Sunday, October 31, 2010

A Gift from our Friends in Yemen: Remember the USS Cole?

As if Yemen is actually an ally in the "war on terror".  There is information coming out fast and furious, this is but the first in a series about this latest bombing attempt.
More to come.

The latest Attempt at Carnage by the “Religion Of Peace”

It happened, finally.  Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been threatening attacks against the West and Europe, and they made good on their threat.  It was nothing more than luck that we dodged this bullet(or bomb as it were) and no one died.  I take nothing away from the British intelligence or those in Dubai, their diligence most certainly contributed to stopping the carnage.  Yet with all the attempted jihadists attacks around the globe it is of utmost importance that we are right 100% of the time, while the jihadists need to be right only once.  They missed this time, thank God but most certainly will not miss sometime in the future.
   Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the assumed planner of this attempted bombing of two synagogues in Chicago, is not some minor splinter group or a tiny minority of extremists screaming Allahu Akbar.  They are very powerful in that region, their voice carries a lot of weight among Muslims and they are the same as what the west refers to as just Al-Qaeda. 
   AQAP has been creating chaos for years, both in the Middle East and in non-Muslim countries.  They are the mouthpiece for Sheik Osama bin-Laden and for the most part what they say is what bin-Laden says.  As far back as 2006 their swords have been rattling, throwing threats around like candy.  April 2006 saw Al-Qaeda and bin-Laden calling for the death of “freethinkers”, specifically those who mock Islam or insult Mohammad.  No matter where they are, it is made clear that Islamic doctrine must be followed by those intending to carry out these killings. 
   In Jan 2008, AQAP was threatening attacks against any and all western targets, specifically Europe.  The English were especially worried, since AQ had just attacked the American embassy in Yemen.  MI5, the UK version of Homeland Security said “Last week's attack on the US embassy in the Yemen means security officials now consider the Arabian peninsular ‘particularly combustible’
   Feb 2009 saw AQAP harassing Jews in Yemen, and prominent Arab journalist Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed warned that Al-Qaeda “is transferring its men and furnishings to the mountains of Yemen….Yemen will be turned into a free-for-all, not only by the terrorists, but by all the countries that want to hound Al-Qaeda wherever it settles.”  It is no stretch, except by those blind and apologetic to fundamental Islam to see why the bombs came from Yemen and not Scotland.
   Jan 2010 saw the closing of the UK embassy in Yemen in response to on-going threats to American and European interests there.  AQAP made this threat “We call upon every Muslim who cares about his religion and doctrine to assist in expelling the apostasies(sic) from the Arabian Peninsula, (and)by killing every crusader…(and)declare it an all-out war…”  Also in Jan 2010 AQAP released another in their long line of threats, this time extolling the Muslims of Yemen, and indeed all Muslims world-wide “…to declare jihad against the infidels and their agent helpers, not only on the ground, but in the sea and air as well as their Crusader warships…As they declared it to be an open war on the people of Islam, we must declare an open war against [them]."  I wonder where this idea came from, as Obama has said many times that we(the West) are not at war with Islam.  The doctrine of jihad and sharia demand that Islam continue to spread, and any roadblock put up to impede the spread of the “religion of peace” is seen as a declaration of war. 
   The bomb packages from Yemen are not the beginning, they are a continuation of almost 1400 years of conquest as dictated by Muhammad.  As Islam continues to wrongly blame the West, and as the West continues down its foggy path to equality among religions, more will die.  Not this time, as we foiled this little plot, but there will be a next time, and a next time, and a next time.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Islam vs Capitalism: Will it work?

Lots of people believe that Gaza and the West Bank are nothing more than concentration camps, keeping millions of hungry, weak, diseased and besotten refugees in squalor and filth, and it is, of course all due to those evil Jews and America.  Nonsense.  That is liberal/Islamic propaganda designed to demonize Israel and create a false victim class.  Here are a few points I would like to make, see the entire article here.

Read it all.

“Oh those poor Palestinians and their plight in the worlds largest concentration camp” has been the rallying cry of the left for years.  Always the victim of the nakba, or catastrophe, the Palestinians, we are told are suffering greatly, all due to those evil Israelis and their handlers, America.  Stacy Perman, writing for Time magazine(Oct 10) and Christopher Hitchens, writing in The Mail on Sunday(Oct 11) would seem to contradict what has been the dominate propaganda in the media.
   As of today, Gaza and the West Bank are enjoying economic growth unseen in western countries for almost two years.  All manner of upscale appearance abounds: gleaming villas on the hillsides, new car dealerships rivaling anything in Beverly Hills, new multi-story shopping centers carrying name-brand products and wouldn’t you know, there are lattes available to go with your workout in the new high-tech gym.
   Ms. Perman in Time notes that “Multistory villas fronted by ornamental porticos and columns are rising on Ramallah’s hilltops along with glass and marble office buildings.”  Time reports the West Bank needs more new cars “Outside Nablus, new car dealerships sell everything from BMWs to Hyundais.”  One will also find “…the first movie house to open in 20 years, Cinema City, is hugely popular.”  Outside Jenin, a place once reported to be as much the prison as anywhere, now has “…the Hirbawi Home Center, a five-story shopping mall selling luxury items like plasma TVs…”
   What happened?  Where did the barbed wire, guard towers, growling dogs and armed guards go?  How could this happen in the worlds biggest refugee camp?  One man: Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, an American-educated economist.
   Fayyad has moved the PA away from foreign-donor aid, instead focusing on programs that attracts direct investments which in turn have spurred private-sector growth.  So much so that the IMF predicts an 8% growth rate in 2010.  How many “concentration camps” have an economy which shows an 8% growth rate?
   Fayyad has improved security, sweeping the streets of rogue militants, which has eased the movement of people and goods. Israel has responded by dismantling numerous checkpoints that also inhibited commerce and the free movement of goods, thus increasing the growth rate.  One of the greatest improvements came in the form of loans to the small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) that are the backbone of the Palestinian economy. These SME’s make up roughly 95% of enterprises, 84% of the private sector and 55% of the GDP.  President Obama, are you listening?
    Christopher Hitchens also sees the improvements for the refugees, saying “It is lunchtime in the world’s biggest prison camp, and I am enjoying a rather good caffe latte in an elegant beachfront cafe. Later I will visit the sparkling new Gaza Mall, and then eat an excellent beef stroganoff in an elegant restaurant.”  He goes on to observe “Can anyone think of a siege in human history, from Syracuse to Leningrad, where the shops of the besieged city have been full of Snickers bars and Chinese motorbikes, and where European Union and other foreign aid projects pour streams of cash (often yours) into the pockets of thousands?”  One cannot, and that is the lesson we need to learn was we hear about the plight of the refugees.
   There are many reasons why the refugees have suffered for the last 60+ years, most notably the selfishness of their leaders.  There are many complaints of how Hamas is turning more towards sharia and fundamental Islam and away from the more humanistic pursuits.  There is still much corruption within the governments, and the growing middle class is being caught between secular capitalism and theological leadership wanting nothing to do with western values.  Giving the people of the camps hope in the form of capitalism, allowing them to be their own boss and providing an atmosphere of co-operation and growth between Israel and themselves can bring about peace.  Even if it is merely a beginning peace between bank accounts, it is a good place to be.

A new, multi-story mall in Nablus

Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Few, the Proud, the Truth-Tellers.

Dr, Zuhdi Jasser is one of the few voices of not moderate Islam, but of reformist Islam.  His is one of the growing voices demanding reform in Islam, re-defining what it means to be a Muslim in western countries and why Muslims MUST take back and change Islam from its 7th century dogmatic hatred into the true religion of peace claimed by all Muslims.  Here is his website, I urge you to join and add your voice to his chorus of change and reform within Islam.

NPR: The New Dhimmi

Juan Williams has become the latest victim of sharia and the oppression of speech deemed insulting to Muslims.  His voice, although no longer on NPR will be hearde by a much wider audience with FOXNews as his 3-year contract shows.  At least FOX has the balls to give voice to ALL opinions, not merely the ones dictated by left doctrine.

You can read many articles about this dark day in journalism, here is my take.

  As of Wednesday, Oct 19, 2010 Juan Williams, 10 year veteran of National Public Radio and frequent guest on national news programs is no longer allowed to practice free speech.  Intimidation from Islam and Muslim advocacy groups, fear of reprisals and an abdication of journalistic integrity all contributed to Mr. Williams demise.
   On Monday, Oct 17, on the O’reily Factor Juan make the comment that, when at the airport, if he saw anyone dressed in what he termed Muslim garb he would become concerned, even frightened for a moment.  He made the connection that this was a natural reaction after 9/11 and that he believed many Americans felt the same way.     
   Speaking as a guest within an informal discussion his views are allowed, even encouraged as part of a lively debate.  Yet his words, and the implications behind them, as seen by NPR were nothing less than hate speech, a direct violation of NPR rules regarding the tolerance and multi-culturalism practiced by public broadcasting and agreed to by its employees.
   Remarkable in its condemnation was this statement that Mr. Williams views "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."  These editorial standards and practices must have been pulled from the Society of Professional Journalists stylebook on how to write about Islam and Muslims.  For example, the stylebook says “Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences” yet you’re not allowed to use the word jihad, as part of the richness of Islam. “Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are certain of their precise meaning… The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam...”  These guidelines are nothing more than the stifling of true free speech, which NPR is using against Juan Williams.
   The memo from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) points towards intimidation and a call for NPR to do something about this insult to Islam.  From the CAIR memo to NPR “Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR."
   Ibrahim Hooper, Communications Director for CAIR said that Mr. Williams words were  no less than a call for the continuation of profiling of Arab men between age 18 and 35.  If one listens to the entire conversation between Williams and O’reily it is obvious Juan is not a bigot or anti-Muslim, he is, however concerned with Muslim radicals and states that position regularly.  For CAIR to make the leap that Juan Williams hates Muslims and needs to be punished for those thoughts belies its image as a moderate voice of Islam.
   There are millions of Muslims who want nothing to do with jihad or killing in the name of Allah.  If those Muslims across the world do nothing to back their words of condemnation with real actions to actually dig out and expose the jihad doctrine from within its own house, it is impossible to determine who are the jihadists and who are not.  Juan Williams said what he believed for himself, and thought others probably felt the same way.  Rather than demonize him for practicing free speech, it should be recognized that the when people get nervous around those dressed in Muslim garb, it just might be the fault of those who commit murder, and other acts of violence, and do it in the name of Islam.
 No one asks that question.  I wonder why?

Juan Williams and the Thought Police

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

If you didn't trust lawyers before, you will after this

The AMJA, the American juridprudence group of Muslim lawyers and others in the legal profession wants Muslims to know that it is not rape within marriage if the man forces himself on her.  They claim this is accordance with Islamic norms.  Disgustiing on so many levels, most notably that this is another example of creeping sharia.  See the original fatwa here.

Sharia in America now approved by Muslim Jurists

Western law is based partially in the old Roman adage “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and render unto God what is Gods”.  Forgive my loose interpretation, but you know what I mean.  The separation of the spiritual from the secular was, even back then of paramount importance in the smooth running of government and society.  Now we have, here in America the group “Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America” issuing a fatwa which upholds the second-class status of women and gives the man in a marriage carte-blanche to do whatever he wants to the wife, including rape.
    The AMJA is a US group of Muslim lawyers and others, with a mission statement which says that it has been   “…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.”  This seems a bit of a misnomer when one reads fatwa #2982, which tells Muslims that in marriage there is no such thing as rape.  I guess this is a practical solution within the guidelines of Islam (see sura 4, verse 34) as to the keeping of marital harmony. 
   This fatwa, issued by the AMJAOnline Jurisprudence Section does uphold the guidelines of Islam and does show Muslims exactly how they are required to act, as per Muhammad and Allah.  The question posed from which this fatwa came is “Is there a such thing as marital rape in the sharia?”  Here is their answer: “For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.”(emphasis mine).  Harsh words from an organization which claims to provide “…practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam”.
   In the United Arab Emirates a recent court decision by the Federal Supreme Court allows a man to beat his wife and kids as long as he leaves no physical marks.  According to Shariah law, a man can beat his wife and children as long as he has first tries unsuccessfully to discipline them by admonishing and then abstaining from sexual relations with his wife.  This draconian ruling based in sharia law is also part of the practical solutions Islam provides.  No wonder then that raping your wife and beating your children and spouse is endemic in Islamic countries.
   There is a human rights problem in places like the UAE when their highest court rules it’s OK to hurt your family.  There is a grave sharia problem when an American jurisprudence association comprised of Islamic adherents says Muslims are required to sexually assault their wife if she refuses to sleep with them.  This is another example of how sharia is wending its way into the fabric of American society.
   The AMJA seems to not be bothered at all to say publicly that they endorse rape within marriage, telling us that it is the Islamic way.  They have no problem telling us how Islam treats women, and defining why this is so.  When you hear someone say that Islam respects women, point out to them the AMJA fatwa.  There is no better proof of the misogyny of Muhammad and Islam than fatwa #2982.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Call for More Burqas!

France just banned the burqa and other countries are following suit.  Yet Alveena Malik thinks the burqa needs to be as much the part of British culture as warm beer or boiled meat.  Sadly, I prefer warm beer to a burqa but hey, that's how this kuffir rolls.  See the entire story here.           

More Sharia in Britain, Pt 1,427

As firebrand disbarred barrister Anjem Choudary chants that the flag of Islam will one day fly over
#10 Downing Street
and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams actively advocates for sharia courts instead of British commonlaw, the march from within government towards that green flag fluttering over Downing Street becomes more real.
   From the Telegraph, one of England’s oldest newspapers comes this article, written by Tim Ross, explaining how it is now vitally important to embrace the burqa as being “…a part of a modern British way of life.”  That statement, from Alveena Malik, former faith advisor for the last labor government and now member of the think-tank Civitas appears in the new report “Women, Islam and Western Liberalism” published by Civitas.  Ms. Malik says that the burqa, as a religious symbol needs to be seen only in the context of safety and work productivity.  The real test for religious symbols in the public sphere should always be: ‘Does the wearing of a symbol (such as the kirpan, turban, yarmulke, crucifix and the veil) hinder a citizen’s ability to perform their public civic duties?”  she says, yet the burqa, niqab and hijab have been challenged within the civic sphere as to their ability to hamper or hinder public duties.        
   In Florida, the DMV has had problems with photographing Muslim women for a drivers license (something rarely seen in Saudi Arabia), the women claiming religious freedoms despite state law prohibiting anything which covers or hides the face when taking pictures for a license.  Some banks have had to address the delicate nature of bank accounts with ID photos, or even the face-to-face identity usually provided when making any type of transaction.  France, meanwhile has just banned the burqa and other European countries are following suit.
   Here are a few civic jobs burqa-clad women cannot do: firefighter, EMT, bicycle cop, social worker, teacher, public utilities lineman, credit union loan officer, there are many more but suffice to say if we use Ms. Maliks formula as a measuring stick, there could be more repercussions that as of now have not been addressed or contemplated.
   With European countries debating the banning of the burqa and France already passing a law prohibiting the burqa in public, the groundswell of a cultural awakening is beginning to show its head among the European elite.  Jacques Myard, senior member of Sarkozy’ UMP party says “Allowing women to exclude themselves from society by wearing the full Islamic veil makes radicals extremely comfortable, and Britain should realise this.”  He also said that the relaxed im migration and integration policies in Britian have “opened the door to terrorism”
   Alveena Malik believes that England should embrace the burqa and make it a part of British culture.  France has seen fit to separate the secular from the religious and Britian should keep to the same standard.  If Ms. Malik truly believes the burqa should be part of the British lifestyle then let it be in the privacy of her own home.  A symbol of oppression against women has no place within the purview of the public at large.

Ibrahim Hamide: Less than Peaceful and Tolerant

Ibrahim Hamide is a local restauranter and peace activist.
Ibrahim Hamide supports the ground zero mosque.
Ibrahim Hamide doesn't care about the feelings of the victims of 9/11.
Ibrahim Hamide is getting a "PeaceBuilder" award for his peaceful voice.

I have doubts.

In the Oct 17 RG there is an announcement from Community Mediation Services of Eugene on their upcoming PeaceBuilder awards get-together.  One of those honored that night is local restaurateur Ibrahim Hamide, hailed as our own “PeaceBuilder” by the CMS.  Is he really?
   On Aug 17, there was a front page article on the ground zero mosque/community center titled “Ground Zero for Debate”.  In that article a number of local religious leaders and representatives are asked their opinions of the mosque/community center, including Mr. Hamide.  Naturally as a Muslim his views were needed to add to the articles narrative, yet his statement makes it clear his views are not in line with what one would consider a peacemaker. 
   He claims that the “hurt feelings” of the of the victims families are to be disregarded, as if the importance of the mosque trumps the “tolerance” spoken of by Imam Rauf and the other mosque supporters.  Hamide says the pain this project will bring to some families should not be considered, and the building should go ahead.  Is this not intolerance disguised as bridge-building? 
   He is baffled as to why the opposition is so strong, and conveniently forgets to mention the original name “Cordoba Initiative” and the reasons that name was dropped in favor of the fuzzy “Park51 Project”.  The Cordoba Mosque(now back to a church) In Spain was built on the site of a church destroyed by the Islamic occupiers, the Moors, who held Al-Andalusia for more than 250 years.
  Mr. Hamide says “Here’s somebody(imam Rauf) who’s trying to show the true face of Islam and, no, we want to remember it as the bad guys who blew up the World Trade Center.  Intolerance is a form of extremism, too”.  It should be noted what imam Raufs actual words are regarding the “true face of Islam”.  In Pajamas Media May 27, 2010 imam Rauf says “Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian.”  In the same article Rauf also says “It(sharia) can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern.”  Does Mr. Hamide still stand by his statement that Rauf is “trying to show the true face of Islam” because if so, the face of Islam imam Rauf is showing cannot be seen as anything other than intolerant, disingenuous and yes, supremacist.
   Ibrahim Hamide, using these statements of his, does not deserve the PeaceBuilders award nor any recognition for his alleged tolerant views.  Unless he satisfactorily explains his past remarks and clears the air in what exactly he believes he will remain a questionable figure within the local peace activist movement.     

Monday, October 11, 2010

It's a Bird...It's a Plane, no it's Muhammadman!!

Faster Than a Speeding…Camel?

The Justice League.  Marvel Superheros.  The Green Hornet and all the rest were our childhood heroes.  Defeating the bad guys wherever they may be, standing for truth, justice and Moms apple pie.  Those halcyon days are over and behind us now, for here comes “The 99”.
   The Hub, formally Discovery Kids has announced their new superhero kids program called “The 99” which is the new politically correct propaganda show about 99 Muslim superheroes.  From the article, ”Jabbar is a Muslim Incredible Hulk. Mumita is wicked fast. But Wonder Woman-style cleavage has been banned from the ladies. And, in this faith-based cartoon, hair-hiding head scarves are mandatory for five characters, not including burqa babe Batina the Hidden.”
   Of course there is no sex mixing on the show, that would be un-Islamic.  “The 99” even has the sharia stamp of approval from an Islamic bank which funded the show.  Are our kids not even safe when watching cartoons?  Any bets on when the first Christian or Jewish or Amish superhero will grace our TV screens?  Anybody?

Read it all and decide for yourself.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

More Censorship Through Intimidation by Islam

Sadly, another cartoonist has been censored by Islam.  Wiley Miller of "Non Sequitur" has had his latest cartoon pulled because it might offend Muslims.  I hate saying that , but it is all too common behavior now, and one of many portents of things to come.

See the link to the original story here, and be sure to read it all.

Another Cartoon censored by Islamic Threats.

The Register-Guard publishes many cartoons, one of my favorites, and maybe yours is the single panel “Non Sequitur” by Wiley Miller.  Witty, thought-provoking and wickedly funny at times it has been a staple of the comic page for years.  Unfortunately we didn’t see one of his latest, as it was deemed too much the poke-in-the-Muslim-eye cartoon and thus was cancelled by numerous papers. 
   The Washington Post, bastion of biased news within the beltway explains the reasons behind their decision to cancel this cartoon as just being safe.  Safe from what, exactly?  This from the article explains it all “…it might offend and provoke some Post readers, especially Muslims.”   There is a real fear here about provoking Muslims, and it is abundantly clear the publishers of the Washington Post believe that they, and other employees could be injured or possibly murdered if they print a cartoon about Islam or Muslims.
   The pulled cartoon was a send-up of the kids’ book series “Where’s Waldo”.  The scene was one of a Sunday at the park with children frolicking, pets running around and adults relaxing.  The caption reads “Where’s Muhammad?”
Insulting?  Discriminatory?  Disrespectful?  Yes, if you’re the Washington Post and the gaggle of papers who thought this was enough to cause bodily harm and refused to run it.
   Not only is Millers cartoon satirizing the world-wide chaos as a result of the Danish cartoons mocking Muhammad released in 2006 but he also was poking fun at the hypocrisy of being insulted by a cartoon, highlighted by the Molly Norris “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” campaign.  Unfortunately, Ms. Norris is now a nobody, her identity changed due to the threats from Muslims on her draw Muhammad plan.  Maybe this is why the Washington Post decided to withdraw the offending cartoon: what happened to Molly could happen to them. 
    The main question is: why pull a cartoon that doesn’t even show Muhammad?  Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli.  The reasoning was that "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message….the point of the joke was not immediately clear" said Martel, and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing.  Most political cartoons fall into the category as stated by Mr. Martel, but so what?  Cartoons are meant to send a message, sometimes more than one.  Most people have a hard time deducing what a political cartoon means, and usually must ponder a bit on the subtleties of the message.  The editors of the Post seem intent on keeping the message, whatever Miller intended, away from the easily-led sheeple, for their own good and the good of the Post and its staff. 
   Wiley Miller is not happy at all, saying his cartoon was meant to show "the insanity of an entire group of people rioting and putting out a hit list over cartoons," as well as "media cowering in fear of printing any cartoon that contains the word 'Muhammad.' "  He points out the Post was a paper of record who went after Nixon during Watergate, but refuses to deal honestly with Muslim angst,  “thus validating the accuracy of the satire," he said.
    CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations through their communications director, Ibrahim Hooper said that this cartoon “…was so vague that I don't even know if offense comes into it."  A nice breath of fresh air from a group which is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation/money to Hamas trial a few years ago. 
   No one is immune from being poked fun at, except Islam.  Everyone is fair game for being joked about, except Muslims.  This latest perceived insult to Islam and Muslims may not result in riots and protests, it may only provoke mild condemnation.  The decision of the editors at the Post to pull Millers cartoon due to concerns over possible violent reactions is most disturbing.  The best way to shut done free speech and honest debate is to threaten, and Islam is very good at that.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

They do exist, they do exist!!

There are so many fundamentalist jihadists/Islamists who define Islam as something far and away removed from the "religion of peace" claimed by the left and Islamic apologists the words of those very few "moderates" of Islam that their voice usually gets drowned out.  Here is one exceptional Muslim who knows what it will take to make the changes which will move Islam into mainstream thinking.  Unfortunately he is among the minority now, hopefully the future will find his voice that much stronger and powerful.

From ACT!4America comes this article.  Read it all.


Dr. Jasser is the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, based in Phoenix, Ariz. Contact: • October 6, 2010

You may get a hundred different answers from a hundred American Muslims about what it means to be an American Muslim. The controversial Islamic center near ground zero, while pouring salt in a yet widely open national wound, did begin to awaken us to the yet unfought war of ideas within the "House of Islam." Many of us reform-minded Muslims have been waging that war of ideas for most of our adult life, long before 9/11. But time has shown that we cannot wage this battle alone.

It may not seem to matter much for a faith community that is barely 1 percent of the population, but American Muslims carry an invaluable ability to influence the ideologies of over 1.5 billion Muslims - over a fifth of the world's population. Until middle America realizes how our national security hangs in the balance of that intellectual war within Islam, our security will never improve.

The last 12 months have seen the most arrests and attacks of radical Islamists on Americans since 9/11. This was confirmed to Congress last month by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who also finally acknowledged the growing homegrown threat of radical Muslims.

Sadly, many of my co-religionists called on by media to speak for American Muslims too often wallow in denial simply deflecting any responsibility by distancing themselves from radicals or myopically equating Muslim radicals to those of other faiths. They willfully ignore the main ideological conveyor belt towards radicalism - political Islam.

Most Americans no longer accept these detached irresponsible dismissals from leading American Muslims. They see so many examples of American Muslim clerics who condemn terror out of one side of their mouth while deceptively amplifying victimology, Islamophobia, anti-Americanism and morally vacant justifications from the other.

Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, for example, condemned 9/11 in the national media and was hailed as a moderate Muslim while at the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque of Northern Virginia in 2001. Most, however, refused to look with any critique at his theo-political ideas - a political Islam with high risk of radicalization. Today, he is one of the greatest threats to America creating such violent traitors as Nidal Hasan. His sermons and teachings are a clinic on homegrown radicalization and yet they still fill some Islamic bookstores with no hint of any counter-ideological movement from leading American Muslim organizations. Since so many leading well-financed American Muslim groups are sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood's ideas, they are certainly not going to lead a movement against political Islam and for the separation of mosque and state.

In our conversation at Drake University this week, I hope we focus on the fact that at the center of the growing threat to our national security is this battle within the House of Islam. American Muslims need to accept and spread the meme that it is time to get shariah (Islamic law) out of government and bring the ideas of modernity and Enlightenment to the Islamic faith we love.

We need to take the offense in ending the ideas of jihad, the "ummah" as nation, and the "salafi" dream of returning everything to the time of the Prophet Muhammad. Until we Muslims take on the responsibility of separating history from religion and mosque from state, the threat will not dissipate

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Beating her softly with his love...

This is ghastly, and so much a part of Islam that it should make people shudder enough to make sure it never comes to the US, in the form of sharia law.  Remember this Egyptian cleric every time you hear someone mention how Islam honors women.

Read it all and decide for yourself if this is acceptable.

“When did you stop beating your wife” is one of those questions where there is no right answer, a question steeped in traps in which no one can escape innocent.  Just by answering you will automatically be branded a wife-beater and many hours of apologies and explanations will have to be put forth.  We tolerate the beating of no one, especially one we claim to love and cherish.  Yet there is one culture, one belief system which not only sanctions the beating of the wife but literally demands physical punishment from the husband against the wife.  It is Islam.
   Al-Azhar University in Egypt is the seat of Sunni jurisprudence.  They define Islam and sharia regarding Sunnis and dictate, similar to the Pope with Catholics, the behavior, attitudes and rules on how Muslims act.  Just as not all Catholics follow the Pope, not all Sunni Muslims follow the edicts of Al-Azhar or the clerics at the University.  Yet if we heard the Pope say, using biblical quotes that women are required to be beaten if they refuse sex with their husbands, the uproar would eclipse the little boy scandal now occupying the media.  No one seems to mind that a prominent cleric in Egypt, Sa’d Arafat has recently upheld the Qur’anic injunction of wife-beating and he explains it all for us.
   Here are a few excerpts from an interview, which aired on Al-Nas TV (Egypt) on February 4, 2010:

Interviewer: "Wife beating is a serious accusation [leveled against Islam]. Let us examine this matter bit by bit."
Sa'd Arafat: "Allah honored wives by instating the punishment of beatings."
Interviewer: "Honored them with beatings? How is this possible?!"
Sa'd Arafat: "The prophet Muhammad said: 'Don't beat her in the face, and do not make her ugly.' See how she is honored. If the husband beats his wife, he must not beat her in the face. Even when he beats her, he must not curse her. He beats her in order to discipline her.  In addition, there must not be more than ten beatings, and he must not break her bones, injure her, break her teeth, or poke her in the eye. There is a beating etiquette. If he beats to discipline her, he must not raise his hand high. He must beat her from chest level. All these things honor the woman. She is in need of discipline. How should the husband discipline her? Through admonishment. If she is not repentant, he should beat her, but there are rules to the beating. It is forbidden to beat her in the face or make her ugly. When you beat her, you must not curse her. Islam forbids this."
Interviewer: "With what should be beat her? With his bare hand? With a rod?"
Sa'd Arafat: "If he beats her, the beatings should not be hard, so that they do not leave a mark. He can beat her with a short rod. (…)the honoring of the wife in Islam is also evident in the fact that the punishment of beating is permissible in one case only: when she refuses to sleep with him."
Interviewer: "When she refuses to sleep with him?"
Sa'd Arafat: "Yes, because where else could the husband go? He wants her, but she refuses. He should begin with admonishment and threats..."

   When a non-Muslim says the Qur’an sanctions wife-beating they are called Islamophobe, racist (what race is Islam again?), bigot, anti-Muslim, hate-monger and other schoolyard names.  When a top Egyptian cleric says the Qur’an sanctions wife-beating(sura4,verse34), and explains that this must be done if the wife refuses sex he is called a scholar.  Whether or not Muslims practice this inhumane act is irrelevant, it has been upheld as the right behavior for Muslims by the seat of Sunni power, thus having the same influence as a papal edict.
   Muhammad beat his wives if they refused sex, Muslim requirements today demand the same treatment.  Islam has been practicing institutionalized abuse since 622AD.  It must stop if Islam expects to be the “religion of peace” so ardently claimed.    


Monday, October 4, 2010

Love, Hate and Liberalism at Saturday Market

At Saturday Market the other weekend myself and Billy Rojas were talking about Islam and passing out ACT!4America pamphlets.  We had a conversation with a Mr. Jim Page and below you can read his letter to the RG and our reply.  The left has no grasp of anything which would call into question their warm and fuzzy logic regarding the world and the place of Islam in it.  Read it all and see the link to the original letter here

Challenge the anti-Muslim table
I was at the Eugene Saturday Market last weekend. There was a new political table there with a handmade sign talking about the dangers of Islam and opposing the “mosque” at ground zero. There were two older men, one wearing a red, white and blue flag hat.
They were from a group called “Act!ForAmerica.” They told me that Islam was a dangerous religion and it had to be stopped. I asked what should be done and was told that (a) America must allow no more Muslim immigrants, period, and (b) all Muslims must be deported. I said I was born in California, as were my parents. If I became a Muslim, would I have to be deported as well? They said yes. I said, deported to where? They said, deported to a Muslim country.
I asked them where were their shiny black boots and armbands, and the guy with the flag hat said “Hitler methods” are called for in this case.
This is a free country; we allow people to have ideas and express them, no matter how repugnant. But the line of thinking that these two gentlemen were espousing was very troubling, especially when “Hitler methods” were suggested. I recommend that if these people show up again at the market, or at different locations, people engage them. We should not believe that they will simply go away if ignored. Freedom of speech also means the freedom to challenge bad ideas.
Jim Page

In response to Jim Page regarding his accusations
of Hitler methods against Muslims, and  other misinformation.
In letters (Oct 3) Jim Page opens himself up for libel with his statements about myself and my friend,  in what  was said at Saturday Market.  Free speech is, as Mr. Page says, allowed and encouraged, yet by blatantly lying and misrepresenting what actually was discussed his disingenuous and relativistic dogma shines through.
First, the group ACT!forAmerica is, as stated in their  mission statement “…an issues advocacy organization…committed to informed  and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that  promote America's national security and the defense of American  democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.”  As chapter leader of Eugene/Springfield ACT!4America it is my role to explain what  “radical Islam” is.  Islam as defined today by the four main schools of Islamic
jurisprudence, and acted upon by millions of Muslims world-wide,  is not the “religion of peace” we often hear.  This does not mean that there is no capacity for compassion, justice and equality in Muslim  religion but those qualities have always been  have been relegated to the  back burner and angry, mean and vindictive Islam is what has been  normative behavior from the beginning.
The conversation between myself, the co-founder of  ACT!4America in Eugene/Springfield Billy Rojas and Jim Page, left no doubt  that if he could he would make sure our voices were stifled.  His questions were phrased similar to “when did you stop beating your wife” and left no room for a cogent response.  He was the one who kept dragging Hitler and the Nazis into the talk, demanding to know where our armbands and boots were.  That kind of childish questioning serves no purpose except to demonize those with who you cannot debate rationally.
Both Mr. Rojas and myself denounce and repudiate, in the strongest possible terms Nazis, Hitler and the philosophy which drove the NSDAP in Germany.  We despise what the Reich did to not only Jews but all groups, both ethnic and social during the reign of Nazism.  Never in our conversation with Mr. Page did either one of us call for “Hitler methods”.
Mr. Pages claim that either one of us said we wanted “Hitler methods” to prevail in dealing with Muslims or Islam is a lie.  His allusion of conflation is not, and never has been what myself or Mr. Rojas believe, condone or approve.  We are, however very specific in how we view Islam in America, and Muslim behavior and actions regarding non-Muslims.
In the course of talking about Muslim immigration it was Mr. Page who asked Mr. Rojas specifically what should be done about the immigration problem and it was Mr. Rojas who replied with his personal  opinion that Muslim immigration should be stopped and Muslims deported  because any believer in Islam necessarily upholds values which oppose  principles of American law and the Constitution..  I agree that Immigration from Muslim countries should be stopped but disagree with Mr. Rojas on deportation.  My view is that if you are here legally you should be given one chance to prove you’re worth the label “American” and if you screw up, back to Pakistan or Iraq.
Most troubling about Jim Pages letter is that by using  the word “Hitler” he immediately draws the narrative into the gutter,  emotional outrage trumping critical analysis.  I asked him if he ever read the Qur’an and he responded with “I don’t have to”.  Yet he claimed to quote from the Bible as if that was all he needed to know and anything else would not be challenging his beliefs.  His quotation, when we looked it up was a complete falsehood.
His last point is for those who see us at Saturday Market, or anywhere else is to engage us.  We welcome anyone who wants to talk with us because we believe conversation and education give people power and control over what is sometimes uncontrollable and confusing in life.   
Islam as defined today and practiced by millions of Muslims is a problem which will not go away.  This article cannot, in limited space explain Islam adequately.  We do recommend for those who wish to learn more on Islam and Muslims to visit
or  We invite anyone, especially Muslims, to accept our invitation to discuss Islam and the theology, doctrine and tenets that define the world’s second largest religion.  Free speech means never having to say “don’t say that”.
To the Editor :
Comments by Jim Page in Sunday's Register Guard cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.  His side of the story grossly misrepresents Act! for America , a registered lobbying group in Washington, DC, and features outright fabrication of remarks made by Barry Sommer and Billy Rojas. Although we were not mentioned by name, we are the two individuals directly referred to in the letter to the editor.
Mr Page approached our information table in what is best characterized as an argumentative frame of mind and proceeded to try and bait us with questions that, it is safe to say, reflect a Leftist political perspective. In the letter he put words in our mouths that, from every indication, where what he assumed Right-wingers must say, as if we had said them. But we are political Independents and our views are not Right-wing or remotely neo-Nazi, as Page falsely imputed.  It was Page, NOT US, who brought up 
the subject of  "Hitler methods,"  which we reject unequivocally, and we greatly resent his malicious false attribution.
We are committed to the general outlook and values of Act! for America, founded by Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian journalist, now an American citizen, who knows, first hand, the terror which has befallen non-Muslims throughout the Mid East. Both of us have professional level knowledge of Islam and precisely because of this fact, in common with a growing  multitude of Americans, we regard Islam as antithetical to America's core values 
and as a subversive presence in our country. People like Mr Page, and probably most people with Left-wing political views, are almost universally ignorant of even the basics of Islam and don't know what they are talking about. Page ended with a call to try and shut us up through public censure. As a modest suggestion, Page might consider doing some actual research into the Quranic sources  of Muslim criminality before  seeking to deny us,
or any other critics of  Islam, our legitimate free speech  rights.
Billy Rojas