Another great piece from Latma TV.
It seems The NY Times' complete disregard for the truth extends further than just their biased "reporting." Lil' Pinch Sulzberger was caught with his bloomers down when his desperate pleas were emailed to 8.6 million newspaper cancellations and his millions of ex-subscribers were exposed. He cried "spam"; he lied.
The Times' death throes.
I like the NY Post's 5 real reasons to cancel the Times:
The Gray Lady is red-faced.
The New York Times blundered twice yesterday — first telling more than 8 million people via e-mail that they had canceled their subscriptions, then claiming, erroneously, that the e-mail deluge was all due to spam.
The comedy of errors began at 1:20 p.m. when 8.6 million e-mails from the Times were sent out addressed to “Dear Home Delivery Subscriber.”
The message said that the Times’ records show that the recipients had recently canceled their subscriptions and begged them to come back for an “exclusive rate of 50 percent off for 16 weeks.”LUIZ C. RIBEIRO/NEW YORK POSTNew York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger sports a black eye.
“We do hope you’ll reconsider,” the e-mail said.
The e-mail seemed legit: It was sent from an address listed as: firstname.lastname@example.org.
It told recipients to contact an 877 telephone number if they were interested.
But callers to the number either got a busy signal or a message that said, “Due to high call volume, your call cannot be completed at this time.”
Within an hour, the newspaper realized that its mass e-mail had flooded in-boxes. But the Times told media reporters that it was the victim, not the perpetrator.
“The e-mail is SPAM and was not sent from The New York Times. We are alerting subscribers immediately,” the paper told reporters by e-mail at 2:08 p.m. “That’s our immediate concern. When we learn more, we will let you know. ”
About the same time, the Times’ Twitter feed said, “If you received an e-mail today about canceling your NYT subscription, ignore it. It’s not from us.”
But it was from the paper. The Times’ story changed drastically by 3:29 when the paper’s media reporter Amy Chozik tweeted, “The e-mail was sent by the NYT, a spokeswoman said. Should’ve gone to approx 300 & went to over 8 mil.”
That message was passed on to reporters at 3:47 in an e-mail that retracted the earlier spam claim and admitted the Times was the source of the e-mail flood.
“The e-mail should have been sent to a very small number of subscribers but instead was sent to a vast subscription list made up of people who had previously provided their e-mail address to The New York Times,” the paper said. “We regret the error and we regret our earlier communication noting that this e-mail was SPAM.”
The Times also went back to the 8.6 million, apologizing for “any confusion” this may have caused.
By 4:28 the Times Web site told the rest of the world of the apparent “send-to-all blunder made by a Times employee.
It added that the newspaper had “initially mischaracterized the mishap as spam.”
By then the screw-up had inspired a parody Twitter account, @NYTSpam. It soon had more than 150 followers who were enjoying the Times squirm.
The account’s description of itself read: “Not affiliated with @NYTimes or actual spammers — just sick of bad digital strategy.”
Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said that despite the e-mail blast, “No one’s security has been compromised.”
She said the newspaper would not extend the 50 percent discount offer to the 8.6 million who received the faulty e-mail.
Read the rest at The NY Post
"That’s why I think the debate on the Republican side is so important. And why when I see, I have to be candid, a candidate like Ron Paul whose foreign policy is if anything is worse than the Obama administration apparently leading in Iowa according to some polls, it just gives me great concern...So if you’re thinking about Ron Paul because of his domestic issues, think again and look at virtually any of the other candidates and consider how they would be as Commander-in-Chief. That’s the president’s first duty, defending the country."
Previously at Atlas:
As Turkey races to reimpose Sharia, this is what happens: women who commit the crime of wanting "to make an independent decision concerning their own lives" are murdered in increasing numbers.
And in the United States, those who call attention to honor murders are vilified.
In both countries, it's the victims of such killings who suffer from the general indifference to their plight. But I am not going to stop speaking out. Come to our conference in Dearborn: Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference April 29, 2012 -- please join us as we stand up for justice for the victims of honor killing, and dedicate ourselves to resisting this barbarity and calling on our authorities to do something about it.
(ANSAmed) - ISTANBUL, DECEMBER 29 - In the wake of a report that 160 women were murdered in Turkey in 2011 by male partners or relatives, some are calling for women at risk to be given free guns and lessons in how to use them. The new statistics, released by the group "We Will Stop the Murders of Women", paint a dire portrait of the state of women's rights in Turkey, as the Istanbul newspaper Today's Zaman writes. The report reveals that one in two of the 160 women murdered were killed "because they wanted to make an independent decision concerning their own lives". Of these, 41% wanted to divorce or separate from their husband or partner, 32% were murdered due to jealously on the part of their husband and 16% were killed because they rejected a man's advances. Only 23% of the women who applied to the state for protection from domestic violence this year received such assistance, the report said. Such stark statistics prompted Hayrettin Bulan, chairman of Sefkat-Der, a non-governmental group working for the protection of women, to suggest that "a last-resort solution to the problem may be to issue guns to women facing violence". Bulan added that his organization is already in talks with shooting ranges to arrange lessons for women at risk next year. But Hulya Gulgahar, a prominent Turkish women's rights lawyer, disagreed. "To arm women with guns will create a whole different set of problems," she said. (ANSAmed).
Dear freedom lover:
Sinister Islamic supremacist groups like Hamas-linked CAIR and the group behind the Ground Zero Mosque, the American Society of Muslim Advancement (ASMA), are making huge end-of-the-year fundraising pushes. CAIR just sent out a call for a December fundraising goal of $240,000 to fight “Islamophobia.” Daisy Khan of ASMA is asking for money to combat “the likes of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.”
The enemies of freedom are well funded and determined to shut down everyone who tells the truth about jihad and Islamization. By contrast, those who dare to stand against the Islamic supremacists are – contrary to their false claims – few in number and short on resources.
Yet we have accomplished so much. In 2011 the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s Stop the Islamization of America project did all this and more:
No one is doing the work we are doing and accomplishing what we are accomplishing. No one else is putting the Islamic supremacists on the defensive and calling attention to the human rights abuses that they’re excusing and justifying the way we are.
Yet we have done all this and much more on a shoestring. We don’t have a lavish budget. We don’t have big foundations or generous endowments behind us. We don’t even draw salaries. For every initiative, we have to go begging to the few donors who see the value of our work for freedom.
Please think about the work SIOA has done, and all the things we would be able to accomplish if we only had the resources. Please consider giving something – anything – to help our work keep going. Donate through Paypal to email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org (tax-deductible).
We are fighting for America. We are fighting for freedom. We are fighting for you. Please join us.
Yours in liberty
Pamela Geller, Executive Director
Robert Spencer, Associate Director
American Freedom Defense Initiative/Stop Islamization of America
How can we, as free men, sanction this? It is only matter of time before they get him.
And this is not merely merely a "Swedish" jihad, this is global. You must remember that the now infamous American Jihad Jane was conspiring with other devout Muslims to murder Vilks. How many Van Goghs must we mourn before we understand that we have a terrible war on our hands? Untie our hands.
Swedish court lets go 3 accused in plot to kill artist Associated Press December 28, 2011
STOCKHOLM (AP) — Three men charged with plotting to kill Lars Vilks, the Swedish artist who depicted Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a dog, were released Wednesday by a court ahead of its verdict announcement.
In a brief statement on the final day of the trial, the Goteborg District Court said the men, ages 24 to 26 and of Somali and Iraqi origin, were no longer in detention. It did not give any reasons for its decision, saying only that it will disclose more information when the verdict is announced Jan. 20.
But typically such a decision means that the court either won’t convict the defendant or that there is little, or no reason, for keeping a person detained for fear that the suspect might run away or destroy evidence.
The men were carrying knives when they were arrested Sept. 10, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and an art gallery was evacuated in connection with the arrests. Mr. Vilks had written on his blog that he planned to visit the event, but he did not attend that night.
Police originally treated the case as a terror investigation but later relabeled it a murder plot.
All three suspects have denied the charges.
Mr. Vilks‘ 2007 drawing led to several threats against him, including from the al Qaeda terror network, and rekindled a debate over free speech and Islam. Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the Prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
More devout Muslims doing what the quran and Muhammad command them to do. Obama say, "Respect it!"
This follows on the heels of the Christmas jihad massacres in Nigeria, in which Muslims murdered over 100 Christians.
When will the world stand up and say "Enough" to this savagery?
Gunmen kill toddler near Nigeria flashpoint city AFP December 28
JOS, Nigeria — Gunmen have shot dead a three-year-old girl and her parents near the volatile central Nigerian city of Jos, a government spokesman and residents said Wednesday.
The killing in the Christian-dominated village comes amid growing fears of civil unrest in the country following a deadly string of Christmas attacks claimed by Islamist group Boko Haram.
"Three people -- a man, his wife and daughter -- have been confirmed killed in that (Uwuk) village. They were attacked in the night while they were asleep," Plateau state spokesman Ayuba Paro told AFP.
Paro quoted the villagers as saying that attackers who struck late Tuesday were suspected to be Fulani tribesmen, a mostly Muslim group which has been blamed for previous raids on the village.
Uwuk village, some 20 kilometres (12 miles) outside Plateau state capital Jos, belongs to the mainly Christian Berom ethnic group.
A sister of the slain woman told AFP that the attack happened about 10:00 pm (2100 GMT).
"I was in the next village when they called me to tell me that my sister had been killed. She, her husband and their three-year-old daughter were shot and stabbed in their rooms," she said.
Don't miss my WND column today -- a profile of Jennifer Rubin, the appalling pseudo-conservative that the WaPo props up. The mainstream media will never feature a true conservative.
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post is a prime example. She best represents the liberal's idea of a conservative. She is weak, at best. So naive and ignorant is Rubin about the stealth jihad and creeping Shariah that she dismisses as "ridiculous" the observation that 10 years after 9/11, we are losing – even though no government or law enforcement entity is doing a single thing about that stealth jihad as it continues to advance.
Similarly clueless and cowardly was her response to Newt Gingrich's unexpectedly statesmanlike and courageous observations that the "Palestinians" were an "invented people," a nationality made up out of whole cloth to further the Islamic jihad against Israel. In a piece on Gingrich's detractors, Caroline Glick noted that "the attackers' most outspoken representative has been Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin. These insiders argue that although Gingrich spoke the truth, it was irresponsible and unstatesmanlike for him to have done so."
Glick quotes Rubin asking: "Do conservatives really think it is a good idea for their nominee to reverse decades of U.S. policy and deny there is a Palestinian national identity?"
Yes, of course it's a good idea. If that U.S. policy is based on jihadist propaganda, the only interests that will be served by perpetuating this fiction will be those of the jihadists. But since Rubin hardly realizes that there is a jihad anyway, she missed that. Her cluelessness builds on itself.
Glick points out that in the view of Jennifer Rubin and others like her, "Gingrich is an irresponsible flamethrower because he is turning his back on a 30-year bipartisan consensus. That consensus is based on ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are an artificial people whose identity sprang not from any shared historical experience, but from opposition to Jewish nationalism."
Also clueless and dangerous was Rubin's take on the "Arab Spring," i.e. the Islamic supremacist winter, but in that Rubin was just following the liberal media herd. (And that's part of the problem, too.) The Islamic imperialism of the revolution was evident from the beginning. I wrote of the Muslim Brotherhood's stealth coup back in January and February of 2011. But Rubin wrote last June that while "there was and remains legitimate concern about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt … the argument that removing Mubarak meant handing the government over to the Muslim Brotherhood has not proved correct. At least not yet." She cautioned the U.S. and other Western powers to avoid "fanning hysteria that Egypt is on the brink of falling into the Islamist camp." She even added a warning: "The more time we devote to the latter, the greater chance it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy."
Is she kidding? It's our fault? Spoken like a true jihadist. What's next? Sept. 11 was our fault?
Obama's contempt for the military is palpable. They say they are afraid a celebration "could spark violence overseas." How ridiculous. As if the jihadis weren't already trying to kill U.S. military personnel. Now the Obama Pentagon would have us believe that everything is fine and peaceful, but a ticker-tape parade for our troops will set the jihadis off? Please.
WASHINGTON — Americans probably won’t be seeing a huge ticker-tape parade anytime soon for troops returning from Iraq, and it’s not clear if veterans of the nine-year campaign will ever enjoy the grand, flag-waving, red-white-and-blue homecoming that the nation’s fighting men and women received after World War II and the Gulf War.
Officials in New York and Washington say they would be happy to help stage a big celebration, but Pentagon officials say they haven’t been asked to plan one.
Most welcome-homes have been smaller-scale: hugs from families at military posts across the country, a somber commemoration by President Obama at Fort Bragg, N.C.
With tens of thousands of U.S. troops still fighting a bloody war in Afghanistan, anything that looks like a big victory celebration could be seen as unseemly and premature, some say.
“It’s going to be a bit awkward to be celebrating too much, given how much there is going on and how much there will be going on in Afghanistan,” said Don Mrozek, a military history professor at Kansas State University.
Two New York City councilmen, Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo, have called for a ticker-tape parade down the stretch of Broadway known as the Canyon of Heroes. A similar celebration after the Gulf War was paid for with more than $5.2 million in private donations, a model the councilmen would like to follow.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said last week that he was open to the idea but added, “It’s a federal thing that we really don’t want to do without talking to Washington, and we’ll be doing that.”
A spokesman for the mayor declined to elaborate on the city’s reasons for consulting with Washington. Ignizio said he had been told by the mayor’s office that Pentagon officials were concerned that a celebration could spark violence overseas and were evaluating the risk....
“The sports celebrations that we’ve had in New York for the Yankees and the Mets were amazing,” Oddo said. “But these are the real heroes.”
Previous presidents acknowledged the Christian belief of Christ's divinity during Christmas proclamations. But not Obama. Do you think he would have been this disrespectful toward Islamic belief in a proclamation on an Islamic holy day?
Obama breaks with tradition, refers to Christ as just “good man” not “Son of God” Jack Minor, Greeley Gazette
While we acknowledge there are many different religions in America, and believe in the Constitutional right of people to choose to believe whatever they want to about their god (or choose to believe nothing at all), the Christmas holiday is traditionally recognized as a time to remember the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God....
In recent years, it has been traditional for the President of the United States to issue a Christmas message from the White House.
As part of his proclamation, Ronald Reagan said in 1981:
“At this special time of year, we all renew our sense of wonder in recalling the story of the first Christmas in Bethlehem nearly 2,000 years ago.
Some celebrate Christmas as the birthday of a great and good philosopher and teacher. Others of us believe in the divinity of the Child born in Bethlehem that He was and is the promised Prince of Peace. Yes, we questioned why He who could perform miracles chose to come among us as a helpless babe, but maybe that was His first miracle, His first great lesson that we should learn to care for one another.
Tonight, in millions of American homes, the glow of the Christmas tree is a reflection of the love Jesus taught us. Like the shepherds and wise men at that first Christmas, we Americans have always tried to follow a higher light, a star, if you will. At lonely campfire vigils along the frontier, in the darkest days of the Great Depression, through war and peace, the twin beacons of faith and freedom have brightened the American sky. At times, our footsteps may have faltered, but trusting in God's help, we've never lost our way. ...
So let this holiday season be for us a time of rededication. Christmas means so much because of One Special Child. … “
Here is a video of that proclamation.
Reagan would go on to echo similar thoughts about Christ’s divinity throughout his presidency.
President George W. Bush referenced the holiday in a more traditional way saying during his 2005 address, “More than 2,000 years ago, a virgin gave birth to a Son, and the God of heaven came to Earth. Mankind had received its Savior, and to those who had dwelled in darkness, the light of hope had come. Each Christmas, we celebrate that first coming anew, and we rejoice in the knowledge that the God who came to Earth that night in Bethlehem is with us still and will remain with us forever.
His 2008 proclamation was similar, “During this season, we remember Jesus' birth from the Virgin Mary, His justice and mercy that changed the world, and His ultimate sacrifice for all people. Though Jesus was born humbly in a manger, He was destined to be the Savior of the world.”
President Bill Clinton also acknowledged the Christian theme of the holiday during his 1996 Christmas address, “Each year during this blessed season, the world pauses to look back across the centuries to the birth of a Child. This Child was born to poor but loving parents in the small town of Bethlehem -- born into a world where few noticed His coming, except for some simple shepherds and a few wise men. He was the Son of God and the King of Kings, but He chose to come among us as servant and Savior.”
Last year, President Obama moved away from tradition and did not mention the divine birth, which is the main “reason for the season.” discussing Christ’s redemptive purpose saying instead Christmas was about “the birth of a child who devoted his life to a message of peace, love, and redemption. A message that says no matter who we are, we are called to love one another – we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper, our separate stories in this big and busy world are really one.”
He echoed a similar theme in 2009, where he said the message of Christmas was, “A message of peace and brotherhood that continues to inspire more than 2,000 after Jesus' birth.”...
UPDATE: Watch and compare:
This was an act of war. Yet Iran has not been punished for its role in the 911 attacks. As this new information contines to emerge, the next President of the United States should remove this murderous regime. That should be a campaign promise.
We can be sure that Obama is going to do nothing about this, except maybe film another obsequious video reaching out to the bloody mullahs.
Judge: Iran, Taliban, al Qaeda liable for 9/11 Associated Press
People flee Lower Manhattan across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York after a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Sept. 11, 2001. (AP Photo/Daniel Shanken)
NEW YORK - A federal judge has signed a default judgment finding Iran, the Taliban and al Qaeda liable in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Judge George Daniels in Manhattan signed the judgment Thursday, a week after hearing testimony in the 10-year-old case. The signed ruling, which he promised last week, came in a $100 billion lawsuit brought by family members of victims of the attacks. He directed a magistrate judge to preside over remaining issues, including fixing compensatory and punitive damages.
Daniels signed findings of fact saying the plaintiffs had established that the 2001 attacks were caused by the support the defendants provided to al Qaeda. The findings also said Iran continues to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda by providing a safe haven for al Qaeda leadership and rank-and-file al Qaeda members.
During last week's open-court hearing, family members of Sept. 11 victims sat through a four-hour presentation from attorneys who cited evidence supporting their claims that Iran actively assisted the hijackers of planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, at the Pentagon and into a field in Pennsylvania. Former members of the Sept. 11 Commission and three Iranian defectors also spoke.
It would be near impossible to collect any damages, especially from the Taliban or al Qaeda.
Iran has not commented on the ruling. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied any Iranian connection in the Sept. 11 attacks or with al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia had been knocked out of the lawsuit, but lawyers filed papers on Thursday to reinstate Saudi Arabia as a defendant.
Everyone who pays even the slightest bit of attention knows that the destruction of Israel has always been the end goal for Hamas and all the "Palestinians." The only ones who don't know, or pretend they don't know, are in Washington.
Hamas leader Haniyeh: Goal is destruction of Israel in stages Palestinian Media Watch (hat tip Jack)
At a ceremony marking the 24th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh said that Hamas may work for the "interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem," but that this "interim objective" and "reconciliation" with Fatah will not change Hamas' long-term "strategic" goal of eliminating all of Israel:
Click to view
In his speech, Haniyeh also promised that Hamas will "lead Intifada after Intifada until we liberate Palestine - all of Palestine, Allah willing. Allah Akbar and praise Allah."
Two days later, contradicting Haniyeh's statements, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that Hamas leader abroad Khaled Mashaal had agreed that:
According to Abbas, Hamas agrees to a permanent solution on the '67 borders. However, Haniyeh said that Hamas agrees to a temporary solution on the '67 borders as a first stage only.
For many years, the PLO promoted a "stages plan" that would first create a Palestinian state on the 1949 - 1967 armistice lines, and then work from that position to destroy Israel.
Senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki recently stated that this remains the goal for Fatah as well, but that "you can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself."
Now that the Muslim Brotherhood is in the driver's seat in Egypt, their genocidal Jew-hatred can come fully out into the open. No one should be surprised by that -- after all, Islamic Jew-hatred is in the quran.
Cairo rally: One day we'll kill all Jews YNET (hat tip Jack)
Arab hate: A Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo's most prominent mosque Friday turned into a venomous anti-Israel protest, with attendants vowing to "one day kill all Jews."
Some 5,000 people joined the rally, called to promote the "battle against Jerusalem's Judaization." The event coincided with the anniversary of the United Nations' partition plan in 1947, which called for the establishment of a Jewish state.
However, most worshippers who prayed at the mosque Friday quickly left it before the Muslim Brotherhood's rally got underway. A group spokesman urged attendants to remain for the protest, asking them not to create a bad impression for the media by leaving.
Speakers at the event delivered impassioned, hateful speeches against Israel, slamming the "Zionist occupiers" and the "treacherous Jews." Upon leaving the rally, worshippers were given small flags, with Egypt's flag on one side and the Palestinian flag on the other, as well as maps of Jerusalem's Old City detailing where "Zionists are aiming to change Jerusalem's Muslim character."
Propaganda material ahead of Egypt's parliamentary elections was also handed out at the site.
Spiritual leader Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb charged in his speech that to this day Jews everywhere in the world are seeking to prevent Islamic and Egyptian unity.
"In order to build Egypt, we must be one. Politics is insufficient. Faith in Allah is the basis for everything," he said. "The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews…we shall not allow the Zionists to Judaize al-Quds (Jerusalem.) We are telling Israel and Europe that we shall not allow even one stone to be moved there."
Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen, as well as Palestinian guest speakers, made explicit calls for Jihad and for liberating the whole of Palestine. Time and again, a Koran quote vowing that "one day we shall kill all the Jews" was uttered at the site. Meanwhile, businessmen in the crowd were urged to invest funds in Jerusalem in order to prevent the acquisition of land and homes by Jews.
Throughout the event, Muslim Brotherhood activists chanted: "Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, judgment day has come."
Speaking to Ynet outside the mosque following the prayer, elementary school teacher Ala al-Din said that "all Egyptian Muslims are willing to embark on Jihad for the sake of Palestine."
"Why is the US losing in Afghanistan? Because the other side is willing and wants to die. We have a different mentality than that of the Americans and Jews," he said.
Yes, they love death and we love life.
On December 14 here at Atlas I posted Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack's expose about the supposedly "moderate" imam featured on the deceptive All-American Muslim dawah show. Now here is more: al-Husainy appeared on the Hannity show in 2007, after he prayed an Islamic prayer cursing Jews and Christians at a Democratic National Committee meeting, Hannity pressed him, and he completely lost it. Robert Spencer posted a partial transcript of his dodging Hannity's questions:
You paid to talk like this.
God my witness, you are breaking the law and you are accusing me...Because you are breaking the peace of this world, you wanted to create animosity between the religions, Christian and Muslim and Jewish...
(Do you support Ahmadinejad?) I won't answer you unless you just withdraw the question...
See? See now? See, "ducking the question" -- this is an insult. See? ...You are Christian, let's follow Jesus' rule. If you are a Jewish, let's follow Moses' rule. Please just follow God's rule, not insult each other.
People like you, my friend, you are playing with fire.
Honest to God, you need to bring the peace to this world, you need to bring God to this world, you are out of the spiritual circle. You are justifying politics and the world is really burning. Let's cool it down. Let's go back to the law of Abraham and Muhammad and Jesus and Moses...But don't insult, please. Don't insult nobody.
You belong to a minority of people burning the world. You just have to come back to God. Go read the Bible. Go read the Torah. And let's talk, is that the language, is that the behavior of Jesus and Moses? You are really away of your faith. So let's go back to the moral value of the Bible. And let's see: does the Bible teach [unintelligible] each other like that? We are Muslim, a billion and a half just like the Christians. Is that the way we aggravate each other, trouble each other? You are really making God mad at you, making Jesus mad at you, making Moses mad at you...
Give me time, I will answer it. But let's respect each other. The trouble is, you are humiliating me and God is against that. Jesus against that...
You are. You are against prophet Muhammad. You are against the faith of Muslims. You are against Qur'an. And God is my witness. And God's gonna get mad at you. Jesus gonna get mad at you. You are working against the unity of the world. And the unity of Muslims, and Jewish, and Christians. You are working against America. You are disturbing the peace between East and West. You are really, you are the anti-peace person.
The peerless Kamala reviews English-language Sharia manuals and shows how they're nothing like what Islamic apologists in the U.S. would like us to think: there's no significant variation in them at all, and they contain all the terrible aspects of Sharia that those apologists deny exist.
Silicon Valley Sharia Kamala December 27
Apple. Google. Facebook. Sharia?
It is essential to clarify this serious issue for the ordinary Muslim, so that he may learn to judge any man-made law or system as a system of kufr [disbelief], so that he may know that the action of promulgating these legal systems constitutes major kufr, and accepting these systems and thinking that they are as good as, or better than, shari'ah, or that it is permissible to refer to them for judgement, constitutes major kufr which puts a person beyond the pale of Islam.
Once this idea is clear in the minds of ordinary Muslims, then the Muslim ummah will not accept anything from their governments and rulers except shari'ah, to rule their lives, and they will realize that any other system or law is nothing more or less than kufr and a deviation from Islam.
As will be made clear below, accusing a Muslim of kufr (disbelief) is no small thing; under Sharia, it's an offense to be punished by death.
To justify his argument, the author cites dozens of verses from the Qur'an and many works of Islamic scholars.
Abdur-Rahmaan shows no signs of struggling with those "thousands" of interpretations of Sharia, or how to identify "legislative systems that go against the shari'ah." Sharia means nothing less than stoning, amputation, and polygamy. He includes an excerpt from one Shaykh Ash-Shanqeeti (pp. 340-341), with emphasis added:
But promulgating legislative systems that go against the shari'ah of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and referring to them for judgement, constitutes kufr or disbelief in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, such as claiming that giving preference to males over females in matters of inheritance is not fair, and that they should be given equal shares; or claiming that plurality of marriage is oppression, or that divorce is unfair to women, or that stoning and amputation of hands, etc., are bestial acts which cannot be justifiably done to anyone, and so on.
Minhaj Al-Muslim, by Abu Bakr Jabir Al-Jaza'iry, is one of only 11 books in the top-level "Books" section of the MCA bookstore, featured next to books such as the Pocket Size Quran and Jimmy Carter's classic, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The bookstore's web page for the book describes Al-Jaza'iry as a "great scholar," summing up the book as "a comprehensive work" "comprising all that concerns a Muslim regarding creed, manners, providing direction for righteous character, acts of worship, and dealings with his colleagues."
Minhaj Al-Muslim was written (in Arabic) in 1964, and was translated into this English edition in 2001. The publisher translates the book's title as "The way of a Muslim." The book begins with the author's introduction, explaining why he wrote the book. While visiting Morocco to spread Islam, "the brothers asked me to compose a book for the righteous believing youth there as well as the Muslims in the general area, to serve as a law or a statute for them."
The author is proud of his work: "...it is a book which no Muslim house should be without." He's also quite sure of its authenticity: "I spared no effort in investigating and searching for the most sound opinion of the eminent scholars such as Imams Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash Shafi'i, and Ahmad..." (naming the Islamic scholars behind today's four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence). He continues, "I have not the least doubt that he who behaves in accordance with the rules of this Minhaj ... actually behaves in accordance with the Shari'ah of Allah the Almighty and with the guidance of His Messenger." (emphasis added)
Before diving into some detailed examples of the Sharia-compliant rules in this book, it's worth revisiting a few key facts:
And now, on to some of Minhaj Al-Muslim's rules for this "total way of life."
Muslim apologists constantly tell gullible non-Muslims that jihad means "struggle," not holy war. Liar Reza Aslan tells us that "in its primary religious connotation (sometimes referred to as 'the greater jihad'), it means the struggle of the soul to overcome the sinful obstacles that keep a person from God." John Esposito similarly says that "Jihad in Islam means the struggle to be a good Muslim. That's its primary meaning in the Quran." Yasir Qadhi's #1 myth about Islam is that "The term 'jihad' signifies holy-war, 'killing the infidel', and political dominance." Rather, "the term ‘jihad’ means ‘struggle’, and signifies many things, including struggling internally to fight one’s desires and living a better, more righteous life."
Yet Minhaj introduces its section on Jihad with a different, simple definition: "The specific ruling of Jihad – which is fighting against the disbelievers and those who wage war against Islam – is that it is a collective compulsory duty." (Vol. 2, p. 165)
Four types of jihad are listed. The first: "Performing Jihad against disbelievers and those who wage war against the Muslims." Number two is jihad against "rebellious sinners," and number three is jihad against "Satan." Only the fourth type is "Jihad against one's self." While Minhaj acknowledges that this type "has even been called the greatest Jihad," this claim is accompanied by a footnote pointing out that "this is based on a weak Hadith [saying by or about Muhammad]..." (Vol. 2, p. 167)
In his fascinating book, Inside Jihad, former Egyptian Islamic Jihad member Tawfik Hamid explains the significance of this specific attribution:
Abu Bakr Al-Jazairy – a lecturer in the Nobel Prophetic Mosque in Saudi Arabia – wrote in his well-known, widely-distributed book, Minhaj Al-Muslim, that this hadith "...is based upon a weak Hadith..." As we can see, on the one hand Islamists show non-Muslims a peaceful Hadith to improve Islam's image, and on the other teach Muslims, that it is weak (and by implication, that Muslims should not follow it). In contrast, Islamists teach Muslims that the following hadith is sahih, or "strong,"accurate" and "authentic," and thus cannot be ignored:
I have been commanded to fight all mankind until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped except Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah... (Agreed upon) – Minhaj Al-Muslim, Vol 1, p. 402The phrase "agreed upon" at the end of the above hadith means that it is narrated as sahih by both Al-Buchary and Muslim, which communicates to Muslims that it is extremely powerful... In this case, Muslims are taught that the violent hadith is strong and the peaceful hadith is weak. This theological tactic deceives countless non-Muslims. (pp. 106-107)
Feisal Abdul-Rauf, of Ground Zero Mosque infamy, explains in his 2000 book, Islam: A Sacred Law, that a weak hadith "is a hadith against which serious doubts can be raised." (p. 151) Thus, the notion that self-Jihad is the "greatest Jihad" – a view Islamic spokesmen are always quick to espouse – is a dubious one.
When apologists do concede a martial element to Jihad, they almost always argue that Jihad is only allowed in self-defense. According to Esposito, "jihad also means the right, indeed the obligation, of a Muslim to defend himself, herself, Islam or the Muslim community. In that sense, it's a legitimate defense." Even the US Army buys this argument; in a handbook for its soldiers, definition of Jihad only mentions warfare as "the communal military defense of Islam and of Muslims when they are threatened or under attack."
Minhaj shatters this myth. Jihad must also include offensive warfare, to bring Islamic dominance around the world:
...it is incumbent upon the Muslims, whether they belong to one nation or separated nations that they make ready and prepare combative arms and ammunitions. It is also obligatory that they train some men in the disciplines of war and fighting as much as possible. This should not be merely for defending against the attacks of the enemy only. Rather, it should also be for performing battle expeditions in Allah's way in order to raise the Word of Allah, to spread justice, goodness, and mercy on the earth. (Vol. 2, pp. 174-175, emphasis added)
Guidelines are spelled out for offensive warfare: "Calling the disbelievers to the Path of Islam before declaring war against them and attacking them, or seeking their surrender with the condition that they pay the Jizyah (tax upon non-Muslims). If they refuse (these two options), then they should be fought (in war)." (Vol. 2, p. 180)
This is in fact a classical formulation of offensive warfare in Islam, justified by Muhammad's own words. Minhaj goes on to recount a hadith (saying) from a respected book of Hadith, known as Sahih Muslim, articulating this exact recipe.
Unsurprisingly, once one looks beyond the lying apologists for Islam, it's not difficult to find Muslims expressing this same view. This past March, as part of the blossoming "Arab Spring" in Egypt, a senior official from the Egyptian Islamic Jihad named Sheik Abdel Shehato was released from prison. In an interview with an Egyptian daily newspaper, he was asked, "If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?" His answer:
Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari'a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari'a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah's help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]...
Apologists may reflexively label Sheikh Shehato an "extremist" who has "hijacked" or "misunderstood" his peaceful religion. But if that's the case, why again is the MCA promoting a book that advocates the same message? (And further, how exactly is this message incorrect?)
The importance of this point cannot be overstated. The West has formulated policy after policy, at immense cost in dollars and lives, all to try to assure Muslims that "we are not at war against Islam." As described above, even the US Army defines Jihad as only a defensive paradigm, framing current conflicts in this light: "Today radical Muslim groups consider Islam to be perpetually under attack by the 'secular West' – morally, spiritually, economically, politically and militarily." The implication is clear: if only we could convince Muslims that we aren't attacking Islam, then there could be peace. But according to Minhaj Al-Muslim, and the authentic Islamic sources it cites, this effort is futile: whether or not we're at war with Islam, Islam is at war with us – in a perpetual, religiously-motivated struggle to bring Islamic dominance everywhere in the world.
As Minhaj spells out, non-Muslims are to be given the choice to surrender to Islamic conquest and pay a tax known as the Jizya. This tax is part of a broader status of living as a non-Muslim under Islamic rule. Minhaj has a section dedicated to these rules, titled "The Agreement of Protection given to the Non-Muslim Subjects under the Islamic Government, and its Regulations." (Vol. 2, p. 182) (Such "Non-Muslim Subjects" are referred to as dhimmis in Arabic.)
Non-Muslims under Islamic rule are afforded neither the same rights nor the same respect as Muslims: "it is not permissible to stand for them, nor is it to precede them with the greetings of peace. Also, they should not be given seats of honor at gatherings." (Vol. 2, p. 183)
Non-Muslims are "forbidden" from "Constructing Churches or Synagogues, or renovating the demolished ones." (Vol. 2, p. 184) Is it any wonder that the recent deaths of dozens of Coptic Christians of Egypt resulted after Muslims rioted in response to church construction? Arab Spring indeed.
"Erecting the residence of non-Muslims above the homes of the Muslims" and "publicly drinking intoxicants or eating swine (pork) in front of the Muslims" are also prohibited. Non-Muslims "must conceal whatever things are forbidden to Muslims." (Vol. 2, p. 184)
The instructions get remarkably specific: "When walking along a path, the Muslim should make the non-Muslims walk along a narrow portion of the path." (Vol. 1, p. 227)
In a section on compensation for wrongful death ("blood money"), Minhaj gets right to the point: "If the victim was a non-Muslim under the protection of the Islamic State (Dhimmi), whether he was a Jew, a Christian, or of some other religion, his blood money is half the blood money of the Muslim," citing Muhammad's blunt statement that "The blood money of the disbeliever is half the blood money of the (Muslim) man." (Vol. 2, p. 493) Tawfik Hamid, talking about his own indoctrination into Islamic Jihad, described this Hadith as "the most dangerous quote... When you devalue the life of non-Muslims, that is the root cause of the problem. Terrorism is the last stop."
How many MCA members are reading Minhaj Al-Muslim and drawing the same conclusions?
There's much, much more. Read it all.
Nona Yazdanpanah: It's always the beautiful girls
Over the past two days, we have been schooled, fooled, admonished and deceived by a media hell-bent on instituting the Sharia. There was mass slaughter of Christians on Christmas Day, with churches burned by Muslims in Nigeria. Obama called it "senseless" and the media completely ignored the motive, the reason for the jihad. Across the world very active jihads are ignored, underreported or worse -- completely obfuscated, with the ideology again ignored and the jihadis termed "militants," "insurgents" or "youths."
In Texas, a mass murder took place that was an Islamic honor killing. A man killed his family in a rage over his daughter's non-Muslim boyfriend. It is no accident or coincidence that Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. Islamic law specifies that there is no penalty for a father who kills his child, and in many Muslim countries, honor murders are only lightly punished -- with Islamic clerics resisting the strengthening of those punishments. Today there should be editorials in every newspaper in the country about the Islamic tenets that justify honor killing. Headlines should be screaming from every front page in the country against the ideology that commanded, inspired and justified those mass murders.
Instead, we had to wait two days to learn the truth.
Start writing letters. Start making phone calls. Start fighting against the ideology that is ingesting us whole. Because this keeps happening, and it is always the same. The Yazdanpanah murders are just like those of Amina and Sarah. Just like Noor Almaleki. Just like Aqsa Parvez. Just like Jessica Mokdad. Just like Afshan Azad (almost). Just like Nosheen Butt. Just like this girl. Just like so many, many other girls.
Yet I am the one who gets reamed for running ads on buses and taxis offering help. These ads ran on taxitops in New York, Boston, and Washington, DC -- and for them I was excoriated in the national media as an "Islamophobe":
Amina and Sarah Said ran away from their brutal home life and their "devout father," only to be lured back by their mother on Christmas day and then brutally tortured and murdered not 24 hours later, in an honor killing on New Years day. Autopsy here. Full Atlas coverage here.
Noor Almalaki was run over in an honor killing last November in Arizona by her father for being "too Americnaized" and not Muslim enough. She hung on to dear life for three days before succumbing to her wounds.
Gülsüm Semin was severely beaten (repeatedly), scared to death of her family (and rightly so), and ultimately brutally beaten beyond recognition and "honor" murdered because she refused forced Islamic marriage in Turkey.
Banaz Mahmood was killed in her apartment in London by her father, Mahmood, and his brother Ali Mahmood and 4 others because they didn't approve of her boyfriend. She had dishonored her Muslim family by falling in love with the "wrong" man. So they stomped on her, then strangled her to death. Her body was then moved 100 miles to Birmingham, where she was buried in a suitcase in a garden behind a house. They had tried to kill her before. Watch this video of Banaz days before her death, telling of the attempts to kill her.
How many more girls have to be murdered before we challenge the media narrative?
So now communities, cities, towns have to violate their own ordinances and code and bow to islamic supremacism.
I pray this town does not cave.
Our civilizational self-confidence has now deteriorated to the point that the enforcement of ordinances and city laws and zoning laws is "Islamophobic." And the demand is that our own rule of law be cast aside and discredited by slanderous allegations of "Islamophobia."
This now the next wave of the Islanic supremacist takeover. This is a town that just OKed a mosque, but doesn't want a giant madrassa in the middle of what was a lovely residential area. And Obama's Justice Department is going to sue this town.
Where is this town going to get the money to fight off Obama's 15-trillion dollar Justice Department? And if freedom fighters like myself and others want to help out and do a fundraiser for the town, then they're allying with crazy Islamophobes, so that to take our money would become a problem for this town. And that's the point, isn't it? To threaten, bully, strongarm and intimidate this town into accepting a giant madrassa that's teaching G-d knows what.
The point of this Muslim Brotherhood/DOJ lawsuit is a warning to every other town and village and pueblo under the red, white and blue. The warning is that to deny a mega-mosque or mega-madrassa, your town will be sued, your town will be slimed, your town will be slandered.
Ah, infidel life in Omerica.
US reviewing anti-Muslim school bias complaint Associated Press
The Michigan Islamic Academy wants to build at a 26-acre site in Washtenaw County's Pittsfield Township.
"We are reviewing the matter and whether to proceed with a formal investigation," Assistant U.S. Attorney Judith Levy told The Detroit News (http://bit.ly/soyS41 ) for a story Tuesday.
On Oct. 26, the township board rejected the request, following an earlier rejection by the township planning commission. School officials say the 200-student school is too big for its location in nearby Ann Arbor.
Township Supervisor Mandy Grewal said the decision isn't based on religion.
"We are an open, respectful and diverse community here in Pittsfield Township" Grewal said after the October decision. "We have a track record, most recently the planning commission approved a mosque."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the decision violated the First Amendment right of religious freedom, and it asked the Justice Department to investigate.
"We believe this is a blatant violation of the (school's) constitutional right to open the school on their property," said Lena Masri, a lawyer for the group.
The mainstream media has reported this as the "Santa killer." No mention that it was an Islamic honor killing until this Dallas Morning News story. Our daughters and granddaughters are going to be the ones who will suffer because of this obfuscation and excusal of barbarism.
This has been going on for years. When Amina and Sarah Said were brutally murdered by their father, also in Texas, on New Year’s Day 2008 for the same reason -- having non-Muslim boyfriends -- I thought, this is it. This is going to break the dam wide open. America would not, could not possibly, ignore this horror caused by and sanctioned by Islamic beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes.
And yet America continues to ignore this horror. And more and more people are victimized every day.
Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference April 29, 2012 -- please join us as we stand up for justice for the victims of honor killing, and dedicate ourselves to resisting this barbarity and calling on our authorities to do something about it.
Aziz Yazdanpanah, a Muslim, didn't like his daughter's non-Muslim boyfriend and was exhibiting stalker behavior. “She couldn’t date at all until she was a certain age, but when he was going to let her date she couldn’t date anyone outside of their race or religion.”
Again and again we have seen honor killings in which fathers kill daughters who are dating non-Muslims or have supposedly besmirched the family honor by some sexual indiscretion. Lt. Todd Dearing says that motive isn't important -- which is generally only the case when Islam is involved.
"Neighbors horrified at news of family’s slayings in Grapevine," by Gloria Salinas and Scott Goldstein for the Dallas Morning News, December 26 (thanks to Steve):
GRAPEVINE — Aziz Yazdanpanah seemed to be losing control of his life in recent months — his wife left him, his house was in foreclosure, and his 19-year-old daughter was dating a young man he didn’t like.
Even so, the 58-year-old former real estate agent from Colleyville seemed to be holding it together. Neighbors say he would smile and wave as he drove through his middle-class neighborhood. Recently, he was seen raking leaves in his yard.
“He was very friendly, a very good neighbor,” said Carrie Stewart, who lives across the street. “He was out here often doing yard work and he even watched our house for us when we went to Colorado.”
A decent fellow indeed.
Yazdanpanah, a volunteer high school debate coach described as a doting father, is the focus of suspicion a day after a Christmas morning massacre in which a man dressed as Santa Claus killed six relatives and then committed suicide.
Grapevine police arrived at the Lincoln Vineyard Apartment Homes a few minutes before noon and discovered bodies sprawled among opened presents and wrapping paper. The victims were ages 15 to 58....
Citing public records and interviews with friends and neighbors, media reports Monday identified Yazdanpanah and others who had died: his estranged 55-year-old wife, Fatemeh Rahmati, their 19-year-old daughter, Nona Narges Yazdanpanah, and 15-year-old son, Ali Yazdanpanah.
Friends of the family said Fatemeh Rahmati’s 58-year-old sister, Zohreh Rahmaty, and her husband, Hossein Zarei, 59, and daughter Sahra Zarei, a 22-year-old pre-med student at the University of Texas at Arlington, also were killed.
Grapevine police Lt. Todd Dearing said investigators were working to piece together a timeline of the murders, but they may never know exactly what set off the gunman.
“Motive is not really the primary point right now,” Dearing said. “It’s more along the lines of what happened, how it transpired and making sure that who we believe to be the shooter is the shooter. Motive is what comes afterward for us if we can get it.”
He said a neighbor at the apartment complex saw the suspected shooter get out of his white sport utility vehicle dressed in a Santa outfit, including a full coat, pants, boots and belt. Based in part on that witness account, police believe the shootings occurred about the time a 911 call rang into the station at 11:34 a.m. Sunday.
The line was silent....
Grapevine police also searched the Colleyville home where Aziz Yazdanpanah had been living since he separated from his wife last spring. Public records show that the couple had filed for bankruptcy in 2010 and that the property was in foreclosure....
Yazdanpanah said he bought a gun after expressing concern that his daughter’s boyfriend was stalking him. He also insisted on picking up his daughter from her job at a phone kiosk inside Sam’s Club in Grapevine because of concerns about the alleged stalker.
The boyfriend has not been publicly identified.
Neighbors said the family was Muslim but had always hung Christmas lights on their home — except this year.
Terri Baum, who lives three homes down from Yazdanpanah, said she had seen him around the neighborhood in the last couple of weeks.
“They were pretty quiet, but kind, very kind,” Baum said. “They were sweet, good parents, and they loved their kids very much.”
Baum’s daughter, Allison, attended Colleyville Heritage High School with Nona, where the girls were part of an academic team focused on developing business leaders. They graduated together in May.
“Allison would take her to school from here, and then when they moved out she would pick her up from the apartments,” Baum said. “It’s unbelievable because of the people we knew them to be, and their children were good kids, very focused.”
Baum said she was horrified at the possibility the killings had been a murder-suicide.
“All I want to say is, it is so unbelievably shocking because they loved their kids,” Baum said.
Yes, loved them to death.
But a more ominous portrait emerged of Yazdanpanah in interviews with some of his daughter’s other classmates.
“She would come to school crying and telling us her dad was crazy,” said Lacie Reed, 18. “He wouldn’t let her wear certain things. He was always taking her phone away, checking her call history and checking her text messages.”
Friends said Nona’s father had installed cameras all around the home so he could watch the family’s comings and goings. Others said he nailed her bedroom window shut so she could not sneak out at night and see her boyfriend.
“She couldn’t date at all until she was a certain age, but when he was going to let her date she couldn’t date anyone outside of their race or religion,” Reed said.
Yiselle Alvarenga, 18, said Nona’s mother and brother seemed to come to her aid when her father punished her.
“He would take her phone away and her mother would give it back to her and her brother would let her use his phone,” Alvarenga said. “She was doing good. She was just excited that her life was going to start and she was going to have control of it.”...