Atlas Shrugs

Pamela Geller, WND Column: My 'prosecution' by a Muslim journalist

DEFENDING THE WEST

My 'prosecution' by a Muslim journalist
Exclusive: Pamela Geller goes on defense in response to reporter's questions

Recently I was interviewed by a Muslim journalist named Rachel Elmalawany, who asked me a series of hostile, prosecutorial questions based on U.S. Islamic supremacist groups’ libels of me. Our exchange, of which I have reproduced excerpts below, is illustrative of how Islamic supremacists spread their lies and distortions, and shows the truth about the false charges Islamic supremacists frequently circulate about me and the counter-jihad movement in general.

Rachel Elmalawany: Do you see any similarities between the anti-Islamization movement rhetoric and other movements of American history? For example, the Italians in the late 19th century/early 20th century, the Jews (even today there’s a strong anti-Jewish rhetoric among some groups), the Japanese and African-Americans? If not, what are the differences between the anti-Islamization movement and these other movements?

Pamela Geller: This is a common slur against the work I do, but there is no substance to it. The three groups you mentioned were unjustly and falsely accused. None had a program in which they stated in their own words their intention of “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” as the Muslim Brotherhood states as its goal in a captured internal document. The fact that some groups have been falsely accused does not mean that any group accused of subversive activities is ipso facto innocent.

Elmalawany: What about the denial of free speech, freedom of conscience and institutional oppression of women and minorities in this country and others that is not at the hands of Islam? What is it that has made you want to fight a Muslim’s oppression rather than anyone else’s oppression like, for example, Orthodox Judaism or Hinduism (or any other religion for that matter)? In the U.S., one in four women will experience abuse (and it can be at the hands of a very religious Christian or an atheist – abuse is abuse) while in Malaysia, the highest Muslim population in the world [actually that's Indonesia – PG], that number is much smaller, and in Syria that number is slightly lower. How would you explain these statistics?

Read the whole thing here.

Related articles

Pamela Geller, Weekly WND Column, Defending the West "Shame on Bill O'Reilly"

Pamela Geller for the Defense: An Interview with a Muslim Journalist

Video: Pamela Geller Accepts "Queen Esther Award for Jewish Heroism"

New York Times contempt for "the Pamela Gellers of the world"

Pamela Geller, WND Column: Hamas-CAIR's comical cries of racism

Video: Pamela Geller on Fox and Friends, Islamic Supremacists in an uproar

Pamela Geller, Wednesday WND Column: The strong-arming of a dhimmi Catholic diocese

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Study on Islamic “Moderation” among U.S. Muslims

This is rich: the Muslim Brotherhood's study on Islamic "moderation." Talk about your oxymoronic situations. The Muslim Brotherhood on Islamic "moderation" is like Sandra Fluke on morality, decency, virtue and chastity.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Study on Islamic “Moderation” among U.S. Muslims

Posted on March 12, 2012 by admin AFLC

In an article published today by the Jewish Press, the most influential Jewish newspaper in the country, AFLC Co-Founder & Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi explains the latest Muslim Brotherhood study on Islamic “moderation” among U.S. Muslims. An excerpt of Yerushalmi’s analysis:

“[R]eferences to the ‘factors working against’ Muslims in America since 9/11 is a not-so-veiled reference to the Muslim Brotherhood’s campaign to claim that Muslims are discriminated against in the US by what they term ‘Islamophobes,’ and that Muslim Americans are prevented from practicing their religion and from building mosques.”

Read the full article here.

VIDEO: The Lies, Deception and Taqiyya of Suhail Khan

These videos show best the desperation and lies of the deeply embedded operatives advancing sharia and jihad at the senior level of the Conservative movement. Suhail Khan responds to a an informed questioner at his "inclusion" panel at CPAC. He barefaced lies about Robert Spencer and myself and proceeds to hand out a flyer with the most fallacious argument about the sharia. Further, the article demands that the Jews support and advance the sharia. The victims of the most antisemitic ideology on the face of the earth should promote it. How grotesque.

Jewish law applies only to Jews. There is no compulsion in Jewish law. Canon law applies to Catholics.  There is no compulsion is Canon law. It is voluntary. The sharia is a comprehensive legal system governing every aspect of human life, and asserts authority over non-Muslims.

Robert Spencer further elucidates and deconstructs the lie: Suhail Khan at CPAC distributes half-truths and lies about Sharia Jihadwatch

At 1:41 of the video above, a questioner at Suhail Khan's panel on conservative "inclusion" holds up a paper that apparently Khan had had distributed. It was an article by law professor Marshall Breger of Catholic University, "Why Jews Can't Criticize Sharia Law." Khan, in response to the questioner, claimed falsely that the American Conservative Union (ACU) had barred me, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz and Frank Gaffney.

Having been thus called out, I renewed my challenge to Khan to debate when I saw him in the hotel lobby. He responded with wild hysteria:

Meanwhile, the falsehoods in Breger's piece warrant some attention.

Similarities between Judaism and Islam are easy to see. Both are monotheistic religions for whom the Lord is One. Both are religions based on revelation. In both, law is central, and personal and social existence is governed by a divinely ordained legal system.

This is all true, of course, but note the selectivity. Breger doesn't mention, even to minimize or gloss over, the Qur'an's assertion that Jews are the "most hostile of men to the believers" (5:82), or that Allah transformed the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes and pigs (2:62-66; 5:59-60; 7:166); or that Jews are under Allah's curse (2:89; 3:112; 9:30). Apparently he is banking on his readers' not knowing about such passages, or about the deeply ingrained tendency toward antisemitism within Islam.

These things would interfere with his thesis, so he ignores them -- not exactly inspiring confidence in the knowledgeable reader. I've been falsely accused myself of not discussing all the peaceful and tolerant passages of the Qur'an, but in reality I have extensive discussions of those passages in my books Onward Muslim Soldiers and The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, as well as in many other places. It is a common tactic on the Left simply to ignore material that seems to cast doubts upon one's thesis, but it never results in a strong argument or a sound presentation -- yet Breger does this repeatedly.

There are also many obvious parallels between Judaism’s legal system, known as halacha, and the Islamic legal order of sharia. Both purport to instruct us in how to attend to every aspect of one’s life: one’s getting up and one’s going out, one’s sexual practice and one’s business practices. For some adherents of each, religious law also dictates political life, such as for whom to vote.

Sharia doesn't just dictate "for whom to vote." It contains a comprehensive and supremacist political system that asserts authority over unbelievers, proclaims itself superior to all rivals, and mandates that its adherents must fight in various ways to impose it upon unbelieving societies, subjugating the unbelievers as inferiors under its rule. There is nothing like this in Judaism: no imperative to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under Jewish law.

Despite this kinship, there are those in the Jewish community who would condemn Islam and sharia, arguing that, unlike Judaism, Islam is not worthy of the protections of American law.

Breger's language here is manipulative: "Islam is not worthy of the protections of American law" -- as if those opposing Sharia were supremacists, no doubt race supremacists, who find Sharia inferior. This language is ironic, since it is Sharia that considers non-Muslims unworthy of equal protection under the law, while anti-Sharia advocates are trying to preserve the principle of equality of rights for all. The question here is not whether or not "Islam is worthy of the protections of American law," but whether the freedoms guaranteed by American law can survive the incorporation of Sharia principles into American society.

David Yerushalmi, author of a model law banning sharia, argues that sharia differs from halacha because of its different “threat matrix.” Sharia, he tells us, requires faithful Muslims to impose Islamic law on the world “violently,” and its adherents should be charged with sedition against the United States.

Common tactic: state a principle of Islamic law or doctrine as coming from an anti-jihad writer, as if that writer invented the principle. Ignore the principle's strong foundations in Islamic law.

But I won't ignore them. Here's just one small sample from a manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, as "conforming to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community": Muslim must make "war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8). David Yerushalmi did not write that book.

Rabbi Jon Hausman, a self-styled “warrior rabbi” from Massachusetts, tells us that in Judaism, unlike Islam, the law of the state is the law (in Aramaic, dina d’malchuta dina) so you don’t have to worry about such religious “imperialism.”

Hausman is a "warrior rabbi" -- i.e., see, Islam is not more violent than Judaism because of Qaradawi and dozens of other imams preaching jihad violence, suicide killing, hate and supremacism: Judaism has Jon Hausman!

These commentators’ understanding of both sharia and halacha is markedly defective.

1. As Hausman surely knows, the reach of dina d’malchuta dina is debated among rabbinic commentators. Some limit the application of the Jewish legal system to property issues, others extend it to apply to all secular law that does not violate Jewish law. In any case, Hausman’s suggestion that halacha is a personal legal system—not relevant to civic life and politics—neglects both Jewish history and halacha itself. In Baghdad during the Middle Ages and in Poland during the time of the Council of the Four Lands, from the 16th to the 18th centuries, for instance, Jewish communities had their own courts, and Jewish law was enforced by secular authorities. And even today, thousands of Jews in both the United States and Israel look to rabbinic courts and halacha to resolve all manner of civil disputes.

Here again, Breger ignores the coercive and supremacist aspects of Islamic law, which, unlike Jewish law, asserts authority over unbelievers.

While clearly some Muslims do view sharia as a hegemonic political force, the vast majority of Muslims, especially those living in the West, view sharia no differently from the way Jews view the halachic system: as an overarching guide to ordering one’s life.

The first of those Misunderstanders of Islam to "view sharia as a hegemonic political force" was Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, who said, "Islam must dominate, and not be dominated" and "I have been commanded to fight against people until they confess that there is no god but Allah and I am his messenger."

Muslim jurists have always drawn on sharia to mandate that fellow Muslims obey the laws of the land in matters that sharia does not prohibit.

Indeed. But only until they have the strength to bring the laws of the land into conformity with Sharia, via the prescribed fighting (which may or may not involve hot warfare), as I quoted above.

In numerous instances (see Koran 5:11), Muslims are told to “honor their contracts” and so to honor the “social contract” represented by the law of the land. The Fiqh Council of North America, the leading interpreter of Islamic law in the United States, ruled as recently as September 2011 that “there is no inherent conflict between the normative values of Islam and the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

Everywhere Sharia has ever been implemented, and where it is implemented today (notably in Saudi Arabia and Iran), it has denied the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, equality of rights for women, and equality of rights for non-Muslims. The Fiqh Council of North America would apparently have us believe that this was all an anomaly, and that some form of Sharia that has never existed in the world and is fully compatible with the Constitution is actually the real thing.

2. Daniel Pipes recounts in a 2009 article an incident in England when the Indian Muslim owner of an old age home near Manchester proposed to switch to serving only halal food in the facility. After residents complained, the owner retracted the policy. To Pipes, the owner’s desire to remove pork from the menu, even though apparently not implemented, is proof that Islam wishes to impose itself on all around it. But is this drive for “imperium” the only explanation?

Indeed, Jewish law would have great sympathy for the position taken by the Indian entrepreneur. Though there are gray areas, Jewish law generally holds that one cannot benefit (or profit) from the sale of mixed milk and meat products. The legal compendium the Shulhan Aruch forbids Jews from selling non-kosher products on a regular basis (Yoreh De’ah 117.1). And anyone who has read Daphne Barak-Erez’s 2007 monograph Outlawed Pigs: Law, Religion, and Culture in Israel will appreciate the difficulties of commerce in pork products (or “white meat” as it is politely called) in Israel.

Pipes' point here is that the Muslim was trying to impose Islam's restriction on pork upon non-Muslims. There are numerous instances of Islam wishing "to impose itself on all around it" -- see, for example, here and here. The "old age home near Manchester" probably had an overwhelmingly non-Muslim clientele. That is a far cry from Jews not wanting to sell non-kosher products -- if Judaism had an imperative to subjugate unbelievers that large numbers of Jews were working toward implementing, Breger's analogy might hold. But only then.

3. Critics of Islam make much of the Shiite legal doctrine of taqquia and the related concept of kitman, which allow one to dissemble or evade by misdirection in order to save a life or community from imminent destruction (see Koran 16:106). For these critics, the takeaway is that Muslims lie when it is in their interest, so we cannot trust their promises or make treaties with them.

But numerous Koranic references tell the believer to “mix not the truth with falsehood nor conceal the truth when you know what it is” (2:42). And further, “Conceal not [the truth]; for whomever conceals it is burdened with sin” (2:283).

Again, we must look to Jewish law analogues. Even the Chofetz Chaim, the rabbinic scholar most associated with truth-telling, allows “white lies” when they will produce social and interpersonal peace. (No threat of imminent destruction is required.) Maimonides allows one to lie about one’s religion to save one’s own life. And does anyone remember the Marranos?

Certainly taqiyya as a specific concept was indeed elaborated by Shi'tes who were under threat from Sunnis. But the concept itself is rooted in the Qur'an, and consequently is found among both Sunnis and Shi'ites.

Qur'an 3:28 warns believers not to take unbelievers as "friends or helpers" (َأَوْلِيَا -- a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them." This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for "guard" in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan -- hence the familiar term taqiyya.

The renowned Qur'an commentator Ibn Kathir says that the phrase "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them" means that "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers" may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi'ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi'ites, "it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Qur'an 3:28." The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.

Also, there is Muhammad's statement, "war is deceit." He also allowed for lying in battle and between a husband and wife. And when he gave permission to one of his followers, Muhammad bin Maslama, to murder one of his critics, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, he also gave Muhammad bin Maslama permission to lie to Ka'b in order to lure him close enough to be killed.

And Muhammad is the "excellent example of conduct" for Muslims (Qur'an 33:21).

Do other religious traditions allow for withholding of the truth in some circumstances? Yes, but how exactly is this relevant to whether or not Muslim spokesmen may be deceiving us here and now about Sharia and other matters?

My point is not to analyze the nuances of halacha, let alone sharia, but rather to underscore the inconsistency of attacking Islam for activities that Jewish law and practice would also permit, or even require.

These broadside attacks on sharia are reminiscent of Jewish polemical literature after the rise of Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries designed to show Judaism as superior. Later scholars such as the Meiri, though, moved on from polemics to classify Islam as a monotheistic religion close to Judaism. While there are certainly fundamentalist interpretations of Islam that we rightfully find dangerous and deplorable, it is time that Jews in America go beyond “gotcha” polemics and stop treating sharia and Islam as illegitimate expressions of man’s search for the divine.

Sure. If they'd drop the supremacism, subjugation and killing, we'd all get along just fine.

Of course, I am shouting into the wind. You may read this, but Marshall Breger and Suhail Khan probably won't, and if they do, they almost certainly will not respond except with smears and invective, a la Khan's performance in the second video above. Those who came to our SRO CPAC event (photos and video here) heard the truth, and a few others will read this. But those advancing lies and half-truths in service of fooling Americans into letting our guard down in the face of a serious threat to our freedoms have all the power and all the microphones. Unless and until that changes, the situation will grow progressively worse.

The First War and The Last War

  "Islam Has Always Been Part Of Our American Family," Barack Hussein Obama's taqiyya at black-tie Iftar dinner at White House (here).

_{Painting: Burning of the USS Philadelphia, Barbary war}

Yes, indeed, Mr. President (always taking a free hand with history).

The first war the United States of Anerica had to fight was against the Muslims, not one but two wars, in fact -- the first was the First Barbary War (1801–5), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War. Most Americans are unaware of this salient fact, but that's a fact. Truth does not change, just the narratives do.

[It] was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the North African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These included the quasi-independent Sultanates in the middle and western coastal regions of North Africa—what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya.

And of course, the second World War found us engaged against the Muslim world.

And of course, the last war.

Hamas-Tied CAIR's Sharia Taqiyya: Laying on the Lies Slick and Thick

Deconstructing the big lies. Spencer has a good fisk on the latest attempted con (or is that khan?) job by the Hamas-tied CAIR:

Hamas-linked CAIR rep insists that Sharia is not a threat, neglects to mention the bloody bits

Nezar Hamze is executive director of the South Florida chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). So it should come as no surprise that he leaves out of his explanation of why Sharia is not a threat all the aspects of Sharia that make people believe it is a threat. "Sharia law is not a threat," by Nezar Hamze in the Miami Herald, June 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

You can’t turn on the news these days or pick up a newspaper without seeing or reading about Islam, Muslims or Sharia law. Unfortunately, most of what you hear is from politicians with a religious viewpoint or media outlets creating an illusion of an enemy.

They sensationalize Arabic words to feed on society’s fear. The hottest topic these days is the Sharia. They claim that “Moozlims” are trying to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Sharia. Before we all run out with pitchforks and protest signs, let’s understand what Islam is, and then we can understand the Sharia.

"'Moozlims.'" "Pitchforks." Hamze is semaphoring that the only people who could possibly be concerned about Sharia are ignorant racist yahoos. This is just a smear tactic, but it works insofar as it warns unreflective and uninformed Leftists (i.e., virtually all Leftists) not to dare to oppose Sharia: we wouldn't want to align with rednecks, now, would we?

Islam is an Arabic term deriving from two words: Salam, which means peace, and Tasleem meaning submit to the will of God. So the textbook definition for Islam is peace acquired through the submission to the will of God. Therefore, Islam conveys a practical application of God’s word to all aspects of one’s life.

Islam teaches humanity how to believe, worship and maintain their relationship with God. Islam teaches humanity the significance of family values and how to honor: mothers, fathers, children, grandparents, husbands, wives, aunts, uncles and cousins. Islam also teaches humanity how to deal with society, commerce, education, friends, neighbors, the poor, orphans, government, justice, property and, most important, the sanctity of human life.

Islam also teaches humanity how to deal with the kuffar, including the "unbelievers among the People of the Book," who are the "most vile of created beings" (Qur'an 98:6).

The Sharia is Islamic rulings from Muslim scholars and jurists that keep Muslims on the path toward abiding faith. The source of the Sharia is the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. The Sharia covers all aspects of a Muslim’s life and explains what is prohibited and permissible.

Think of Islam as an instruction manual (the Quran and prophetic traditions) on how to live your life according to the will of God. The Sharia is the path of faith regarding those instructions.

Is Sharia a threat? According to Adam Hasner, a Republican candidate for the Senate from Florida and former state legislator, “Today there is an enemy, and that enemy is Sharia-compliant Islam.”

This statement is ridiculous. When I wash before praying, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I offer a greeting to someone, this is Sharia- compliant Islam. What in the world is Hasner talking about?

When I cut out a woman's clitoris, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I forbid non-Muslims to practice their faith openly, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I count a non-Muslim's life as less valuable than a Muslim's, that is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I brutally lash a woman, that is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I smash musicians' instruments and threaten them that they better not play music again or else, that is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I wage war against and subjugate unbelievers, that is Sharia-compliant Islam. What in the world is Hamze talking about? Does he really expect us to believe that Hasner is upset about washing before prayers and greeting people?

Some politicians, groups and individuals commonly reduce the totality of the Sharia to its penal code. The penal code within the Sharia is not unique to the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed. It is also in the Torah and Talmud and part of the teachings of Prophet Moses. Having said that, it is important to recognize that regardless of the contrast, the penal codes within these texts are not the totality of the teachings of any religion and never explained as such. Why the double standard?

Well, for one thing, because even if it were true, which it isn't, that the penal code within the Sharia is identical to that of Judaism, Jews aren't stoning people to death and Muslims are. Jews aren't doing so because of age-old exegetical traditions that reinterpret the passages enjoining stoning and hold them inapplicable while there is no Temple; Muslims continue to do so because there is simply nothing within Islamic tradition mitigating the literal interpretation of the Qur'an.

It’s quite simple really — an election strategy.

What is Hamze doing? It's quite simple really — a deception strategy.

Politicians who emphasize religion in over 20 states have introduced some sort of legislation regarding Islam, Sharia or “Foreign Law.” They claim that the “Moozlims” are trying to infiltrate our court systems and replace our Constitution. The fact of the matter is, not one Muslim has introduced anything to any legislative body calling for Sharia to replace the Constitution or for the Sharia to replace the law of the land. This claim is absolutely baseless and really shows how disconnected these politicians are from the real problems on the ground.

In reality, Sharia has been involved in court cases in 23 states. And while "not one Muslim has introduced anything to any legislative body calling for Sharia to replace the Constitution or for the Sharia to replace the law of the land," that is only because they are not fools: to do such a thing would be very close to open sedition, and would draw upon the Muslims involved a torrent of popular disapproval and law enforcement scrutiny. Better to work behind the scenes. Remember Imam Musa, the Washington, D.C. imam who wants to establish an "Islamic State of North America no later than 2050." Remember the Muslim Brotherhood's program in the U.S. of "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 Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

In some cases, unfortunately, this strategy is effective.

We can look at U.S. Rep. Allen West’s campaign as proof of its effectiveness. West routinely bashed Islam during his campaign, with statements such as,. “We are at war with Islam” and “Islam is not a religion.” He said that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were doing exactly what the Quran told them. He won in 2010.

Many Muslims say that Islam is at war with us. I believe Islam is a religion, but also more than a religion: a political system, and one that is repressive and authoritarian. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 stated explicitly that they were doing exactly what the Quran told them. We ignore or deny this at our own peril.

All we can do — must do — is try to stop this kind of rhetoric. Listening to it is a waste of your time. Those who espouse such views could not care less about the innocent Americans they hurt. The most effective way to deal with this situation is through education and action.

"Don't believe your lying eyes..."

Educate yourself on Islam. If you don’t know any Muslims, try to meet one. Say “Salam” (peace), and ask questions. Get to know them. Go to a ballgame, or go fishing. Be American together.

And when election time rolls around, send a clear message: I don’t discriminate.

I am all for people educating themselves on Islam. I strongly recommend it, in fact.

Virginia Military Institute Infiltrated by Islamic Supremacists: Conference to Whitewash Islamic War Crimes, Pogroms, Dhimmitude, Oppression, Mass Slaughter

Virginia Military Institute - East Meets West Conference

Subversives and supremacists have infiltrated the senior level of our most critical government and social institutions. The very idea that the Virginia Military Institute would be holding an Islamic historically fallacious ad propaganda conference on Cordoba, Islam's conquest over the West, is deeply disturbing. These are future military leaders. Talk about throwing sand in the eyes of your enemy. Who is conducting this education of our military? Reza Aslan. No, this is not a joke. Reza Aslan praises a group dedicated to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."

Reza Aslan is a case study in the poverty and ideological bias of the mainstream media these days; his adolescent gutter mentality and abject intellectual vacuity do not stop mainstream media outlets from giving him a platform, for his trivial platitudes and patently deceptive nostrums fit in with their Leftist, anti-American ideology.

The mainstream outlets that feature Aslan apparently do not mind that he is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council, a group that genuine Iranian pro-democracy forces regard as an apologetic vehicle for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nor do they care that he has tried to pass off Iran's genocidally-minded Thug-In-Chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a liberal reformer. They are unconcerned that Aslan has called on the U.S. Government to negotiate with Ahmadinejad himself, as well as with Hamas -- that is, with some of the most barbaric and murderous adherents of Sharia. He has even praised the jihad terror group Hizballah as "the most dynamic political and social organization in Lebanon," recalling the useful idiots and fellow travelers who used to praise Stalinist Russia and even Hitler's Germany for their social services apparatuses.

Now, unsurprisingly, this Fritz Kuhn for our age has found another Jew-hating, women-hating, kuffar-hating Islamic supremacist group to love: the Muslim Brotherhood. (This should come as no surprise: Aslan has previously spoken at events sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, a Brotherhood group.) And he is spreading that love in the Washington Post.

And I implore all Atlas readers to contact Major Amy K. DeHart, Acting Deputy Director and demand that real scholars come and speak to this. Robert Spencer or Sir Martin Gilbert, actual historians, not the enemy in our midst.

Ph:  (540) 464-7740
Fax:  (540) 464-7396

Ctr for Leadership & Ethics
Virginia Military Institute
225 Marshall Hall
Lexington, Virginia 24450

Here is the unwashed version of this brutal Islamic conquest, Cordoba. Cordoba is the site of the caliphate of Cordoba. There was a major pogrom against the Jews in the year 1011. If Cordoba was a golden age, it was for Muslim conquerors, but not for the Christians and the Jews who lived under dhimmitude, deprived of basic human rights, forced to pay an exorbitant poll tax, financing Muslim imperialism and conquest.

In the book Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Frederick Schweitzer and Marvin Perry point out that the rosy view of Muslim Spain has been used since 1948 as "an Arab-Islamist weapon in what is primarily an ideological and political struggle against Israel." This misuse of history ignores "a catalog of lesser-known hatred and massacres," including the pogroms in Cordoba in 1011 and Granada in 1066 -- both perpetrated by Muslims.

Remember the martyrs of Cordoba.

Muslim Spain was supposed to have been a famous exception to the oppression of Jews that prevailed elsewhere among both Muslims and Christians. Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong enunciates the common wisdom when she says that "until 1492, Jews and Christians lived peaceably and productively together in Muslim Spain--a coexistence that was impossible elsewhere in Europe." Even the U.S. State Department has proclaimed that "during the Islamic period in Spain, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace and mutual respect, creating a diverse society in which vibrant exchanges of ideas took place."

Yet the philosopher Maimonides, a Jew who lived for a time in Muslim Spain and then fled that supposedly tolerant and pluralistic land, remarked, "You know, my brethren, that on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us....No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have....We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear."

Notably, Maimonides directed that Jews could teach rabbinic law to Christians, but not to Muslims. For Muslims, he said, will interpret what they are taught "according to their erroneous principles and they will oppress us. [F]or this reason ... they hate all [non-Muslims] who live among them." But the Christians, he said, "admit that the text of the Torah, such as we have it, is intact"--as opposed to the Islamic view that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures. Christians, continued Maimonides, "do not find in their religious law any contradiction with ours."

Even María Rosa Menocal, in her romantic and fantastic hagiography of Muslim Spain, The Ornament of the World, acknowledges the second-class status to which Jews and Christians were relegated there. "In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax--no Muslims paid taxes--and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals."

According to historian Richard Fletcher, "Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch." On December 30, 1066, about four thousand Jews in Granada were murdered by rioting Muslim mobs--more than would be killed in the Crusaders' infamous Rhineland pogroms of the mid-twelfth century. What enraged the Granadan Muslims was the political power of the Jewish vizier Samuel ibn Naghrila and his son Joseph: the mob resented the fact that these men had authority over Muslims, which they saw as a "breach of sharia." The mob was incited to kill the Jews by a poem composed by Muslim jurist Abu Ishaq: "I myself arrived in Granada and saw that these Jews were meddling in its affairs. ... So hasten to slaughter them as a good work whereby you will earn God's favor, and offer them up in sacrifice, a well-fattened ram."

The mob heeded his call. A Muslim chronicler (and later sultan of Granada), 'Abd Allah, said that "both the common people and the nobles were disgusted by the cunning of the Jews, the notorious changes they had brought in the order of things, and the positions they occupied in violation of their pact [of second-class status]." He recounted that the mob "put every Jew in the city to the sword and took vast quantities of their property."

It is no accident that th Ground Zero mosquestrosity has been named "Cordoba House."

711-2011: East Meets West Conference

 

Lexington, Virginia, 23 – 25 March 2011

A fusion between two worlds began 1300 years ago with Tariq ibn Ziyad’s crossing of the Strait of Gibraltar in 711.  Please join us to commemorate the brilliant contributions resulting from the blending of eastern and western cultures.   The agenda will tell the vital story of the achievements when Christians, Jews, and Muslims thrived side by side in Western Europe, building a society that lit the Dark Ages. Experts will discuss how to transform education, promote tolerance, civility, political reform, and advance human development so that we can emulate the spirit and triumphs of the early years.

Diplomacy and Democratization • History, Culture, Religion, Arts & Architecture • Cultural Gala - Music, Food, Dance, Film • Economics & Trade • Hopes for the Future

Guest Speakers Include:

                                                           

Dr. Reza Aslan                                                            Ambassador Akbar Ahmed

Notorious Propagandist Professor                         Islamic Studies American University

Ahmadinejad puppet and operative                                                                 

Contact Major Amy K. DeHart, Acting Deputy Director and demand that real scholars come and speak to this. Robert Spencer or Sir Martin Gilbert, Ibn Warraq, actual historians, not the enemy in our midst.

Ph:  (540) 464-7740
Fax:  (540) 464-7396

Ctr for Leadership & Ethics
Virginia Military Institute
225 Marshall Hall
Lexington, Virginia 24450

You do not invite Goebbels to speak at a US Military instituion at the height of the Reich.

More sand

The Washington Post, working hard to achieve protected sub-class status by Islamic supremacists. They have no shame. I am embarrassed for them. Journalism no longer requires anything more than dictation skills. No inquiry, no study, no investigation. All propaganda all the time. Spencer elucidates:

Taqiyya about taqiyya in the Washington Post

An Ahmadi Muslim writes a guest column in the Washington Post claiming to delineate moderate Muslim theology, but in reality, he just throws more sand in our eyes. "Will the real moderate Muslims please stand up?," by Qasim Rashid in the Washington Post, February 2:

Critics like Robert Spencer claim Islam allows Muslims to engage in taqiyya, i.e. treachery against non-Muslims. However, the Quran unequivocally forbids lying or hiding the truth and Prophet Muhammad instructed, "It is obligatory for you to tell the truth."

Gee, where did I get such a crazy idea? Just all in a day's work for a greasy Islamophobe, eh? Well, let's see. Qur'an 3:28 warns believers not to take unbelievers as "friends or helpers" (َأَوْلِيَا -- a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them." This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for "guard" in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan -- hence the increasingly familiar term taqiyya.

Ibn Kathir says that the phrase Pickthall renders as "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them" means that "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers" may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi'ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi'ites, "it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Qur'an 3:28." The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.

Also, there is Muhammad's statement, "war is deceit." He also allowed for lying in battle and between a husband and wife. And when he gave permission to one of his followers, Muhammad bin Maslama, to murder one of his critics, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, he also gave Muhammad bin Maslama permission to lie to Ka'b in order to lure him close enough to be killed.

And Muhammad is the "excellent example of conduct" for Muslims (Qur'an 33:21).

So why is the Washington Post lying about lying in Islam?

"Muslims for Loyalty" Pledge Launched by Sect Rejected by Islam

Today the media is pushing another false narrative to cover for the violent teachings of jihad. Relentless deception.

The press is touting this new Muslim loyalty pledge that was launched by a radical, heretical offshoot of Islam. The Ahmadiyya was founded in India at the end of the nineteenth century by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, who proclaimed himself to be the “Reformer of the age.” In Islam, any attempt to reform or reinterpret is the crime of "hypocrisy" and is punishable by death. Hypocrisy in Islam is more reviled and despised than apostasy (that in and of itself is almost impossible -- and apostasy is also punishable by death). Mirza was a heretic. The Ahmadis have never been accepted by mainline Islam.

The Ahmadiyya are a fraction of the ummah (worldwide Muslim community) and are despised by Islam. Members of the Ahmadiyya are the victims of systematic oppression, persecution and slaughter in Muslim countries. In other words, they are perceived to be non-believers or "hypocrites." So while this is a lovely idea, it is meaningless. It does not address jihad and the ideology that inspires Islamic imperialism, antisemitism and hatred for all non-Muslims. In Pakistan they are prohibited by law from self-identifying as Muslims.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad founded the movement on 23 March 1889 and termed it the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at (community), envisioning it to be a revitalisation of Islam.

Ahmadiyya views on certain beliefs in Islam have been controversial to mainstream Muslims since the movement’s birth. Many mainstream Muslims do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims, citing in particular the Ahmadiyya viewpoint on the death and return of Jesus (see Jesus in Islam), the Ahmadiyya concept of Jihad as peaceful and the community’s view of the finality of prophethood with particular reference to the interpretation of Qur'an 33:40. In several Islamic countries today Ahmadis have been marginalised by the majority religious community; severe persecution and often systematic oppression have led many Ahmadis to emigrate and settle elsewhere.^[7][8]

For the Ahmadiyyas to be presenting themselves as the voice of Islam is America (or anywhere) is deceiving. They do not speak for the ummah. The koranic text they cite below was abrogated (superseded) by later verses. They know that, but know that most Westerners don't.

Why We Launched a 'Muslims for Loyalty' Campaign This Week In the United States By Naseem Mahdi FOX News

Our country faces terrorism at home and abroad. While terrorism has no religion, American-Muslims must accept that negative forces are trying to influence American-Muslim youth to become terrorists, and, sadly, they are having some success.

The Holy Koran (55:61) teaches us that the recompense of goodness is nothing but goodness. Therefore, Muslims living in this great land, enjoying all its freedoms, liberties and benefits must take concrete actions to strengthen and foster peace in, and loyalty to, our homeland - America. 

Islam teaches and requires that Muslims live as loyal citizens of the countries where they reside. The Holy Koran [4:60] declares: "O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you." Prophet Muhammad taught: Love of one’s country of residence is part of faith. Let it be known: Muslims who rebel against the rule of law invite the wrath of God, not His pleasure. The Holy Book of Islam, the Holy Quran (2:12-16), states that inciting rebellion, sowing sedition and creating disorder is a means of damnation, not salvation.

In this spirit, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA -- the oldest American-Islamic organization in history -- launched its new “Muslims for Loyalty” campaign this week. We have printed several hundred thousand "Muslims for Loyalty" fliers. We have purchased ad space on buses and the metro in the U.S. capital to convey the same message to our fellow Americans. 

This is why on Tuesday hundreds of our members braved the bitter cold and handed out 100,000 "Muslims for Loyalty to the USA" fliers at 16 metro stations. This brochure firmly and clearly states that American-Muslims must be loyal to their homeland – the United States of America. 

Our “Muslims for Loyalty” campaign intends to peacefully but forcefully convey to Americans that all such messages which encourage disloyalty to, or terrorism against, America contradict the teachings of Islam, the Holy Koran and Prophet Mohamed. 

America has been asking for the proliferation of this message. This message of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community can defeat those extremist elements from within Islam who wish to exploit Islam for their own nefarious political ends.

Naseem Mahdi is the National Vice President and Missionary Incharge of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, USA - the oldest Muslim Organization in the US. Members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. The official website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is www.alislam.org.

Muslims in Jihadi bomber's town get £500,000 to combat terror... but don't give police a single tip-off

This is the problem. If it were just a few fringe extremists, the world would not be fighting this pox on humanity with enormous, incalculable resources.

And what, pray tell, are the 'moderates' up to? Building a victory mega-mosque at Ground Zero, of course, and propagandizing blasphemy (Islamic law) as "islamophobia."

Muslims in bomber's town get £500,000 to combat terror... but don't give police a single tip-off Daily Mail

Muslim groups in the town where the Stockholm suicide bomber lived have been handed more than £550,000 of taxpayers’ money to combat extremism but have failed to tip off police about a single terror suspect.

The grants were handed out to mosques, schools and women’s projects by Luton council to prevent young Muslims being radicalised.

Under the Home Office’s Preventing Violent Extremism scheme, Islamic organisations are given money to stop members turning to violence. The groups are urged to reveal the names of those likely to commit violent crimes so they can be put on an ‘at-risk’ list by police.

But the Daily Mail has learnt that – despite £554,000 being given to groups in Luton since 2008 – not a single name has been handed over.

It comes as the PVE scheme has been put under review by the Government for being ineffective after it was revealed a huge amount of the money simply went to sports and arts groups.

The Luton Islamic Centre, where Taimour Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly preached before being banned, refused to sign up as leaders did not want to inform on their ‘Muslim brothers and sisters’.

Iraq-born Al-Abdaly studied in Luton for several years and became obsessed with extremism while in the UK. He blew up his car then himself in Stockholm last Saturday, the day before his 29th birthday. Swedish authorities said he ‘missed causing a catastrophe by minutes’.

Islamic Centre chairman Qadeer Baksh said: ‘The reason we didn’t take the Government money for the Preventing Violent Extremism scheme is that it requires us to inform on fellow Muslims.

Firefighting: The car blown up in the centre of Stockholm by Al-Abdaly

‘If we had taken the money our members would have seen us as working for the Government. The young men with radical views would not have listened to us.

‘I have never called the police or authorities on anyone.’

The PVE scheme was set up by then Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly in 2007, with most of the recipients of its £86million fund being from traditional Labour areas such as Birmingham, East London and West Yorkshire.

It was revealed last year that £129,000 had been awarded to a theatre company, £79,000 for sports coaching, £20,000 for fashion courses and £20,000 to art workshops in areas with large Muslim communities.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339633/Muslims-bombers-town-500-000-combat-terror--dont-tip-off.html#ixzz18Uwr9R68

Craven CNN Happy to be Punked by American Jihadi

CNN is running a puff piece on the gore loving, fleshy faced, wannabe jihadboy Yusef Al-Khatab.

Here's the little girl with his big guns

Khatab/ Revolution Muslim called for a Mumbai-style Islamic of slaughter of Jews

Khatab's website: “An extremist website that helped to inspire Roshonara Choudhry to stab the MP Stephen Timms published a complete list yesterday of British MPs who voted for the Iraq war and called on Muslims to take up the “knife of jihad” against them. Choudhry, jailed for life this week, named the website RevolutionMuslim.com as a source of inspiration, together with the teachings of the English-speaking radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, a key ideologue for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen.” – The Times (£)

Khatab tells CNN, uh, never mind. CNN says, uh, OK.

Imagine this. American jihadi Yusef Al-Khatab, for years has called for and inspired violent jihad, threatened a Mumbai attack on a Jewish community in Brooklyn (above), and simulated the murder of our brave American soldiers. His group threatened the South Park Creators with death, and on any given day, he had on his website RevolutionMuslim.com: (here)

— The Statue of Liberty, with an ax blade cutting through her side;

— Video mocking the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, entitled "Daniel Pearl I am Happy Your Dead :) ";

— Video of a puppet show lampooning U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq;

— The latest speech from Sheikh Abdullah Faisal, an extremist Muslim cleric convicted in the UK and later deported for soliciting the murder of non-Muslims.

Even more surprising is that RevolutionMuslim.com isn't being maintained in some remote safe house in Pakistan. Instead, Yousef al-Khattab, the Web site creator, runs it from his home in the New York City Borough of Queens.

• Click here to view photos.

• Click here to view video mocking the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

• Click here to view puppet show lampooning U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

He is also allegedly behind a Hate Pamela Geller site, among other things.

But Khatab tells CNN.....uh, not really, and CNN runs this human filth's outrageous lies unchallenged. Unchallenged. Does CNN do any fact checking at all?  

Just last week, he was laughing, rejoicing about the fires in Israel that killed scores of Israelis. So he has moved off Al Qaeda, but hearts Hamas. Yeah, ok.

(Screenshot hat tip Rusty) How much does CNN pimp itself out for? Next CNN will be telling us his stench is sweet smelling. CNN reports he's "changed." Most of Khatab's Muslim buds have been arrested, and this sniveling worm is trying to save his ass. So Yusef is spreading the taqiyya fast and furious and thick, knowing the media laps it up like the lapdogs that they are.

Would CNN ever run a puff piece like this on a counter jihad activist? A Geller piece like this? Seriously. Ever?

Revolution Muslim leader changes tune CNN (hat tip Becky)

New York (CNN) -- He might not be a household name, but Yousef al-Khattab and his Revolution Muslim extremist group have been pivotal in inspiring a wave of homegrown American jihadists over the past three years.

Born Joseph Cohen, this American Jew lived in Israel before converting to Islam. He espoused a radical version of the religion that he preached online and at public rallies.

n a CNN interview last year, he professed his undying love for Osama bin Laden, saying "I love him more than I love myself."

Today, al-Khattab seems to have changed his tune.

He admits that his now defunct Revolution Muslim website became a "bug light for Muslim misfits."

And he says he regrets that his message was taken by some as a justification to attack civilians.

"It was an idiotic thing, looking back on things now," al-Khattab said.

He says terrorists who attack civilians anywhere in the world are "disgusting."

Violent message outside a New York mosque

Violent message outside mosque

Intel official on U.S. radicalization

'Revolution Muslim' rally

With so many of his followers under arrest, it is unclear whether al-Khattab means what he is saying or is just running scared. Either way, law enforcement sources say the collapse of Revolution Muslim's website and apparent conversion of its founder is a win.

By CNN's count, in just the past 18 months, eight of the 27 reported cases of homegrown terrorism saw U.S. terror suspects frequenting, blogging on, or directly linked to Revolution Muslim and the Islamic Thinkers Society -- another extremist New York group that al-Khattab played a role in.

Those cases includes the Baltimore man arrested Wednesday for plotting to bomb a military recruiting station.

Maryland bomb suspect arrested

Despite the risk of eschewing his radical brethren, al-Khattab agreed to go on camera and state his new message.

"I regret anybody that would hurt an American civilian. That I regret," al-Khattab told CNN. "I think that's disgusting and I think that was never the message."

He says some of his previous statements, including his message condoning the Fort Hood, Texas, shootings, were taken out of context.

"My intention was not at all to inspire somebody ... to do an act like that," he said.

Al-Khattab created RevolutionMuslim.com with Younes Abdullah Mohammed, who told CNN last year that "Americans will always be a target -- and a legitimate target -- until America changes its nature in the international arena."

The two apparently had a falling out, and parted ways. Mohammed has apparently left the United States for Morocco, where he is trying to start up a similar website, according to counter-terrorism sources.

Another blogger who was active on RevolutionMuslim.com is now thought to be in Yemen, working with outlawed cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Though law enforcement officials are encouraged by the demise of the Revolution Muslim website, they are cautious about al-Khattab.

A couple of years ago, Marked Manner posted on Khatab filming me and my children in the Israel day parade while he and his seriously deranged meat heads screamed, "you filthy prostitute," "filthy whore":

How Sick!! Muslims Call Pam Geller Names During Israel Parade

I found this over at Revolution Muslim:
The title of the post is "One of the brothers ABUSES Pamela Geller LOL, (She Really Did Look Old & Awful)" A video is posted in which they yell obscene things at her while she is in the Israel day parade and at the beginning of the video they even make her look like a witch...
You can view the video here.

 

 

Imaam Anwar al-’Awlaki: The Battle of Hearts and Minds Revolution Muslim

Here are pictures of Khatab from my coverage of the Israel day parade in 2009:

Khatab on the right

 

Khatab's bud, the same guy who held up the "Death to the Juice" poster at previous Jew-hatred rallies. (photo hat tip Tom)

Data Used by Muslim groups to Support Claims that the Muslim community is Responsible for Helping to Break up One-third of Terrorist Plots is False

Atlas has reported extensively that the bogus "Muslim backlash" lie has been utterly and utterly debunked by actual statistics.

And now, here again, another fallacious Islamic narrative is exposed for the lie that it is. Steve Emerson reports:

An IPT Investigation: Islamic Group's Database Found to be Fraudulent IPT News

A database used by Islamist groups to support claims that the Muslim community is responsible for helping to break up one-third of terrorist plots is based on flawed and selective use of data, an Investigative Project on Terrorism analysis shows.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) claims in its study that "almost 1 out of 3 al-Qaida-related terror plots threatening America since 9/11/01" were thwarted in part because of help from the Muslim community. However, the MPAC study is full of mistakes, faulty data, contradictions, selective use of information, and demonstrably dishonest analysis:

MPAC overstates the role of "community assistance," including plots that were broken up by intelligence assets overseas and other plots that had little or nothing to do with the U.S. Muslim community;
MPAC selectively defines what is a "terrorism incident," ignoring a huge set of cases involving the domestic support of terrorist organizations, as well as those involving threats outside of al Qaida, such as Hamas and Hizballah;
MPAC ignores traditional law enforcement techniques, specifically avoiding the use of informants, a technique that the organization frequently condemns.
Despite its flaws, the MPAC study continues to be cited by the media, with the New York Times recently inflating the statistics and stating—without bothering to review the underlying data—that according to a recent MPAC study "almost 4 of every 10 Qaida-related terrorism plots," were broken up with the help of "community assistance." They accepted MPAC's claims without bothering to review the underlying data.

Community help in all forms of crime prevention, not just terrorism, is critical. But the MPAC report is totally dishonest. The report suffers from a number of flaws—namely that it selectively defines what a "terrorism incident" is, overstates the role of the Muslim community in the cases identified, and seemingly ignores the contributions made by informants, a group that MPAC has condemned and falsely claimed to have instigated terrorist plots.

Read the rest. Please.

Former Dept Of Defense Inspector General Calls for Vetting/Investigation of Military Muslim Clerics

It is important to point out here about the 20,000 Islamic attacks since 911 that each one had the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric.

It also bears noting that lying and deceiving to advance Islam is a religious mandate. Case in point, Imam Al-Awlaki. So the idea that Muslim clerics in the military are being vetted by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas group ISNA is incredulous. Is it any wonder that the Fort Jihad Jihadi, Major Hasan, was an acting Muslim leader?

Stealth coup. They have all their people in strategic places.

Imam Al-Awlaki was the go-to Muslim cleric for reporters scrambling to explain Islam after 911; he was the same imam who guided the 911 Muslim attackers to commit jihad. Al-Awaki was the "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. He guided the 911 jihadis, the Fort Hood Major Muslim, the Christmas day bomber. He was the imam at the respected Dar al Hijreh mosque while being the go-to Muslim for big media for information on Islam. Exactly like un-indicted co-conspirator, Hamas groups CAIR and ISNA being the go-to guys for media now.

That al-Awlaki was go-to guy for the media right after 911 best exhibits the practice of taqiyya, and taqiyya should have been the focus of the Times piece. According to one FBI agent, al-Awlaki “was at the center of the 9/11 story.”

Taqiyya, or not showing their faith openly by means of pretense, dissimulation, or concealment, is a special type of   LYING that is taught and used by Shi'a Muslims, cf. Sunni Muslims and Taqiyya. "Taqiyya" (or taqiyyah) is related to the terms "taqwa'" and "taqi'" -- all have the root meaning of "guarding" something, in this case, the Islamic faith.

Taqiya is required [in Islam].

EXCLUSIVE: Former Defense IG Raises Concerns About Military Chaplain Vetting  FOX

A former inspector general for the Defense Department is calling on Congress to investigate and oversee the vetting process for Muslim clerics who are nominated to serve as U.S. military chaplains.

In a letter sent earlier this month to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former Inspector General Joseph Schmitz outlined what he believes is the potential risk to national security posed by the military’s current chaplain vetting system. 

Among the concerns Schmitz outlined in his letter, which was obtained by FoxNews.com, are:

— Reports that Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, accused of 13 counts of murder in last year's Fort Hood massacre, acted as a Muslim lay leader and received training from one of the approved civilian religious groups involved with the Defense Department chaplain program. 

— The identification of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), one of two endorsing agencies used by the U.S. military in its approval process for Muslim chaplains,as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.  

— The naming of the ISNA's former endorsing agent, Dr. Louay Safi, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2003 trial of Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to one count of fundraising for the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Safi is also the subject of a whistleblower investigation.

“The November 2008 criminal conviction in Texas of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) as a front for Hamas, naming of the DoD's Chaplain Endorsing Agents, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), as an unindicted co-conspirator (among others), suggests that terrorist organizations can and do disguise themselves as charitable organizations," Schmitz wrote to Feinstein.

"The November 2009 Fort Hood massacre by a commissioned Army officer who served as a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood demonstrates that international terrorist organizations can also try to disguise their agents as chaplains and religious lay leaders," he added.

In a statement to FoxNews.com, Feinstein, D-Calif., said:

“We recently received the letter and staff is reviewing it carefully and making inquiries into how all chaplains are vetted by the Defense Department. Certainly chaplains should be carefully interviewed and backgrounds checked, regardless of their religion.”

Christians, Jews, Hindus are not blowing people up in the name of their religion, dhimmi Dianne.

Prospective military chaplains currently are recommended to the U.S. military by outside religious organizations, which in turn select an endorsing agent who is charged with issuing and withdrawing the chaplains' credentials for the Defense Department. Candidates undergo the same fingerprinting and background check required of members of the military, but Schmitz maintains this is not an adequate screening.

Schmitz says he made a series of recommendations for vetting chaplain nominees six years ago that were not implemented by the Defense Department. In his Nov. 8 letter to Feinstein, he wrote that he had recommended that nonreligious criteria be established to justify the withdrawal or removal of a religious organization or its agent from participating in the DoD chaplain program. Examples of such criteria could include:

— Advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government; 

— Being listed on a watch list as a terrorist organization; 

— Conviction of a religious organization or its principal leaders in connection with terrorism; 

— Conviction of endorsing agents in connection with any criminal activity.

He said he also recommended developing screening procedures for collecting information from sources, including  FBI databases relating to chaplains, supporting religious organizations and endorsers.

But Schmitz says his recommendations were shot down by the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, which called those suggestions “legally problematic." His account is confirmed by the department response to the 2004 report.  

"Legally problematic?" Which legal system? The sharia? Surely the constitution protects our right to preserve and defend from nations both foreign and domestic.

 

Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez told FoxNews.com that some of Schmitz's recommendations have since been incorporated into vetting policy.

 

Now, Lainez said, any individual or religious organization shall be rejected or removed from participation in the DoD chaplain program if they're under indictment; have been convicted of a terrorism-related offense or other offense threatening national or economic security; or if their name appears on the annual State Department list of Foreign Terror Organizations.

 

"In addition, following the release of the Fort Hood report, this policy has been under review to see if there are other additional criteria that can be included," Lainez said. 

 

In his letter, Schmitz asked Feinsten to ask the Defense Department to take another look at his earlier, non-implemented recommendations. 

 

Citing reports that Hasan acted as a lay leader, a sort of substitute or part-time chaplain required to undergo a vetting process similar to those of full-time chaplains, he wrote in an email to FoxNews.com:

 

“Somebody ought to challenge the DoD on precisely how it vets its chaplains as well as its chaplain ‘endorsing agents’ to ensure non-complicity in terrorism or criminal activities, and who, if anyone, vetted Major Nidal Hasan as a so-called ‘Muslim lay leader’ at Fort Hood.” 

 

In his letter to Feinstein, he also argued that the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial in itself should be enough to reconsider the organizations currently tasked with endorsing chaplain candidates. During that trial, prosecutors named the ISNA, among other well-known Muslim organizations, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case that convicted a Texas charity of acting as a front for Hamas. (A court document unsealed two weeks ago reaffirms the prosecution’s stance that ISNA, among other groups, was tied to HLF's fundraising for Hamas.) 

 

Yet, ISNA remains one of two ecclesiastical endorsing agencies used to vet Muslim chaplain candidates for the military.  

 

ISNA did not reply to requests for comment. 

 

Schmitz also specifically named ISNA’s chaplain endorsing agent, Dr. Louay Safi, who acted on behalf of ISNA and until recently was one of two Defense Department Muslim chaplain endorsing agents for the entire U.S. military.

 

Safi, who has participated in Pentagon programs since at least 2005, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2006 Al-Arian case. (During the trial, Safi was identified as "Unindicted Co-Conspirator Four," and evidence from the case included wiretapped phone conversations between him and Al-Arian.) 

 

Safi is also the subject of a whistleblower complaint filed late last year by a contractor who expressed concern with Safi's participation in a lecture on Islam to soldiers at Fort Hood before their deployments in the weeks after the deadly shooting there.

 

Safi was suspended from participating in military lectures pending the outcome of the whistleblower investigation, according to email records that were obtained by FoxNews.com. But he continued to act as one of two Muslim chaplain endorsing agents working with the Defense Department.

 

Until a week and a half ago, Safi’s name appeared on the DoD’s website listing of ecclesiastical endorsing agents. But on Nov. 18, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department said Safi was no longer an endorsing agent, and that a request had been submitted to change the website back in June. Safi's name was removed from the site later that evening. 

 

When reached by phone, Safi told FoxNews.com:

 

"I left ISNA, I am now with another institution. I moved on to another career."

 

He also said that he was unaware of any whistleblower complaint or investigation. 

 

"That's probably something you read on some blog that is not true," he said. "There was nothing — not that I'm aware of."

lol.

Something on "some blog." Yes, of course, because the blogs are the only ones reporting the facts.

 

ISLAMIC LIES ALERT: FBI Just Released 2009 Hate Crime Stats...again completely debunking myth of anti-Islamic backlash in the U.S.

FBI: Hate crimes against Muslims rare - Atlas Shrugs

Aug 28, 2010 ... Muslim Brotherhood front, Hamas funder CAIR tries to club non-Muslims over the head with this non-existent "backlash" and "hate crimes" ...

Hate Crime - Atlas Shrugs

Oct 17, 2010 ... Atlas readers know I am fiercely against the idea of "hate crime." All crime is hate and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Soft Jihad: "Hate" Crimes Provision is an assault on Free Speech ...

Oct 29, 2009 ... Let me state clearly and plainly for the record, all crime is hate crime. All crime is an act against society. Period.

Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders
by Bias Motivation, 2009

Bias motivation	Incidents	Offenses	Victims1	Known offenders2
Total	6,604	7,789	8,336	6,225
Single-Bias Incidents	6,598	7,775	8,322	6,219
Race:	3,199	3,816	4,057	3,241
Anti-White	545	652	668	753
Anti-Black	2,284	2,724	2,902	2,160
Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native	65	84	87	88
Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander	126	147	149	108
Anti-Multiple Races, Group	179	209	251	132
Religion:	1,303	1,376	1,575	586
Anti-Jewish	931	964	1,132	353
Anti-Catholic	51	55	59	25
Anti-Protestant	38	40	42	17
Anti-Islamic	107	128	132	95
Anti-Other Religion	109	119	131	51
Anti-Multiple Religions, Group	57	60	68	38
Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.	10	10	11	7
Sexual Orientation:	1,223	1,436	1,482	1,394
Anti-Male Homosexual	682	798	817	817
Anti-Female Homosexual	185	216	227	197
Anti-Homosexual	312	376	391	349
Anti-Heterosexual	21	21	21	14
Anti-Bisexual	23	25	26	17
Ethnicity/National Origin:	777	1,050	1,109	934
Anti-Hispanic	483	654	692	649
Anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin	294	396	417	285
Disability:	96	97	99	64
Anti-Physical	25	25	25	25
Anti-Mental	71	72	74	39
Multiple-Bias Incidents3	6	14	14	6

• ¹ The term victim may refer to a person, business, institution, or society as a whole.

I wonder what the anti-Islamic number really is -- considering that many of the incidents have been found to have been committed by muslims. Stay classy, CAIR.

Shrieking CAIR Harpies -- Dust Porky for Prints!

FBI Releases 2009 Hate Crime Statistics

Today, the FBI released 2009 statistics which indicated that 6,604 criminal incidents involving 7,789 offenses were reported as a result of bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability. Hate Crime Statistics, 2009, published by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, includes data from hate crime reports submitted by law enforcement agencies throughout the nation.

Hate Crime Statistics, 2009, includes the following information:

• Of the 6,598 single-bias incidents, 48.5 percent were motivated by a racial bias, 19.7 percent were motivated by a religious bias, 18.5 percent were motivated by a sexual-orientation bias, and 11.8 percent were motivated by an ethnicity/national origin bias. Bias against a disability accounted for 1.5 percent of single-bias incidents.
• There were 4,793 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons in 2009. Intimidation accounted for 45.0 percent of crimes against persons, simple assaults for 35.3 percent, and aggravated assaults for 19.1 percent. Other offenses, including nine forcible rapes and eight murders, accounted for the remainder.
• There were 2,970 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property; most of these (83.0 percent) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism. The remaining 17.0 percent of crimes against property consisted of robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other offenses.
• An analysis of data for single-bias hate crime incident victims revealed that 48.8 percent were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race, 18.9 percent because of a bias against a religious belief, 17.8 percent because of a sexual orientation bias, 13.3 percent because of an ethnicity/national origin bias, and 1.2 percent because of a disability bias.
• Of the 6,225 known offenders, 62.4 percent were white, 18.5 percent were black, 7.3 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group), 1.0 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 0.7 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. The race was unknown for the remaining known offenders.
• The largest percentage (31.3 percent) of hate crime incidents occurred in or near homes. In addition, 17.2 percent took place on highways, roads, alleys, or streets; 11.4 percent happened at schools or colleges; 6.1 percent in parking lots or garages; and 4.3 percent in churches, synagogues, or temples. The remaining 29.7 percent of hate crime incidents took place at other specified locations, multiple locations, or other/unknown locations.

Hate Crime Statistics, 2009 is available exclusively on the FBI’s website. Printed copies of the publication are no longer available.

Reza Aslan: Pure evil

Listen to this fast-talking, silver-tongued jihadist. Shilling for bloodthirsty savages under the guise of sober political analysis and Islamic "moderation."

Next he'll be dropping the Zyklon B into the showerheads, telling us it will be good for the progression of the "Islamist" parties.

Pure evil, straight up.

And shame on Christiane Amanpour for sanctioning this evil.

UPDATE: Alec Rawls in a previous thread:

On Aslan calling people neo-Nazis, readers might be interested to learn of his comments on this subject at a "Welcome to the Islamic Reformation" talk he gave at Stanford several years ago (2005 maybe?):

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/humsci/external/news/aslan_event.htm

Aslan had the gall to equate calling George Bush Hitler with calling Osama bin Laden Hitler, and pleading with assumed reasonableness: can't we all just agree that not to liken our opponents to Hitler?

No note that bin Laden explicitly wants to complete the job that Hitler started, that according to his own stated ambition, he IS like Hitler. The facts are out-of-mind to Aslan. Calling today's self-expressed would-be Hitler a would-be Hitler is the same thing as calling Bush Hitler.

But rules are for the little people. Aslan has no problem linking HIS opponents to Hitler.

Historical Revisionism in the Wall Street Journal Shilling for Ground Zero Mosque Imperialism

The relentless whitewashing of Islamic imperialism and supremacism in history is insulting and demeaning to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of Islam. Today, the Wall Street Journal stooped to a New York Times-esque low, running an oped piece:

"Islamism is not Islam" by Maajid Nawiz

"The furor over the inaccurately dubbed 'Ground Zero Mosque' has done nothing but reinforce al Qaeda propaganda." 

*sigh*

If concretes are not the foundation of an argument, well then, just say anything, and Nawiz most certainly does. The premise of Nawaaz's argument flies in the face of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilation and enslavements. The terrible fact is Al Qaeda (arabic for headquarters -- think Centcom) is made up of devout Muslims who follow pure, original Islam. Muhammad would be proud. 

Nawaaz's piece in the WSJ is superlative taqiya (the religious mandate in Islam to lie, deceive to advance Islam) but it is patently untrue and deceptive, mirroring much of Imam Rauf's rhetoric to the English press (versus the recently discovered audio tapes exposing Rauf, in which he echoes al Qaeda's message).

David Yerushalmi, the legal expert handling (and winning!) FDI/SIOA's lawsuits against NYC MTA, Detroit SMART for violation of free speech, and the trademark office (denying SIOA trademark status because it offends CAIR), and in another matter suing the US government for funding sharia finance, penned this letter to the editors at WSJ on the UK effort to justify Ground Zero mosque.

Yerushalmi cogently argues:

I write in response to Maajid Nawaaz’s oped in Saturday’s WSJ (link here)  in which he attempts to draw a distinction between Islam and Islamism.  While there may indeed be such an argument if “Islam” means any given Muslim’s personal, subjective approach to the divine and “Islamism” means Sharia-adherence and –advocacy, this is not the argument Nawaaz presents.  In fact, Nawaaz never really tells us what he means except to slide into an argument that Islamic “traditionalists,” impliedly devout and even Shariah-adherent, reject the political and hegemonic aims of the “Islamists.”

In other words, Nawaaz wants us to believe that there is a good “traditionalist” Shariah and a bad, modern (20th century) “Islamism” that has perverted Shariah by its demand to control the political institutions of state power.  

Nawaaz seeks to prove that this “traditionalist” Shariah-adherence never sought political power by calling upon what he calls “the social sciences.” You know you’re in trouble when the answer lies in the “facts” of “social science,” notorious for its inability to discover any truth other than there is no truth.

So, Nawaaz tells us that these social sciences demonstrate that throughout the more than millennium of a hegemonic Islamic empire known as the Caliphate, only rarely was Shariah imposed as state law and typically only used as a rationale for religious wars.  Even if this statement were entirely true, and it is not, it would simply mean that Muslim political leaders are as subject to debauchery and the exploitation of religious fervor as the next tyrant. It does not tell us what Shariah demands.

Indeed, even Nawaaz concedes that there were times when Shariah was state law. The question of course is how could that be if Shariah demanded as a theoretical matter to be separated from the political sphere. Does the Islamic traditionalist’s Shariah adopt the extant Christian doctrine of “render unto Caesar” or does it not?  Anyone who would argue publicly that doctrinaire “traditionalist” Shariah demands anything other than political power in a hegemonic Caliphate either knows literally nothing of Shariah or is engaged in deception and propaganda. All one needs to do is open up the most authoritative text on Islamic law available in English today, Reliance on the Traveler. It has the imprimatur of Al-Azhar University in Egypt, the Harvard of Shariah. Turn to the Book of Justice—where else?  Once there, turn to the sections on Jihad. There you will learn the when, where and how of the law. It isn’t what Nawaaaz says it is by a quite lengthy stretch.

Moreover, the argument can be made persuasively that only since Ataturk’s now failing Turkish experiment to secularize the remnants of a dismantled Ottoman Empire and the manifestly dismal autocracies created by the Muslim nationalists who took power after the end of colonial rule in the Near East and South Asia was there any hope of defanging Shariah and its lust for political, indeed, hegemonic political power.  That experiment in secularism is failing in Turkey as the Kemalists are on the run and it is also collapsing in the rest of the Muslim world as the “traditionalists” flex their muscles in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf region, Gaza, Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, Egypt, North Africa, East Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bosnia, Chechnya, and even in Europe. It is no coincidence that when given a chance to really vote, whether at the polls or in surveys, Muslims in the Muslim world overwhelmingly embrace a very strict and very political Shariah.  (See World Public Opinion Poll: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf.) This table speaks louder than Nawaaz’s assertions:

 If Nawaaz wants to make an argument that there is an “Islam” residing in the hearts of hundreds of millions of individual pietistic Muslims embracing a kind of Islamic version of Protestantism, fine. But the “traditionalists” within the Islamic religion go back to Mohammed and the Four Righteous Caliphs and the Shariah law which developed out of a very political, very militaristic tradition. That political, imperialistic tradition was codified within the ijma (consensus) of all of the legal schools we know as Shariah.  “Traditionalist” Muslims know this quite well, which suggests a rather dubious motive behind Nawaaz’s subterfuge.

FBI: Hate crimes against Muslims rare

Muslim Brotherhood front, Hamas funder CAIR tries to club non-Muslims over the head with this non-existent "backlash" and "hate crimes against Muslims" propaganda.

Time and again, we find the rare incidences of mosques that were spray painted or Muslims targeted are done by Muslims (ie here and here). There is no there there.

The Muslim cabdriver was slashed by a mosque worker and fierce supporter of the Ground Zero mosque. He worked for Cordoba/Park 51. Who can say who, if anyone, put him up to it? CAIR's offices are right next door to the Cordoba Conquest Initiative/ASMA offices on Riverside drive. I hope the police are investigating -- or will CAIR demand they take more "sensitivity training"?

All of this Goebbels-style propaganda (the Nazis played the victim card too) is, in fact, to gin up their significant fringe elements (of which their are millions) to hurt, attack, those fighting the forces of Islamic supremacism and stealth jihad.

Americans are getting wise and they are sick of it.

What is a fact, is that antisemitism is at the highest levels not seen since World War II. Thanks in large part to virulent Islamic Jew-hatred.

Check this out from the Bee, a notoriously pro-CAIR newspaper. So you know the facts are overwhelming.

FBI data: Hate crimes against Muslims rare Sacramento Bee

Numbers have declined over recent years

WASHINGTON — Hate crimes directed against Muslims remain relatively rare, notwithstanding the notoriety gained by incidents such as recent vandalism at the Madera Islamic Center.

Jews, lesbians, gay men and Caucasians, among others, are all more frequently the target of hate crimes, FBI records show. Reported anti-Muslim crimes have declined over recent years, though they still exceed what occurred prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

"We see hate crimes generally go in spurts, and are often in relation to international or domestic events," Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Friday.

In 2008, 105 hate crime incidents against Muslims were reported nationwide. There were 10 times as many incidents that were recorded as anti-Jewish during the same year, the most recent for which figures are available.

The number of anti-Muslim hate crimes leaped to a record 481 in 2001, apparently prompted by the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. It hasn't been nearly that high since.

All told, 7,783 reported hate crime incidents occurred in 2008, including 1,381 in California. These incidents can take many forms.

Lodi resident David Halla, for instance, was arrested Monday and charged with assaulting a 76-year-old charter bus passenger while en route from Modesto to Chukchansi Gold Resort-Casino. This could count as a hate crime, as witnesses say Halla was shouting racial epithets at the Spanish- speaking victim.

On the other hand, if Halla had called the alleged victim old, that wouldn't have been recorded as a hate crime, because age is not covered by federal hate crime laws.

By itself, hate is not a crime.

Congress, though, has specified that a criminal act becomes a hate crime when it is "motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Stiffer penalties can result.

Read more: the rest here

"I am Muslim, I am American" Notice which comes first

With the onslaught of jihad attacks thwarted and executed across America and the world, CAIR is investing untold thousands upon thousands of dollars on a deception in the heart of New York City, infidel central. If what they are desperately trying to project is reality, and this is so obvious, why does CAIR have to keep telling us this? If this were so, we would know. Why do they have to keep beating us over the head with this nonsense?

Obviously, the  recent spate of  Islamic attacks in Fort Hood and the planned bombings in Dallas, and Chicago, and Denver and New York City tells us a very different story, and is the motivation behind this hilarious campaign.

Take a look at the ad going up at Times Square. Here we have Tariq Ramadan -- that name is no accident. A cherubic boy with the name of the silver-tongued devil of Europe. Evil personified banned from America.

Public service announcement (PSA) to air on CBS Super Screen Dec. 22-Jan. 16

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization announced today that its new public service announcement (PSA), called "I am Muslim, I am American," began airing this morning on the CBS Super Screen in New York City's Times Square.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said its New York chapter (CAIR-NY) produced the 15-second PSA, which will air every hour for 18 hours each day through January 16, 2010, on the 26-foot by 20-foot full-motion screen. More than one million people pass through Times Square each day.

CAIR-NY's PSA features an American Muslim NYPD sergeant, as well as a Muslim Little League all-star, a human rights activist, a doctoral candidate, and an attorney. It begins with the statement, "Building Community, Serving Country." Viewers are encouraged to visit CAIR's Web site.

To view the PSA, go to: http://www.cair.com/ny/

"This public service advertisement features ordinary American Muslims whose everyday lives are dedicated to building community and serving country," said CAIR-NY Community Affairs Director Faiza N. Ali. "This initiative is part of our ongoing effort to ensure that a fair and accurate portrayal of Islam and Muslims is presented to the American public."

Ali added that the PSA will air during the New Year's Eve celebration in Times Square, when up to one million people turn out to watch the ball drop at midnight.

"We hope that the millions of people from around the nation and the world who view this public service announcement will return home with enhanced understanding of Islam and the American Muslim community," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Our PSA shows that American Muslims are a vital part of our nation's social and religious fabric."

If I had the dough, I would do this same campaign with Major Muslim Hasan, Zazi the nazi, Talib Islam, Hosam Smadi, John Muhammad, Tahawwur Hussain Rana, Ahmad Afzali, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, Syed Haris Ahmed, Umar Chaudhry, Waqar Khan, Ahmad A. Minni, Aman Hassan Yemer and Ramy Zamzam, Daood Gilani, Abdulsalam al-Zahrani, et al.

Muslim children training for jihad (video) Video hat tip Armaros via Creeping Sharia

Why doesn't CAIR spend these tens of thousands of dollars on an initiative to expunge the violent texts from the koran? Why isn't that their mission? Why do they spit in our face and tell us it's raining?

"I am Muslim, I am American, I am a fulla shitnik."

Wall Street Journal Runs MPAC Taqiya

Spencer rips this propagandist a new ....... brain:

U.S. Muslim leader explains how Fort Hood jihadist misunderstands Islam

Here is that rare thing, an attempt to show with specific Qur'anic citations how an Islamic jihadist is misusing the Qur'an and misunderstanding the true, peaceful teachings of Islam. Usually those who assert such things are extremely vague about just how Islam and the Qur'an are being misused.

Unfortunately, however, this is written by Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) -- a fact that immediately arouses suspicion. MPAC, for example, has trafficked in moral equivalence between jihadists and anti-jihadists regarding Israel. It was no surprise when the organization joined CAIR and other groups in 2004 in signing a "Joint Muslims/Arab-American Statement on Israel Violence in Gaza." The organizations echoed some of the most virulent rhetoric that jihadists employ in their offensives against the Jewish state, condemning "Israel's recent indiscriminate killings of innocent Palestinians, including many children," without even mentioning the targeting by Palestinian suicide bombers of Israeli citizens on buses and in restaurants, or the Israeli government's diametrically opposed policy of never targeting civilians.

Such extreme rhetoric was nothing new for MPAC. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, on a Los Angeles radio show, al-Maryati added fuel to the wildest, most paranoid conspiracy theories about the attacks that had just unfolded: "If we're going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."

This was not al-Maryati's only outburst of anti-Israeli malevolence. Daniel Pipes recounts a "February 1996 incident when a Palestinian named Muhammad Hamida shouted the fundamentalist war cry, Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great), as he drove his car intentionally into a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem, killing one Israeli and injuring 23 others. Before he could escape or hurt anyone else, Hamida was shot dead. Commenting on the affair, Mr. Al-Marayati said not a word about Hamida's murderous rampage but instead focused on Hamida's death, which he called 'a provocative act,' and demanded the extradition of his executors to America 'to be tried in a U.S. court' on terrorism charges."

Al-Maryati in 1996 equated violent jihadists with the Founding Fathers: "Most Islamic movements have been branded as terrorists as a result of the rising extremism from a handful of militants. American freedom fighters hundreds of years ago were also regarded as terrorists by the British."

"Repentance is the only option for the Fort Hood killer," by Salam al-Marayati in the Wall Street Journal, December 9 (thanks to all who sent this in):

[...] Maj. Hasan took an oath as a member of the U.S. military to defend our country. He also took a Hippocratic oath to protect his patients. The violation of these oaths is a violation of the Quranic principle which states that making a pledge to anyone is tantamount to making a pledge to God. The Quran states: "(Be not like those) who use their oaths as a means of deceiving one another" (16:92).

QED, eh? Salam al-Marayati would have us believe that it's very simple: the Qur'an says don't break your oaths, Hasan broke his oath, and so Hasan, despite appearances to the contrary, is a Muslim heretic, a Misunderstander of Islam.

Unfortunately, however, there are indications in the Hadith that oaths taken to Infidels don't have that unbreakable character. Muhammad, of course, said, "War is deceit." He also said, "By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."

Muhammad said this in the context of being able to do something better for his men than what he had promised to do, and so al-Marayati may argue that shooting up Fort Hood was in no way better than remaining loyal to the U.S. military, but from the jihadist point of view a jihad against Infidels is certainly better than submitting to those Infidels. After all, Muhammad also said, when asked what was the best deed, that jihad was best after professing faith in Islam. He also recommended to his followers that they break their oaths if they found a better course of action.

Those who would say that Qur'an trumps Hadith whenever there is a contradiction, and that therefore oaths are always and everywhere binding upon Muslims, must then explain why that has never been understood as such in the Islamic world. History is full of examples of Muslims breaking oaths and treaties with Infidels. Were they all misunderstanding Islam?

In any case, al-Marayati mentions none of this. And why not? He could have given a much more convincing and honest presentation if he had acknowledged the existence within Islamic tradition of justifications for oath-breaking, and explained -- if he could -- why they did not excuse Hasan's behavior. But he didn't.

His now infamous PowerPoint presentation is rife with distortions of the Quran. Entitled "The Koranic Worldview As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," it provides anything but a Quranic perspective. Maj. Hasan's critical fault in understanding the Quran was his failure to distinguish between two very important categories of verses: those tied to the specific context of seventh-century Arabia, and those that are absolute and permanent.

Here al-Marayati implies, without offering specifics, that the martial verses of the Qur'an that Hasan quoted are understood by mainstream Islamic theology to apply only to seventh-century Arabia. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Very early in the history of Islam, Muslims noticed and began to grapple with how Muhammad's messages changed in character over the course of his prophetic career. Muhammad's earliest biographer, a pious Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur'anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah's last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur'anic verse: "Then God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there be no more seduction,' i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's', i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."

The Qur'an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until "the religion is God's" - that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, "at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory." He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: "(1) against them who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur'an)." (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur'an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh 'Abdullah is referring to Qur'anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

This understanding of the Qur'an isn't limited to the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia, to which Sheikh 'Abdullah belongs, and which many Western analysts imagine to have originated Islamic doctrines of warfare against unbelievers. Jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb, who was not a Wahhabi, subscribes to the same view of the Qur'an. In his jihad manifesto Milestones, he quotes at length from the great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350), who, says Qutb, "has summed up the nature of Islamic Jihaad." Ibn Qayyim outlines the stages of the Muhammad's prophetic career: "For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God's religion was fully established."

Qutb summarizes the stages: "Thus, according to the explanation by Imam Ibn Qayyim, the Muslims were first restrained from fighting; then they were permitted to fight; then they were commanded to fight against the aggressors; and finally they were commanded to fight against all the polytheists." He further quotes Ibn Qayyim as emphasizing the need to wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims, particularly the Jewish and Christian "People of the Book": "After the command for Jihaad came, the non-believers were divided into three categories: one, those with whom there was peace; two, the people with whom the Muslims were at war; and three, the Dhimmies....It was also explained that war should be declared against those from among the 'People of the Book' who declare open enmity, until they agree to pay Jizyah or accept Islam. Concerning the polytheists and the hypocrites, it was commanded in this chapter that Jihaad be declared against them and that they be treated harshly." Qutb says that if someone rejects Islam, "then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission."

Read it all.