PDA

View Full Version : The Victims Have Faces



Odysseus
11-08-2010, 12:27 PM
The Victims Have Faces

November 08, 2010
Eileen F. Toplansky

In Saudi Arabia, journalist Fahd al-Jukhaidib, who works for the daily Al-Jazeirah newspaper will be publicly whipped for “allegedly instigating protests against a government electricity company following a series of power cuts.” He is sentenced to receive 50 lashes; in addition, he was also sentenced to two months in prison for his actions.

In Iran, Mohsen Manju is “accused of having ridiculed the Koran, ‘reciting it in a western and anti-Islamic style.’” Thus, this Iranian artist has been sentenced to five years in prison for having put the Koran to music, a move “considered offensive to Islamic morality.”

A fatwa against American cartoonist Molly Norris has resulted in Ms. Norris going into hiding on the advice of the FBI. She had urged an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” which drew the ire of the Muslim world. German supermodel Claudia Schiffer was threatened with death after she wore a dress printed with a saying from the Koran. In Afghanistan Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he distributed material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is under constant surveillance as a result of her writing and film work which calls for the emancipation of women living under the tyranny of Islam.

In June of 2010 Palestinian Authority TV, which is under the direct control of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s office, held a game show between competing Palestinian universities. The accepted “correct answers” denied Israel’s existence and sought to promote the notion that “all of Israel is ‘Palestine.’”

Ibn Warraq, author of Why I Am Not a Muslim, has highlighted the work of Giulio Meotti. Neither an Israeli nor a Jew, journalist Giulio Meotti authored a book entitled A New Shoah, “a necessary book on the ‘unsung dead of Israel.’” Meotti reminds readers that until Arabs and Muslims “recognize the right of Israel to exist; until Islamic countries add the State of Israel to the maps used in schools” there can never be peace.

Ibn Warraq writes of “an authentic hazkara, an act of remembrance for these victims of Islamic terrorist hatred. Thus, in Israel in the last 15 years, there have more than 150 suicide/homicide attacks. Perhaps less well known is that more than 500 suicide attacks have been prevented; 1,557 people have been killed and 17,000 injured. Rachel Teller and Abigail Litle were teenage girls murdered by terrorists. Ironically these two girls worked on an Arab-Jewish project for peace.

The ongoing United Nations demonization of Israel, and the never-ending attacks on individual expression of ideas makes all of us victims, some sooner than others.

The silence of the international media is deafening. Human rights groups have long abdicated any sense of true righteous indignation, and with the Western world ignoring the cancer in their midst, we will continue to see more crackdowns on artists, musicians, and journalists who will ultimately fear for their safety. Thus, until all terrorist groups are outlawed; until all sponsorship of terrorism is punished, until all anti-Israeli propaganda is eliminated, there will be many more victims. The Jew has always been the canary in the mine, but clearly anyone who disagrees with governments who crack down on freedom of expression becomes a casualty. Who will be next?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/the_victims_have_faces.html

noonwitch
11-08-2010, 04:34 PM
It blows my mind how western feminists, who criticize the Catholic Church for not ordaining women will not condemn the attacks on women in the muslim world.

I'm not a Catholic and never will be, for that reason among others (like needing a middle man to reach God). But Catholics in this day and age are not murdering women. Some practitioners of Islam are murdering, maiming and otherwise mistreating women in the name of their religion. I've read one of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books. She is one brave woman, to take up this cause, especially considering what she has endured up to now in her life. Islam in Africa is even more brutal than in the middle east, because it feeds off of ancient tribal religious superstitions about women. She was genitally mutilated as a child, she witnessed violence toward women and children in Somalia, and was targeted in the Netherlands by the same bastard who murdered Theo van Gogh.

I think there is hope for muslims in the USA, because we will never substitute sharia law for our constitution. Our way of life is contagious.

MrsSmith
11-08-2010, 09:03 PM
It blows my mind how western feminists, who criticize the Catholic Church for not ordaining women will not condemn the attacks on women in the muslim world.

I'm not a Catholic and never will be, for that reason among others (like needing a middle man to reach God). But Catholics in this day and age are not murdering women. Some practitioners of Islam are murdering, maiming and otherwise mistreating women in the name of their religion. I've read one of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books. She is one brave woman, to take up this cause, especially considering what she has endured up to now in her life. Islam in Africa is even more brutal than in the middle east, because it feeds off of ancient tribal religious superstitions about women. She was genitally mutilated as a child, she witnessed violence toward women and children in Somalia, and was targeted in the Netherlands by the same bastard who murdered Theo van Gogh.

I think there is hope for muslims in the USA, because we will never substitute sharia law for our constitution. Our way of life is contagious.



WASHINGTON, Nov. 8, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced that a federal judge in Oklahoma has temporarily blocked an anti-Islam state ballot measure (SQ 755) that would have amended that state's constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic principles (Shariah) or international law when making a ruling.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20101108/pl_usnw/DC97185

noonwitch
11-09-2010, 08:55 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20101108/pl_usnw/DC97185


I don't know why Oklahoma felt the need to pass such a law to begin with. I am confident that where Sharia law conflicts with the Constitution, then in US courts the Constitution will always prevail. After all, even if our laws have been influenced by judeo-christian traditions, we haven't codified the entirety of Leviticus into our law.

In my community, we have lots of muslims, more than anyplace else outside of the middle east. Some even become leaders in the local area-judges, council members, etc. No one has tried to impose Sharia law, contrary to what Sharron Angle says.

Odysseus
11-09-2010, 09:20 AM
I don't know why Oklahoma felt the need to pass such a law to begin with. I am confident that where Sharia law conflicts with the Constitution, then in US courts the Constitution will always prevail. After all, even if our laws have been influenced by judeo-christian traditions, we haven't codified the entirety of Leviticus into our law.

In my community, we have lots of muslims, more than anyplace else outside of the middle east. Some even become leaders in the local area-judges, council members, etc. No one has tried to impose Sharia law, contrary to what Sharron Angle says.

Not yet. The Muslim Brotherhood is quite explicit in their intentions, and their methods have worked very well in Europe, where Sharia is now used to arbitrate divorce in Britain (only among Muslims, for now) and whole swathes of cities are de facto Islamic states, run by mullahs. The decisive factor in the Oklahoma case is not that they felt that the law was necessary, but that CAIR managed to get it overturned by the courts. If the law were unnecessary, it would not have been successfully challenged. The fact that it was proves that it was needed, and that more is on the way.

noonwitch
11-09-2010, 01:03 PM
Not yet. The Muslim Brotherhood is quite explicit in their intentions, and their methods have worked very well in Europe, where Sharia is now used to arbitrate divorce in Britain (only among Muslims, for now) and whole swathes of cities are de facto Islamic states, run by mullahs. The decisive factor in the Oklahoma case is not that they felt that the law was necessary, but that CAIR managed to get it overturned by the courts. If the law were unnecessary, it would not have been successfully challenged. The fact that it was proves that it was needed, and that more is on the way.


The Muslim Brotherhood is not the predominant form of Islam practiced in Dearborn. I'm not saying they aren't present there, just saying that the largest mosques in that community are not part of that movement.

But there was that ruling about the christian preachers at the Arab Festival earlier this year. The court stated that the preachers have free speech rights, and are allowed to preach away in public. The first amendment trumped the police's policy in this case, which wasn't really about Sharia law, but more about the police ignoring one group's free speech rights to protect another group from hearing things they might not like hearing.

Odysseus
11-09-2010, 01:29 PM
The Muslim Brotherhood is not the predominant form of Islam practiced in Dearborn. I'm not saying they aren't present there, just saying that the largest mosques in that community are not part of that movement.

But there was that ruling about the christian preachers at the Arab Festival earlier this year. The court stated that the preachers have free speech rights, and are allowed to preach away in public. The first amendment trumped the police's policy in this case, which wasn't really about Sharia law, but more about the police ignoring one group's free speech rights to protect another group from hearing things they might not like hearing.

But the fact that they were arrested at all is telling. There was a great column on this at today's American Thinker:


November 09, 2010
De Facto Shariah Law in America
By Janet Levy
Is the United States today a de facto shariah state? A close look at recent events points to some alarming conclusions about the tenets of shariah law taking hold in our once-proud constitutional republic and the unwitting, unequal application of existing U.S. laws. The result is that when it comes to religious expression, Muslims now enjoy more freedom of religion and speech under our Bill of Rights than non-Muslims. Equal protection under the laws of our country holds for Muslims far better than for non-Muslims. Several recent examples illustrate this point.

Christianity Suppressed
In October, students at a Chattanooga, Tennessee high school were told that their longtime tradition of praying at practice and before games would no longer be allowed. The school superintendent had called an end to prayer at all school functions following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

In July, students visiting the Supreme Court from an Arizona Christian school were stopped by police as they bowed their heads and quietly prayed for the justices. The students were standing outside the court building to the side at the bottom of the building steps. They weren't blocking traffic, but an officer abruptly approached them and ordered them to stop praying immediately.

Four Christians were arrested in June for disorderly conduct at the Dearborn Arab International Festival after handing out copies of the Gospel of John. The four had stationed themselves five blocks from the festival and did not actively approach anyone, but instead waited for others to approach them. Still, police officers confiscated their video cameras and led the four Christians away in handcuffs to shouts of "Allah hu Akbar" from Muslim bystanders.

In June of 2006, an instrumental rendition of "Ave Maria" was banned at the Henry Jackson High School graduation in Everett, Washington. Despite Justice Samuel Alito's protests, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider whether the case was an example of censorship of student speech.

In direct contrast to the above incidents, which limit Christian prayer and expression, numerous examples exist of special accommodations for Muslim activities and religious practices. These indicate an adherence to a separate and distinct policy for Muslims that mirrors the supremacist requirements of shariah law.

Islam Accepted
In the State of California, 7th-grade students at Excelsior Middle School in Discovery Bay, California adopted Muslim names, prayed on prayer rugs, and celebrated Ramadan under a state-mandated curriculum that requires instruction about various religions. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court again declined to hear legal challenges by concerned Excelsior parents, who complained that the instruction was actually religious indoctrination and that Christianity and Judaism were not given equal time and exposure. The curriculum has been upheld as appropriate multicultural material.

After Carver Elementary School in San Diego absorbed Muslim students from a defunct charter school in September 2006, a special recess was provided for the students to pray, classes were segregated by gender, and pork was removed from the school menu. A teacher's aide at the school led children in prayer and was provided with a lesson plan allotting an hour of class time for Islamic prayer. In essence, Muslim students alone were privileged with public school time to practice their religion at an additional cost of $450,000 in public funds and a loss of instruction time. (Note: Looked this up also and revised it a bit as well.)

In May, students at a Wellesley, Massachusetts middle school visited a local radical mosque and participated in a prayer session. Parents, who gave signed permission for students to visit the mosque, were not informed in advance that students would also be bowing to Allah and listening to lectures on Islam. Surprisingly, teachers did nothing to intervene as students participated and a mosque spokesperson denigrated Western civilization while glorifying and misrepresenting Islam, even falsely referring to the greater rights of women under Islam. Astonishingly, this occurred in a state that has prohibited the sale of Christmas items, including red and green tissue paper, at a school store and forced firefighters to remove a "Merry Christmas" sign from their station.

Over the last few years, the University of Michigan, a taxpayer-funded school, has provided separate prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, requiring bathroom modifications costing over $100,000, for Muslim observances.

At Minneapolis Community and Technical College, where religious displays, including those for Christmas, have been strictly prohibited, foot-washing facilities are being installed using taxpayer dollars after one student slipped and injured herself washing her feet in a sink. Director of Legal Affairs and President Phil Davis justified the disparate treatment of Muslims, explaining, "The foot-washing facilities are not about religion; they are about public safety."

Muslims periodically block the streets of New York City, prostrating themselves in the middle of roadways and sidewalks undisturbed by police and other authorities. The resulting traffic jams are ignored, the double- and illegally parked vehicles are free of citations, and law enforcement officers are nowhere to be seen. Surely, practitioners of other religions or groups planning similar gatherings would be required to obtain permits for such an activity. Reportedly, the police have been ordered not to interfere with the Muslim prayer spectacle.

These special accommodations for Muslims effectively elevate the Islamic faith above that of Christians and Jews, reinforcing the message of the Koran -- "Allah proclaims Islam over all other religions" (48:28), "Islam will dominate other religions" (9:33), and "Islam does not coexist with other faiths" (5:51). Muslims are required by the teachings of their faith to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims and Ensure worldwide submission to Islam -- "The believers must make war on infidels around them and let the infidels find firmness in them" (9:123).

Under Islamic shariah law, Christians may not even speak to Muslims about Christianity nor provide them with any literature about Christianity. With the recent arrests of Christians in Dearborn juxtaposed with prostrate Muslim worshipers in Manhattan (where a mosque is planned at Ground Zero at the same location where a church will not be rebuilt), it appears that the principles of Islamic supremacy and prohibitions against Christian proselytizing have begun to gain traction in America.

Meanwhile, Christianity in America is withering as Bible study is eradicated in public schools, crosses are removed from the public square, and "winter holidays" replace Christmas celebrations. Remarkably, as Christianity is being dethroned and denied public expression, Islam is being unabashedly and openly promoted in what has been a Christian country for over two hundred years. It is truly remarkable that as American students chant prayers in Arabic in California's classrooms, Christmas music and graphics that refer to both Christmas and Chanukah are prohibited in New Jersey.

Odysseus
11-09-2010, 01:31 PM
And more

Censure of Non-Muslims
Further, the First Amendment, free-speech rights of non-Muslims are being curtailed amidst the demands of Muslims who operate under few constraints. While non-Muslims are self-censoring out of fear and being shut down by authorities, Muslims enjoy almost unfettered rights to speak out.

For example, leading up to the 9th anniversary of the Muslim attack on 9/11, Pastor Terry Jones of Florida announced that he would burn the Koran in protest of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Not only was Jones's life threatened by Muslims, but an Obama administration official asked him to cancel his plans. New York Governor David A. Paterson commented in response to Jones' threat: "More and more, particularly this year, I feel that the memory of those who were lost is being disrespected." However, Paterson did not criticize the Muslim threat on Jones' life, nor the plan itself to build a mosque over the remains of the victims of Islamic terrorism killed on 9/11.

While Pastor Jones was punished by the loss of his mortgage and insurance and was presented with a bill for $180,000 for security by the City of Gainesville, Muslims avoided any public opprobrium even though twenty innocent people around the world died during Muslim protests against Jones. Like the response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons years earlier, the Koran-burning activity was suppressed and censured as disrespectful to Muslims. It was even compared to the burning of churches and synagogues. Yet Muslims who threatened violent reprisals against Jones were not warned that attempts to curtail First Amendment rights and even mayhem, assaults, or murder would not be tolerated and would be punished to the full extent of the law.

In another instance of free speech rights violations, when New Jersey Transit Authority (NJTA) worker Derek Fenton burned a Koran near Ground Zero on 9-11, he was promptly removed by authorities as much for the perceived insult to Islam as for his own safety. The very next day, he was fired from his job of eleven years.

In October, NPR reporter,Juan Williams was fired for expressing on Fox News a fear shared by the majority of Americans in a post-9/11 world -- his discomfort about being on a plane with people who dress as conservative Muslims. Thanks to pressure from CAIR, a Hamas-supporting, extremist-linked organization, Williams was punished for this thoughtcrime and, without first talking to Williams, an NPR spokesperson broke the news on Twitter. Ironically, CAIR spokespersons are regular guests on NPR programs.

Cartoonist Molly Norris was forced to disappear after declaring April 20 "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." Norris ignited a religious firestorm with radical Islamic cleric Imam Anwar al-Awlaki publicly ordering her execution. Under FBI recommendations and at her own expense, Norris went underground, changing her name and identity. She is no longer publishing cartoons at the publication where she has been a regular contributor.

Freedom of Speech for Muslims
Whereas Norris was forced to enter a witness-protection program in response to a fatwa against her, Islamic leaders enjoy unlimited freedom to spread their messages of hate within the United States. Some even receive protection at taxpayer expense, as did Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Egyptian-American Sufi imam who plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Rauf is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, endeavors to supplant U.S. law with shariah, and refuses to condemn jihadist groups and terrorism. In addition, he refused to sign a pledge revoking the mandatory death sentence for Muslim apostasy, has encouraged U.S. government officials to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas, and blames the United States for 9/11. Imam Rauf, who created the Shariah Index Project, which rates countries around the world on shariah compliance, has said that he believes in shariah supremacy.

Tariq Ramadan, a highly controversial leader in the fundamentalist Muslim world and the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna, visited the United States in April. As a keynote speaker at the Hamas-supporting Council on American Islam Relations and as a speaker before another Muslim Brotherhood organization, the Muslim American Society, Ramadan refused to condemn the shariah law provision that calls for stoning women for alleged improprieties or to denounce suicide bombing. Ramadan is suspected by U.S. intelligence of having ties to al-Qaeda. He espouses amicable messages of peace and respect when speaking with Western audiences, while endorsing Wahhabism and spreading hatred of the West to Arabic-speaking audiences.

Even Muslims targeted by our own government for their crimes receive protection. Anwar al-Awlaki, dubbed the "bin Laden of the internet" and suspected of having prior knowledge of 9/11 by having met privately with two of the 9/11 hijackers, has been defended by the American Civil Liberties Union. After President Obama approved placing Awlaki on a government assassination list, the ACLU initiated a lawsuit against the U.S. government challenging the order to kill him. This despite Awlaki being on the FBI's Most Wanted List and his having met and corresponded with Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin. He trained the Christmas underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was the inspiration for Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square car bomber. In a recent video delivered to CNN, Awlaki stated that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against the United States.

Nine years after 9/11, in contrast to protections enjoyed by Muslims, individuals perceived by Muslims to have damaged Islam in some way have been threatened, fired, and publicly censured. This development indicates how far we have come down the road to dhimmitude, a subservient status in relation to Muslims. Clearly, if Norris had organized a Draw Jesus or Draw Moses Day, her life would be very much intact. If Juan Williams had talked about his fear of fundamentalist Christians, he would still be an NPR host in good standing. Had Jones burned the Old Testament, twenty people murdered by Muslims jihadists would still be alive, his reputation would be untarnished, and his financial situation would be undamaged. Had Derek Fenton burned a copy of the Old or New Testament, it is unlikely that the NJTA would have taken any action against him.

MrsSmith
11-09-2010, 08:46 PM
I don't know why Oklahoma felt the need to pass such a law to begin with. I am confident that where Sharia law conflicts with the Constitution, then in US courts the Constitution will always prevail. After all, even if our laws have been influenced by judeo-christian traditions, we haven't codified the entirety of Leviticus into our law.

In my community, we have lots of muslims, more than anyplace else outside of the middle east. Some even become leaders in the local area-judges, council members, etc. No one has tried to impose Sharia law, contrary to what Sharron Angle says.

Let's see...voters pass this amendment by over 70%, and CAIR files a lawsuit within 48 hours. That would tend to make most people understand that 1) Oklahoma probably had good reason to pass this law and 2) CAIR has no intention of wasting time getting American courts to invoke Sharia law just as they've invoked thousands of other laws that trample all over the Constitution.

What we need is a Federal law making it illegal for courts to "find" new principles in 200+ year old documents.

noonwitch
11-10-2010, 09:26 AM
At least two of those situations Odysseus listed have nothing to do with Islam, and are the typical complaints lodged all the time against schools or governments for their obvious displays of Christian symbols or whatever.


I never would justify any type of violence directed at christians by muslims or any type of preferential treatment of one group over the other (like extending religious rights to muslims that are denied to christians in the public schools or something). That said, Pastor Jones knew the risks when he chose to go public with his big Koran burning party that never happened. If his insurance company decided his big mouth has made him a higher risk for them to insure, then that is the consequence of his stupidity.


None of these examples given prove to me that Sharia law is being implemented anywhere in the USA by any official organization. The Juan Williams situation with NPR is an injustice, but it is not an example of Sharia Law being imposed, it is an example of political correctness gone amock.

Derek Fenton violated the rules of his employer, and by burning a Koran in a public place, was committing a misdemeanor called Disturbing the Peace. I don't see this as an example of the state imposing muslim law on the citizenry.

Of course there is an element of Islam that wants to force everybody to convert and practice Sharia law. There are Christian Dominionists who would like to do the same thing, just maybe not by swordpoint, but by using the legal system to accomplish the goals. Fanatics with weapons are dangerous, but they don't speak for everyone who shares some of their beliefs.

As far as private media enterprises who are tacitly allowing those who threaten violent responses to what they perceive as attacks on their religion by cartoonists and writers, well, they are wimps for giving in to this and not standing up for their paper's or network's first amendment rights. Again, it's not Sharia law, it's wimpy people giving into fear.