Heather Grahl, a young
Washington, D.C. lawyer, receives a call one morning bearing
devastating news: police in the Bahamas discovered her sister's
decapitated body. With no apparent suspects or motive, the authorities
offer little help in solving the crime.
Determined to find her
sister's killers, Heather sacrifices her career and risks her life
pursuing the murderers. Through her investigation, she uncovers
evidence linking the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. to the
gruesome killing and learns of a shocking conspiracy against the United
States that her sister died trying to expose. Heather races to reveal
the deadly Saudi conspiracy before she shares her sister's fate.
28 Pages
"A must read political thriller" - B.B. Kahn, author of Seven Society
"Debut political thriller you can't put down" - Douglas Dorow, author of The Ninth District
"A literary thriller, at least as good as any Grisham novel." - John J. Strauchs, author of Tides.
"Allen Mitchum's debut novel is simply riveting. I believe I read it in three sittings. I just didn't want to put it down." - BlackbootJack, editor of the Infidel Task Force
There's more......
Allen
Mitchum can add his name to the likes of David Gaubatz, Phyllis
Chesler, Dr Terry Jones, Ali Sina and others. BlackbootJack interviewed
them all, and now....
AAAHHHHHHHHhhhhhh....its great to be back!! But I have to admit, there was a time (quite a few in fact) that I wondered if it was ever going to be saved. For
those that did not know, the site was hijacked. How? We don't know. By
whom? Again, we don't know. But someone wanted us silenced. It
malfunctioned due to a massive flood a malicious traffic to the site. The
hosting firm (WEBS.com) worked hard. But I guess it was my ear piercing
scream that got them to finally solve the problem. Or maybe it was my
sobbing that got them to fix it so i would go away. They worked hard, I
shouldn't complain. I just hope they put solutions into place so it
never happens again. I guess we can only hope and pray. Don Laird, our number one contributor and a valued member named Ecks Why
kept close contact with me during the entire time. They held my hand
and patted by forehead to keep my from blowing up and ranting their ears
off. The slapped my face when I said I was folding and not bringing the
site back. You could tell they wanted to do something to help, but
their hands are tied when your separated by miles. None the less...its
great to have friends!! Thank you so much Don and XY!!
Anyways, I'm back!! We're back!! And we're pissed! So much has
happened, so much has passed that viewers around the world who depend on
the ITF for information were left to forage other sites, if they can
get to them. Many of our viewers are gone now. We have to start almost
from the beginning. It will take time, but our contributors are ready. Don Laird has miles of commentaries ready to place on the home page. We have an interview coming up that everyone will find fascinating. Annie has graphics she wants to post and shes running out of patience. ...and Islam is still on the march. Stay with us folks. Keep coming back. There is big things coming. Time to get to work!! -BBJ
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
8 year-old boy donates money to Hezbollah
Judd Hashisho wants money he's been saving for past year to help terror group purchase drones to 'fight Israel the b**ch'
Isn't this a young man to take pride in? I would love to have him as my son. NOT!!! This is how they bring up their children. Savages!!
Judd Hashisho, an eight-year-old Lebanese boy from Sidon, has recently risen to stardom in Lebanon, becoming a favorite among Hezbollah-affiliated
media outlets.
Hashisho reportedly delivered a note to Hezbollah Secretary-General
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in which he enclosed money he has been saving
since last year's anniversary of the IDF's
retreat from south Lebanon.
According to Lebanese news agencies, Hashisho donated the money to help Hezbollah purchase a new drone, resembling the Iranian drone
that was launched at Israel last month.
In his letter, the boy identified himself as a supporter of the
Popular Democratic Party in Sidon, adding "I want to give this money to
the resistance so it can buy weapons to fight Israel the b**ch.
"When I grow up, I will be a communist resistance warrior with Hezbollah, fighting the United States and Israel,
I will tear them to pieces and drive them out of Lebanon,
the Golan and Palestine, which I love very dearly."
The media quickly learns to abide by the new rules...
by Robert Spencer
October 31, 2012 - 8:30 am
(This is a work of fiction....but scary as all hell. -BBJ)
It is
February 27, 2013. Barack Obama, having been safely reelected, awakens
one morning to news that Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia,
Egypt, and elsewhere are rioting and storming U.S. embassies, tearing
down the American flag and raising the black flag of jihad. They’re in a
rage over a book that depicts Muhammad as waging war against his
enemies, consummating a marriage with a nine-year-old girl when in his
fifties, and raining down curses upon Jews, Christians, and others. A
grim-faced Obama immediately takes to the airwaves. “This book is reprehensible and disgusting,” Obama tells the world,
his eyes flashing with indignation. “It does not represent the position
of the government of the United States, and we condemn it in the
strongest possible terms. This unseemly provocation of the noble
believers in the Holy Qur’an has to end. This is America. We are better
than this. We are not a people who condone hate. We are a people who
offer a welcoming, helping hand to those in need. And it is high time
that we afford religious minorities the same protections that we strive
so hard to offer to racial minorities.”
The Obama administration quickly drafts a law that would criminalize
the “use of any means to broadcast, write, produce, publish or
distribute material that encourages or incites terrorism, including a
website and public speaking, and of material that incites hatred that is
likely to lead to violence against or stigmatization of a specific
group.”
The international community is thrilled. European heads of state rush
to congratulate and thank Obama. British Prime Minister David Cameron
calls him “far-seeing.” Germany’s Angela Merkel says he is “a true
statesman.” Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte opines that Obama is “richly
deserving of his Nobel Peace Prize,” and predicts that a new era of
peace will soon dawn between the West and the Islamic world. Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
(OIC), announces that he is “gratified” that the United States has
finally recognized the “red lines that cannot be crossed regarding discussion of the holy figures of the world’s great religions.”
The mainstream media is just as happy. Eric Posner writes in Slate
that finally Americans have come around to the rest of the world’s
point of view, that there is “no sense in the First Amendment” and that
we need not be “paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.” Sarah Chayes in the Los Angeles Times
hails the new clarity about the “distinction between speech that is
simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives
and property at immediate risk.” In the Washington Post, Nathan Lean effuses
that the U.S. has “recognized the power of our multiculturalism” and
will finally “reach our true potential as a nation” now that “the voices
of intolerance that wish to divide us along religious lines” have been
“drowned out by overwhelming calls for pluralism and co-existence.”
Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. are enthusiastic as well. Haris Tarin of the Muslim Public Affairs Council heralds the imminent demise
of the “hate-mongering industry in the United States that sees Islam as
the problem.” Imam Husham Al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic
Educational Center in Dearborn expresses his satisfaction
that the U.S. has finally “put a law not to insult a spiritual leader.”
Mohammad Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, New Jersey, is likewise pleased that “we, as Americans, have put limits and borders on freedom of speech,” recognizing that non-Muslims “have no right to talk about Muslim holy issues,” as doing so will incite “hatred or war among people.”
A few roadblocks still remain on the road to peace. Some radio hosts
object, but local stations drop their programs for fear of losing their
advertisers and FCC licenses. A teary-eyed House Minority Leader John
Boehner says at a press conference: “Look, I agree with the president
that the Muhammad book is reprehensible and disgusting, and I don’t
condone hate speech in any way, shape, or form, but I am concerned about
the First Amendment implications of this new bill.” After a firestorm
in the press, however, charging that Boehner and the Republicans favor
hate speech and are sowing division among people, Boehner backs down and
agrees to support the bill. A Supreme Court challenge is quickly
defeated when Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Sunstein lead a 6-3
majority vote in favor of the proposition that “hate speech” is not
entitled to First Amendment protections and can lawfully be subject to
restrictions.
The change is immediate. Books critical of Islam and Muhammad
disappear from the shelves. Websites tracking jihad terror activity are
shut down, and, after vowing to continue to call attention to
Islamization and the spread of Sharia in the West, a few bloggers are
quietly imprisoned. The mainstream media is unperturbed – these people
were, after all, purveyors of “hate speech.”
But when Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli is
taken into custody over a story reporting on new statements calling for
jihad by the Taliban’s Mullah Omar, Post publisher Katharine Weymouth is outraged. “The story,” she writes in a front-page Post
editorial, “was merely reporting on Mullah Omar’s words. If there was
any incitement to hatred, it was on the part of Omar, not the Post.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney, however, explains: “The
president feels that this kind of reporting can tend to stigmatize and
increase suspicion of the Muslim community in the United States. The Post, and the rest of the media, has to learn to be more inclusive.”
The media quickly learns to abide by the new rules. Jihad terror
attacks in Thailand, Nigeria, and Chechnya go unreported in the U.S., or
are noted in carefully circumspect terms in news articles that speak in
warmly positive terms about Islam and Muslims and explain that their
struggle against non-Muslim oppression is justified in each particular
case. Muslim groups in the U.S. begin to demand restrictions on women’s
rights, calling for women to cover their heads in public as a gesture of
modesty and defending those who brutalize women who venture out with
heads uncovered as merely overzealous for a return to much-needed moral
standards. When feminists complain, they are reminded that some of their
leading lights, such as Naomi Wolf,
have defended the hijab and denounced opposition to it as
“Islamophobic.” On the grounds that they’re promoting “Islamophobia,”
feminists who speak out against the forced head coverings and
brutalization are swiftly arrested and prosecuted.
Other Sharia demands follow. Pork and alcohol products disappear from
grocery shelves. New laws are enacted that restrict the movements,
educational opportunities, and employment opportunities of women. All
the new laws are sold as preventing hatred against Muslims. No one dares
speak out.
Of course, this is a hysterical, nightmare scenario. It could never,
ever happen in the United States. We will never enact hate speech laws,
and if we did, they would never be abused in this way.
Right?
The case that a political term has outlived its usefulness
By Thanassis Cambanis
....this commentary is a bit lengthy, but well worth the read.
| August 04, 2012
To watch
the Arab world’s political transformation over the past year has been,
in part, to track the inexorable rise of Islamism. Islamist groups—that
is, parties favoring a more religious society—are dominating elections.
Secular politicians and thinkers in the Arab world complain about the
“Islamicization” of public life; scholars study the sociology of
Islamist movements, while theologians pick apart the ideological
dimensions of Islamism. This March, the US Institute for Peace published
a collection of essays surveying the recent changes in the Arab world,
entitled “The Islamists Are Coming: Who They Really Are.”
From all this, you might assume that “Islamism” is the most important
term to understand in world politics right now. In fact, the Islamist
ascendancy is making it increasingly meaningless.
In Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, the most important factions are led
overwhelmingly by religious politicians—all of them “Islamist” in the
conventional sense, and many in sharp disagreement with one another over
the most basic practical questions of how to govern. Explicitly secular
groups are an exception, and where they have any traction at all they
represent a fragmented minority. As electoral democracy makes its impact
felt on the Arab world for the first time in history, it is becoming
clear that it is the Islamist parties that are charting the future
course of the Arab world.
As they do, “Islamist” is quickly becoming a term as broadly
applicable—and as useless—as “Judeo-Christian” in American and European
politics. If important distinctions are emerging within Islamism, that
suggests that the lifespan of “Islamist” as a useful term is almost at
an end—that we’ve reached the moment when it’s time to craft a new
language to talk about Arab politics, one that looks beyond “Islamist”
to the meaningful differences among groups that would once have been
lumped together under that banner.
Some thinkers already are looking for new terms that offer a more
sophisticated way to talk about the changes set in motion by the Arab
Spring. At stake is more than a label; it’s a better understanding of
the political order emerging not just in the Middle East, but around the
world.
***
The term “Islamist” came
into common use in the 1980s to describe all those forces pushing
societies in the Islamic world to be more religious. It was deployed by
outsiders (and often by political rivals) to describe the revival of
faith that flowered after the Arab world’s defeat in the 1967 war with
Israel and subsequent reflective inward turn. Islamist preachers called
for a renewal of piety and religious study; Islamist social service
groups filled the gaps left by inept governments, organizing health
care, education, and food rations for the poor. In the political realm,
“Islamist” applied to both Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which disavowed
violence in its pursuit of a wealthier and more powerful Islamic middle
class, and radical underground cells that were precursors to Al Qaeda.
What they had in common was that they saw a more religious
leadership, and more explicitly Islamic society, as the antidote to the
oppressive rule of secular strongmen such as Hafez al-Assad, Hosni
Mubarak, and Saddam Hussein.
Over the years, the term “Islamist” continued to be a useful catchall
to describe the range of groups that embraced religion as a source of
political authority. So long as the Islamist camp was out of power, the
one-size-fits-all nature of the term seemed of secondary importance.
But in today’s ferment, such a broad term is no longer so useful.
Elections have shown that broad electoral majorities support Islamism in
one flavor or another. The most critical matters in the Arab world—such
as the design of new constitutional orders in Egypt, Tunisia, and
Libya—are now being hashed out among groups with competing
interpretations of political Islam. In Egypt, the non-Islamic political
forces are so shy about their desire to separate mosque from government
that many eschew the term “secular,” requesting instead a “civil” state.
In Tunisia’s elections last fall, the Islamist Ennahda Party—an
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood—swept to victory, but is having
trouble dealing with its more doctrinaire Islamist allies to the right.
In Libya, virtually every politician is a socially conservative Muslim.
The country’s recent elections were won by a party whose leaders believe
in Islamic law as a main reference point for legislation and support
polygamy as prescribed by Islamic sharia law, but who also believe in a
secular state—unlike their more Islamist rivals, who would like a direct
application of sharia in drafting a new constitutional framework.
In Egypt, the two best-organized political groups since the fall of
Mubarak have been the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi Noor Party—both
“Islamist,” but dramatically different in nearly all practical respects.
The Brotherhood has been around for 84 years, with a bourgeois
leadership that supports liberal economics and preaches a gospel of
success and education.
The rival Salafi Noor Party, on the other hand,
includes leaders who support a Saudi-style extremist view of Islam that
holds the religious should live as much as possible in a pre-modern
lifestyle, and that non-Muslims should live under a special Islamic
dispensation for minorities. A third Islamist wing in Egypt includes the
jihadists—the organization that assassinated President Anwar Sadat in
1981, which has officially renounced violence and has surfaced as a
political party. (Its main agenda item is to advocate the release of
“the blind sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, imprisoned in the United States
as the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)
***
‘Islamist” might be an
accurate label for all these parties, but as a way to understand the
real distinctions among them it’s becoming more a hindrance than a help.
A useful new terminology will need to capture the fracture lines and
substantive differences among Islamic ideologies.
In Egypt, for example, both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis
believe in the ultimate goal of a perfect society with full
implementation of Islamic sharia. Yet most Brothers say that’s an
abstract and unattainable aim, and in practice are willing to ignore
many provisions of Islamic law—like those that would limit modern
finance, or those that would outright ban alcohol—in the interest of
prosperity and societal peace. The Salafis, by contrast, would shut down
Egypt’s liquor industry and mixed-gender beaches, regardless of the
consequences for tourism or the country’s Christian minority.
There’s a cleavage between Islamists who still believe in a secular
definition of citizenship that doesn’t distinguish between Muslims and
non-Muslims, and those who believe that citizenship should be defined by
Islamic law, which in effect privileges Muslims. (Under Saudi Arabia’s
strict brand of Islamist government, the practice of Christianity and
Shiite Islam is actually illegal.) And there’s the matter of who would
interpret religious law: Is it a personal matter, with each Muslim free
to choose which cleric’s rulings to follow? Or should citizens be
legally required to defer to doctrinaire Salafi clerics?
Many thinkers are trying to craft a new language for the emerging
distinctions within Islamism. Issandr El Amrani, who edits the blog The
Arabist and has just started a new column for the news site Al-Monitor
about Islamists in power, suggests we use the names of the organizations
themselves to distinguish the competing trends: Ikhwani Islamists for
the establishment Muslim Brothers and organizations that share its
traditions and philosophy; Salafi Islamists for Salafis, whose name
means “the predecessors” and refers to following in the path of the
Prophet Mohammed’s original companions; and Wasati Islamists for the
pluralistic democrats that broke away from the Brotherhood to form
centrist parties in Egypt.
Gilles Kepel, the French political scientist who helped popularize
the term “Islamist” in his writings on the Islamic revival in the 1980s,
grew dissatisfied with its limits the more he learned about the
diversity within Islamism. By the 1990s, he shifted to the more academic
term “re-Islamification movements.” Today he suggests that it’s more
helpful to look at the Islamist spectrum as coalescing around competing
poles of “jihad,” those who seek to forcibly change the system and
condemn those who don’t share those views, and “legalism,” those who
would use instruments of sharia law to gradually shift it. But he’s
still frustrated with the terminology’s ability to capture politics as
they evolve. “I’ve tried to remain open-eyed,” he said.
It’s also helpful to look at what Islamists call themselves, but that
only offers a perfunctory guide, since many Islamists consider religion
so integral to their thinking that it doesn’t merit a name. Others
might seek for domestic political reasons to downplay their religious
aims. For example, Turkey’s ruling party, a coterie of veteran Islamists
who adapted and subordinated their religious principles to their
embrace of neoliberal economics, describes itself as a party of
“values,” rather than of Islam. In Libya, the new government will be led
by the personally conservative technocrat Mahmoud Jibril; though his
party could be considered “Islamist” in the traditional sense, it’s
often identified as secular in Western press reports, to distinguish it
from its more religious rivals. Jibril himself prefers “moderate
Islamic.”
The efforts to come up with a new language to talk about Islamic
politics are just beginning. They are sure to evolve as competing
movements sharpen their ideologies, and as the lofty rhetoric of
religion meets the hard road of governing. The importance of moving
beyond “Islamism” will only grow: After all, what we call the “Islamic
world” includes about a quarter of the world’s population, stretching
from Muslim-majority nations in the Arab world, along with Turkey,
Pakistan, and Indonesia, to sizable communities from China to the United
States. For Islam, the current political moment could be likened to the
aftermath of 1848 in Europe, when liberal democracy coalesced as an
alternative to absolute monarchy. Only after that, once virtually every
political movement was a “liberal” one, did it become important to
distinguish between socialists and capitalists, libertarians and
statists—the distinctions that have seemed essential ever since.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Here's another love letter from Omar who, I must admit he was very polite about it, asking us to shut down our web site. These guys just don't get it. From: Omar Asad <oasad92@gmail.com> To: editor@infideltaskforce.com Subject:The Infidel Task Force Date:Thu 07-19-2012 Asalalikum Whartmitalwhobargato,
Dear brother or sister of Islam. I write this email with a heavy heart
asking you to please remove this website. Although you may have
nothing but the purest intentions, the majority of the sites vistors
will only see this as a negative impact and think badly of Islam. In
which turn you are actually turning people away from Islam instead of
trying to bring them closer to Allah (swt). You of course are not
obligated to listen to me or even respond but I truly hope you consider
doing such.
Omar... I
assume you are from America? Am I correct? If not, then that explains a
lot. If your not from America, you must have no concept of FREE SPEECH.
If you are , then you should know better. Lets
go on the assumption you live in the US. I guess you are not familiar
with the Constitution of the United States. You must not be familiar
with Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights. Well, let me state it below:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In asking me to shut down my site, you are asking me to impose
self-censorship upon myself. You are asking me to be silent about the
violence and atrocities being carried out around the world in the name
of Islam. You do not want the free world to know about Islamic honor
killings and the massive violence carried out in the name of Islam. We
are being asked to shut down because muslim men openly, constantly, and
without remorse....initiates violence against women.
Is that what you are asking me to do?
You
guys just don't get it, do you? Islam owns terror organizations around
the world. They are taking over countries. In north Africa alone, Boko Haram
is working its way down to South Africa with the goal of eradicating
Christianity and implementing Islamic Shariah Law. Why aren't American
muslims speaking up about this? The Muslim Brotherhood has plans to put Shariah Law in place and make Jerusalem its capitol!! Is that OK with you guys? I can go on all day, but for your sake I won't. Your asking me to shut down my site because it may give visitors a negative impact and think badly of Islam.
Omar....this site gives the absolute correct image of Islam. Please
tell me what is false and I will be glad to remove it. You won't find
anything. What we post here is the truth. Islam is violent, blood
thirsty and unrelenting evil. Please give me some good things about
Islam. PLEASE!! And don't give me the stale answer of how it makes
muslim men so good and pure, because that is true BULL! Islam
needs no help from me in giving the true impact of its ideology. It
doesn't need me or my site to tell the world just what kind of cult this
so-called "religion" really is. All people have to do is open the paper
every morning. Watch the news in the evening. Read the myriad of web
sites. Islam....as you are well
aware Omar, is more then just a religion. Its a self compassing
personal, political and legal system that not only controls every aspect
of a muslims life, but will assert authority over non-muslims, once the
Islamists gain a majority. Instead
of wasting your time and asking those that run these anti-jihad site,
why don't you start speaking up about the radicalization of muslims
around the world? Why don't you tell the world how your going to make it
your crusade to stop the violence being done to women and minorities?
Why don't you start a program of "Muslims for equal rights"? Listen
Omar....the Infidel Task Force dedicates and entire page called
Silencing Americans Through Fear. It is full of articles on how Islam
and left wing politicals go about trying to shut us up. What will be
next Omar? Are you going to send out those smirky innuendos of possible
violence? Are you going to threaten the ITF by going to the site host
and telling them what we publish is lies and you want them to take me
down? Forget it Omar. They know my site and its one of the most popular.
It ain't going anywhere.Are you going to tell me that you can't control
those bad bad muslim men in Egypt that may kill Christians because of
my site? Will you? Because that's what Islam does. C'mon
Omar. Grow up. Get a life. Start telling the truth of what Islam is
doing to the world. You can do that by going out and ask the
anti-western, anti-America, anti-Democracy, anti-Israel web sites to
close THEIR sites.
...this
is truly scary. It means the Islamists are winning in Britain. Where is
the EDL? It was made for just things such as this. TAKE BACK YOUR
COUNTRY BRITS!! C'mon people, grow some balls. The media should be
outraged. Parents should be aware and spreading this information. And
where are the freakin' whistle blowers. If it was me...I would be
shouting this out on street corners.
Since when have Islamists started intimidating us?
This is alarming and frighting. Wake up Brits or America is next. Thank
the lord we have the conservative blogs and rousing speakers as
Brigitte Gabriel and Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. -BBJ
A three-month trial that recently ended in Liverpool, where nine Muslim men were found guilty of raping dozens of British children, revealed that police and social workers in northern England repeatedly refuse to investigate Muslim paedophile gangs: they said they are afraid of being called racist.
(Soooooo...we cannot trust our law enforcement to do their damned jobs anymore)
The
disturbing details that emerged during the trial have opened yet
another chapter in a long-running debate about multiculturalism in
Britain, where many say that political correctness has gone too far. (YA THINK??)
Less than a month after the trial in Liverpool ended on May 9, it emerged that social workers in the City of Rotherham,
also in northern England, had known for six years that a teenage
mother (identified as Child S) who was murdered for bringing shame on
the families of two Pakistani men who had used her for sex, was at
clear risk from predatory Muslim gangs.
On May 29, Rotherham Council's Safeguarding Children Board published a so-called Serious Case Review,
but key politically incorrect passages which reveal that they had
known she was at particular risk from "Asian men" (Muslim men) were blocked out with black lines.
The council went to court in an attempt to suppress the hidden information after an uncensored copy of the report was leaked to a British newspaper,
but the legal action was eventually abandoned. The uncensored report
confirmed that Child S had pursued dealings with 15 different agencies,
and identified "numerous missed opportunities" to protect her;
observers believe the agencies failed to do so because they did not want to be branded as racist. (Bottom line...they didn't want to be branded as racist by a group of rapists. FIRE THEM ALL!!
They do not deserve those jobs. They do not want to properly perform
the service they were hired to do. Worse off...they have no concerns for
the young rape victim. FIRE THEM NOW!!)
Pro-Shariah Group Launches Disinformation Campaign The Islamic Circle of North America has launched a $3 million campaign to convince Americans that Shariah, the legal code of Islam, is no threat. ICNA is not exactly the best salesman.
The New York-based group, which was founded in 1968 by leaders of the Pakistani branch of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, is promoting Shariah law in a "25-city education tour" that features billboards, radio and TV ads, town hall forums and campus interfaith events.
"The plan is to clear up common misconceptions about Shariah and the Islamic faith," ICNA says. It's responding to legislative efforts to ban judges from recognizing Shariah law in Kansas, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arizona and South Dakota.
"Muslim-Americans are asking for the same fundamental rights to observe Shariah" as other faiths enjoy observing their tenets, ICNA asserts.
Of course, Shariah involves far more than just worship. It commands a separate political system. Unlike other religions, it seeks to substitute the U.S. Constitution with its own commandments, which discriminate against women and non-Muslims, restrict free speech, and prescribe cruel and unusual punishment, among other things.
Through groups such as ICNA, as well as the hundreds of mosques it controls, the Muslim Brotherhood teaches Muslim-Americans that Shariah is the law of the land. This is in direct contravention of the so-called supremacy clause, which states: "This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."
Shariah has already crept into U.S. court cases, mostly involving family law. Some heavily Muslim areas of the U.S. have become "no-go zones," where domestic abuse cases, even honor killings, are covered up.
But then, ICNA knows all this. That's why it's trying to disarm the public through a massive propaganda campaign in the U.S.
The ICNA official behind the campaign, Sabeel Ahmed, has privately told Muslims: "We should use every opportunity presented or created to sensitize non-Muslim peers and school staff with Islam and establish an environment in which everywhere a non-Muslims (sic) turn, they notice Islam portrayed in a positive way and get influenced by it and eventually accept Islam with Allah's guidance, insha Allah."
It's plain that ICNA has an agenda other than protecting religious freedom. But it goes beyond conversion of non-Muslims. Here's what ICNA is really hiding:
• The secret archives of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, seized by FBI agents in 2004, list ICNA among "our organizations."
• The document, found in the basement of a terror suspect in Annandale, Va., and translated from Arabic, says "their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house, so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
• The same Brotherhood charter calls for the creation one day of a "Central Islamic Court" in America, according to the best-seller "Muslim Mafia."
• ICNA recently merged with a sister group — the Muslim American Society — which the Justice Department says is the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
• ICNA's "Great Leaders of the last 100 Years" features the late Pakistani Brotherhood leader Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, who has said: "Islam wishes to do away with all states and governments anywhere."
• It also lionizes the late Egyptian Brotherhood leader Sayyid Qutb, who stated: "Wherever an Islamic community exists, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the divine system (Shariah) on earth."
• ICNA has featured in its magazine, "The Message," the writings of the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has stated the following: "What we seek is that legislations and codes be within the limits of the flawless texts and the overall objectives of the Shariah and the Islamic message." Qaradawi, banned from U.S. entry since 1999, has also declared: "We will conquer America."
Those running ICNA's ads and plastering highways (including New York's Lincoln Tunnel) with billboards should know what they're dealing with — a subversive group running a disinformation campaign.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
A
50-something year old Muslim man arrived at his seat on a crowded
flight and immediately didn't want the seat. The seat was next to an
elderly white woman reading her Bible.
Disgusted,
the Muslim man immediately summoned the flight attendant and demanded a
new seat. The man said "I cannot sit here next to this infidel." The
flight attendant said "Let me see if I can find another seat."
After
checking, the flight attendant returned and stated "There are no more
seats in economy, but I will check with the captain and see if there is
something in first class."
About
10 minutes went by and the flight attendant returned and stated "The
captain has confirmed that there are no more seats in economy, but there
is one
in
first class. It is our company policy to never move a person from
economy to first class, but being that it would be some sort of scandal
to force a person to sit next to an UNPLEASANT person, the captain
agreed to make the switch to first class."
Before
the irate Muslim man could say anything, the attendant gestured to the
elderly woman and said, "Therefore ma’am, if you would so kindly
retrieve your personal items, we would like to move you to the comfort
of first class as the captain doesn't want you to sit next to an
unpleasant person."
Passengers in the seats nearby began to applaud while some gave a standing ovation.
From an anonymous editorial at the Washington Times:
If the pope called for the destruction of
all the mosques in Europe, the uproar would be cataclysmic. Pundits
would lambaste the church, the White House would rush out a statement of
deep concern, and rioters in the Middle East would kill each other in
their grief. But when the most influential leader in the Muslim world
issues a fatwa to destroy Christian churches, the silence is deafening.
On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin
Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is
“necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” . . . Churches
have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were
not even allowed in the country.
Meanwhile,
The White House has placed international
outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to
promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This
cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and
religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Taliban commander wants Pakistan's nukes, global Islamic caliphate
By Bill RoggioMarch 20, 2012
One of the top leaders of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan
said the terror group seeks to overthrow the Pakistani government,
impose sharia, or Islamic law, seize the country's nuclear weapons, and
wage jihad until "the Caliphate is established across the world."
The statements were made by Omar Khalid al Khurasani, the al
Qaeda-linked leader of the Movement the Taliban in Pakistan's branch in
the Mohmand tribal agency, in a video that was released on jihadist web
forums yesterday. The video, which also discussed the history and
evolution of the Movement the Taliban in Pakistan, was released by Umar
Studios and has been translated by the SITE Intelligence Group.
In the video, Khalid said the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan was
united and strong and operating under the leadership of Hakeemullah
Mehsud. Khalid outlined five "important goals" of the Taliban: overthrow
the Pakistani institutions; release both Pakistani and "foreign"
fighters; impose sharia law; obtain a nuclear weapon; and establish a
global caliphate.
"First of all, we aim to counter the Pakistani government, its
intelligence agencies, and its army, which are each against Islam and
have oppressed the mujahideen and their families," Khalid said,
according to the SITE translation. The Taliban want to "avenge the
oppression of the mujahideen in the tribal and urban areas" as well as
the "humiliation of the mujahideen in Pakistani prisons."
"Our second objective is to seek the safe release of Pakistani and
foreign mujahideen in Pakistan," Khalid continued. The term "foreign
mujahideen" refers to members of al Qaeda and other outside terror
groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Khalid said the Taliban want to "replace the English system of
democracy with Islamic Shariah" as "the Pakistani system has nothing to
do with Islam."
Khalid also said that the Taliban want to seize Pakistan's nuclear
weapons and "other resources," including the army, to defend Islam.
Pictured above: Omar Khalid [center], from his latest propaganda video. Image from the SITE Intelligence Group.
"Another objective of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan is to use Pakistan's
strengths including the atomic bomb, army, and other resources, to guide
other Muslim countries and for the survival of Islam," Khalid said.
"Pakistan's soil, Pakistan's people and Pakistan's mujahideen must not
be used to serve American interests, but must be used for the survival
and integrity of Islam."
Finally, Khalid said that the Taliban would continue their fight even after taking over Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Our objectives are as clear as the orders in the Qur'an, which is
our constitution. Allah said in the Qur'an: 'Fight against hypocrites
and apostates till there is no more fitna [sedition],'" he said. "So,
until Islam is implemented in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the
Caliphate is established across the world, our jihad will continue. This
is our first and foremost objective."
Mohmand Taliban under command of able leader
Khalid is a senior deputy of Hakeemullah Mehsud's Taliban movement.
Khalid is considered one of the Taliban's most effective and powerful
leaders in the tribal areas. He also maintains close ties to al Qaeda
and is believed to have given sanctuary to Ayman al Zawahiri in the
past.
Khalid is also allied with Qari Zia Rahman, the dual-hatted Taliban
and al Qaeda leader who operates in Pakistan's tribal agencies of
Mohmand and Bajaur as well as in Afghanistan's provinces of Kunar and
Nuristan. Rahman established and runs the suicide training camps that
are used to indoctrinate and train female bombers [see LWJ report, Al Qaeda, Taliban create female suicide cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan]. In August 2011, Khalid claimed credit for a female suicide attack in Peshawar.
Khalid has been active in the Taliban's propaganda machine since the
death of Osama bin Laden, and has been vocal in his support of al Qaeda.
In mid-May, Khalid vowed revenge on Pakistani and US forces for the death of Osama bin Laden.
"We will take revenge of Osama's killing from the Pakistani
government, its security forces, the Pakistani ISI, the CIA and the
Americans, they are now on our hit list," Khalid said.
"Osama bin Laden has given us the ideology of Islam and Jihad, by his
death we are not scattered but it has given us more strength to continue
his mission."
In early June, Khalid said the Taliban have been behind the spate of attacks in Pakistan and again threatened the US.
"Our war against America is continuing inside and outside of
Pakistan. When we launch attacks, it will prove that we can hit American
targets outside Pakistan," Khalid said.
Khalid gained prominence during the summer of 2007 after taking over a
famous shrine in Mohmand and renaming it the Red Mosque in honor of the
radical mosque in Islamabad whose followers had attempted to impose
sharia in the capital.
The Mohmand Taliban took control of the tribal agency after the Pakistani government negotiated a peace agreement
with the extremists at the end of May 2008. The deal required the
Taliban to renounce attacks on the Pakistani government and security
forces. The Taliban said they would maintain a ban on the activities of
nongovernmental organizations in the region but agreed not to attack
women in the workplace as long as they wore veils. Both sides exchanged
prisoners.
The Taliban promptly established a parallel government in Mohmand.
Sharia courts were formed, and orders were given for women to wear the veil in public. "Criminals" were rounded up and judged in sharia courts. Women were ordered to have a male escort at all times and were prevented from working on farms. The Taliban also kidnapped members of a polio vaccination team.
In July 2008, Khalid became the dominant Taliban commander in Mohmand
after defeating the Shah Sahib group, a rival pro-Taliban terror group
with ties to the Lashkar-e-Taiba. The military claimed it killed Khalid
in January of 2009, but the Taliban denied the report and he has since surfaced.
The Pakistani government placed a $123,000 bounty
on Khalid's head in 2009. But Pakistan has failed not only to arrest or
kill Khalid; it has yet to capture or kill any of the terrorist leaders
on that bounty list. The US succeeded in killing Baitullah Mehsud, who
topped the list, in a drone strike in South Waziristan in August 2009.
Cairo // An Egyptian
Salafi MP was forced to resign from parliament and from his party after
claiming that he was injured in a carjacking, when he had in fact had a
nose job, his party said yesterday.
A
bruised and bandaged Anwar Al Bilkimy appeared on television last week
saying how gunmen beat him and stole 100,000 Egyptian pounds (Dh61,000).
But
doctors and medical staff at a hospital in the Cairo suburb of Sheikh
Zayed came forward and said that the MP, who belongs to the
ultra-conservative party Al Nour, had in fact been undergoing
rhinoplasty at the time.
In a statement on its Facebook page, Al
Nour said its chief Emad Abdel Ghafur had gone to see Mr Bilkimy today
and confirmed that the whole story had been "made up".
Mr Bilkimy "has resigned from the party and from parliament," the party said.
Woo Hoo!! Nose job!! I believe that is against Islam,,,,,,,,
For Egypt's Christian Copts, the New Year began with threats that their churches would be attacked during Christmas mass (celebrated on January 7). Because many were eyeing the situation—several Coptic churches were previously attacked, including last Christmas (eight dead) and New Year's day (23 dead), not to mention ominous harbingers around the world, such as the Nigerian Christmas day church bombings (40 dead) —the Muslim Brotherhood proclaimed it would "protect" the Copts during their church services. Happily, Coptic Christmas came and went without incident.
Church of St. Mary and St. Abram, recently besieged by 20,000 Muslims.
Yet, if the Muslim Brotherhood "protected" Coptic churches when many around the world were watching, as soon as attention dissipated, it was business as usual: a large number of Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood members entered a church, asserting that it had no license and no one should pray in it, with hints that it might be turned into a mosque—an all too typical approach in Muslim countries where building or even renovating churches is next to impossible.
More to the point, 2012 appears to be unfolding as the "year of dhimmitude" for Egypt's Christians. Consider the following anecdotes starting from just last January, all of which demonstrate an upsurge in the treatment of Egypt's Copts as dhimmis (dhimmi being the legal term for Islam's "protected" non-Muslim minorities—"protected," that is, as long as they agree to a number of debilitations that renders them second-class citizens):
Insulting Islam
According to the Pact of Omar (which is also one of the earliest sources banning the construction or renovation of churches), dhimmis must "respect Muslims" and never insult them or their religion. Accordingly, a prominent Christian, Naguib Sawiris, is charged with "contempt of religion" for twittering a cartoon of a bearded Mickey Mouse and veiled Minnie: "The case has added to fears among many that ultraconservative Islamists may use their new found powers to try to stifle freedom of expression." Nor are the double standards in Egypt's "contempt of religion" law missed: Christianity is daily disparaged in Egypt with impunity.
Likewise, a 17-year-old Christian student accused of posting a drawing of Islam's prophet on Facebook—which he denies, saying it was posted without his permission—triggered days of Muslim violence and havoc, including the burning of three Christian homes to cries of "Allahu Akbar." The student, who was beaten, is to be "held" for fifteen days, "pending investigation." Muslim leaders agree "that priests should publicly apologize for the images, and that the student as well as his family should move out of the governorate."
Conversion Issues
Also according to the Pact of Omar, dhimmis "shall not prevent" any of their family members from converting to Islam. Accordingly, some 20,000 Muslims just attacked a Coptic church, demanding the death of its pastor, who, along with "nearly 100 terrorized Copts sought refuge inside the church, while Muslim rioters were pelting the church with stones in an effort to break into the church, assault the Copts and torch the building." They did this because a Christian girl who, according to Islamic law, automatically became a Muslim when her father converted to Islam, fled her father and was rumored to be hiding in the church. This would not be the first time in recent months that churches are attacked on similar rumors.
Collective Punishment
Traditionally, if one dhimmi transgressed, all surrounding dhimmis were collectively punished. As the jurist al-Murtada writes: "The agreement will be canceled if all or some of them [dhimmis] break it"; another jurist, al-Maghili taught that "the fact that one individual (or one group) among them has broken the statute is enough to invalidate it for all of them."
Accordingly, a mob of over 3,000 Muslims attacked Christians in an Alexandrian village because a Muslim barber accused a Christian of having "intimate photos" of a Muslim woman on his phone (Sharia bans non-Muslim men from marrying Muslim women). Terrified, the Christian, who denies having such photos, turned himself in to the police. Regardless, Coptic homes and shops were looted and set ablaze. Three Christians were injured, while "terrorized" women and children, rendered homeless, stood in the streets with no place to go. As usual, it took the army an hour to drive 2 kilometers to the village: "This happens every time. They wait outside the village until the Muslims have had enough violence, then they appear." None of the perpetrators were arrested.
Since the initial attacks, and in an effort to empty the village of its 62 Christian families, Muslims attacked them again, burning more Coptic property. According to police, the woman concerned has denied the whole story, and no photos were found.
Jizya
Koran 9:29 commands Muslims to "Fight … the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the jizya [monetary tribute] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Although abolished under Western pressure during the colonial era, Muslim demands for jizya are back. And though it has currently not been reinstated, some Muslims have taken matters in their own hands by extorting money from Christians in lieu of jizya. (Who can forget the Egyptian preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini's lament that Muslims could alleviate their economic woes if only they returned to the good old days of Islam, when plundering, abducting, and selling/ransoming infidels were a great way of making a living?) Thus, Two Christians were killed "after a Muslim racketeer opened fire on them for refusing to pay him extortion money." The local bishop said "I hold security forces and local Muslims fully responsible for terrorizing the Copts living there, who are continuously being subjected to terror and kidnapping."
Islamic Superiority
Then there is the Islamic principle that necessity makes that which is forbidden permissible. In this context, the rights of dhimmis can be trampled upon so long as an Islamic interest is served. Accordingly, in a region that is half Christian, Muslim mobs went on a rampage, attacking Copts, destroying and torching their homes and property to more screams of "Allahu Akbar." Why? Simply to prevent Copts from voting and to ensure that a Salafist (Islamist) candidate win. "No Copt from Rahmaniya-Kebly was able to vote today, so the Salafists will win the elections," descried a witness. Equally telling is that, while the population of this region is half Christian, there are 300 mosques and only one church.
Institutionalized Discrimination
Finally, perhaps nothing better demonstrates the return of dhimmitude for Copts as when the Egyptian government itself—as opposed to "radicals" or "mobs"—openly treats Christians as second-class citizens. Aside from the aforementioned "contempt of religion" cases, other anecdotes surfacing in January include a legal case revolving around the abduction of a 16-year old Christian girl. The court sided with Islamist lawyers, in a decision that Coptic activists are saying will "encourage Islamists to continue unabated the abduction of Christian minors for conversion to Islam." Similarly, rather than punishing the aggressors, the government has arrested and is trying two priests in connection with the Maspero massacre, when the military opened fire on and ran tanks over Copts protesting the constant destruction of their churches. Finally is the fact that, although Egypt's new parliament has 409 seats, only 7 are Copts, though Copts make up at the very least 10% of the population, and so should have approximately 40 seats.
Usama bin Laden wanted his younger children to go
to college in the West and live in peace rather than embrace terrorism,
according to his brother-in-law.
The head of Al Qaeda is calling on Muslims across
the Arab world and beyond to support rebels in Syria who are seeking to
overthrow President Bashar Assad, and says they cannot depend on the
West for help.
The January poll is
now open. Its simple and to the point. Those of us who have been
reading about the slaughter and church burnings by Islamists, know that
we have the beginnings of another genocide by Islamics. So please
tag your choice and come January 24th, when President Obama gives his
State of the Union address, we shall see if he speaks up about this
horrendous activity by muslim radicals...or if he stays silent
A 
Send
