Recently in Stealth Jihad Category

Yesterday afternoon Human Events posted my piece about recent shameful events in New York:

The mainstream media, led by the New York Times, and the Islamic supremacist Hamas-linked hate group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are doing all they can to whip up a frenzy about the NYPD’s showing of a relatively tepid but accurate counter-terror film, The Third Jihad, to police officers.

Lost in the hysteria is the question of whether there is anything inaccurate or false in the film – yet those who are demanding apologies and reeducation from the NYPD have demonstrated not one inaccuracy in it. No one who is protesting against this film is going beyond the claim that it is “Islamophobic.”

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg immediately apologized, saying that showing the film to New York police officers manifested “terrible judgment.” Police commissioner Raymond Kelly apologized also: “I offer my apologies to members of the Muslim community, in particular, who would find the film inflammatory and its airing on department property, though unauthorized, to be inappropriate.”

In a sane world, Kelly and Bloomberg would not be apologizing at all. They’d be saying, “Yes, we showed the film, and we’re going to keep showing it, and what of it? If the Muslims in New York are upset about it being inaccurate, let them demonstrate its inaccuracy by taking positive steps to fight in their own community against the stealth jihad activity that the film documents.”

For the whole controversy is predicated on the assumption that The Third Jihad is whipping up hysteria about a non-existent threat. In reality, it covers much the same ground that I cover in my book Stealth Jihad, in which I show that the agenda of infiltration and subversion on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied groups is very real.

In a captured internal Muslim Brotherhood document, Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. are told that they “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

And at a Muslim event in California in 1998, CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad was quoted as saying: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

Nor are these isolated statements. Yet the initial New York Times article about the showing of this film, as well as all the coverage that has followed, was based on the assumption that no Muslim in the U.S. believes or acts upon such ideas. And the Times deplored that “at least 1,489 police officers, from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers, saw the film.” Apparently they will all need to be reeducated.

Instead of considering whether or not the film is accurate, the mainstream media has scolded Bloomberg and Kelly for their failure to reach out to New York’s Muslim community. But here again, in a sane world, the Mayor and the NYPD would not be expected to reach out to the Muslim community and prove their good will. The Muslim community would be reaching out to the Mayor and the NYPD, eager to prove its good will. And the Mayor and the NYPD would be telling Hamas-linked CAIR that its counterterror cooperation was not enough, instead of letting this execrable Islamic supremacist Hamas front dictate New York City’s counterterror operations.

But now CAIR smells blood, and is going in for the kill. They’ve announced that Kelly’s apology was not enough, and are calling for his resignation. They’ve already succeeded, courtesy of Barack Obama’s compliant Justice Department, in eliminating any truth about Islam and jihad from national FBI training, and are now trying to eliminate it everywhere.

The outcome will be a cadre of agents and police officers full of politically correct nonsense that will render them clueless, complacent, weak and supine in the face of jihad activity. And so the jihad in the U.S. will advance unimpeded.

And so New York, by means of this controversy, is on the verge of taking yet another decisive step toward completely banning the truth about jihad and Islamic supremacism, thereby rendering New Yorkers, and all Americans, more vulnerable than ever to that jihad.

This whole controversy is epitomized by the photo illustration and lead paragraph of the first New York Times story on this issue: "In Police Training, a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims," by Michael Powell, January 23. The photo shows the black flag of jihad flying above the White House, with the caption, "An Islamic flag atop the White House in 'The Third Jihad.'”

Then the lead paragraph says: "Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House."

Both the Times' use of the image and its reference to it at the beginning of the story suggest that the producers of The Third Jihad doctored the photo themselves in order to push their cockamamie idea that some Muslims want to "infiltrate and dominate America." But in reality, Muslims originated this image, as we have reported here several times. Here is a photo of Muslims holding up this photo at a rally in New York in February 2006:

And another:

Yet this whole controversy is predicated on the assumption that The Third Jihad is whipping up hysteria about a non-existent threat. In reality, it covers much the same ground that I cover in my book Stealth Jihad, in which I show that the agenda of infiltration and subversion on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied groups is very real.

In "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991, Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. are told that they "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

There are other indications as well:

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah." -- Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -- Hamas-linked CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad, 1998 (denial noted and full story explained at link)

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." -- Hamas-linked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim "Honest Ibe" Hooper, 1993

"If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate." -- prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj, 2002

Yet the initial Times article and all the coverage that followed are based on the assumption that no Muslim in the U.S. believes or acts upon such ideas. None of the coverage deals with the possibility that the film might be accurate, and to what extent:

During that time, at least 1,489 police officers, from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers, saw the film.

News that police trainers showed this film so extensively comes as the department wrestles with its relationship with the city’s large Muslim community. The Police Department offers no apology for aggressively spying on Muslim groups and says it has ferreted out terror plots.

But members of the City Council, civil rights advocates and Muslim leaders say the department, in its zeal, has trampled on civil rights, blurred lines between foreign and domestic spying and sown fear among Muslims.

“The department’s response was to deny it and to fight our request for information,” said Faiza Patel, a director at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, which obtained the release of the documents through a Freedom of Information request. “The police have shown an explosive documentary to its officers and simply stonewalled us.”

Tom Robbins, a former columnist with The Village Voice, first revealed that the police had screened the film. The Brennan Center then filed its request.

Instead of investigating its accuracy, the Times, predictably, looks into who funded the film:

The 72-minute film was financed by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group whose board includes a former Central Intelligence Agency official and a deputy defense secretary for President Ronald Reagan. Its previous documentary attacking Muslims’ “war on the West” attracted support from the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of Israel who has helped reshape the Republican presidential primary by pouring millions of dollars into a so-called super PAC that backs Newt Gingrich.

Commissioner Kelly is listed on the “Third Jihad” Web site as a “featured interviewee.” Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, wrote in an e-mail that filmmakers had lifted the clip from an old interview. The commissioner, Mr. Browne said, has not asked the filmmakers to remove him from its Web site, or to clarify that he had not cooperated with them....

Clarion’s financing is a puzzle. Its federal income tax forms show contributions, grants and revenues typically hover around $1 million annually — except in 2008, when it booked contributions of $18.3 million. That same year, Clarion produced “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” The Clarion Fund used its surge in contributions to pay to distribute tens of millions of copies of this DVD in swing electoral states across the country in September 2008.

“The Third Jihad” is quite similar, in style and content, to that earlier film. Narrated by Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim doctor and former American military officer in Arizona, “The Third Jihad” casts a broad shadow over American Muslims. Few Muslim leaders, it states, can be trusted.

“Americans are being told that many of the mainstream Muslim groups are also moderate,” Mr. Jasser states. “When in fact if you look a little closer, you’ll see a very different reality. One of their primary tactics is deception.”

Seeing as how most of them are listed as allied groups in that Muslim Brotherhood memorandum I linked above, this is an entirely reasonable statement.

Nonetheless, and again predictably, the Times is pressing on with its campaign, New York Mayor Bloomberg is in full retreat, and the Islamic supremacist thugs at Hamas-linked CAIR smell blood and are calling for the resignation of police commissioner Ray Kelly.

And so New York has taken a decisive step today toward outlawing the truth about jihad and Islamic supremacism, which only makes it more vulnerable to them.

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

Pamela Geller has just published this revealing and important message from the Iranian-American human rights activist Arash Irandoost:

Dear Friend,

حرف بس است. متحد شویم. عمل کنیم

It is time to act. Court documents released as a result of a lawsuit filed by NIAC against Hassan Dai paint a very disturbing picture of Trita Parsi and the NIAC. They range from defrauding the federal government, lying to members of Congress, arranging secret meetings between the US and the criminal regime, to recent revelation that Trita Parsi paid Anne Singleton to provide testimony to U.S. Congress.  NIAC has lied about its membership numbers.  It claimed once that it had 33,000 members and now court documents reveal that it has less than 500 members and is not even willing to disclose them, we think the number to be even lower.  As a 501 c3 tax exempt, NIAC refuses to disclose its audit and tax reports. Many credible news organizations have expressed concern about NIAC's activities.  NIAC has falsely claimed that it represents Iranian Americans. While it is shunned from the Iranian-American community and does not even answer questions raised by the Iranian-Americans, a constituency he purports to represent. Have you asked why?

On February 26, 2011, NIAC held a public event in Plano, Texas and claimed that it was sponsored by the Press Club and Dallas and The World Affairs Council.  Since Trita would not let us record the event and our questions were filtered and altered, I called and objected to event sponsors, to my surprise, I was told by both organization (I have documents) that they had not heard of the event and had not sponsored the event. Do we really want such a deceitful organization to represent us? NIAC's stooge Ambassador, Sirros Amoie whose family recently returned to Iran????, falsely claimed that I was a part of the MEK organization.

There is just no limit to Trita's lies and slanders. Much like IRI officials who use Taggiyeh to justify their crimes and hide their nuclear activity, Trita Parsi is adept at Calumniation. Trita falsely charges others with malicious intent, attacks the good name and reputation of others who are opposed to him. Yes Trita lies! Much like its IRI masters! About 5 months ago we had reached more than 2,700 members in a similar cause like this against NIAC but the NIAC Cyber Army was able to deceive the CAUSE administrators and bring the cause down, as it was reported and bragged about by NIAC's Jamal Abdi.

Have you ever wondered why NIAC does not allow comments on its articles, websites or blogs?

Have you asked why Trita Parsi was paid by CIA?

Have you NIAC why Trita Parsi has a Swedish bank account and who were the depositors and why he did not pay taxes on it?

Trita Parsi was intimately involved with the convicted Congressman Bob Ney to help IRI get around the US-Iran sanctions.

Do you know who was behind the Pugwash meetings?

Have you asked why the PARSA Foundation (now closed down) donated thousands of dollars to NIAC?

NIAC held a Leadership Conference in October, many who attended were not even Iranian-Americans, have you asked why they were allowed to roam the Hall of our Nations's Capitol and talk to our representatives?

Trita Parsi is not an Iranian-American, how can he represent our interests.Our grievances against NIAC and Trita Parsi are plenty! For questions are many.

It is our belief that the Obama Administration is working closely with NIAC to appease the Islamic Republic and bring it to the negotiations table, a regime that attempted to assassinate a foreign diplomat on our soil.  We believe that the IRI cannot be reformed and the Islamic Republic have ulterior motives, just look at their own writings and statements:

“Killing is a great Divine gift.”

Ayatollah Khomeini: “Those who say Islam should not kill don't understand [it]. Killing is a great [divine] gift that appears [to man]. A religion that does not include [provisions for] killing and massacre is incomplete. Those who claim that Jesus was averse to killing and war, harm his prophetic mission… Killing is the same as mercy."

“Violence is the heart of Islam.”

Ayatollah Yazdi – Senior Advisor to Ahmadinejad and IRGC Leaders: “We must wipe away the shameful stain whereby some people imagine that violence has no place in Islam… we have decided and are determined to argue that violence is the heart of Islam.”

Examples are many!

Let's choose a candidate that respects and values our opinions.  Obama turned his back when Neda was shot as he has turned his back on us and works with organizations that advocate for policies favorable to the criminal and rapist regime.

It is time to act.  Every member, every call, every fax, every letter, every petition to your representatives counts.  Do your duty for Iran and the United States. Let them know what you think!

Let them know you/we matter!

Sincerely,
Arash Irandoost
Founder,
Pro Democracy Movement of Iran

Geller has more on NIAC in her recent American Thinker article, "Why Obama Betrayed the Iranian People":

Trita Parsi is the president of the George Soros-funded National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a powerful Iranian lobbying group in Washington.  Arash Irandoost of the Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran calls Parsi "an intellectually dishonest regime apologist and an unofficial and unregistered lobbyist for the Iranian regime."  According  to Irandoost, "Trita Parsi contributes to the regime's agenda and serves the interests of those in power in the Islamic Republic of Iran, not the Iranians, nor the Iranian-Americans."

And the Progressive American-Iranian Committee says that when NIAC and Parsi received funding for various projects from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), "NIAC's projects were approved and welcomed by the Iranian regime."  NIAC coordinated its work inside Iran with Hamyaran, a "government initiated agency incepted, initiated, founded and managed by the Iranian regime."  NIAC and Parsi even lobbied the U.S. Congress to "stop appropriating funds for independent democratic movements and NGOs that were not under Hamyaran or regime's control."

Not surprisingly, Parsi opposes sanctions against the Islamic Republic, claiming that "imposing new sanctions prior to diplomacy having begun will only decrease the chances of successful diplomacy."  The NIAC has opposed sanctions for quite some time.  Iranian dissident Hassan Daioleslam notes that "in 2008, when [the] U.S. Congress was showing some teeth to the Iranian regime," a coalition of Islamic groups, antiwar groups, and others founded the Campaign for New American Policy on Iran to fight against new sanctions against Iran called for by the advisory resolution H.R. 362.  This resolution was not passed, and "NIAC and Parsi," says Daioleslam, "were on top of this event."

And who is on the NIAC Board? Stealth Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan is on the NIAC Board. It is no surprise in light of Aslan's NIAC connection that he has tried to pass off Iran's genocidally-minded President Ahmadinejad as a liberal reformer. He has called on the U.S. Government to negotiate with Ahmadinejad himself, as well as with Hamas -- that is, with two of the most barbaric and murderous adherents of Sharia.

Aslan has even praised the jihad terror group Hizballah as "the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon," as well as the Jew-hating, women-hating, kuffar-hating Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." Aslan wrote: "The Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing." If, in 1932, someone had written that "the National Socialist Party will have a significant role to play in post-Weimar Germany, and that is a good thing," he would have rightly been called a Nazi sympathizer.

Aslan has also spoken at events sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, a Brotherhood group, and at an event co-sponsored by the Los Angeles chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and moderated by the notorious Edina Lekovic, the Muslim Public Affairs Council flack whom Steve Emerson caught lying on national television, denying she was editor of a Muslim student publication that praised Osama bin Laden as a great mujahid. Emerson produced copies of the rag showing Lekovic's name on the masthead as editor on the very same page on which the praise for Osama appeared.

The whole idea of a uniform is to convey a sense of singleness of purpose, both to those within the organization and to those who encounter members of it. So if one group is allowed variations on the uniform, all other groups should be allowed them as well, and the very purpose of a uniform is destroyed. Hijabs and turbans in the JROTC will create a sense that the wearer has another allegiance and a different purpose from those of the rest of the outfit, rather than being dedicated primarily to the organization's mission and goals.

But what is most disturbing about this story is Leon Panetta's rush, and the Army's rush, to placate the Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood group CAIR. Hamas-linked CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed posters telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI.

An update on this story. "Army to allow hijabs, turbans in Junior ROTC," by Caroline May in the Daily Caller, December 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The [Hamas-linked] Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has announced that the Department of Defense will now allow Muslim and Sikh students participating in Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) to wear headscarves and turbans while in uniform.

The decision, announced Thursday, followed an October incident in which Muslim teen Demin Zawity quit JROTC when her commanding officer at a Brentwood, Tenn. high school would not allow her to wear her hijab in the homecoming parade.

CAIR later wrote to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta requesting “constitutionally-protected religious accommodations for the girl and for future Muslim JROTC participants.”

In a letter to the Muslim organization sent on Panetta’s behalf, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Larry Stubblefield explained that based on the incident that led Zawity to quit JROTC, the Army will now be making more accommodations for religious headwear in the training program.

“Based on your concerns, the Army has reviewed its JROTC uniform policy and will develop appropriate procedures to provide Cadets the opportunity to request the wear of religious head dress, such as the turban and hijab,” Stubblefield wrote in the letter, made public by CAIR. “This change will allow Miss Zawity and other students the chance to fully participate in the JROTC program.”

Army spokesman George Wright confirmed Stubblefield’s letter to CAIR and explained to The Daily Caller that while JROTC is affiliated with the Army, it is not actually a part of the Army. The new procedures will provide JROTC with a exemption method more similar to current Army procedure mandated through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

That law allows soldiers on active duty to apply for religious accommodation if they want to alter their uniforms in accordance with their religious beliefs. The exemptions are applied on a case-by-case basis. Soldiers who are transferred must reapply....

"I find it sad for the child and the teacher, who may have to redesign her teaching program as a result." Of course. When in Muslim countries, one must abide by Islamic mores. When in non-Muslim countries, one must abide by Islamic mores.

Noting that Islamic law forbids musical instruments and music itself except in some strictly defined circumstances will bring you swift charges of "ignorance" and "Islamophobia." I guess this devout Muslim family is actually made up of ignorant Islamophobes.

Hadith Qudsi 19:5: "The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the musical instruments, idols, crosses and all the trappings of ignorance." (The Hadith Qudsi, or holy Hadith, are those in which Muhammad transmits the words of Allah, although those words are not in the Qur'an.)

Muhammad also said:

(1) "Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance."

(2) "On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress."

(3) "Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage."

(4) "This community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones." Someone asked, "When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?" and he said, "When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful."

(5) "There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ...." -- 'Umdat al-Salik r40.0

"Muslim kindergartener permitted to block out music," from CTV Montreal, December 19 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

MONTREAL — A kindergarten student in Saint-Michel will be allowed to wear a noise-reducing headset in class, because her parents' [sic] say their religious beliefs don't allow the five-year-old girl to listen to music.

Though music is an integral part of the kindergarten program, the principal of Bienville School decided to grant the accommodation request made by a Muslim family and allow their daughter to block out music at school.

"The principal thinks the family is acting in good faith," said Diane de Courcy, president of the Montreal School Commission. "(They) would have otherwise kept the child at home."

Kindergarten is not mandatory, and teachers say if the student is being sent into the program, barring the new immigrant from certain activities isolates her from the rest of the class.

"I find it sad for the child and the teacher, who may have to redesign her teaching program as a result," said Elaine Bertrand of union the Montreal Teachers' Alliance.

The school and school board felt the decision was a fair compromise to build trust with the family and help the child integrate into the school system sooner.

Nonsense. This isn't about integration. It is just the opposite of integration.

"Once she's in grade one, she'll have to follow the same curriculum as everyone else," said de Courcy.

Unlikely. Does de Courcy really think the demands for Muslim accommodation will end then?

Many teachers argue the issue is not strictly about music or religion, but rather the pressure they feel to reasonably accommodate a variety of demands from health-related issues to religion.

Montreal Teachers' Alliance is asking for stricter guidelines for requests.

Education Minister Line Beauchamp said she instead supports the school's individualized approach.

"It would be impossible to develop a framework to address such a wide variety of reasonable accommodation requests," she said.

Indeed.

Babette Francis is Indian-born and experienced life in Muslim-majority provinces before the Partition of the Indian sub-continent into India and Pakistan. I am wearing a traditional Indian garland that she kindly presented to me. Here is her account of one of the talks I gave during my recent Australian tour.

"Australians warned about Islamic 'jihad by stealth,'" by Babette Francis for News Weekly, December 24:

Muslims in Australia are the first migrant group which has no intention of assimilating in the host country, according to an American authority on Islamic extremism during a recent speaking tour of Australia.

Robert Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for US army, FBI and counter-terrorism officers, heads Jihad Watch and is a prolific author.

Even before his arrival in Australia for his speaking tour, Spencer’s impending visit was denounced by the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Andrew Fraser, who called upon the Liberal National Party and Bob Katter’s Australian Party to denounce advertising material distributed by the main sponsor for Spencer’s visit, the Q Society, which is dedicated to halting the further Islamisation of Australia.

I had lunch with Robert Spencer during his time in Melbourne and heard him speak that evening on the nature and aims of Islam. He emphasised the “jihad by stealth” approach by Muslims in Australia, noting they are the first migrant group which has no intention of assimilating in the host country.

He said: “Muslims constitute the first immigrant group with a notion of ‘superior governance’ to the existing society of the host country. They see it as a ‘divine responsibility’ to emigrate — just as Mohammed moved from Mecca to Medina — with the intention of establishing Sharia law wherever they are.

“This is not a question of race — both Hindus and Pakistanis, who shared the same country until the middle of last century, were racially similar. However there has never been an attempt by Hindu immigrants to establish a Hindu worldview as the sole approach to life in Australia.

“Islam, on the contrary, has the aim of fighting [this is the meaning of jihad] from without or within a society to establish Sharia law here.”

Some nominal and secular Muslims come to Australia, as well as to Europe and North America, to escape Sharia, and when they get to the West they find authorities eagerly granting concessions to their more rigid coreligionists.

Loss of free speech

Spencer observed the asymmetrical nature of the battle with Islam. If one complains about the Islamisation of the country, one’s facts and observations are not listened to; one is immediately labelled ‘Islamophobic’. A phobia is an irrational fear, but in the case of Islam there is a well-attested danger of an increased incidence of terrorist killings, aggressive Islamist policies and refusal to integrate into a host country.

Spencer said “hate speech” laws are advancing in Australia. They are really Islamic laws because in Islam you are punished not because what you have said is untrue, but for saying what is not permissible to say under Islam.

The Islamic approach, said Spencer, is “a polemic against Judaeo-Christian society”. Muslims deplore the division of politics and religion in the West. They state with pride that their “religion” covers everything in life from everyday matters to everything in the political sphere.

I myself was living in India when over a million people were killed during riots which accompanied the Partition of the sub-continent into India and Pakistan. There was murder and mayhem by both Hindus and Muslims, but even as a teenager I understood the reason my country had to be divided was because the Muslim-majority provinces would not accept incorporation into a secular, democratic country.

Islam allows for no separation between religion and state, evident now when elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have resulted not in the establishment of secular governments but of Islamist regimes, Sharia law and, of course, polygamy, which is completely counter to any concept of equal rights and dignity for women.

Spencer said that he was in Australia not because he hated anyone, but because he loves truth, law, freedom and human rights, the essence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

The alternative to this, he warned, is to grasp power over everyone and everything.

As he pointed out: “The Koran’s Sura 3.110 says ‘the best of People’ should rule the earth. The ‘best of people’ refers to Muslims. Non-believers whom Muslims rule in the Koran states are to be ceaselessly subjugated.

“This differs from Christianity as unbelievers are to be made to suffer in this life as well as in the next. While the God of the Christians says ‘Vengeance is mine’, in the Islamic system the Koranic mandate is that Muslims should rule and inflict suffering on non-Muslims and exact revenge on them for being non-believers.

“Muslims’ purpose is to put an end to the rule of unbelievers. Non-Muslims have no rights. This motivated Abu Hamza, now in jail in Britain. From an excess of piety he injured himself while trying to construct a bomb to kill unbelievers. He was following the dictates of his ‘religion’.”

Ritual humiliation

Sharia mandates a state of subordination of unbelievers. The tax — or jizya — is the payment a non-Muslim makes to a Muslim for not killing him/her. Spencer likened it to paying protection money to the Mafia. There is nothing benign about it. Humiliation must accompany the payment of such a tax — whose alternatives are conversion or death.

There is more.

In November at Restoration Weekend, Raymond and I spoke on a panel along with Daniel Greenfield and Frank Gaffney. Jamie Glazov was the moderator.

Videos are above and transcript is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor dears! How they have suffered!

Muslim students are more equal than other students at Australia's Monash University. And what's the big deal about a listing of "radical" mosques? What could possibly go wrong in our brave, new multicultural world?

"Muslim handbook is divisive," by Miranda Devine for the Herald Sun, November 24 (thanks to Kenneth):

MONASH University prides itself on its "multicultural learning environment" and yet it produces a handbook for one certain class of students, and not for others.

Salaam Monash is the title of the glossy 50-page "handbook for Muslim students".

"At Monash we understand that Muslim students have specific social, religious and cultural needs," writes Professor Stephanie Fahey, deputy vice-chancellor, in a foreword to the handbook.

The booklet lists Islamic banking and financial institutions, Muslim publications, women's groups and schools. It also lists Muslim medical and dental practitioners, which splits up doctors into male and female groups.

There is also a halal food guide and a list of halal grocers and butchers.

Much of the information seems useful and, having had a young Muslim house guest recently, I know just how tricky it can be to find halal food.

Really? I'm in Australia now and in walking around Melbourne, I saw an abundance of shops offering it.

But there is no similar handbook for other religious or ethnic groups, not for Buddhists, Taoists, Germans, Greeks, Sikhs, Mormons or vegans.

Why encourage one group of people to maintain an identity separate from other Australians?

Most unwise, however, is that the handbook lists without comment some of Australia's most radical prayer halls.

Among them is cleric Sheikh Mohammed Omran's Islamic Call Society in Brunswick, where young Muslim men have been radicalised. A number of men arrested in Operation Pendennis, over a foiled 2005 Melbourne terror plot, had frequented the mosque, according to a New York Police Department study, which identified it as an "extremist incubator".

Similarly, the handbook points students in the direction of Coburg's ISNA mosque, associated with preacher Abu Hamza, who was videotaped telling men they could "beat their wives to shape them up" but only as a last resort. In the lecture entitled "The Keys to a Successful Marriage", he said: "You smack them, you beat them. You are not allowed to bruise them."...

"Monash University should not be endorsing (an) ideology which prescribes that Muslims must not eat our food, wear our clothes, share our services or even use our 'infidel' money," said four insiders who wrote to me. "International students would be better served with a handbook explaining Australian culture and values."

Monash is not alone. La Trobe has its own Muslim student guide and last year opened a $927,000 prayer room.

In 2006 RMIT produced a Muslim handbook "In the name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful". Two years later 1000 Muslim students protested against sharing new prayer rooms with Christians and Jews....

Islamic supremacist enemies of the freedom of speech have undertaken a concerted effort to drive anti-jihadists from the public square. They have stigmatized and demonized freedom fighters with defamation, guilt-by-association, and outright lies to the extent that many are afraid to touch these issues for fear of being similarly targeted. They have recently succeeded in threatening and intimidating the Hyatt Place hotel in Sugar Land, Texas into dropping a talk by Pamela Geller, and the Hutton Hotel in Nashville into canceling the Preserving Freedom Conference.

But jihad sympathizers, co-conspirators and outright Islamic supremacists have no trouble getting hotel bookings. And so Siraj Wahhaj and Khalid Yasin are coming to the Kansas City Intercontinental Hotel.

Please contact the Intercontinental and politely and courteously inform them of what they are hosting.

Kansas City Intercontinental Hotel
401 Ward Parkway, | Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: 816-756-1500 • Fax: 816-756-1635
Toll Free: 866-856-9717

Siraj Wahhaj is a big star on the American Muslim speaker circuit. In 1991, he was the first Islamic cleric to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. However, he has also warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has lamented that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” In the early 1990s he sponsored talks by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and Wahhaj was designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator.” He called Rahman, who is in prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a "respected scholar" and "strong preacher of Islam."

"Kansas City’s Intercontinental Hotel to host terror-linked imam Nov 20," from Creeping Sharia, November 9 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Kansas City’s Intercontinental Hotel to host terror-linked imam Nov 20

The Intercontinental Hotel In Kansas City, Missouri is hosting the unindicted co-conspirator to the first World Trade Center bombing – Siraj Wahhaj – who has called Muslims to wage jihad and stated, “[T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.” H/t Causing Fitna

A group in California protested a Hilton Hotel that also hosted jihad-preaching Siraj Wahhaj and Hamas-linked CAIR, Hilton Hotel faces protest for hosting Muslim ‘terror co-conspirator’:

DefendAmerica.org points out that the featured speaker for CAIR-LA’s event Saturday night is Siraj Wahhaj, who was named by the Justice Department as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that killed six Americans. CAIR itself was named by the Justice Department as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation probe in Texas, the largest terrorism-finance case in U.S. history.

Wahhaj also urges the violent overthrow of the “filthy” U.S. government and the establishment of Islamic law.

The imam testified as a character witness for convicted WTC terrorist mastermind Omar Abdel-Rahman, known as the “blind sheik.”

Another speaker at the KC event is Sheik Khalid Yasin. Some background from Discover the Networks: Faisal Hammouda

Based in Atlanta, Sheikh Khalid Yasin is a U.S.-born Muslim convert (he was raised as a Christian) and a Malcolm X disciple who has been a popular guest speaker at Muslim Students Association (MSA) events on college campuses across the United States…he has lectured with Omar Bakri Mohammed (the founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun), a pro-al Qaeda cleric who in 2006 was banned from the United Kingdom because of his religious extremism.

Yasin’s public pronouncements — at speaking engagements and on DVDs he has produced – include the following:

• “[I]f you don’t have a people that is governed by Sharia [Islamic Law], then you have a lawless people.”
• A secular Islamic state absolutely “cannot work.”
• Sharia should become the law of the land in all nations because Allah “is the best lawgiver.”
• “There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend.”
• Homosexuals should be killed because the Koran mandates it — “We don’t make any excuses about that; it’s not our law, it’s the Koran.”
• The 2002 and 2005 terrorist bombings in Bali were justifiable responses to years of Western oppression.
• “This whole delusion about the equality of women is a bunch of foolishness, there’s no such thing.”
• The Koran permits wife-beating.
• “We don’t need to go to the Christians, or the Jews, debating with them about the filth which they believe … We Muslims have been ordered to do ‘brainwashing’ because the kuffaar [unbelievers] … they are doing ‘brain-defiling.’”

On September 11, 2001, Yasin was in Saudi Arabia soliciting the support of an al Qaeda front known as the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation — which eventually would be designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government — to help finance the creation of his proposed “Islamic Broadcasting Company” (IBC)

Another participant states Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11. Watch.

Read it all. And Pamela Geller has more here.

Video courtesy Pamela Geller, who explains:

Napolitano denies being aware of a Muslim Brotherhood-tied operative whom she swore in. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas does a spectacular job pressing Napolitano on her knowledge of the story that I posted yesterday concerning Mohamed Elibiary, the Homeland Security Adviser who allegedly leaked intel and shopped classified Info to media. I warned of Elibiary's appointment back in 2010. He asked if she was aware and she said she was not aware. Gohmert further pressed Napolitano of her knowledge of Elibiary's support of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Again she feigned concern and professed ignorance. This is the head of Homeland Security claiming ignorance of the most dangerous threat to the homeland, the global jihad and Islamic imperialism and expansion.

Meanwhile, still no word from Mohamed Elibiary in response to my email asking him for comment on this story. Odd -- he used to be so eager to enter into dialogue!

I met Mohamed Elibiary at the America's Truth Forum Symposium in Dallas a few years ago. Elibiary was then the President and CEO of the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which he cofounded in 2002 to "promote a Centrist Public Policy environment in Texas by coordinating the state level government and interfaith community relations for the organized Texas Muslim community." He is a prominent "moderate," but he spoke at a 2004 conference in Dallas lauding the "Great Islamic Visionary" Ayatollah Khomeini. Subsequently, he had acrimonious discussions with Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher, to whom he issued what looked to many, including Dreher himself, like a threat.

Despite all that and more, he was named to the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. But now he is in a bit of hot water over shopping around highly sensitive intelligence documents to try to get the media in Texas to do a story about "Islamophobia" in the Texas Department of Public Safety. And Pamela Geller asks the salient question: "Who else is the devout Elibiary shopping sensitive intel to?" This is, after all, a man who once offered to give me Hamas top dog Khaled Meshaal's email address.

"BREAKING: Homeland Security Adviser Allegedly Leaked Intel to Attack Rick Perry," by Patrick Poole at PJ Media, October 26 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Texas Department of Public Safety officials are asking questions following a report that Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council member Mohamed Elibiary may have been given access to a sensitive database of state and local intelligence reports, and then allegedly shopped some of those materials to a media outlet. He allegedly used the documents to claim the department was promoting “Islamophobia” — claims that the media outlet ultimately rejected. They declined to do the story.

Earlier today, I received confirmation from a left-leaning media outlet that Elibiary had recently approached them asking to do a story attacking Texas DPS:

Yes, he approached us and gave us some reports marked FOUO [For Official Use Only] that he said showed a pattern of Islamophobia at the department. He emphasized that some of the regional fusion centers were shut down a few years ago after the ACLU complained that they were targeting Muslim civil rights groups and said that this was being directed by [Texas Gov.] Rick Perry.

We looked at the reports and they weren’t as he had billed them to us. They seem to be pretty straightforward, nothing remotely resembling Islamophobia that we saw. I think he was hoping we would bite and not give it too much of a look in light of the other media outfits jumping on the Islamophobia bandwagon.

I asked if there was any sense of his possible motivation:

Oh, self-promotion definitely. It was clear up front that he wanted to be a quoted source in the story. We’ve used him as an unnamed source in previous stories. There’s nothing unusual or unseemly about that because officials do it all the time, but this was the first time he approached us with documents. Honestly, if they had been what he represented them as we would have probably run with the story. But we looked at them and saw this was a partisan hatchet job that could blow back on us so we passed on it.

In light of these allegations, I spoke today with Texas DPS Director Steve McCraw. He confirmed that Elibiary has access to the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC) database, which contains hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports and products that are intended for intelligence sharing between law enforcement agencies....

I asked Director McCraw if he knew whether Elibiary had access to TX DPS reports on the HS SLIC, to which he replied:

We know that he has accessed DPS documents and downloaded them.

McCraw stated that he will be requesting that DHS conduct an investigation to determine whether or not Elibiary improperly handled any sensitive intelligence products, and said that he will reserve judgment until an investigation is complete. He added:

If in fact this happened we will be extremely disappointed in him. We’ve worked with him and other groups to get their comments regarding a wide range of issue in order to be inclusive.

Ah, inclusiveness -- what could be more important?

Oh, and about Elibiary: I tried to tell you. I emailed him asking him for comment and if I hear back from him, you will be the first to know.

In "Obama's Department of Shariah" in World Net Daily this morning, Pamela Geller discusses the remarkable Islamization of the Obama Department of Justice. For more on this phenomenon, see her essential book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

In the continuing Islamization of the Department of Justice, Barack Obama's DOJ filed a lawsuit against a Chicago-area school district for not allowing Safoorah Khan, a Muslim teacher at MacArthur Middle School, to take time off to make the hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, thereby abandoning her students for a month. The DOJ sued the school district and last week forced it to give Khan $75,000 in lost back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

The Berkeley School District didn't deny Khan's request because they hated Muslims. The school needed her. That's why they said no. She was the only math lab teacher and was a new hire on probation – she had only been on the job for nine months. Why take a job you can't do? Why take a job that you plan on leaving for a month? Islamic supremacism.

Khan herself made that clear when she said: "I'm glad that we settled, and I hope this does set a precedent. I hope they realize that hajj means a lot to Muslims and there will be more and more people taking the trip. I hope this helps people and their employers to accommodate Muslims and their requests."

In other words, employers better get used to changing the way they operate their businesses in order to accommodate Muslim demands, or else.

Your taxpayer dollars at work: to sue on behalf of an Islamic supremacist and to force the school district to pay 75K in jizya, the tribute money Islamic law requires non-Muslims to pay to Muslims.

Obama's Department of Shariah filed this outrageous lawsuit against the school district in December 2010, not to ensure the kids get a good education, mind you, but more importantly, to ensure that the Muslims get special rights and extraordinary accommodation. Obama's Department of Shariah sued to ensure the kids got the shaft but the teacher got the hajj.

This is the same DOJ's Eric Holder who spoke at the Muslim Advocates dinner a few months back and reassured Muslims of "DOJ's anti-bias focus."

This is the same DOJ that scuttled the prosecutions against Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups, i.e. CAIR et al.

This is the same DOJ that is creating Muslim majority legislative districts by converting a religious class into a racial one.

This is the same Eric Holder who sued a New Jersey county demanding that a correction facility change its rules to allow a Muslim prison guard to wear a khimar, an Islamic head covering, even though it's a choke hazard and she will be among prisoners.

The Department of Justice sponsored a booth at the Muslim Brotherhood front ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) convention underwritten by, among others, the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas-linked CAIR.

Further, Obama's Department of Justice dropped the "charges" against the Muslims who blew up the USS Cole.

Read it all.

This is clearly just another attempt to force American workplaces to change the way they operate in order to accommodate Muslims, once again reinforcing the principle that where Islamic law and practice and American law and practice conflict, it is American law and practice that have to give way.

Safoorah Khan asked for "almost three weeks of unpaid leave" so that she could go on the hajj. She wrote that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj," although since a Muslim has his or her entire lifetime to perform the hajj, it's unclear what would have made it impossible for her to justify delaying doing so -- was she in imminent danger of death?

If she wasn't, there was no reason why she had to go on the hajj at that time. And since the Islamic calendar is a lunar one with a year of 355 days, the time to perform the hajj moves by ten days every year. All she had to do was wait until the time for the hajj fell during summer vacation, and then there would have been no problem.

But instead, she demanded three weeks of leave. Yet three weeks of leave, even unpaid, out of the school year is a significant chunk of time -- after all, the school year is only about nine months long. So she is essentially demanding to keep her job despite being away for nearly a tenth of the time during which the job is to be performed.

Now Obama's Justice Department, ever accommodating to Islamic demands, is forcing the school district to make a big payout to her. And you can be sure there will be more cases like this one. Said Khan: "I’m glad that we settled and I hope this does set a precedent...I hope this helps people and their employers to accommodate Muslims and their requests." Oh, it certainly will. This is a classic stealth jihad case. For a full explanation of the agenda here, see Pamela Geller's new book Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

See Creeping Sharia's report here. "Woman wins right to Mecca trip," by Tina Sfondeles for the Chicago Sun-Times, October 13 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

A Muslim woman has won her fight against a west suburban school district after being denied unpaid leave to go on a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday announced it settled Safoorah Khan’s religious discrimination lawsuit against the Berkeley School District, forcing the district to pay $75,000 in lost back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees.

The district also will have to develop a policy accommodating religions consistent with the Civil Rights Acts to ensure something similar will not happen again.

Khan, a teacher at MacArthur Middle School, requested an unpaid leave of absence in December 2008 to perform hajj — a pilgrimage required by Islam — but was told she had to choose between her job and her religious beliefs. She resigned.

“I’m glad that we settled and I hope this does set a precedent,” Khan said. “I hope they realize that hajj means a lot to Muslims and there will be more and more people taking the trip. I hope this helps people and their employers to accommodate Muslims and their requests.”

According to the settlement, the district must also provide mandatory training on religious accommodations to all board of education members and school supervisors.

Khan, now 30, says she went to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the year she resigned.

“It’s required once in our lifetime at the earliest opportunity you can get,” she said.

Just last week, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) called out Norquist on the House floor for, among other things, his jihad ties. For more on Norquist, see Pamela Geller's exhaustive expose here. For more on Dawud Walid of Hamas-linked CAIR, see the IPT report here. For more on Muslim Brotherhood-linked Wajahat Ali, see here. And for the truth about the "Fear, Inc." smear piece on "Islamophobia," see here.

Now that Rick Perry is fading away, maybe some of the people who used to be very concerned about Grover Norquist's jihad connections, but who suddenly discovered that they weren't important after all as soon as he began palling around with Perry, will remember the reasons why they originally concluded that Norquist's influence was a negative thing. "Grover Norquist headlined conference with CAIR leader: Anti-tax crusader also featured with author of 'exposé' of 'Islam-bashing network,'" from WND, October 14:

Grover Norquist, perhaps the best-known conservative anti-tax campaigner, was a headliner at an Islamic leadership conference along with the director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan branch and the co-author of a report that slanders critics of radical Islam, including Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson.

Norquist, famous for his no-tax-increase pledge, was featured along with CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid and Wajahat Ali, co-author of "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America," at the National Leadership Conference in Detroit Sept. 30 to Oct. 2, sponsored by the Arab American Institute.

Ali's book claims to expose "the Islam-bashing network in America," targeting Frank Gaffney and David Yerushalmi of the Center for Security Policy, along with Spencer, director of Jihad Watch; Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; and Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Last week, Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., denounced Norquist from the House floor for his "unsavory" connections, including ties to known terrorist financiers Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian, his support for the Ground Zero mosque and his advocacy for transferring Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil.

"Simply put," said Wolf, "I believe Mr. Norquist is connected with or has profited from a number of unsavory people and groups out of the mainstream."

"Documentation shows that he has deep ties to supporters of Hamas and other terrorist organizations that are sworn enemies of the United States and our ally Israel," said Wolf.

Norquist called Wolf's speech a "hissy fit" and "a compilation of whack job criticisms," arguing the congressman is one of only six Republican members of the U.S. House who has refused to sign ATR's no-tax pledge.

The congressman did not back down from his remarks, however, asserting, "There's a clear pattern there. You need to look at who he's associated with."

One workshop at the Arab American Institute conference, titled "Defeating Hate Legislation: From Arizona Copycats to Sharia," discussed "the rampant emergence of hate legislation, including the Arizona copycat laws and Sharia bans now in nearly two dozen states across the country."

Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, was considered to be a major influence on President George W. Bush's view of Islam in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, notes Atlas Shrugs blogger and WND columnist Pamela Geller, convincing the president that Islam is a "religion of peace."

Norquist's office has not responded to WND's request for comment.

What a surprise.

CAIR's Michigan director Walid defended the radical Detroit imam who was killed in October 2009 in a shootout with the FBI, Luqman Ameen Abdullah, points out CAIR critic Andrew Whitehead, director of the website Anti-CAIR.

Walid described Abdullah as a benevolent, "very quiet" man who possibly was set up and murdered by the FBI. Whitehead notes, however, Abdullah once told followers that they should not "carry a pistol if you're going to police. You give them a bullet."

U.S. counter-terrorism officials regard CAIR as a front group for the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, the parent of most of the major Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and al-Qaida. CAIR and some of its leaders were named unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history. The Washington, D.C.-based group is suing a father-and-son team that conducted an undercover probe that came up with 12,000 pages of internal documents confirming CAIR's role as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in the U.S. The findings were published in the WND Books best-selling expose "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America"....

Norquist has used his influence in Washington to advance the careers of people such as Suhail Khan, a former Bush White House appointee whose family founded the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. and held fundraisers for al-Qaida's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Khan now is a member of the board of the American Conservative Union, the group that organizes the largest annual conservative conference in the country, CPAC. Norquist also serves on CPAC's board and the board of the National Rifle Association. He also is on the advisory board of GOProud, a homosexual group promoting same-sex marriage, open homosexuality in the U.S. military and hate-crimes laws.

The chief spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said recently that Norquist has become the "chief cleric of Shariah tax law" in America.

Norquist, who is married Samah Alrayyes, a Palestinian Muslim, has insisted that there is no conflict between Saudi-style Islamic law and the Constitution, calling Islam "completely consistent with the U.S. Constitution and a free and open society."

Norquist is also behind the Republican candidacy of Imam Afif "David" Ramadan in Virginia's 87th legislative district. Ramadan is married to the daughter of a Shiite general in the Lebanese intelligence service, Ghanda Abdul Rahman Zoghbi....

Read it all.

The New York Times, predictably, is thrilled by the series; freedom fighters, not so much. "86 'The 99,'" by Pamela Geller in World Net Daily, October 11:

There is a new and particularly insidious form of cultural jihad that is targeting our children: comic books featuring Islamic superheroes. A Muslim named Naif Al-Mutawa has created "The 99," a comic book and TV series featuring a gang of Muslim superheroes – one of whom wears a burqa.

It's no surprise that the mainstream media love it. PBS is running a documentary feature on al-Mutawa this week, and CNN, the Crescent News Network, finds the comic books thrilling. Barack Obama, CNN's Dan Merica reported last week, "called the comic books, which debuted in 2006, 'the most innovative response' to America's expanding dialogue with the Muslim world, which Obama has encouraged." But poor al-Mutawa, said Merica, although he had hoped that "The 99" would "become a symbol of toleration," instead found that "a vocal minority" opposed the comics, raising "surprising questions about American tolerance of Islam."

"A symbol of toleration"? Really?

In reality, a Shariah board approved "The 99," and Shariah in all its mainstream and traditional forms calls for the subjugation of non-Muslims and the denial of basic rights to them under the rule of Islamic law. I don't consider that an acceptable level of "toleration." "The 99," is mainstreaming the institutionalized oppression of women under Shariah, as exemplified by the burqa-wearing superhero. One would think that the male superheroes would have superpowers strong enough to be able to control themselves without the women having to don cloth coffins. 
But portraying the Islamic oppression of women in a positive light doesn't bother al-Mutawa at all. Instead, he was "worried about the comics being banned in Saudi Arabia – which wound up happening, briefly – and he expected to be challenged by conservatives in Islam, since Al-Mutawa wanted to buck the trend of Islamic culture being directly tied to the Quran."

But when the projected TV series was picked up by The Discovery Channel's "The Hub" but then not immediately scheduled, al-Mutawa and CNN blamed me and others who protested the series, not the Saudis. "All of a sudden we couldn't get an air date, and I was asked to be patient and we have been. But it has been a year, and the actual push-back died down. … We were waiting for a fatwa from a cleric in Saudi Arabia," said Isaac Solotaroff, director of the PBS documentary on al-Mutawa, "when it ended up being the U.S. market that has been resistant to 'The 99.'"

Oh yes, Saudi Arabia is so much freer and more open-minded than the United States.

Speaking about me and other critics of "The 99," al-Mutawa said: "There is nothing different from them and the extremists in my country [Kuwait]. They are just as bad. They are just intellectual terrorists. How cliché is it that characters created to promote tolerance are getting shot down by extremists." He complained that "a very small group of people who scream very loud have a disproportionate share of the public discourse when it comes to culture." In effect, he is saying: Vee vill lie to you, and you vill like it!

Al-Mutawa's complaints are all just ridiculous victimhood rhetoric. He is the one mainstreaming oppression and discrimination. I work for equality of rights for all people. So which one of us is the "intellectual terrorist"?...

Read it all.

Many anti-jihadists' concern about Grover Norquist and his jihad ties ended abruptly when it turned out he was close friends with Rick Perry. People who had been criticizing Norquist for years for being in bed with Islamic supremacists suddenly discovered that, hey, everyone does it (ignoring the fact that Norquist is closer to Perry than he is to other candidates), and what's a few Hamas ties among friends, anyway? Nonetheless, those concerns remain. Norquist's influence on the Republican Party is extraordinarily damaging, as it keeps on leading so many to turn a blind eye to the stealth jihad that Norquist continues so energetically to advance. Kudos to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) for having the courage that so many lack and calling out Norquist on the floor of Congress.

For more on Norquist's unsavory ties, see Pamela Geller's expose here. Note also how well Norquist has mastered the tried-and-true tactic of his Islamic supremacist partners: crying "racism," smearing his opponent, and claiming victim status whenever his wrongdoing is pointed out, instead of responding with anything substantive.

"Norquist calls attacks from GOP congressman ‘disgusting,’" by Chris Moody for The Ticket, October 4:

Grover Norquist responded to attacks from Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf Tuesday, calling Wolf's accusations that Norquist was connected to terrorists "disgusting" and saying they were copied from "racist websites." [...]

Gee, which websites do you have in mind, Grover?

On the House floor Tuesday, Wolf accused Norquist of being associated with terrorist financiers, discussed his connection in 2006 to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and said that Norquist has used his organization's pledge "to advance many other issues that many Americans would find inappropriate, and when taken as a whole should give people pause."

"Some staffer of his went onto the racist websites, you know, dug up stuff from ten years ago," Norquist said in response to Wolf's floor speech. "I'm married to a woman who's Muslim, and it's sad and it's disgusting. It reflects poorly on him. I think given his district, he's going to spend a lot of time apologizing for getting into the gutter and anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry. I suppose this staffer who got this stuff off websites did as much chucking [sic] as the idiots who put it forward."

Wolf submitted a detailed report to the official record that outlined his grievances with Norquist.

"Documentation shows that he has deep ties to supporters of Hamas and other terrorist organizations that are sworn enemies of the United States and our ally Israel," Wolf's submitted statement read.

Norquist fired back, calling Wolf's comments "just a series of rants."

"It's just silly," Norquist said. "It's just a series of rants that mean nothing and have no effect on anything, and are neither honorable or honest."

A spokesman for Wolf said the congressman stands by his remarks and intended to send a message to the members of his caucus who have associated themselves with Norquist.

"There's a clear pattern there," Wolf spokesman Dan Scandling told The Ticket. "You need to look at who he's associated with."

Indeed. Unless, of course, you're so in thrall to the prospect of a Rick Perry presidency that suddenly a guy who's in bed with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't seem so bad after all.

Here is what Wolf actually said about Norquist's jihad ties. If this looks like a racist rant lacking in substance to you, report immediately to the nearest Hamas-linked CAIR office, offer your sincere apologies of U.S. mistreatment of Muslims, and ask how you can be of service.

TERRORIST CONNECTIONS

Not only was Mr. Norquist entangled with the criminal dealings of Jack Abramoff, but documentation shows that he has deep ties to supporters of Hamas and other terrorist organizations that are sworn enemies of the United States and our ally Israel.

According to Senate lobbying disclosure records of his now defunct lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies, around the years 2000 and 2001 Mr. Norquist’s firm represented Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted two years later for his role in a terrorist plot and who is presently serving a 23-year sentence in federal prison.

Court documents and a October 15, 2004, Department of Justice press release reveal that Alamoudi, the president of the American Muslim Council, was arrested at Dulles Airport in September 2003 upon returning to the U.S after participating in a Libyan plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. “Alamoudi participated in recruiting participants for this plot by introducing the Libyans to two Saudi dissidents in London and facilitating the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash from the Libyans to those dissidents to finance the plot,” the release said.

According to the DOJ press release, Alamoudi, a naturalized citizen, pled guilty to three federal offenses:

· One count of violating the International Emergency Powers Act;

· One count of false statements made in his application for naturalization;

· A tax offense involving a long-term scheme to conceal from the IRS his financial transactions with Libya and his foreign bank accounts and to omit material information from the tax returns filed by his charities.

It is important to point out that Alamoudi’s ties to terrorist groups were no secret prior to his arrest.

Alamoudi spoke at an October 2000 rally in front of the White House in support of Hamas and Hezbollah during the period he was represented by Norquist’s firm, according to Senate lobbying disclosure records.. The “Rally Against Israeli Aggression” was sponsored by Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute, according to a September 2000 “Islamic Institute Friday Brief.” The Islamic Free Market Institute was created by Grover Norquist and operated out of his Americans for Tax Reform office in Washington, thanks to sizable start-up contributions from Alamoudi, according to a March 11, 2003, article in the St. Petersburg Times by Mary Jacoby.

I have seen video from the rally, where Alamoudi roared from the stage:

“I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas, anybody supports Hamas here?”

[Crowd cheers, "Yes!"]

“…Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas, Allahu Akbar.”

“I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here?”

[Crowd cheers, "Yes!"]

A few months after the Lafayette Park rally, Alamoudi was photographed in Beirut at a conference attended by representatives of the terror groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and al-Qaida, also according to the March 2003 St. Petersburg Times article.

In addition to Alamoudi’s outspoken support for Hamas and Hezbollah, he expressed private support for the 1994 terrorist attack against a synagogue in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds, according to a December 17, 2003, article in The American Spectator by Shawn Macomber, who reported: “In a wiretapped conversation made public in the recent criminal complaint, he (Alamoudi) praises a 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires. ‘The Jewish Community Center. It is a worthy operation,’ Alamoudi tells an unidentified man, in Arabic. ‘I think that the attacks that are being executed by bin Laden and other Islamic groups are wrong, especially hitting the civilian targets. Many African Muslims have died and not a single American has died. I prefer to hit a Zionist target in America or Europe…I prefer honestly like what happened in Argentina.”

According to a June 11, 2003, Wall Street Journal article by reporters Tom Hamburger and Glenn Simpson, around 1999 Alamoudi sent his deputy at the American Muslim Council, Khaled Saffuri, to work directly for Mr. Norquist to establish the Islamic Free Market Institute – one of the groups that sponsored the October 2000 rally in Lafayette Park. The institute, chaired by Norquist and led by Saffuri, operated out of the Americans for Tax Reform offices here in Washington, according to the March 2003 article in the St. Petersburg Times.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee report revealed that Saffuri was closely tied to Mr. Norquist and the Abramoff scandal and received money from Abramoff and a front group, the American International Center (AIC), to partner with Abramoff’s firm Greenberg Traurig on his “Malaysian-related interests and issues.”

Mr. Norquist also associated with terror financier Sami Al-Arian, according to Mary Jacoby’s reporting in March 2003, in the St. Petersburg Times. Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 “to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. law,” and is under house arrests, according to a Department of Justice press release. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s “paramilitary wing – the al-Quds Brigades – has conducted numerous attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings,” according to the National Counterterrorism Center,

Who is Sami al-Arian? An October 2003 federal affidavit noted that Al-Arian had longstanding connections to associates of al Qaeda. According to the affidavit, “Sheik Rahman (the “Blind Sheik”) visited Al-Arian at his residence in Tampa and spoke at his mosque.” Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in U.S. prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center attack and additional terror plots. The federal affidavit also disclosed Al-Arian’s ties with Alamoudi.

Al-Arian’s relationship with Mr. Norquist appears to have spanned several years. Prior to his arrest in February 2003, Sami Al-Arian visited Norquist’s office in Washington for a meeting, also reported in the June 11, 2003, article in the Wall Street Journal. According to Continetti, Mr. Al-Arian also “cc’d Norquist on an e-mail he sent to the Wall Street Journal protesting an editorial that had pointed out his terrorist connections.”

Mr. Norquist himself served as a key facilitator between Al-Arian, Alamoudi and the White House, according to Mary Jacoby’s reporting in March 2003 in The St. Petersburg Times. She reported that “In June 2001, Al-Arian was among the members of the American Muslim Council invited to the White House complex . . . The next month, the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom – a civil liberties group headed by Al-Arian – gave Norquist an award for his work to abolish the use of secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases.”

OPPOSING THE PATRIOT ACT

Mr. Norquist also has been an outspoken supporter of Al-Arian’s effort to end the use of classified evidence in terror trials. In fact, Norquist was scheduled to lead a delegation to the White House on September 11, 2001, that included a convicted felon and some who would later be identified by federal law enforcement as suspected terrorist financiers.

According to a Arab American Institute 2002 report, “Healing the Nation,” “[o]n the day of the terrorist attacks, Arab American and Muslim American leaders were already in Washington, D.C. for a previously scheduled meeting with President Bush to discuss the use of ‘secret evidence’ in certain immigration proceedings and racial profiling of Arab Americans at the nation’s airports and security checkpoints.”

I have seen the list of attendees for the scheduled meeting. Among those listed:

Madhi Bray, a convicted felon who was found guilty of drug and fraud charges in the 1980s. Bray appeared cheering on stage with Alamoudi at the October 2000 rally in Lafayette Park as Alamoudi declared his support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Omar Ahmed, co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). According to an April 18, 2011,Politico article by Josh Gerstein, “Federal prosecutors… have introduced evidence in court of Ahmad's attendance at a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia that the FBI contends was a gathering of Hamas supporters seeking to undermine the Middle East peace process. Prosecutors [in the Holy Land Foundation case] have also presented documents that appear to show CAIR as part of a network of Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.”

The list provided to the White House by Norquist’s Islamic Institute included representatives from each of Norquist’s organizations, including a Janus-Merrit lobbyist. At the top of the list: Grover Norquist, representing Americans for Tax Reform.

According to a June 11, 2003, Wall Street Journal article by reporters Tom Hamburger and Glenn Simpson, “Mr. Norquist helped secure a promise from presidential candidate Bush to moderate federal policy on investigating suspected illegal immigrants. In a nationally televised debate on Oct. 11, 2000, Mr. Bush said: ‘Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what's called secret evidence ... We've got to do something about that.’ Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House has abandoned that promise, as the Justice Department has aggressively pursued prosecutions of Muslims allegedly supporting terrorism.”

Mr. Norquist has also led efforts over the last decade to weaken and repeal the PATRIOT Act, working closely with liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, according to a February 20, 2008, profile on Norquist in the Washington Examiner, “A former lobbyist with the American Civil Liberties Union said privately that Norquist won her over when they joined forces to oppose the Bush administration’s Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. ‘I was initially skeptical,’ she said, ‘but I knew there was common ground on this issue and that we would be most powerful if we united.’”

GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES

More recently, Mr. Norquist has become an outspoken advocate for moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States. According to a November 16, 2009, Huffington Post article by Sam Stein, Norquist led a public campaign to undermine Republican-led efforts to block the Obama Administration’s transfer of 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed to New York City and other terrorist detainees to Thompson Prison in Illinois, the first time terrorists would be held indefinitely inside the United States.

The article reported that Mr. Norquist wrote that, “moving suspected terrorists to the Thomson, Illinois prison facility, ‘makes good sense.’ Taxpayers, [Norquist wrote], have already invested $145 million in the facility, which has been ‘little used.’ ‘The scaremongering about these issues should stop,’ [Norquist wrote], noting that there is ‘absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities.’”

Why is Mr. Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, advocating for one of President Obama’s top campaign promises? His efforts fly in the face of near-unanimous congressional opposition to providing al Qaeda terrorists with civilian trials in U.S. courts.

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

Mr. Norquist also interjected himself into the debate about the proposed “Ground Zero Mosque” last summer, calling legitimate concerns about the location a “Monica Lewinsky ploy” by Republicans, according to an August 18, 2010, report by Michael Scherer on Time magazine’s Web site. Mr. Norquist further trivialized the concerns saying that Republicans were, “distracted by shiny things.”

Mr. Norquist even used Americans for Tax Reform to circulate a petition in support of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” Patrick Gleason, director of state affairs for Americans for Tax Reform, wrote an August 17, 2010, letter to state affiliates urging them to share the petition with their coalition.

Why would Americans for Tax Reform circulate a petition in support of the “Ground Zero Mosque?” For the families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 or during operations in the War on Terror, concerns about the “Ground Zero Mosque” were neither a ploy nor a distraction, as Norquist described it.

Abdul Awkal is in prison. He is in prison for murder. Ordinarily prisons are not dedicated to the convenience of their inmates. But before Islamic law, everything must bend. "Ohio Muslim inmates sue over meal preparation," by Andrew Welsh-Higgins for the Associated Press, October 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A Muslim death row inmate says the Ohio prison system is denying him meals prepared according to Islamic law while at the same time providing kosher meals to Jewish prisoners, according to a federal lawsuit that alleges a civil rights violation.

Condemned inmate Abdul Awkal says the prison system's failure to provide halal meals is a restraint on his religious freedoms.

Awkal, joined by a second inmate not on death row, says the vegetarian and non-pork options offered by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction aren't good enough. The inmates say the food must be prepared in specific fashion, such as ensuring that an animal is butchered by slitting its throat and draining its blood, to conform with Islamic beliefs.

"The issue of eating Halal meals is especially important to me because I face a death sentence," Awkal said in a filing in federal court earlier this year. "It is important to me that I follow the requirements of my faith as I approach death."...

Awkal, 52, is scheduled to die in June for killing his estranged wife, Latife Awkal, and brother-in-law Mahmoud Abdul-Aziz in 1992, in a room in Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court....

Ohio argues that it provides both non-pork and vegetarian meals to Muslims and says the courts have sided with this practice. The state also says that providing halal meals could hurt Ohio financially, given the current budget situation....

For Muslim inmates, prison rules say, "The diet will be free of all pork and products containing or derived from pork. The institution will provide nutritionally adequate meat and non-meat alternatives."...

California provides packaged kosher meals to Jewish inmates and halal meals prepared at prisons for Muslim prisoners. Meats used for the halal meals are cooked separately from other prison food, said spokesman Paul Herke.

The state serves about 4,100 halal meals a day at a cost of about $3.50 per day, compared with about $2.90 a day for regular prison meals....

Ohio says requiring halal meals could mean new dietary plans for as many as 2,000 inmates, while Awkal's lawyers believe the figure is lower because not all Muslims eat halal meals.

As I showed in my 2008 book Stealth Jihad, there is material like this in textbooks being used all over the country. And sometimes this kind of thing is promoted in high places. "Father upset over homework promoting polygamy, Islam," from WSBTV.com, September 23 (thanks to Ben):

COBB COUNTY, Ga. -- A father's complaint that his daughter's homework promotes the Muslim faith could lead to a lesson change in Cobb County.

Channel 2's Tom Regan talked to the father who showed him where his daughter’s homework which said there's nothing wrong with having multiple wives.

The assignment went home with seventh-graders at Campbell Middle School.

The school told Regan the assignment was used to compare the pros and cons of the school's dress policy.

But one parent said he thinks the material shows bias toward Islam and is completely inappropriate for the kids.

"Trying to relate this to school uniforms, the context they put it into, doesn't make much sense to me," parent Hal Medlin said.

Medlin showed Regan the assignment brought home by his 13-year-old daughter. The assignment consisted of a letter from Ahlima, a 20-year-old Muslim woman, and touts the advantage of a wearing a Burqa and finds the way western women dress to be "horribly immodest," according to the assignment.

The assignment shows Ahlima saying she doesn't mind if her future husband takes more wives. "I understand that some Westerners condemn our practice of polygamy, but I also know they are wrong," the assignment said.

"It's promoting or positively depicting their belief that polygamy is fine, if that’s what they believe. But I don't know how you could possibly state that and not have any kind of disclaimer that this is what these people think, but not necessarily what all of us believe," Medlin said.

Another page of the assignment lists the seven conditions for women's dress in Islam, including:

-It cannot resemble the clothing of nonbelieving women -It must protect women from the lustful gaze of men

It also states, "Islam liberated woman over 1,400 years ago. Is it better to dress according to man or God?”

"It represents Islam in a positive manner. That doesn't offend me as much as the fact that it represents no other religions," Medlin said. "To me, this material is being used the way it's used is like tearing a page out of text book and saying here's the whole story."

On Friday afternoon, Regan got an email statement from a Cobb Schools saying the school district didn't create the materials, they were provided by the state. The representative went on to say, “The district will review the material in question and determine if it can be taught in a more balance [sic] way or if it should no longer be used.

Wajahat Ali was one of the five authors of the hard-Left Soros-funded Center for American Progress's attack piece "Fear, Inc.," a supposed takedown of "Islamophobes" including Steven Emerson, David Yerushalmi, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney and me. My responses are here and here; Daniel Greenfield and Mark Tapson also expose the sinister agenda and propagandistic, truth-free nature of the report. Daniel Pipes shows here that the amounts the report says that he has received from donors are inaccurate, and that the CAP takes in almost as much in one year as it excoriates the "Islamophobes" in several different organizations from receiving over a period of nine years.

And now there is something new. Wajahat Ali reveals in the video above (thanks to Larry) that he was a Board member of the Muslim Students Association. The Muslim Students Association was established by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. In "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991, the MSA is listed as one of the Brotherhood's allied organizations. And the memorandum explains that the Brotherhood's agenda in the U.S. is subversive: the Muslim Brothers "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

Might the CAP's attempt to discredit and marginalize all who are standing up to jihad activity in all its forms be part of the larger effort of "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within"? In a sane world, journalists would be challenging Wajahat Ali with just that question. But none of them will.

In "Hamas-linked group eats up your taxes" In WorldNetDaily, August 23, Pamela Geller discusses a disturbing program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

The line between mosque and state continues to blur under the Obama administration.

What happened to the foundational principle of separation of religion and state? Do we not even so much as pretend anymore? The White House's official website Aug. 10 posted a story entitled "Islamic Relief USA Starts Its First Summer Food Service Program," boasting that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is now helping this Islamic group get its program started. What kind of help is the USDA giving to Jewish and Christian charitable groups? Islamic Relief USA has ties to Hamas. How many other groups with ties to terror organizations are working with the USDA? And why is the United States government subjugating itself in this way?

The story featured a photo with the caption: "Max Finberg, Director of the Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships at USDA, and IRUSA's Abed Ayoub cut the ribbon launching summer feeding program at An Nur (Photo courtesy of IRUSA)." Reporter Marissa Duswalt quoted Kareema Dickens, the principal of An Nur School in Lanham, Md., as giving "heartfelt remarks." Dickens said: "We are very grateful to USDA for helping us feed our students this summer and letting us know about this wonderful program. We hope to continue this partnership and serve meals to our students throughout the year."

I equate "Islamic Relief" with dhimmi pain. This is jizya, the poll tax imposed upon non-Muslims by their "Islamic betters," who are commanded by the Quran to make sure that the dhimmis pay it with "willing submission" and "feel themselves subdued" (9:29).

Islamic Relief USA is a spinoff of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), which is headed up by Dr. Hani Al-Banna. Al-Banna was formerly with the Muslim Aid (MA), a London-based Islamic "charity" based in London that was a "partner organization" with the Al-Salah Islamic Association, a Hamas fundraising machine headed up by Ahmed Al-Kurd, whom the U.S. government officially designated as a terrorist. Muslim Aid also worked with groups linked to Jamaat-e-Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood of Pakistan.

IRW received $50,000 from a front for Osama bin Laden in 1999, and has given millions to the jihadists in Chechnya. And IRW official Iyaz Ali has admitted to aiding Hamas while serving as project coordinator at IRW's Gaza branch in late 2005 and early 2006. Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that "incriminating files were found on Ali's computer, including documents that attested to the organization's ties with illegal Hamas funds abroad (in the U.K. and in Saudi Arabia) and in Nablus. Also found were photographs of swastikas superimposed on IDF [Israeli Defense Force] symbols, [as well as photos] of senior Nazi German officials, of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as well as many photographs of Hamas military activities."

Read it all.

"We know that some of our employees would like a guaranteed prayer time every day. That is not the legal requirement, and it would be impractical to accommodate this without shutting down the production line."

Indeed -- especially since the prescribed times for Muslim prayers change slightly each day. But the Denver Post, as you can see, has decided that these Muslims demanding prayer breaks are victims -- "I'm sorry, I was only praying," and "It's not a good thing when you have a family and you are supporting your wife, your kids" -- and hence must be accommodated, despite the disruption that such accommodation will cause to the plant.

There is a consensus among Muslim scholars that obligatory prayers can -- in fact, must -- be made up at a later time. If, then, one is working and can't get away, one can make up the prayers later. But that is not acceptable to these workers, which reveals that the objective here is not primarily to fulfill a religious obligation, but to make American businesses bend. Here again, wherever American business practice conflicts with Islamic law, it is American business practice that must give way. There is never any bending, any accommodation whatsoever in the other direction.

"Fort Morgan meatpacking plant strives, struggles to accommodate Muslim workforce," by Eric Gorski for The Denver Post, August 21 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

FORT MORGAN — One afternoon this summer, Asha Abuukar said, she approached her supervisor at the Cargill Meat Solutions plant and got permission to go on break.

She washed in accordance with Islamic principles and prayed in a "reflection room" Cargill has set aside where beef is boxed and sealed.

When she returned two minutes late, she said, her supervisor told her that if it happened again, she would be fired.

"I'm sorry," Abuukar, 41, who also runs a Somali market in town, recalled replying. "I was only praying."

Although Cargill's Fort Morgan operation has escaped controversy over accommodating the religious needs of its Muslim workforce, an undercurrent of problems exists, according to current and former workers and Somali translators.

Company officials say they respect religious rights and follow the law but cannot undermine a plant that produces 4 million pounds of beef daily.

"We know that some of our employees would like a guaranteed prayer time every day," said Cargill spokesman Michael Martin. "That is not the legal requirement, and it would be impractical to accommodate this without shutting down the production line."

He said the company accommodates the vast majority of daily prayer requests.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers cannot deny a "reasonable" religious accommodation request as long as it does not pose an undue hardship, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Muslims pray five times a day at prescribed times that move depending on the sun's position. That can pose challenges for plants with many Muslim workers. One-fourth of Cargill's 2,000 workers are Somali, company officials say.

The number of federal workplace-discrimination complaints filed by Muslims shot up in 2009 and 2010, to almost 800 each year, the EEOC says. Those numbers eclipsed the decade's previous high mark the year after 9/11.

"It's not a good thing when you have a family and you are supporting your wife, your kids," said Abdinasser Ahmed, a former Cargill worker....

In "Perry's Problematic Pals" in the American Thinker today, Pamela Geller exposes yet another candidate who is complicit, wittingly or unwittingly, with stealth jihadist, pro-Sharia forces. Perry, and the other candidates, need to read Geller's Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Here is an excerpt of her Perry expose:

But Perry has been sucked into the propaganda vortex, and is now wielding his enormous power to influence changes in the schoolrooms and in the curricula to reflect a sharia compliant version of Islam. He is a friend of the Aga Khan, the multimillionaire head of the Ismailis, a Shi'ite sect of Islam that today proclaims its nonviolence but in ages past was the sect that gave rise to the Assassins. Perry has concluded at least two cooperation agreements between the state of Texas and the Ismailis, including a comprehensive program to feed children in Texas public schools and taqiyya nonsense about how Islam is a religion of peace. Another agreement stipulates that Texas officials will work with the Ismailis in the "fields of education, health sciences, natural disaster preparedness and recovery, culture and the environment." Perry let on that this was all about whitewashing Islam's bloody historical and modern-day record: "traditional Western education speaks little of the influence of Muslim scientists, scholars, throughout history, and for that matter the cultural treasures that stand today in testament to their wisdom."

It gets worse. Last March, Perry gave a speech in Dallas in the company of Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist was close to George W. Bush, and Perry's anti-tax, anti-Big Government rhetoric sounds like it's right out of Norquist's playbook. But there is a dark side to Norquist as well: Norquist's ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists have been known for years. He and his Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes -- who was director of communications for his Islamic Free Market Institute until they married in 2005 -- are very active in "Muslim outreach." Six weeks after 9/11, The New Republic ran an exposé explaining how Norquist arranged for George W. Bush to meet with fifteen Islamic supremacists at the White House on September 26, 2001 -- to show how Muslims rejected terrorism.

The only problem was that the ones with Bush didn't. To Bush's left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas "freedom fighters." Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list." And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North America, who once told a Muslim crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans that "America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come."

There is much more. Read it all.

Isn't it interesting how often these things happen in the Minneapolis area: it was at the Minneapolis/St.Paul International Airport that Muslim cab drivers tried a few years back to stop carrying passengers who had alcohol. It was in Minneapolis Target stores that Muslim cashiers refused to handle pork products. There have been other such incidents. And now this, which is yet another attempt to assert the primacy of Islamic laws and practices over American business practices and customs. Note also the involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR.

Heinz has bent over backward to accommodate these Muslim workers already: they have two prayer rooms. They just don't want them leaving work to pray outside of scheduled break times. Oh, the Islamophobia of it all!

"Heinz, Islamic workers headed to mediation," by Steve Alexander in the Star Tribune, August 9 (thanks to JSF):

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will mediate a labor dispute between 22 Islamic workers and Dianne's Gourmet Desserts, a Le Center, Minn., subsidiary of H.J. Heinz Co.'s foodservice operations.

The Minnesota chapter of the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Minneapolis, maintains that the Islamic workers were fired by the Le Center firm in December in a dispute over freedom to practice their religious beliefs, and were forcibly removed from the premises.

In a statement, Heinz called the council's statement "misleading." It said that allowances were made for Islamic workers to practice their faith and that "no Islamic employees were terminated from their jobs for requesting prayer accommodation and none were removed forcibly."...

Hamas-linked CAIR lying? Why, it's unprecedented!

The dispute allegedly revolves around whether Islamic employees were allowed to say prayers in the workplace at the time of day specified by their religion.

The council says that the Heinz subsidiary "created a new policy that abolished a break time used by Muslim employees to pray their evening prayer. The employees were prohibited from praying outside of the newly implemented work breaks, which did not coincide with prayer times."

Heinz said it is "strongly committed to recognizing and protecting religious diversity in the workplace," and that in Le Center it provided two prayer rooms for employees where the workers were "to take prayer breaks as a special accommodation to the requirements of their faith."...

Again, the essential question in cases like this is, Why would a Muslima want to work at Abercrombie & Fitch in the first place? Wouldn't she find the clothing line, the advertising, and the whole atmosphere objectionable on moral grounds? Shouldn't she prefer to shun such an environment rather than want to work there at all, especially if she is pious and observant enough to want to wear the hijab? Unless, of course, the real point of her getting hired in the first place was to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated. And now Samantha Elauf has succeeded.

An update on this story.

"US Muslim Woman Gets $20,000 in Lawsuit Against Discrimination," from the Ahlul Bayt News Agency, July 21 (thanks to Twostellas):

A federal jury has awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages to a Muslim woman who alleged that Abercrombie & Fitch discriminated against her because she wore a head scarf.

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - The six-member panel deliberated more than four hours Wednesday before deciding on damages against the clothing retailer.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on behalf of Samantha Elauf, who alleged she was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Tulsa's Woodland Hills Mall because she wore a hijab. The hijab is part of her religious beliefs.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell ruled last week the store violated Elauf's civil rights when it didn't hire her.

Store officials denied any discrimination but acknowledged having a policy that bars headwear....

The real question is, Why would a Muslima want to work at Abercrombie & Fitch in the first place? Wouldn't she find the clothing line, the advertising, and the whole atmosphere objectionable on moral grounds? Shouldn't she prefer to shun such an environment rather than want to work there at all, especially if she is pious and observant enough to want to wear the hijab? Unless, of course, the real point of her getting hired in the first place was to compel an American business to change its practices in order to accommodate Islamic norms, and thereby to assert once again that Islam must dominate and not be dominated. Stealth Jihad Update from San Francisco: "Abercrombie & Fitch sued over hijab firing," by Vivian Ho for the San Francisco Chronicle, June 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

SAN MATEO -- A Bay Area Muslim woman sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Monday, claiming that the clothing retailer fired her when she refused to remove her religious headscarf while working at a San Mateo store.

Hani Khan, 20, sued after the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that the chain had wrongfully fired her. Settlement talks failed to resolve the dispute.

Khan was fired in 2010 from Abercrombie's Hollister Co. store in the Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo for refusing to remove her hijab, or headscarf, according to the suit her attorneys filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Khan said that when she was hired in October 2009, store managers told her that her hijab would not be in conflict with Abercrombie's "look policy," as long as she wore it in company colors.

Abercrombie requires that employees dress in natural, "beachy" clothes such as jeans, flip-flops and a T-shirt, Khan said.

Then in February 2010, a week after a district manager visited the store, a company official told Khan to stop wearing the hijab, her suit says. She refused and was suspended, and a week later was fired. [...]

In a news conference Monday, Khan - wearing a bright purple hijab - said the experience with Abercrombie "shook my confidence. I didn't have that problem before."

Khan began wearing a hijab when she was in kindergarten and said she never had a problem while growing up in Foster City.

"After 9/11, all my neighbors, all my classmates, all my teachers - they supported me," Khan said. "No one had an issue then. For there to be an issue now, it was just completely out of the ordinary."

Khan's suit seeks to force Abercrombie to change its dress code to loosen restrictions on religious clothing. She is not trying to get her job back but is seeking back wages and unspecified damages.

Khan's lawsuit is not the first of its kind against the company. Two other former employees have filed suits, claiming that Abercrombie discriminated against them because of their hijabs.

"Abercrombie prides itself on requiring what it calls 'a natural, classic American style,' " said Araceli Martinez-Olguin, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, which is representing Khan. "But there is nothing American about discriminating against someone because of their religion."

Yes. It seems tolerant to force Abercrombie & Fitch to change its dress code. It seems open-minded. In fact, it is accommodating an ideology that is radically intolerant, and when in power has never granted similar accommodation to those outside it.

In "Cast a Wider Net: The Islamic radicalization hearings need to hear from witnesses beyond cops and Muslims" in National Review, June 16, Andrew C. McCarthy makes some pointed and much-needed criticisms of Peter King's hearings:

Peter King, the New York Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, has been a good friend to those of us who work to protect American national security. In launching an investigation into the ideology that fuels the Islamist threat against the United States, he has had the courage to go where Congress has been too intimidated to go before. Still, with the second round of his committee’s hearings on “radicalization” having been completed, it is necessary to question his approach.

The committee has kept on the sidelines the peerless analysts Steven Emerson and Robert Spencer, who were sounding the alarm before most people in this country knew there was an Islamist threat — very much including most people in our government. King holds the work of these experts in high regard. Yet, he has decided the public’s understanding is better served by calling as his main witnesses (a) Muslims, who can give a firsthand account of what goes on in their communities, and (b) law-enforcement officials, current and former, who’ve designed and carried out what passes for the counterterrorism strategy followed by police agencies throughout the country — basically, terrorism investigations and Muslim outreach.

There are serious problems with this approach. Hearing from Muslims is obviously important, but to limit the committee to their input on what’s happening inside the Islamic community is to fall for the fallacy that you have to be a member of the group to grasp and explain the group’s dynamics. If that were true, why would anyone care what King’s analysis is? Congress is not a Muslim body, so why would its insights be any more valuable than those of experts like Emerson and Spencer?

Moreover, while the Muslim community in the United States includes many patriotic Americans, it also includes Islamists who seek to undermine our country. The latter adhere to taqqiya, a principle that endorses misrepresentation when necessary to advance the Islamist cause. This principle’s operation is not mitigated by putting these people under oath at hearings, because their fidelity is to sharia, not American law — if they think it will help to lie, they will lie.

Recall the testimony of King’s very first witness back in March, CAIR’s favorite congressman, Keith Ellison (at least, I think that’s the name he’s going by these days — he’s used several in his checkered past, well documented by Powerline’s Scott Johnson). As Matt Shaffer recounted on the Corner, Ellison — a hard-Left Minnesota Democrat and the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives — gave the committee a weepy account of American bigotry against a Muslim American who died heroically trying to save lives on 9/11. Not surprisingly, Ellison’s story was riddled with falsehoods. To be sure, there is value in watching some of these characters dodge, dissemble, and demagogue. But they are a big part of the challenge we face, so it’s foolish to make them our window into the Muslim community....

Indeed. Read it all.

French authorities wouldn't let the burqa-clad Muslima into court unless she removed her face covering. But that's why she was under arrest in the first place: for refusing to remove her face covering. The French desire to preserve and defend their own culture is laudable, but they are going to have to go back to the drawing board on this one. "French burka ban descends into farce," By Peter Allen in the Telegraph, June 17 (thanks to Block Ness):

France's burka ban descended into farce when the first women to be summoned before a European court for illegally wearing the garments were refused entry, because they would not remove their face coverings.

Hind and Najet, who keep their features hidden at all times and refuse to identify themselves beyond their first names, were due to appear before a judge outside Paris.

Both are accused of violating France's so-called "burka ban", which came into force earlier this year and prevents anyone covering up their faces in public.

But when Hind, a 31-year-old mother, tried to enter the court building in Meaux on Thursday, police held her back, telling her to take her head-covering off.

Najet, meanwhile, simply stayed at home, with the 34-year-old saying she knew she would be stopped from entering.

"For the hearing to go ahead, you must remove the veil. Justice must be administered in a calm atmosphere," police commissioner Philippe Tireloque told Hind.

Hind, who had brought her own handcuffs to wear as part of an organised protest at the court, replied: "I'll keep my veil on at all times. It's non-negotiable.

"The law forbids me from expressing myself, and indeed from defending myself. It forces me to dress a certain way, when all I want to do is live according to my religion."

Police are under strict orders not to remove face coverings themselves, meaning Hind was simply told to leave.

Their court appearance was accordingly abandoned, as state prosecutors began trying to work out how they can deal with the challenge to the new law. They are expected to come to a decision in September....

Is this a joke? Or has the mainstreaming of Sharia really advanced this far? If Shamci Rafani is real and not a hoax, is she a "moderate" because she is only calling for the killing of adulteresses, not actually carrying it out? Doesn't this article give the lie to the oft-repeated claim that no Muslims in America support the elements of Sharia that contradict American principles and laws? Can we get a statement repudiating the stoning of adulteresses and rebuking Shamci Rafani from the "moderate" Muslim establishment? Honest Ibe Hooper? Imam Rauf? Anyone? Anyone?

And didn't anyone at the Visalia Times-Delta stop and think before publishing this?

"Unfaithful wives should be put to death," by Shamci Rafani in the Visalia Times-Delta, June 1 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Aren't we having fun?

Aren't we living in an advanced and civilized country?

If you noticed, the last few weeks, there has been nothing on television except the subject of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver.

Plus many, many more in the history of mankind, in recent years.

First, it was [Bill] Clinton, then it was Tiger Woods, now it is Arnold and Maria Shriver. As I heard, their daughter already had changed her last name to Shriver.

While media are busy ruining many people's lives, let's review some facts.

Coming from a different country and culture, and specially being a victim of betrayal and infidelity, I will allow myself to put my head where it does not belong.

In many countries, including mine, when a man makes such a mistake as Arnold did and fathers a child, the law makes him be the father and take the responsibility.

But the woman who had been aware of her wrongdoing, and yet had done it without any shame or fear, must be punished severely.

Yes, in many countries, the public will stone that woman to death.

Believe me, that might be the right answer to the behavior of these kind of loose women, who want to blame it all on men.

My main question is, how many more families have to be destroyed?

How many families have to lose their happiness and their dignity because of these loose women? And how long would it take for lawmakers to keep these loose women responsible for their own actions?

These women are doing it without any shame and embarrassment as long as the media and the society, in general, are accepting them with open arms, as if they had been victims.

I am not saying that these men had a right to do so, yet my concern is that women's liberalization had passed their boundaries by creating these kind of activities with the name of (equality of sexes), and by destroying many families' happiness, have not been able to gain any valuable thing.

To be equal with the opposite sex does not mean to sell yourself cheaply, announce it to the world and be proud of it.

Power could come from moral, dignity and real love (which means not to ruin other people's happiness) and then get away with it.

Sleeping around with any man who came along, especially with a married man, must not be something to be proud of and awarded for.

These women not only must not be awarded, but they must pay for destroying the happiness and the future of their victims, especially this woman who lived with the family and had become a member of that family.

These slut women do not know how to say no. To my judgment, these women who freely sleep with married men must be severely punished and put to death.

If the lawmakers do something about it, you will find less stories like Arnold's.

The nation's leading legal expert on Sharia and its relationship to American law, David Yerushalmi, here tears the cover off the common assertion that anti-Sharia legal initiatives are unnecessary, because Sharia isn't being used in American courts in the first place:

New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States CSP

Washington, DC, May 17, 2011 - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.  The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy.  The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.

The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.

On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

"These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process.  These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah.  When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded."

Key Findings:

•   At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.

•   At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

•   The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute:  21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.”

•   The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.

Mr. Gaffney added:

“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country:  To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States?  The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America.  It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country. 

“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law.  Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”

The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.

We here know the issues at hand: the growth of stealth jihad at home, the ever-increasing instances of pugnacious Muslim self-assertion (which when confronted instantly shape-shifts, djinn-like, into puling, self-pitying victimhood), the lies that pour from Saudi-funded academics, the fluff and nonsense that dominates most media, the inexorable march of Islamists from the shadows into the halls of power throughout the Muslim world, and the almost monthly cycle of terrorist attacks and sermons on how Islam is a misrepresented religion of piece—the latter of which are an unintentional echo of Stephen Sondheim's lyrics from this scene in West Side Story. As you watch, imagine it's an FBI raid on an urban mosque:

Without Leonard Bernstein's music to watch it down, the whole thing becomes dispiriting. And we are tempted to descend into inside baseball, turning our gaze inward instead of outward. Frustrated by the apparently Sisyphean nature of our struggle against this totalitarian faith and its infidel enablers, we might fall into the same trap Marxists used to in the West: Fighting each other instead of our enemies, striving to prove our “purity” rather than honing our effectiveness or reaching out to others. I hope I haven't inadvertently fed into this tendency with any of my posts, but I bet that at some point I have. Apologies offered.

To break out of this cycle, to become the crab that climbs out of the bucket, we must force ourselves periodically to engage, really step in and tangle with, the mentality of our adversaries. By this I don't now mean supremacist Muslims. It's highly doubtful that any of them will be converted by this site; indeed, if such people were open to outside influence at all, I would think that this site might inadvertently teach them to moderate their rhetoric—perhaps even to suspend all terrorist attacks and wait for their higher birthrate to gain them power in Western countries (especially those with nuclear weapons like France or England). But Arabic pride and Muslim hauteur make such a strategy almost impossible for them, thank God. As a wag once observed of the Arab-Israeli conflict: If the Arabs could only find a Gandhi instead of an Arafat, and adopt non-violent means that seemed to discredit their enemies morally, the Jews might eventually surrender to them out of guilt. Instead, they murder women and children and put themselves hopelessly in the wrong in the eyes of any fair-minded observer (not that such people abound), steeling Israelis in the necessity of striking back against their violence. As I say every time a Muslim blows himself up through his own incompetence without harming anyone else: Thank you, Lord, for the imbecility of mine enemies.

No, our real antagonists are the people who should be on our side but aren't—dhimmi Christians, blinkered conservatives who dream that Muslims will be their allies, and most of all liberal Westerners who view the few remaining elements of tradition in our societies as far more of a threat than the whole, inflexible body of sharia advancing all over the world. It is these people we have some hope of understanding from the inside, successfully analyzing—and if not of converting then at least of discrediting.

With this in mind, I reluctantly turn my gaze to the writing of Rachel Woodlock, an Australian columnist who brings to life so many of the misconceptions and self-willed blindspots we struggle against that I almost sent her a thank you note for her March 23 piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, “Anti-Muslim tub-thumping helps extremists.” I have rarely seen so much arrant nonsense so densely packed into such a tight space; her arguments huddle and sweat against each other like clowns trapped in an elevator.

Woodlock leads with a question that genuinely seems to puzzle her—despite the fact that she is a doctoral candidate at Monash University's Centre for Islam and the Modern World:

Why would anyone join an extremist Muslim fringe group that hates democracy and wants to impose a myopic interpretation of Islamic law on everyone? What could possibly attract an educated young man living in a free society to join a movement that glorifies suicide bombers?

It's easy to answer that Woodlock should spend a few weeks reading this site, or the works of Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or. But this budding Ph.D. has already insulated her mind against what she might learn there. She speaks with scorn of the “industry of Islamophobia,” in which she includes

US blogger Daniel Pipes musing that President Barack Obama might be murdered by Islamists for being an apostate, Infidel author Ayaan Hirsi Ali describing Muslim women's clothing as gradations of "mental slavery", or outspoken Christian spokesman Patrick Sookhdeo questioning moderate Muslim leaders' calls for peace and co-existence as Islamically-prescribed deception...

She concludes that “the Islamophobia industry makes its coin generating fear of Islam and Muslims,” and cites as a prime example “Sookhdeo's Christian charity, the Barnabas Fund, that is spear-heading a new campaign to boycott halal meat in Australia.” What offends her about Sookhdeo is that he argues that

the problem is with Islam itself.

In his 2007 book Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam, Sookhdeo warns that ''non-violent Islam is like a cone balanced on its point; it cannot exist in that state indefinitely but is bound to fall, i.e. to give rise to violent elements.''

For Sookhdeo and his alarmist confederates, original Islam is inherently violent and any alternative reading by peaceable Muslims is either ignorance or dissimulation. His call for Islamic reform as a way to rehabilitate Muslims is disingenuous, for how can any such reformer escape the sinister accusation they are merely engaged in what Sookhdeo describes as taqiyya - a last-resort permission to hide one's religious identity in the face of persecution.

There is no escape from this circular reasoning in which Muslims are urged to prove their loyalty to the nation-state, and upon presenting themselves as loyal are then accused of hiding their disloyalty.

A clever little logical trap Woodlock has set, but we already know the escape route. The test for Muslims who proclaim their tolerant, peaceful intentions—the way to know if they are interested in reform or in taqiyya—is this:

Do these Muslims acknowledge that there are problematic texts in the Qur'an and relevant hadiths, which indeed give cause for worry to non-Muslims, and insist that these texts must be confronted and reinterpreted to make Islam compatible with a free society? Or do they, as almost always happens, pretend to the unwary that such texts do not exist? When you present them with these texts, do they falsely insist that they don't mean what they say, that the violent and supremacist reading of the Qur'an is confined to a tiny minority of extremists? That's the litmus test that distinguishes a truly peaceful, reformist (and, we must sadly say, heretical) Muslim from a dissembler.

Instead of using her academic knowledge of Muslim history to acquaint herself with centuries of religious violence and intolerance, Woodlock serves up that stale plate of hummus: the argument that Islamophobia is the source of Islamic violence.

It is precisely the futility some Muslims experience when faced with such fearmongering that contributes to what social psychologists tell us is a sense of ''blocked progress''. That is, while most Muslims can buttress themselves against prejudice, seeking support through various sources of well-being, a minority will seek maladapted solutions. Some turn to gangs and criminality; a small number will join militant religious groups that provide them with a sense of connection and identity.

As researchers in Britain, France and Australia have noted, "home-grown" members of militant groups do not generally possess a high degree of religiosity and knowledge of Islam before their radicalisation. Put another way, it is not religious Muslims we have to worry about, it is when ordinary Muslims feel trapped in limbo: they belong neither to their parents' devout traditional cultures, nor to their Western host nations, which sends the message: Muslims don't belong.

This explains, in part, why such groups have been able to recruit Western-born and educated young men to their ranks. It is not poverty that spurs their attraction to fanatical counterculture groups, but their sense (rightly or wrongly) that the broader society specifically targets and blocks them from achieving normal goals.

Since the only reason Muslims ever turn to violence is when Westerners exclude them from their societies—which fails to explain such historic events as their genocidal conquest of India, but never mind—Woodlock offers an innovative strategy for recruiting Muslims to the cause of peace:

The good news is that we can cut the oxygen that fuels the flames of their fanaticism by actively countering anti-Muslim paranoia. It has been argued that fundamentalist religious groups lose their ability to competitively peddle their wares in societies in which there is religious freedom and the state ensures social services are provided to all - this means facilitating the settlement and integration of Islam and Muslims in Australian society.

Ah, now it all becomes crystal clear. All that Muslims need to be peaceful is multicultural laws and a generous welfare state. If only someone had tried that strategy before! Woodlock should make sure her column is widely disseminated in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Great Britain—where fascist-era ethnocentrism and Dickensian working conditions, with no social safety net, have heretofore doomed those countries to Hobbesean ethnic conflict.

The problem with Islam in the West is that we don't yet have enough Muslims in our midst, we don't bend over backwards to accommodate their preferences, and we don't cut them enough government checks to make sure that they really feel welcome. Because of this, many Muslims have grown understandably sulky, and ignored the dictates of their own peaceful religion to become suicide bombers, honor killers, and preachers of totalitarian sharia. Isn't that what every group would do in that situation? Remember how the Southeast Asian “boat people” in the 1970s formed terror cells throughout the West? How the Haitians who fled that country's political chaos in the 80s took to blowing up New York skycrapers? If only Woodlock's thesis could find a hearing among European elites, the truly peaceful, tolerant face of Islam could at last emerge.

In New York City, the historic, landmarked high Anglican church of the Incarnation was closed as a parish in the 1970s. Unable to tear the thing down—New Yorkers may not all love God, but they do love old buildings—the Episcopal diocese sold the site to a drug-rehabilitation group, who sold it to a real estate developer, who turned it into The Limelight, one of the nastiest, skankiest sites for public hookups and drug use in the city. (People were regularly busted for having full on intercourse in the rest rooms.) No doubt the more twisted or Christ-haunted of the patrons felt a decadent frisson when they looked up at the stained glass windows of Christ or Mary (helpfully backlit even at night) that gazed down on their twisting and shouting. The one time I reluctantly went to the place (to see a European art rock band, not to hook up or score) I could almost feel the ghosts of upright, hard-working 19th-century Americans who'd saved their pennies to build the place, who'd knelt and prayed, blessed their infants, wept over their dead, in this vast Gothic place that now served as a kaleidoscopic aperture into the death throes of the West. I told a friend who was with me that I felt guilty setting foot in the place, and he said back sunnily: “Would you rather they tore it down? Made it a mosque?” And I didn't know what to say.

I'm happy to report that the Limelight is now dead and buried, and the noble old building is being used for the honorable purpose of selling high-end knickknacks and organic food; so it once again meets the religious needs of New Yorkers. But that question my friend asked me, and the grim experience of one night inside the Limelight, came back to me this week when I read the following report by Samir Khalil Samir of Asia News.

A Muslim group has asked to use the empty churches in France for Muslims to pray in, solving (at the expense of Christians) the traffic problems caused by Muslims who pray in the streets. Fr. Khalial Samir Samir, an expert scholar of Islam, reflects on the embarrassing proposal, calling for Islam in Europe to become more "European" and less "Arab".

In a press release published Friday, March 11, 2011, the "Banlieuses Respect " Collective asked authorities in charge of organization of the Church of France, to place at Muslims’ disposal "empty churches for Friday prayers". Hassan M. Ben Barek, a spokesman for the Collective, said the measure would "prevent Muslims from having to pray on the streets" and being "politicians’ hostages”.

In fact, for several years now, every Friday, alongside dozens of mosques in France, Muslims have blocked the surrounding streets for an hour or two, spreading mats on the roads to pray. In many cases, local authorities close their eyes to this offense, and in some cases the police are there to ensure the safety of those who block the streets. This situation is on the rise in France (for example, Lyon, Marseille, Montpellier. Montreuil, Nice, Paris, Puteaux, Strasbourg, Torcy ...). A situation that is found all over the world (Athens, Brussels, Birmingham, Cordova, Moscow, New York ...) and also in Italy (Albenga, Canicattì, Como, Gallarate, Milan, Modena, Moncalieri, Naples, Rome ...). In the Muslim world this phenomenon is present, especially in Egypt. On 10 December, in Lyon, Marine Le Pen (National Front) denounced the Muslims "street prayers", which led to negative reactions towards the Muslim community in France.

Why is there even a prospect of Muslims being granted the use of empty churches? However much decadent multicultural guilt has infused the Church in France, there is no major constituency among that country's bishops to grant this typically arrogant Muslim demand. But it isn't up to the bishops. The history of the Church in France is deeply entwined with the State; medieval bishops relied upon the kings of France to suppress violent heresies like Albigensianism, and support the Church financially. In return, French kings demanded (and got) increasing control over the Church, until by the time of King Louis XIV, the king nominated all the country's bishops—for the pope to rubber stamp. The incestuous relations between Church and State got uglier with the French Revolution, when unarmed priests and helpless nuns became the scapegoats for the rage of the Paris mob. In return, the Church supported attempts to restore the monarchy, and aligned itself with nationalist and reactionary groups—culminating finally in the ugly Dreyfus affair, which pitted liberals and secularists against the army and the Church, centering on the fate of a patriotic Jewish officer falsely accused of spying. Because many churchmen (against the wishes of Pope Leo XIII, who defended Dreyfus) supported Dreyfus' persecution, public opinion swung violently against the Church when he was proven innocent—and the Third Republic used this sentiment to take its revenge against the Church: In 1905, all religious orders were expelled from France, and all Church property seized and put in the custodianship of the State. That's right, the French government owns every Catholic church in France, in the same way Russia's Tsar owned every stick of furniture in the hut of every serf. As a result, if a church isn't being put to use—thanks to the sharp decline in Christian religious practice in France—outsiders can petition the State to let them use it. Sometimes they just seize it, as far-right Traditionalists who follow Abp. Marcel Lefebvre seized a historic parish in Paris, and occupied it until the State decided to grant them full use of the place against the fierce objections of Paris' archbishop.

Why is all this historical background important? Because of the precedent this seizure set. Today, French Muslims are asking “nicely” if they can use underutilized churches for their Friday prayers. Tomorrow they will be gathering outside the churches demanding entry, crying “Islamophobia!” at those who keep them out. And in five years, I predict, they will simply start seizing churches—confident that the flaccid, cowardly authorities will refuse to turn them out.

Rev. Samir offers many objections to this plan for Islamicizing the churches of France:

The March 11 proposal of the Collective, calling on the Church of France, to "provide Muslims empty churches for Friday prayers", is astounding. These "empty churches" are consecrated places and it would never occur to a Christian to use them for anything other than the liturgical ceremonies, or sacred music - an exception that is always possible. It would be unthinkable to use them to celebrate a non-Christian cult.

On the other hand, a church that served as a mosque would have to be re-equipped for the needs of Muslim prayer. Many typically Christian elements would have to be removed and typically Muslim ones added. And above all these "empty churches" are not destined to remain empty, but on the contrary to be occupied as soon as possible by a Christian community or a monastic community, which is happening more and more throughout Europe. Now it seems unlikely that such a place, more or less once converted into a mosque, could be "repossessed" and turned back to church. It would be a great loss for the Muslim community and could lead to much bitterness and religious conflicts. The Christians would then be accused of being Islamophobic, revanchists, disrespectful of Muslim sensitivities, unbrotherly towards them, and so on.

If all this happens, it will fit the pattern of Islamic aggression worldwide and over the centuries: Target and seize the religious sites belonging to another faith, then stake a permanent claim of ownership over it—perhaps with the pretence that it always has been a sacred Muslim site. If the previous owners try to reclaim it, they will be guilty of an anti-Muslim atrocity, and the proper object of terrorist attacks—like Jewish settlers in Samaria, or worshippers at the Western Wall. We can see this ugly pattern going back to the very foundation of of Islam. Thanks to a story of Muhammad's trip to heaven launched from that site, Palestinians claim ownership of the Temple Mount, a site where Jews were worshipping millennia before Muhammad emerged from the desert with his extraordinary claims. Then again, Islam pretends that Abraham and Moses were really Muslims, and that the Jews who claim the site as their own are merely descendants of imposters and forgers who falsified their own holy books to hide all the prophecies of Muhammad.

The same type of Islamic colonialism is underway now in France. There are plenty of gymnasia, wedding halls, and other public spaces where Muslims could happily gather for Friday prayers. The Muslims don't want them; they want the churches. Is anyone asking himself why that is? It is because the Muslims overestimate how important Christianity is to Westerners, and view the capture of churches as a great symbolic victory—just as many viewed the (purely secular, finally futile) invasion of Iraq as a Christian “crusade.” Precisely because the Muslims see it this way, every Westerner should unite to reject such claims—to repel the attempts of Muslims to seize any church or synagogue or Hindu temple and use it as their own. Each victory they win they will regard as irreversible, and each one will spur them on to make more outrageous demands—until at last we do indeed live as dhimmis under their whip.

So back to my first question: Would I rather the ancient churches of France, for all their architectural glory, be turned into mosques, or bulldozed? My own preferences are irrelevant. The men who built these marvels are those whose wishes we should respect—and before they turned them over to the service of Muhammad's desert heresy, men like Abbot Suger would cheerfully have torn them down brick by brick. Almost all the "glories" of Islamic civilization, as Bat Ye'or has exhaustively documented, were built from the reassembled ruins of the cultures Muslims had subjugated and destroyed. Why should we add another stolen jewel to their crown?

“This is a political lawsuit to placate Muslims.”

"Justice Department sues on behalf of Muslim teacher, triggering debate," by Jerry Markon in the Washington Post, March 22 (thanks to Twostellas):

BERKELEY, Ill. — Safoorah Khan had taught middle school math for only nine months in this tiny Chicago suburb when she made an unusual request. She wanted three weeks off for a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The school district, faced with losing its only math lab instructor during the critical end-of-semester marking period, said no. Khan, a devout Muslim, resigned and made the trip anyway.

Justice Department lawyers examined the same set of facts and reached a different conclusion: that the school district’s decision amounted to outright discrimination against Khan. They filed an unusual lawsuit, accusing the district of violating her civil rights by forcing her to choose between her job and her faith.

As the case moves forward in federal court in Chicago, it has triggered debate over whether the Justice Department was following a purely legal path or whether suing on Khan’s behalf was part of a broader Obama administration campaign to reach out to Muslims....

Considering that Khan was under no obligation, Islamic or otherwise, to make the hajj at that time, it seems clear that this is part of Obama's relentless, consistently pursued policy of appeasement of Muslim demands.

The lawsuit, filed in December, may well test the boundaries of how far employers must go to accommodate workers’ religious practices — a key issue as the nation grows more multicultural and the Muslim population increases. But it is also raising legal questions. Experts say the government might have difficulty prevailing because the 19-day leave Khan requested goes beyond what courts have considered.

“It sounds like a very dubious judgment and a real legal reach,” said Michael B. Mukasey, who was attorney general in the George W. Bush administration. “The upper reaches of the Justice Department should be calling people to account for this.”

His successors in the Obama administration counter that they are upholding a sacred principle: the right of every American to be free of religious bias in the workplace. “This was a profoundly personal request by a person of faith,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, who compared the case to protecting “the religious liberty that our forefathers came to this country for.”...

Perez denied any political motive in the Berkeley lawsuit, saying it was pursued in part to fight “a real head wind of intolerance against Muslim communities.” People in the rapidly growing Muslim community in Chicago’s western suburbs praised the Justice Department’s involvement.

“It rings the bell of justice that they will fight for a Muslim wanting to perform a religious act,” said Shaykh Abdool Rahman Khan, resident scholar at the Islamic Foundation mosque near Berkeley. “That certainly can win the hearts of many people in the Muslim world.”...

Yeah, like all those roads and hospitals and schools in Afghanistan have made the Afghans love us so.

The support for Obama’s Justice Department is much more mixed. Government lawyers, said longtime village President Michael A. Esposito, are “targeting a small community.”

“The school district just wanted a teacher in the room for those three weeks. They didn’t care if she was a Martian, a Muslim or a Catholic,” said Esposito, a political independent. “How come we bow down to certain religious groups? Why don’t we go out of our way for the Baptists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses?”

Why indeed?

Khan, 29, who grew up in North Carolina and Arkansas, was happy in the job, said her lawyer, Kamran A. Memon. But she longed to make the hajj, one of the five pillars of the Islamic faith, which Muslims are obligated to do once. It would not have fallen on her summer break for about nine years.

She would be 38 then. Clearly way too old to make the hajj.

“This was the first year she was financially able to do it,” Memon said. “It’s her religious belief that a Muslim must go for hajj quickly . . . that it’s a sin to delay.” Khan declined to comment.

Islamic scholars generally say that Muslims who have the ability to go on the hajj but delay it for no specific reason are committing a major sin. Is the fact that Khan has work obligations a specific reason to delay her hajj? Certainly.

In August 2008, Khan requested an unpaid leave for the first three weeks of December that year. The district said the leave was unrelated to Khan’s job and not authorized by the teacher union contract, according to court documents. Khan resigned in a letter to the school board.

“They put her in a position where she had to choose,” Memon said. “Berkeley has qualified subs. She didn’t feel her absence would cause any problem at all.”

He attributed the criticism of the lawsuit, in part, to “anti-Muslim hostility.”

Of course. That's what it always is, right? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that her request is entirely unreasonable. Oh no! It's just all about anti-Muslim hate! You'd think that Islamic supremacists would grow ashamed of constantly playing this card in the most outlandish of contexts, but they don't appear to be capable of shame.

Federal intervention

In November 2008, Khan filed a religious discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and last year, the commission found cause for discrimination and referred the case to the Justice Department.

Justice lawyers sued in December, the first lawsuit in a pilot project to increase coordination on employment discrimination between the department’s Civil Rights Division and the EEOC.

The suit argued that the district violated the Civil Rights Act by failing to accommodate Khan’s religious beliefs. By “compelling” Khan to choose between her job and religion, the lawsuit says, the district forced her discharge. The government is seeking back pay, damages and reinstatement for Khan, and a court order requiring Berkeley schools to find ways to accommodate religious practices.

A trial date has not been set.

Berkeley school officials declined to comment but said in court papers that Khan’s request was “unreasonable” and would have imposed an “undue hardship.”

Obviously.

Federal law requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” religious practices unless doing so would impose such a hardship. The Supreme Court has interpreted the provision narrowly, saying accommodations should be granted only if they impose a minimal burden on employers.

Hans von Spakovsky, a Justice Department civil rights official in the Bush administration, said, “No jury anywhere would think that a teacher leaving for three weeks during a crucial time at the end of a semester is reasonable.”

“This is a political lawsuit to placate Muslims,” he said....

That sums it up.

A few miles away at the Islamic Foundation, support for Khan was uniform.

"Uniform"? Don't these greasy Islamophobes know that Islam is not a monolith?

“If she was a Jew, would they treat her the same way?” Nabih Kamaan of Bloomingdale, Ill., asked as he arrived for Friday prayers.

Answer: yes. But not Kamaan's reflexive Islamic antisemitism.

“What if she was sick? What if she had a baby?” said Kamaan, who added that the lawsuit “is the right thing to do.”

Getting sick and having a baby is not the sort of thing one can ordinarily schedule with precision. The hajj, on the other hand, must be made once in a lifetime. Why did she have to make it right then? To establish and reinforce the point that non-Muslims must always accommodate Muslim demands, no matter how unreasonable. And now Khan has Obama's help to do that.

More on that little slice of insanity based in Pennsylvania, which Roland Shirk discussed at length here. "Meet 'the Most Dangerous Islamist on Planet Earth' He lives in Pennsylvania," from Canada Free Press, March 21:

The latest documents from Wikileaks shows growing concern among U. S. officials over Fethullah Gulen’s attempts to create a New Islamic World and the “braining washing of students” that takes place at his charter schools within the United States and throughout the Muslim world.

The cable that speaks of the “brain-washing” was written in 2009 by James Jeffrey, the U. S. Ambassador to Turkey.

In the cable, Mr. Jeffrey describes Gülen as a “political phenomena” in Turkey even when he resides “in exile” within a mountain fortress in Pennsylvania. He says the Gülen movement has gained control of Turkey’s government and dictates Turkish policy which has become increasing anti-Israeli and anti-American. It points out that the leaders of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma or AKP) who now govern Turkey, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, appear to serve as Gulen’s puppets.

Other newly released cables state that Gulen’s disciples now direct the country’s 200,000 strong police force - - a force that remains in conflict with the military, which sees the group as an enemy.

In recent months, Turkish military leaders, and other critics of the AKP, have been arrested in the dead of night and whisked off to detention cells.

According to NurettinVeren, who served as Fethullah Gulen’s right-hand man “There are imam security directors; imams wearing police uniforms. Many police commissioners get their orders from imams.”

“It is not possible to confirm the Turkish police are under the control of the Gülen community members, but we have not met anybody who denies it,” one cable said. The most dangerous Islamist on planet earth

Gulen has been labeled “the most dangerous Islamist on planet earth,” although he has failed to attract the attention of U. S. counter-terrorism experts and the national media.

Gülen is a student and follower of Sheikh Sa’id-i Kurdi (1878-1960), also known as Sa’id-i Nursi, the founder of the Islamist Nur (light) movement. After Turkey’s war of independence, Kurdi demanded, in an address to the new parliament, that the new republic be based on Islamic principles. Kurdi turned against Atatürk and his reforms and against the new modern, secular, Western republic and Gulen has followed his militant mentor’s example.

Hailed as an outstanding educator by Graham Fuller and other CIA officials, the reclusive Gulen is semi-literate and lacks a high school diploma.

In 1999, he was driven from his native Turkey because of his attempts to overthrow the secular Turkish government.

Objectives of transforming Turkey into an Islam republic and of creating a New Islamic World Order

In his sermons, Gulen has stated his objectives of transforming Turkey into an Islam republic and of creating a New Islamic World Order. In one sermon, he said:

“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all—in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here—[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here....

Read it all.

“Go sell crazy somewhere else—we're all stocked up here!” That is one of the great lines in 1990s American cinema. It was spoken by the misanthropic recluse played by Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets, and it pretty well describes the business we're in, resisting jihad. Every day, at least one of the news stories Robert or Marisol posts reads like something that couldn't actually be happening, but instead is a first draft of a bad idea discarded by Evelyn Waugh or Anthony Burgess for a satire they thought to write, but tossed into the trash can as too implausibly caustic. Then somebody at Jihadwatch, desperately short of copy, fished the idea out, flattened the crumpled paper on his desk, retyped the thing and posted it as fact. Indeed, Robert and I have discussed the idea of creating an April Fools' edition, a Jihad “Onion” issue full of stories so wildly outrageous that readers would spot them instantly as parodies. But he's inclined not to do it, since (as he put it): “How could people tell? What's already happening is so completely insane I doubt you could improve on it.” Indeed, I've written acid satires in the past, only to see them pretty much come true before I could get them published. The speed with which reality outpaces parody these days is deeply dispiriting. Even with the Internet, it's hard to iron out the typos in a timely satire before real headlines spoil the thing. It's as if these horrific ideas that come to me are puppets like Pinocchio—and Satan loved them so much he made them real.

Which brings me to today's installment: The Ottoman Charter Schools of Pennsylvania. Doesn't it sound like some bitter fantasy cooked up over pork rinds and bourbon after a gun show? Perhaps it's the sequel to a bleak daydream like: The Cloned Scientologist Sex Slaves of Hawaii. Only this one is all too real, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Sunday:

Fethullah Gulen is a major Islamic political figure in Turkey, but he lives in self-imposed exile in a Poconos enclave and gained his green card by convincing a federal judge in Philadelphia that he was an influential educational figure in the United States.

As evidence, his lawyer pointed to the charter schools, now more than 120 in 25 states, that his followers - Turkish scientists, engineers, and businessmen - have opened, including Truebright Science Academy in North Philadelphia and another charter in State College, Pa.

That's right, the Poconos, home of cheesy resorts with heart-shaped hot tubs where middle-aged American Methodist couples go for second honeymoons to “reconnect.” But amidst that world of comfy, silly normalcy there's at least one man who's thinking wistfully about the Caliphate, the jizya, and janissaries. Jihadwatch has reported before on Gulen's reputation as the “Turkish Khomeini,” citing a report by Asia News that stated that Gulen

has been criticised by a large number of secularists who believe that underneath a veneer of humanist philosophy, Gülen plans to turn Turkey’s secular state into a theocracy.

Secular Kemalists have compared him to Khomeini and fear that his return to Turkey might turn Ankara into another Tehran. The governments of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are also weary and suspicious of his “Turkish schools promoted by Islamic missionaries.”

At the basis of Gülen’s teachings is the notion that state and religion should be reconnected as they were in Ottoman times and that Turkey should play the role of beacon for the Balkans and the republics in the Caucasus.

Oh, that Fethullah Gulen. Now that we know the hero of the story, let's consider his accomplishments. According to the Inquirer, Gulen's public charter schools

are funded with millions of taxpayer dollars. Truebright alone receives more than $3 million from the Philadelphia School District for its 348 pupils. Tansu Cidav, the acting chief executive officer, described it as a regular public school.

"Charter schools are public schools," he said. "We follow the state curriculum."

But federal agencies - including the FBI and the Departments of Labor and Education - are investigating whether some charter school employees are kicking back part of their salaries to a Muslim movement founded by Gulen known as Hizmet, or Service, according to knowledgeable sources.

The Inquirer then throws in the obligatory, “Please don't blow up our editorial offices!” disclaimer:

Unlike in Turkey, where Gulen's followers have been accused of pushing for an authoritarian Islamic state, there is no indication the American charter network has a religious agenda in the classroom.

Religious scholars consider the Gulen strain of Islam moderate, and the investigation has no link to terrorism.

Of course, if AsiaNews is right, Gulen doesn't need to employ terrorist tactics. If democratic “reforms” in Turkey take hold and cut the already slackening grip of its secularist military and constitution, orthodox Muslims like Gulen will take power by the ballot box. As the anti-Semitic French authoritarian Charles Maurras once said, rakishly: “We will use any means to come to power—even democratic ones.” So will Gulen.

But if you can read past this bit of dhimmi nonsense the rest of the Inquirer report is thoroughly damning—of the broken American immigration system. Because as it turns out, Gulen's organization is staffing its schools with Muslim imports from Turkey. The paper notes that the investigation is “focused on whether hundreds of Turkish teachers, administrators, and other staffers employed under the H1B visa program are misusing taxpayer money.” And further:

Another aim of the Gulen schools, a federal official said, is fostering goodwill toward Turkey, which is led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the pro-Islamic prime minister, whose government recently detained journalists after they alleged that Gulen followers were infiltrating security agencies.

Gulen schools are among the nation's largest users of the H1B visas. In 2009, the schools received government approvals for 684 visas - more than Google Inc. (440) but fewer than a technology powerhouse such as Intel Corp. (1,203).

The visas are used to attract foreign workers with math, science, and technology skills to jobs for which there are shortages of qualified American workers. Officials at some of the charter schools, which specialize in math and science, have said they needed to fill teaching spots with Turks, according to parents and former staffers.

Ruth Hocker, former president of the parents' group at the Young Scholars of Central Pennsylvania Charter School in State College, began asking questions when popular, certified American teachers were replaced by uncertified Turkish men who often spoke limited English and were paid higher salaries. Most were placed in math and science classes.

"They would tell us they couldn't find qualified American teachers," Hocker said.

That made no sense in Pennsylvania State University's hometown, she said: "They graduate here every year."

Other school parents described how uncertified teachers on H1B visas were moved from one charter school to another when their "emergency" teaching credentials expired and told of a pattern of sudden turnovers of Turkish business managers, administrators, and board members.
...

Further evidence of the ties comes from a disaffected former teacher from Turkey who told federal investigators that the Gulen Movement had divided the United States into five regions, according to knowledgeable sources. A general manager in each coordinates the activities of the schools and related foundations and cultural centers, he told authorities.

Ohio, California, and Texas have the largest numbers of Gulen-related schools. Ohio has 19, which are operated by Concept Schools Inc., and most are known as Horizon Science Academies. There are 14 in California operated by the Magnolia Foundation. Texas has 33 known as Harmony schools, run by the Cosmos Foundation.

The next time someone tells you that fear of sharia and stealth jihad is just some paranoid fantasy, tell them about the neo-Ottoman theorist sitting in a heart-shaped tub in the Poconos running a string of Turkish-staffed schools throughout America on the taxpayer's dime. And he will think you are crazy. Then show him the evidence—rub it in his face—and he will admit you are right, then dismiss you as an “Islamophobe.” In response, remind him that the person in The Lord of the Rings who dismissed Gandalf the Grey as “Stormcrow” was the traitor, Grima Wormtongue. Then smile, wink and walk away with the line: “Don't behead the messenger.” Say it in your best Jack Nicholson voice.

They made her take off her hijab for security reasons, but who cares about security when Muslim practices must be accommodated?

"Muslim defendant can sue over hijab removal," by Bob Egelko for the San Francisco Chronicle, March 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

SAN FRANCISCO -- A law guaranteeing religious freedom to prisoners applies to a courthouse holding cell where sheriff's deputies ordered a Muslim woman to remove her headscarf, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 11-0 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit by Souhair Khatib against Orange County, where officers made her take off her hijab for security reasons while she was held in the cell to await a court hearing.

The law, passed by Congress in 2000, prohibits the government from imposing a "substantial burden" on prisoners' religious practices unless officials can show a compelling need for the restrictions.

The Obama administration joined Khatib in arguing that the law applied to courthouse holding cells....

The court returned the case to a federal judge to decide whether the deputies interfered with Khatib's religious freedom without a compelling security need. Becky Kieffer, a lawyer for Khatib, said federal prisons allow Muslim women to wear approved headscarves and that the county should follow their practice.

The county could also appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Khatib and her husband pleaded guilty in 2006 to a misdemeanor welfare crime, which Kieffer said involved receiving overpayments. They were placed on probation and ordered to perform 30 hours of community service apiece.

When they went to court to ask for an extension of the community service deadline, a judge revoked their probation and put them in holding cells, where deputies ordered Khatib to remove her hijab.

She stayed in the cell most of the day, trying to cover her head with her vest. When she was brought into court, the judge extended the deadline and restored her probation.

Khatib says her religion forbids her to expose her head or neck to men outside her immediate family. She sued the county for damages.

"You're not allowed to talk about what's happening in your country."

"Ex-Rep, 'Gopher' Leaves Radio Show After Pressure Over Islam Comments," by Judson Berger for FoxNews.com, March 5 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Fred Grandy, the former "Love Boat" star who served several terms in Congress before landing a gig as a radio host, resigned from his show this week after he was pressured to stop talking so much about radical Islam, his wife, Catherine, told FoxNews.com.

Catherine Mann-Grandy, who spoke with FoxNews.com extensively about the details of their split with WMAL management, confirmed that the couple's critical commentary on radical Islam was the driving factor behind Grandy's resignation.

"You're not allowed to talk about what's happening in your country," she said.

Fred Grandy, best known for his role as Gopher in "The Love Boat," had been on air as a host at Washington, D.C.'s WMAL since 2003. He worked most recently as host of "The Grandy Group" -- his wife made regular appearances on that show under the nickname "Mrs. Fred."

But while both of them started devoting more and more segments to the subject of Muslim influence in America over the past year, it was Catherine's comments that apparently led to an ultimatum.

Mann-Grandy, who did a regular segment called "domestic terrorism 101," hit a string of topics on their show last Friday. Though the segment was taken off the radio's site, she described it. She said that, on air, she quoted a rabbi who compared radical Muslims to Nazis, complained that President Obama was not doing enough to help Israel, warned that "Shariah-compliant" individuals work in the government and discussed several other Islam-related topics.

Perhaps sensing she might have stepped over a line, she warned on air about the possibility that she might not return the following week.

Sure enough, she didn't.

Mann-Grandy said her husband told her Tuesday that management told him she could no longer be on the show. Further, she said her husband was told to "really tone it down on the Islam stuff."

In response, Fred Grandy resigned.

Though he was not able to discuss his departure in detail for legal reasons, Fred Grandy also confirmed to FoxNews.com "it was my decision."

Jeff Boden, president and general manager of WMAL, disputed Mann-Grady's account.

"To be clear, at no time has WMAL told Fred that he was not allowed to discuss his views on Islam over the air," he said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "In fact, he has done so on numerous occasions. Further, WMAL has not been contacted by any organization seeking to restrict his broadcasts."

"WMAL remains committed to its goal of providing a forum for discussing a broad spectrum of issues while delivering compelling programming including Chris Plante, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin," he added.

The sudden departure immediately triggered rumors that the Council on American Islamic Relations, the country's largest Muslim advocacy group, was somehow involved -- a charge CAIR denied. Mann-Grandy said she thinks that's what happened, though she doesn't have evidence.

"That is just my gut instinct," she said. Fred Grandy said he had "no conclusive evidence."

WMAL, which carries several programs featuring conservative pundits, dumped host Michael Graham several years ago following comments he made about Islam and a subsequent campaign against the station's advertisers by CAIR.

James Lafferty, chariman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, accused WMAL of becoming "the first Shariah-compliant radio station in America."

Reached for comment, Lafferty said the host was told to tone it down and keep his wife off the program.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper attributed the charges against his group to the "extreme anti-Muslim blogosphere."

"That claim is as credible as any other claim these hate mongers make," he told FoxNews.com. "They make it up out of whole cloth."...

Once again, this execrable Islamic supremacist liar accuses others of what he himself does.

Okay, that title was mean. One of the things we love the most about English culture, one of the virtues was have inherited from it (along with the Common Law, and most of our modern liberties) is the brusque generosity and tolerance that Englishmen traditionally have summed up with terms like “fair play,” “sporting” and “cricket.” This complex of attitudes, wherever it finally stems from, comes across in the writing of authors as diverse as Dickens and Austen, Kipling and Chesterton. It helped make the English by far the most humane of the Western colonialists. It left Gandhi alive (the Germans would have shot him, the Belgians have cut off his hands). It also formed the basis for what we Americans consider “gentlemanly” behavior, which entails for us a sense of noblesse oblige that is worn unobtrusively, so as not to humiliate the recipient of charity. As I write this, I imagine Hugh Laurie as Bertie Wooster dropping a sovereign in a beggar's hat, making sure as he does it that no one is looking.

But like every created good thing, this attitude can be taken too far, and morph from a virtue into a vice. I was flabbergasted while reading a book on World War II to learn that a British military attache, Colonel Frank Mason-Macfarlane, presented a highly plausible plan for picking off Hitler during an upcoming military parade in early 1939 (he'd rented a room with a clear shot at 110 yards), but was turned down by his superiors and reprimanded for “poor sportsmanship.” The world paid a very high price for English schoolyard virtue on that occasion. As this site has chronicled exhaustively, the preoccupation with fair play has hopelessly crippled Briton in responding to the aggressiveness of the World's Most Intolerant Religion™, although Prime Minister Cameron's recent statement renouncing multiculturalism offers some small grounds for hope that elites are edging towards a “post-Munich moment.”

Here's another: The British popular press has begun to expose the creep of Stealth Jihad into every corner of British life. In late January, the Daily Mail revealed:

Halal meat is being routinely served at some of Britain’s most popular sporting venues, pubs, schools and hospitals without the public’s knowledge, it has emerged.

All beef, chicken and lamb sold to fans at Wembley Stadium has been secretly prepared in accordance with strict Islamic law.

And hundreds of pubs and restaurants in Britain, as well as top racecourses, schools and hospitals, now only serve chicken that has been ritually slaughtered according to Sharia Law....

Rugby fans watching fixtures at Twickenham and horse racing enthusiasts visiting Ascot can only buy halal chicken.

School children across Britain are routinely given halal meat with the only alternative a vegetarian option.

In one London borough, Tower Hamlets, in east London, over 100 schools only use halal meat.

Hospitals including the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust in London and the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation also insist all meat must comply with Sharia law.

And Britain’s biggest hotel and restaurant group Whitbread, which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains as well as Costa Coffee, Taybarns and Table Table restaurants has admitted that more than three-quarters of its poultry is halal.

None of this should be shocking to us by now. Secure in their niche as “oppressed” minorities, British Muslims are following the global script for imposing their ways on non-believers, in ways that members of no other religion on earth would dare to do. (Try to imagine British Catholics getting meat taken off the country's menus every Friday, or British Jews banning bacon.) The surprising thing is the strength of the reaction to this news. If you asked me which religious body in the world was least concerned to promote its own agenda (even among its own followers, much less outsiders) I would say without hesitation, “The Church of England.” (In his brilliant memoir of faith lost and regained, The Rage Against God, Peter Hitchens chronicles the institutional masochism of the C. of E., and its consequences for British culture.)

But this time the Anglicans took me by surprise, and bully for them. In mid-February, the Daily Mail was pleased to report:

The Church of England has told its schools to ensure they are serving non-halal food after concerns that a number are only providing meat slaughtered according to Islamic law.

The official guidance was issued after Church members complained that the use of halal meat was effectively ‘spreading sharia law’ across Britain....

The moves follow disclosures by The Mail on Sunday last year that halal products were widespread in schools, hospitals, pubs and sporting venues but members of the public were not informed.

More than 10,000 Christians, many of whom have reservations about eating meat from animals that are bled to death while an Islamic prayer is recited, have signed a petition calling for proper labelling....

Alison Ruoff, a long-standing member of the Church’s ‘parliament’, the General Synod, said: ‘The Church is only just waking up to this. We have been pathetic and mealy-mouthed but we should be really concerned about this.

‘There is a lot of fear about upsetting Muslims but as a Christian you have to stand up for Christian values. Because we are unwittingly eating halal meat, we are spreading the practice of sharia law.’...

The Christian Muslim Forum, set up by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams four years ago, said there were concerns about ‘some public authorities which provide only halal products in schools and other institutions’.

It said in a statement: ‘We urge all food outlets, catering organisations and public authorities to label halal food properly, for the benefit of both non-Muslim and Muslim consumers.’

Why should Christians care if they're eating halal meat? Predictably, cultural masochists and stealth jihadists will insist that such a concern is the fruit of "Islamophobia" and bigotry. I'm hardly the most ecumenical Christian in the world, but the only reaction I've ever had to eating a kosher hot dog has been to think "Oh good. This probably doesn't have so much junk in it." But the more I've learned of Islam, the harder it has been for me to buy those tasty-looking shish-kebabs that are offered from carts by hard-working (and no doubt peaceful) Muslims in New York City. Why is that?

For one thing, halal meat is slaughtered to the accompaniment of ritual prayers to Allah—and the more I learn about how Islam depicts him, the less I can conceive of him as in any way the same God worshiped by Christians and Jews. Instead, he seems to me a wicked idol, which would make the meat that was slaughtered in his name the one thing St. Paul forbade Christians to eat: Meat offered to an idol (1 Corinthians, 8:7).

Even without such a scriptural basis for distaste, the notion that Christian schools, and football stadiums, and hospitals, are routinely foisting Islamic foods on unknowing customers is just one more example of Muslim arrogance and Western servility. These haughty men, whose religion calls explicitly for the subjugation and humiliation of unbelievers, do not deserve such exaggerated fair play. They aren't playing a "straight bat."

The most discouraging thing about conducting the struggle against Islamic supremacism is the fact that you're forced to read about atrocities every day. Indeed, Jihadwatch frequently looks like a kind of global police blotter, chronicling the latest outrage conducted by mobs in Gaza, kangaroo courts in Afghanistan, shariah conspirators in Pakistan, or bandit-gangs in Iraq. On days when the Islamic body count is low, there is nearly always some statement by a revered religious leader to a Muslim audience calling for violence against unbelievers, making outrageous demands of a Western government, or hurling false charges at Westerners who push back against their aggression. On the Islam beat, there's never a shortage of evil. I'm reminded of what I read in the memoirs of an exorcist, who warned of the exhaustion, depression, even suicidal despair that can threaten those who stand on the front line confronting the Enemy. I'm convinced that that danger applies here. I hope the unbelievers among my readership will indulge me here, and regard what I say next as a charming but harmless piece of Christian superstition:

I believe with all my heart that a spirit did indeed appear to Muhammad and inspire the Qur'an. I accept his account of how that spirit guided him to make its early suras amiable and uplifting, and then as his military power grew, ever darker and more intolerant. When I read how Muhammad sometimes showed some humane scruples—for instance, about stealing his stepson's wife—and the spirit urged him to go ahead and seize what he wanted... I believe that spirit was real. I think it is still with us, that Muhammad's private “bin Screwtape” still abides and watches over the mass movement he created.

Whenever we score a victory, he is enraged, and he afflicts us—where he can, by goading us into extreme statements or unjust actions that will discredit our cause with decent people. When we fall for that, when we lower ourselves to the level of our enemies, we do more than make some tactical mistake; we begin, I believe, to serve in some way the same spirit of hatred that inspired the Verse of the Sword. Even if we convince ourselves we are aiming that sword at Islam, in fact we are beginning to be mesmerized by it. Mirroring Islamic intolerance, and aiming it at Muslims, is at once a crime and a blunder. Let's remember that it wasn't the fanatically anti-German bigots of the Action Francaise who in fact formed the Resistance after 1940; members of that group disproportionately became instead collaborators.

Since most of us aren't actually prone to genuine hatred, the next tactic “bin Screwtape” tries is to grind us down with defeatism, to convince us that the struggle is unavailing, that the blindness of our fellow Westerners and the lazy, pleasure-loving short-sightedness of our society will never be a match for the disciplined, fertile fanatics whom he urges to enslave us. This too is a grave temptation. It pays to remember that anti-Communist hero Whittaker Chambers was wrong when he said he feared he had joined the losing side of history, that Moscow's fighting faith would prevail against the flaccid and hedonistic West. As early as 636, Abu Bakr warned the Persians he was attacking, “I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life.”

Let's resist the urge to romanticize such evil, and grant it a power it doesn't really have. Remember that the fatalistic, samurai culture of Japan that inspired the kamikazes was utterly crushed by the America of Benny Goodman, the Lindy-Hop, and Abbott and Costello. The Carthaginians, who sacrificed their infants to ask their gods for victory, were defeated by Roman family farmers who fought to defend their Republic. The power that evil seems to grant us is in the long run an illusion, like the "high" one gets from a hit of coke or a joyride in a stolen car. Reality has its revenge.

Yes, fecklessness and weakness, cowardice and short-sighted selfishness can doom a culture—and make it prey to neighbors with sharper teeth and more fertile wombs. But such a victory isn't inevitable. There are enough signs of life left yet in the West—and to prove my point I'd like to show you one.

The video below appeared in Salon under the hysterical headline: “This is What Anti-Muslim Hate Looks Like.”

The video depicts a patriotic rally held outside a fundraiser for the Islamic Circle of North America, which supports the imposition of sharia law in the U.S. The keynote speakers for the evening—supposedly meant to raise money for women's shelters—were Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Amir Abdel Malik Ali. As the Orange County Register reported:

Wahhaj is an imam at a mosque in Brooklyn. A U.S. attorney named him and 169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.... Malik Ali is a Bay Area Islamic activist who spoke at 'Israeli Apartheid Week' at UC Irvine in 2010. There he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group.

The footage was shot by the local chapter of Hamas-linked CAIR—who were strongly motivated to find the ugliest images and most obnoxious quotes they could.... And this is the best they could do: A group of Americans peacefully gathered behind a barricade, chanting to the suited men and hijabed women who trooped into the event, “No sharia!” and “Go home!” Given that the event featured foreign-born supporters of terrorism and sharia law, these were not outrageous sentiments for Californians to express. Anything less would amount to servility.

Note that the rally was not a picket of a mosque full of peaceful Muslims, with no connections to militant groups, or public aspirations to impose Islamic law. It was aimed at a group of activists, who make no secret of their Islamic supremacism. The most “offensive” thing I could find on the video were some verbal references on the part of protestors to Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha, and the fact that she was at the time only 9 years old. Now as good Americans and good sports, this might seem like it's a “low blow.”

But is it really? Sharia law as it is interpreted in Iran (Hezbellah's chief sponsor) indeed allows the marriage of girls at 9—a “reform” the Ayatollah Khomeni enacted shortly after coming to power. Given that ICNA calls for sharia in America, the protestors' remarks were entirely fair. They were the cold, sober truth—which I'm proud and heartened to see Americans cast back in the teeth of our enemies here at home. The protestors in Orange County don't hate people, they hate evil—an evil they see imposing itself by force in countries across the world. They hate “bin-Screwtape.”

Yes, it's rude to insult the founder of someone else's religion. But I don't see Evangelicals or Russian Orthodox lining up outside Mormon temples to denounce Joseph Smith—whose religion they surely find almost as alien as Islam. Now why, do you think, is that?

Could it have something to do with the fact that in majority Muslim countries like Pakistan, you can be executed for criticizing Muhammad? That government ministers who oppose such laws are gunned down with impunity, and are praised for committing murder by high-placed Muslim clerics? As long as Muslims keep friendly relations with co-religionists who engage in such acts of violence, as long as they call for laws imposing that kind of tyranny on our shores, they should expect to reap the dragon's teeth they have sown.