member of any faculty for reasons other than those that are the normal reasons for such dismissal -- and these reasons do not include inflammatory coverage in the media or pressure of politically-motivated public opinion -- is a threat to the academic reputation of the institution involved. My first teaching position, almost forty years ago, was at the University of New Hampshire and I took great pride (and still do) in the fact that UNH had just received the Meiklejohn Award for defense of academic freedom from the American Association of University Professors. A tenured member of the UNH faculty had become the object of attacks in the media because of his possible "Communist" sympathies and this aroused McCarthyite popular pressures for his dismissal. To its great honor, the University administration did not give in to public pressure, despite threats to fundraising campaigns. I would have hope d that a distinguished university like the University of South Florida could have shown similar honor and courage. I would urge you to reconsider the dismissal of Dr. Al-Arian, rather than open your University to the charge of caving in to public pressure at the expense of academic integrity.

Sincerely,

John Voll
Professor of Islamic History and
Associate Director, Center for
Muslim-Christian Understanding.
Georgetown University

Posted by: pedestrian infidel at September 5, 2005 12:28 AM

Maybe we, citizens of nations under the political control of the mentally ill, can find ourselves acting rationally on our own behalf, slowly and steadily, and perhaps by starting with involving ourselves in a protest rally against sharia in Canada. It's a concrete step for each person as an individual to go into the streets as a protestor against the government as it is. It's a different level of involvement from writing letters to the editor or emailing a senator. To stand on the street in protest is a very personal action. In doing so one becomes a visible dissenter, in the eyes of ones community, but more importantly, in ones own mind.

Most of us think of protestors as pot-smoking hippies. Most of them likely are. But we msut act if we are going to shape our world rather than be crushed by events moved against us by those elsewhere, physically and emotionally. Karen Hugjs will not see herself wearing a burqa confined to the lower end of the food chain, but she seems quite happy to relegate Muslim women to that status and position. In time it could be that our children, or, as Reza used to taunt here, our grandchildren will be Muslim. It's worth standing up to fight against that. It's even worth rubbing shoulders with pot-smoking hippie kids if that's who shows up to rage against dhimmi nations who will slide sharia law into the nations of the West if we do not protest vocally and visibly.

Below are times and places to assemble on Sept. 8, 2005 to let the world know that you are against sharia law in Canada, and therefore against the enslavement of women everywhere.

If we protest with others at a rally they organized we might find they did nothing special, nothing we can't do if we want to. This time we can stand with social workers and pot-smokers in solidarity with Muslim women in the West. Next time they can stand with us. And maybe someday we can all stand together, free, equal, and relieved.

The woman organizing this rally has shared a podium with Irshad Manji and Hirsi Ali, but that says nothing of her character itself. I don't know this woman, and I can't say she's good, bad or indifferent, but I do want to give her a chance to help women across the world live without the pain of sharia. If we can stop it in Canada, perhaps we can stop it from coming to Sweden, France, Italy, and so on. But we have to start somewhere, and we can do something on Sept. 8.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com

Posted by: sonofwalker at September 5, 2005 2:07 AM

Maybe we, citizens of nations under the political control of the mentally ill, can find ourselves acting rationally on our own behalf, slowly and steadily, and perhaps by starting with involving ourselves in a protest rally against sharia in Canada. It's a concrete step for each person as an individual to go into the streets as a protestor against the government as it is. It's a different level of involvement from writing letters to the editor or emailing a senator. To stand on the street in protest is a very personal action. In doing so one becomes a visible dissenter, in the eyes of ones community, but more importantly, in ones own mind.

Most of us think of protestors as pot-smoking hippies. Most of them likely are. But we msut act if we are going to shape our world rather than be crushed by events moved against us by those elsewhere, physically and emotionally. Karen Hugjs will not see herself wearing a burqa confined to the lower end of the food chain, but she seems quite happy to relegate Muslim women to that status and position. In time it could be that our children, or, as Reza used to taunt here, our grandchildren will be Muslim. It's worth standing up to fight against that. It's even worth rubbing shoulders with pot-smoking hippie kids if that's who shows up to rage against dhimmi nations who will slide sharia law into the nations of the West if we do not protest vocally and visibly.

Below are times and places to assemble on Sept. 8, 2005 to let the world know that you are against sharia law in Canada, and therefore against the enslavement of women everywhere.

If we protest with others at a rally they organized we might find they did nothing special, nothing we can't do if we want to. This time we can stand with social workers and pot-smokers in solidarity with Muslim women in the West. Next time they can stand with us. And maybe someday we can all stand together, free, equal, and relieved.

The woman organizing this rally has shared a podium with Irshad Manji and Hirsi Ali, but that says nothing of her character itself. I don't know this woman, and I can't say she's good, bad or indifferent, but I do want to give her a chance to help women across the world live without the pain of sharia. If we can stop it in Canada, perhaps we can stop it from coming to Sweden, France, Italy, and so on. But we have to start somewhere, and we can do something on Sept. 8.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com

Posted by: sonofwalker at September 5, 2005 2:09 AM

The President should have issued a directive long ago that no member of his administration should ever meet publicly or privately with a woman in hijab.

This is elementary. Pictures of this kind of thing do more damage than anything else.

The only conclusion to draw here is that someone in the administration (Rice most likely) has decided that those kind of pictures are just what they want to project.

This isn't thinking. This borders on the criminally negligent.

Perhaps a third political party? Yes to Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, No to Sharia?

Posted by: Rebecca JW at September 5, 2005 8:45 AM