The Tyranny of Islamic Blasphemy Laws

Asia Bibi with her two children

Pakistan like other Islamic States have blasphemy laws which serve as a means to suppress and tyrannise Christians and Jews by the Islamic majority. Pakistan is one of the prime movers for the introduction of a blasphemy resolution  at the U.N.

Under Pakistan's blasphemy laws Asia Bibi an innocent Christian mother of two children, was sentenced to death and held in a Pakistani prison, since November 8 this year. So goes the fate of Christian minorities in Islamic States like Pakistan.

According to Reuters today a court barred President Asif Ali Zardari from pardoning Asia Bibi:

Last week, a government minister said an initial inquiry into the case of the Christian mother said she had not committed blasphemy but was falsely accused after a quarrel.

Blasphemy convictions are common although the death sentence has never been carried out. Most convictions are thrown out on appeal, but angry mobs have killed many people accused of blasphemy.

If you survive being killed by an Islamic mob, then the courts will try you and sentence you to death. That's how they intimidate and terrorise the Christian minority even if you are eventually given a "pardon" ( to receive a pardon you first have to be guilty; similarly for clemency).  

Here's the background of Asia Bibi's story from the Pakistan Christian Post

Lahore: November 9, 2010. (PCP) A Christian woman named Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by District and Session Courts after year long trial on accusation of blasphemy filed by Muslim villagers of Ittanwali, where she was residing from generations.

While working in farms with other Muslim women, Asia Bibi was dragged in religious dialogues on June 19, 2009, when Muslim women termed her an “Infidel” and Christianity a “Religion of infidels” and pressed her to embrace Islam. 

Asia Bibi who is married and have two children, defended Christianity with her little knowledge and told Muslim women that Christianity is only True religion on which Muslim women made a roar and accused her defiling Prophet Mohammad.

The Muslim men working in nearby fields also gathered and attacked Asia Bibi on which she fled to village in her home. The angry Muslims followed her and took her out of home and started beating her. They tortured her children also but meanwhile some one informed police.

The police took Asia Bibi to police Station and filed FIR against her under section 295-B and C of Pakistan Penal Code but showed it a protective custody to other Christians of Ittanwali village.

Section 295 B and C PPC are subject to life in prison or death sentence but it is first judgment in history of Pakistan when a woman is sentenced to death.

Release International an advocacy group for persecuted Christians around globe is pleading Asia Bibi case and have launched an online petition to ensure justice for her.

Meanwhile, Pakistan Christian Congress PCC have expressed concern on death sentence to Asia Bibi and have appealed to President of Pakistan to withdraw false case against Asia Bibi immediately.

PCC is pressing upon government of Pakistan to repeal blasphemy law and have organized multiple conferences in Pakistan and USA.

Will Pakistan repeal blasphemy laws? It was a promise of the President during the elections. Pray for Justice for Asia Bibi, her speedy release and the repeal of cruel and repressive blasphemy laws in Pakistan and throughout the Islamic world.

Pakistan is the country which is a prime movers for the introduction of a blasphemy resolution  at the U.N.This headline from the Canadian news service CANWEST from November 2008:

 "anti-blasphemy measures have sinister goals, observers say"

Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.

It's a 10-year plan to spread Islam: 

Passage of the resolution is part of a 10-year action plan the 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference launched in 2005 to ensure “renaissance” of the “Muslim Ummah” or community.

But some good news (really!); support is actually diminishing: in 2008 it was defeated 85-42, a margin of 43.

Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85–50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.

According to a report from CNS News (November 23, 2010):

The text has passed every year since 2005, but the last three years have seen declining support, with the margin of votes dropping from 57 in 2007 to just 19 last year (2009).

Could sanity be breaking out?

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Ban the Burqa

Following my piece yesterday about Canada banning the Burka, which was prompted by reading an excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad", in the National Post, I find today a compelling piece by Claire Berlinski titled “Ban the Burqa” from the August 2 issue of National Review. [1]

What I find compelling about Berlinski’s essay is that her viewpoint, which developed while living in Istanbul was formerly very sympathetic to a woman’s right to choose to wear the veil. She supported it strongly, however now she makes a very strong case for banning the veil.

She proceeds for several paragraphs as to why she supported women’s right to wear the veil in Turkey’s secular society. The former secular society is giving way to Islamic stridency and extremism. 

However, her viewpoint has come a full 180. Her logic and evidence for this change is impeccable; she presents argument and evidence that the wearing of the niqab is a Trojan horse for militant Islamism.

The ideology behind Kemal Ataturk’s banning the headscarf and the veil (niqab) was to ensure for the protection of woman who will be attacked, vilified with the slur of “prostitute,” and ultimately raped as fair game by Islamic men. That scenario is being played out in EU countries in no-go areas that Islamic men claim as Islamic territory. 

There are already many neighborhoods in Europe where scantily dressed women are not safe. In the benighted Islamic suburbs of Paris, as Samira Bellil writes in her autobiography: Dans l’enfer des tournantes (“In Gang-Rape Hell”),

there are only two kinds of girls. Good girls stay home,clean the house, take care of their brothers and sisters, and only go out to go to school. . . . Those who . . . dare to wear make-up, to go out, to smoke, quickly earn the reputation as “easy” or as “little whores.”

Parents in these neighborhoods ask gynecologists to testify to their daughters’ virginity. Polygamy and forced marriages are commonplace. Many girls are banned from leaving the house at all. According to French-government statistics, rapes in the housing projects have risen between 15 and 20 percent every year since 1999. In these neighborhoods, women have indeed begun veiling only to escape harassment and violence. In the suburb of La Courneuve, 77 percent of veiled women report that they wear the veil to avoid the wrath of Islamic morality patrols. We are talking about France, not Iran.

Establishing Islamic territory is a fundamental ideology of Islam. That territory is known as Dar a-Salam, which means house of peace and it is the land conquered by Islam. Those woman who are infidels and do not conform to the dress and code dictated by the Islamic men in control are fair game for rape by Islamic men. 

At its core, the veil is the expression of the belief that female sexuality is so destructive a force that men must at all costs be protected from it; the natural correlate of this belief is that men cannot be held responsible for the desires prompted in them by an unveiled woman, including the impulse to rape her. In 2006, Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, delivered a sermon referring to a recent rape victim thus:

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside . . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

This is Islamic thought, my argument yesterday that the Charter is opposed to this kind of religious thought, and therefore should not be used to protect Islamic proponents to force the use of the niqab.

Once veiling takes a hold, unveiled woman are not safe - this is the Trojan horse of allowing the niqab which promotes Islamic objectives:

The cancerous spread of veiling has been seen throughout the Islamic world since the Iranian Revolution. I have watched it in Turkey. Through migration and demographic shift, neighborhoods that once were mixed have become predominantly veiled. The government has sought to lift prohibitions on the wearing of headscarves, legitimizing and emboldening advocates of the practice.

Understanding the underlying reasons why the spread of the burka is of concern and it is much more dangerous than a simple religious choice, we need to understand the aim of Islam itself. For this I turn to the "Islamic Dictionary for Infidels" [2]:

"Converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview. Only if this task is accomplished, if the world has become a "Dar al-Islam," will it also be a "Dar a-Salam," or a house of peace." 

The burqa and niqab are emblematic and one of many key steps in this process, as  Berlinski's essay clearly shows, and that is why it is important to preserve our Canadian values as expressed in our Charter that we should ban them.

Claire Berlinski:

[1] Claire Berlinski: “Ban the Burqa” from the August 16 issue of National Review, is a must read.

Claire Berlinski is a freelance journalist who lives in Istanbul. She is the author of 'Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis Is America’s, Too,' and 'There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.'

[2] "Islamic Dictionary for Infidels" an essay by Wolfgang Bruno.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad" & the burka

Reading the excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad", published in the National Post, it reinforces my belief that to NOT ban the burka is a travesty:

The Muslim veil, the different sorts of masks and beaks and burkas, are all gradations of mental slavery. You must ask permission to leave the house, and when you do go out you must always hide yourself behind thick drapery. Ashamed of your body, suppressing your desires -- what small space in your life can you call your own? The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and a Muslim veil blinkers both your vision and your destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of a sex.

That is a compelling indictment of the burka and the traditions that surround it.

The argument that it breaches the religious freedoms of Canadians is surely misapplied.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensures equality and justice for peoples of all races, origins and genders, is based within the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition from which Canadian culture and laws have been developed.

Religious freedom is not absolute. For example there were many religions which included child-sacrifice in lands surrounding ancient Israel. Obviously, the murder of a child for relgious reasons would not be protected under the Charter. Therefore it is clear there are limits to what the Charter can protect, and what it can not protect.

The Charter is not absolute in that sense; on the contrary it preserves Canadian values of justice - not to protect traditions that are in opposition to our values. The walking coffin that is the burka and the surrounding traditions of the cultures which demand it be worn, are values that are opposite to the very values that the Charter protects. The burka is a custom that is from a tradition that is totally foreign to our values, and therefore to the Charter.

When I read passages from the New Testament which illustrate Jesus' relationship with woman, I see a respect and evidence brotherly-sisterly love which is foreign from this absolute mastery over woman that comes from Islamic traditions.

Read the excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad: 'Allah brings the rains and Allah makes the sun shine'

Gurth Whitaker

Calgary, AB

The Liberal Aversion to Face the Facts

The Executive Officer, the Commander in Chief, Mr President himself called the massacre at Fort Hood a tragedy. NO! It was terrorism plain and simple.

The only tragedy is that political correctness, mealy-mouthed obscurantism, has now so ham-strung people that a non-existent "Muslim backlash" is more important than the lives of those brave men and women who are fighting Islamic terrorism, helping moderates Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq to be free from Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and to lead a better life free from tyranny.

By-the-way: The "War on Terrorism" has now been renamed by Mr. President, it is now to be known as "Overseas Contingency Operation" whatever that might mean.

The "War on Terrorism" has a clear meaning for most people, (except liberal-leftists who don't like to think in simple clear concepts); "Overseas Contingency Operation" could be anything.

Obscurantism = a policy of withholding information from the public.

The article "Silence = Acceptance" (Bombay Revisited) by Mark Steyn sheds a brilliant light on the current liberal-leftist nonsense that has been spewed up in response to the despicable and contemptible murderous jihadi traitor at Fort Hood.

It seems that the liberal-leftist view of terrorism hasn't changes since Bombay; the media are still peddling this poison. Poison because it is dangerous to all Americans, Christian, Jewish, and moderate Muslim alike.

Is it "Muslim Terrorism"? Or is it "pre-traumatic stress disorder"? (Yes really - some leftist lummock suggested that, claiming that the jihadi major could be suffering from stress caused before going to war.)

Occam's razor should apply; the theory with the least number of assumptions (the least complex) should be favoured over all others. (It is not a proof but an aid for a logical analysis)

In the case of Major Hasan there are really no assumptions required - the facts tells the story. It was an act of terror. Whether he was acting alone or or not - it is still terror. The liberal-leftist theories are built on a web of tenuous assumptions and speculations.
 
I produce Mark Steyn's article "Silence = Acceptance" in its entirety...

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary Alberta

Silence = Acceptance

Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy.

By Mark Steyn

Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s columnar wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline: “British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”

Indeed. And so it goes. This time round — Bombay — it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims “found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion.”

Oh, I don’t know about that. In fact, you’d be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was “linked” to any religion, least of all one beginning with “I-“ and ending in “-slam.” In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations — “Islamic terrorists,” “Muslim extremists” — and by the time of the assault on Bombay found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators “militants” or “gunmen” or “teenage gunmen,” as in the opening line of this report in the Australian: “An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok…”

Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.

The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution “practitioners.” “Practitioners” of what, exactly?

Hard to say. And getting harder. Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Bombay media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured, and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

Hmm. Greater Bombay forms one of the world’s five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An “accidental hostage scene” that one of the “practitioners” just happened to stumble upon? “I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?”

Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for “going after the wrong people” and inflaming moderates, and “that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.”

Really? The inflammation just “appears”? Like a bad pimple? The “fairer” we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as “ultra-Orthodox,” “ultra-” in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for “strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.” Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young Rabbi’s pregnant wife. Their two-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mown down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.

The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an “accidental” hostage opportunity — and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it’s not a hostage situation, it’s a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving “militant” revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they’re any more important than the Indians, Britons, and Americans targeted in the attack on Bombay, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.

In a well-planned attack on iconic Bombay landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Bombay? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: “Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.”

And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani “militants” in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying “Islamic” or “Muslim” or “terrorist,” we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.

We are enjoined to be “understanding,” and we’re doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there’s a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what’s the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that’s not “too big to fail,” what is?

Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel “vulnerable.” Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They’re the world’s fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he’s feeling “vulnerable,” he’s doing a terrific job of covering it up.

We are told that the “vast majority” of the 1.6-1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra’s estimate) are “moderate.” Maybe so, but they’re also quiet. And, as the AIDs activists used to say, “Silence=Acceptance.” It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam — “Allahu Akbar.”

I wrote in my book, America Alone, that “reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Koran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Bombay in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.

© 2008 Mark Steyn

The Liberal Conclusions about Major Hasan

We are warned: "don't jump to conclusions about Major Hasan"

Reuter's has this report (here):

"We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Obama said.

(I recall hearing the President said that before; it was when a policeman arrested a very abusive certain professor who happened to be black; I recall the President made a pronouncement that it was stupid to arrest a man in his own home, and the President said this before he was apprised of the facts. However, the facts were the professor - Gates is his name - followed the cop into the street and was hurling abuse according to eye-witnesses in the neighbourhood.)

Is anyone "jumping to conclusions"?  It seems to me that the opposite is true; the liberal media is going out of their way to avoid the obvious conclusion that this man is under the influence of radical Islam

Hasan's cousin, Nader Hasan, said in interviews that he had agitated not to be sent overseas. "We've known over the last five years that was probably his worst nightmare," he said.

Major Hasan happily joined the army and accepted the pay six years ago - but he has been dreading being sent overseas for five years. So he kept taking the army pay until he was drafted overseas five years later. Does that seems ethical? Not in my book.

I imagine no-one in the US forces is actually looking forward to being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan - but when you join you know that it is the military that you are joining and that means you may be called on to fight. This man has a degree - he's not an uneducated man, so he can't say: "when I signed on I didn't realise that I could actually be posted overseas". So now he finds out he has a change of heart. Little bit of yellow perhaps?

Nader Hasan also said his cousin had complained, as a Muslim, of harassment by fellow soldiers.

Yeah right! See the video at Lux et Veritas of Major Hasan parading around in Arab garb (here) - sure doesn't seem like he is intimidated by anti Muslim sentiments around him. He seems to enjoy acting the part.

But in reality it is actually a difficult position to be an orthodox believer in Islam in a Western Society.

According to sharia law the Muslim should get preferential treatment to the kufr (the dhimmi class), and in Canada and the US we have this principle of equality whatever race, gender, or religious beliefs. (The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

But sharia law speaks against that equality, as I have discussed previously in Lux et Veritas. I explore the relationship between sharia law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Toronto Imam - Preacher of Hate?

(Sharia is incompatible with the Canadian Charter and I am sure the same would apply to the US Constitution).

So Islamic teaching, and sharia law sets up an internal conflict. How can Major Hasan really be integrated into the US Army with his colleagues and fellow officers and soldiers when at the heart of his beliefs are that he should not mix freely with the kufr.

Hasan yelled "Allah akbar!" -- Arabic for "God is great" -- just before the shooting, Chuck Medley, Fort Hood's director of Emergency Services, told Reuters.

That's what the Jihadis scream when they attack, or just before they slice off someones head with their sword of Islam.

But the Fort Hood commander, Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, said there was no evidence this was a terrorist attack.

Hmm - must have been one of those "Christian fundamentalists", screaming: "Allah akbar". It sure seems like terrorism - one coward shooting with automatic weapons at unarmed people. Usually they prefer to attack women, children and old people. Do you remember the cruise ship the Achille Lauro? [1] On that occasion it was an old man in a wheel-chair the brave Palestinians killed - unarmed of course. The they tipped his body overboard. "Allah akbar! Allah akbar!" 

In May, a U.S. soldier at a base in Baghdad shot and killed five fellow soldiers.

I recall that shooting was by a Muslim too.

The authorities at Fort Hood were warned about Major Hasan's anti-war comments, and how he aired his views that Muslims should not be sent to fight Muslims, but the authorities did not act on the information.

Why not act on the information? Because of the success of soft Jihad. Although Jihad is real, terrorism is real, saving lives is not as important as toeing the politically correct line. Avoid profiling at all costs - this is more important than weeding out the bad apples.

"Thousands of Arab Americans and American Muslims serve honorably every day in all four branches of the U.S. military and in the National Guard," the Arab American Institute said.

There is a minority of bad apples - the vast majority of Muslims are not Jihadists. But poles such as the Pew Report show that there are a sizeable percentage of Muslims in the US who support suicide bombing and terrorism.

Statements such as the one by the Arab American Institute, have to be regarded objectively.

According to the US Department of Defence (here)  

There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States.

They make up between 10,000 and 20,000 members of the American military.

Let's say that 99% of Muslims in the military are loyal Americans and loyal to their military calling. That would be the vast majority.

BUT it would mean that 1% are not loyal. 1% is a small percentage, but if t is correct it would mean that 100 to 200 Muslims in the military are potential Jihadists.

The actual percentage may be smaller, or it may be bigger, it doesn't change the point; the statement: "Thousands of Arab Americans and American Muslims serve honorably every day in all four branches of the U.S. military and in the National Guard" while very nice to hear, is not a reason for complacency because there are likely some who are not loyal. 

Nor is it a reason for a witch-hunt. However, there are more than adequate grounds for proper precautions and for  complete shedding of political correctness. 

We should remember that it Muslim solders could have been numbered with the slaughtered at Fort Hood. Giving Muslims special treatment to avoid profiling ultimately does not reward loyal Muslims, it only protects the Jihadis and therefore makes their purpose easier.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB 

NOTES 
[1] 
On October 7, 1985, four men representing the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) took control of the liner off Egypt as she was sailing from Alexandria to Port Said.

The hijackers had been surprised by a crew member and acted prematurely. Holding the passengers and crew hostage, they directed the vessel to sail to Tartus, Syria, and demanded the release of 50 Palestinians then in Israeli prisons. After being refused permission to dock at Tartus, the hijackers killed disabled American passenger Leon Klinghoffer and then threw his body overboard.

The ship headed back towards Port Said, and after two days of negotiations, the hijackers agreed to abandon the liner in exchange for safe conduct and were flown towards Tunisia aboard an Egyptian commercial airliner.

United States President Ronald Reagan ordered that the plane be intercepted by F-14 Tomcats from the VF-74 "BeDevilers" and the VF-103 "Sluggers" of Carrier Air Wing 17, based on the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, on October 10 and directed to land at Naval Air Station Sigonella, a N.A.T.O. base in Sicily, where the hijackers were arrested by the Italians, after a disagreement between American and Italian authorities. 

The other passengers on the plane (possibly including the hijackers' leader, Abu Abbas) were allowed to continue on to their destination, despite protests by the United States. Egypt demanded an apology from the U.S. for forcing the airplane off course.

Major Hasan - Jihadi?

His brother claims he was getting some flak for being a Muslim on the base - BUT Major Hasan felt bold enough to walk around in Arab garb, and spout his opinions that the US shouldn't be in Iraq.

You can see the video from ITN News in the UK of  Major Nidal Malik Hasanin Arab Garb earlier today on Lux et Veritas (here).

It is sickening, this snake in the grass accepts wages from the US Army for the last 6 years and then when he is about to be posted to Iraq he starts protesting. According to the National Post today, he was "mortified";  I suppose killing 13 innocent people didn't come up on his moral radar.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who his family said had been harassed because of his Muslim faith and was "mortified" at the prospect of going to Iraq,

Major Hasan said at the base that he didn't think it right for Muslims to fight Muslims. BUT Hasan - Muslims are blowing Muslims up over in Iraq and Afghanistan!!

It is funny how the Muslim world makes a big fuss about US troops on "Arab soil", but the Muslim world is silent about Sudanese Arab Muslims raping, killing terrorizing Black Muslims in Darfur. Funny the BBC, CBS, and the rest don't make that point, although it is very obvious from the facts.

His brother states that he is "born in the US and a good American", but Major Hasan registered himself as a "Palestinian"

Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn’t think of himself as an American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” A mosque official found that curious, saying: “I don’t know why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine.”

The we get the nauseating mantra about anti-Muslim backlash, that we get every time there is a Jihadi atrocity.

CBS news, is more concerned about some supposed back-lash, than the families of the murdered soldiers. Here's the CBS odious headline on their website:

Mosques Up Security in Wake of Ft. Hood 

Anti-Muslim Backlash Immediate over Suspect Accused of Killing 13 at Army Base

It makes me sick - the Jihads are bad enough... but why do our news media turn things upside down?

Remember after 9/11 we heard all about the anti Muslim backlash? It didn't happen, FBI data showed that there were more anti-Semitic attacks than anti-Muslim ones.

But that is a corner-stone of the liberal-left ideology - they judge Jihadis through the lens of their own dogma. The facts don't count when you have a theory.

Why wont these clueless-gorms just look at the facts? Unfortunately that is what libby-leftists do - they stick to their theories at all costs. Refuse to face the facts - just like Chamberlain - waving a piece of paper to the British press on landing back in England after meeting the Nazis leader:

"I have here, an agreement signed by Herr Hitler..."

 Later he said:

My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds

Honour? Now we see newspapers and TV media trying to tie themselves in knots to show that we can have peace with Jihadis - it is just an aberration - if we appease them and speak nicely to them it will all magically go away.

How?

How will it go away? Jihadis have contempt for liberal "weakness" (we see this in the Middle-Easts reactions to Obama's apologetic overtures and unilateral 'we will throw the olive branch and make concessions without asking for anything in return').  They appreciate strength - not weakness. Remember Osama-bin-Laden's "Strong Horse" statement?

when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. 

The Jihads, the young men that are attracted to the movement - they like a strong horse. Christianity, our Western Democracy with its pluralism and tolerance is an abomination to them. They hate it and they want to destroy ot like they want to destroy the only democracy in the entire Middle East - which is of course Israel.

Folks, we need to protect the moderate Muslims too. We are not doing them any favours by this approach.

Robert Spencer makes some sound points:

Maybe he just snapped, perhaps under the pressure of his imminent deployment to Iraq. But it’s noteworthy that if he did, he snapped in exactly the same way that several other Muslims in the U.S. military have snapped in the past.

In April 2005, a Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. AP reported: “Prosecutors say Akbar told investigators he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq. They said he coolly carried out the attack to achieve ‘maximum carnage’ on his comrades in the 101st Airborne Division.”

And Hasan’s murderous rampage resembles one that five Muslim men in New Jersey tried to carry out at Fort Dix in New Jersey in 2007, when they plotted to enter the U.S. Army base and murder as many soldiers as they could.

That was a jihad plot. One of the plotters, Serdar Tatar, told an FBI informant late in 2006: “I’m gonna do it….It doesn’t matter to me, whether I get locked up, arrested, or get taken away, it doesn’t matter. Or I die, doesn’t matter, I’m doing it in the name of Allah.” Another plotter, Mohamad Shnewer, was caught on tape saying, “They are the ones, we are going to put bullets in their heads, Allah willing.”

Nidal Hasan’s statements about Muslims rising up against the U.S. military aren’t too far from that, albeit less graphic. The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that – once again – nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Video of Major Hasan in Arab garb

From ITN News in the UK: The first video of Major Nidal Malik Hasan has emerged after 13 people were killed at the Fort Hood camp in Texas. 



Gurth Whitaker
Lux et Veritas

US House backs resolution condemning Goldstone report

Some sanity reigns in the US and the EU

 
Further to my post on Lux et Veritas earlier (here)

According to the JP (full report here)

The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution on Tuesday condemning the Goldstone Report, that accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, and calling on the Obama administration to oppose its endorsement.

...and the EU is showing some backbone too:

Meanwhile, European nations launched intense negotiations with Arab states, ahead of a UN General Assembly debate on the report. 

In an attempt to scuttle efforts by Arab states to bring the matter to the Security Council, and from there to the International Criminal Court, EU states were backing new language emphasizing accountability for crimes against humanity and calling on Israelis and Palestinians to launch investigations into war crimes. 

The Obama administration has already condemned the report, which was expected to go to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, as unhelpful to its efforts to revive stalled Middle East peace talks.

Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said:

"I think the UN report is unbalanced, and unfair, and inaccurate,"

Pandering to the propaganda of the Arab and Muslim states does not help move towards peace in Israel-Palestine; on the contrary it is a barrier because it gives hope to all those that support Palestinian terrorism will eventually be victorious in its stated aims to destroy Israel.

What is needed is for the message to go out to the Palestinians that there is only one outcome and that is a peaceful one - not a military victory through terrorism and destruction of Israel.

The lasting principle should be that Israel has the right to defend herself against attack.

To put it simply, there can be no peace until Israel's right to exist is recognised throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

The content of the resolution is very encouraging, clearly identifying Hamas' responsiblity; a large portion of the report is included below with some key phrases high-lighted.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

The actual words of the motion passed by the House of Representatives is interesting & illuminating:

RESOLUTION

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.

Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission’ regarding Israel’s conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;

Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission’ to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression’;

Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures;

Whereas the `fact-finding mission’ included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel’s actions `war crimes’:

Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon,Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

Whereas the mission’s flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission; Whereas, on September 15, 2009, the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ released its report;

Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;

Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding
officers `in the fog of war.’;

Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’, is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission’s evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.’;

Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self-defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;

Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;

Whereas the report usually considered public statements made by Israeli officials not to be credible, while frequently giving uncritical credence to statements taken from what it called the `Gaza authorities’, i.e. the Gaza leadership of Hamas;

Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;

Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [the Israeli military]‘ specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.’;

Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission’s report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals’;

Whereas even though Israel is a vibrant democracy with a vigorous and free press, the report of the `fact-finding mission’ erroneously asserts that `actions of the Israeli government . . . have contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent with the government and its actions . . . is not tolerated’;

See more of the House Resolution at the Washington Independent here

US Congress votes on condemnation of the ignominious Goldstone Report

This today  from UN Watch:

Today will be an important trial for the cause of truth, justice and peace.

The U.S. Congress will be voting this afternoon on a superb condemnation of the ignominious Goldstone Report, in advance of a United Nations resolution to be debated tomorrow.

The Goldstone Report is a 500-page document that reverses perpetrator and victim, falsely accuses Israel of “deliberate attacks” against civilians, and ignores the genocidal anti-Semitism of the Hamas terrorist organization. (For more see here). 

Here's what peace activist and philosopher Moshe Halbertal writes in the latest edition of The New Republic: "The Goldstone Report as a whole is a terrible document. It is biased and unfair."

Tomorrow, the United Nations General Assembly will begin debate on an Arab-sponsored resolution to pressure the Security Council into referring Israel to the International Criminal Court.

Genocidal Sudan is a leading supporter.

According to Richard Falk, the U.N.'s permanent investigator of alleged Israeli crimes -- who accuses the U.S. of being behind the 9/11 attacks -- the Goldstone report is a key weapon in "the legitimacy war." On that, he's right. And so what the United states and other Western democracies say and do will be critical. 

I had to read that twice! The "UN's permanent investigator of alleged Israeli crimes" is a 'truther'!

Richard Falk "accuses the US of being behind the 9/11 attacks." This is the UN? Oh yes, I remember the organisation that allowed Yassar Arafat to speak to the general assembly with a gun. Din't Arafat win
a Nobel Peace Prize?

Help! The world has been hi-jacked by crazy people.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

Toronto Imam - Preacher of Hate?

Last Wednesday the front page of the National Post (NP) had the picture of a Toronto Imam preaching what sounded like hate to Canadian ears. The on-line version posted the YouTube video of the finger-waving cleric's 36 minute-harangue of his 800 - 1,000 strong congregation.

 “Allah protect us from the fitna [sedition] of these people; Allah protect us from the evil agenda of these people; Allah destroy them from within themselves, and do not allow them to raise their heads in destroying Islam.”

The NP  reported that the cleric used the very derogatory term  "kuffar" for Jews and Christians:

Throughout the 35-minute speech he uses the word “kuffar” to describe non-Muslims.

Then follows all the usual whitewashing that we always get on these occasions from selected Muslim authorities; sugar-coating of the type: "Jihad is not armed struggle but an  'internal struggle' ", so the NP gives us a Muslim authority who thinks "destroy" should not be be interpreted in a "literal way". Yeah right - kuffars are stupid!

Professor Amir Hussain, who teaches theology at Loyola Marymount College in Los Angeles, but grew up in Toronto, said he does not read the word “destroy” in a literal way.

Canadians are getting wise to this tactic, and moderate and secular Muslims such as Tarek Fateh and the MCC (Muslim Canadian Congress) don't like this white-washing either.

Just a note here for liberal and leftist types which love to support radical Islam; moderate and secular Muslims would be the first to suffer if Islamism succeeds, and they also are concerned when terrorist activities are perpetrated by Islamists in the name of Islam.

Here's another dissembler of misinformation from the NP:

Walid Saleh, professor at the centre for the study of religion at the University of Toronto, said much of what Mr. Rageah said must be taken in the context of how Muslims may use terms in the midst of a religious service.

OK then! That's all right we just need to understand the "context". The thing is we do understand - well at least some do, but nevertheless in increasing numbers.

"Toronto Imam Preaching 'hate instead of harmony' "can be read here

According to Tarek Fateh's rebuttal in the NP "Bigotry Unchallenged" posted today. the "misunderstood" cleric spewed these words of hate:

We have to establish Islam [in Canada]. I wanna see Islam in every single corner of the city; I would like to see niqabis, and hijabis [women wearing face masks and head covering] everywhere in the city. I want to see ‘brothers' [Muslim men] in beards everywhere in the city. Because when they see more of us, they will have more respect for us. They will say, ‘look they are everywhere...we cannot go against them'."

The message is clear, this is not the religion of peace, but a religion whose main purpose is to dominate and take over. That is one of the main ideologies in traditional Islam.

Mr. Fateh states that "every Friday, at almost every mosque in Canada, the clerics make this prayer at the end of their sermon":

"Oh Allah, give victory to Muslims and Islam...Oh Allah, give defeat to the Kufaar and Mushriqeen," he prayed.

I have to applaud Tarek Fateh, he has the courage, the knowledge, and the standing to bring these points into the public view.

This is a particularly damming point, one that should not be forgotten, and nor should those Mosques where this takes place be allowed to forget it either.

It is not so surprising that young terrorists, such as the "Toronto 18" could be spawned if they are fed a diet of this kind of hatred.

Mr Fateh then proceeds to further illustrate the kind of misinformation and white-washing that always surrounds these discussions when radical Islam shows its face:

Since the disclosure, there has been orchestrated campaign by the mosque establishment to deny that the word "Kufaar" means "Jews and Christians".

There are several spellings for kuffar, kufaar, kufir, kafr and perhaps others too, but they refer to all unbelievers, all the ungrateful ones, not only Jews and Christians.

Kuffar make up the dhimmi class, these are the second-class inhabitants in an Islamic state under sharia. The sharia is very detailed how the dhimmi will live under Islamic domination and it is:

a formal agreement with Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Samarians, Sabians, and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham of one of the other prophets.

It is not just the Jews and Christians, this is taken from a previous post Lux et Veritas: Pakistan Christian Parties Against Blasphemy Laws, which has some useful notes on shariah at the end of the article.

Mr. Fateh goes on to demolish the red-herring that kuffar does not include Jews and Christians.

The dhimmis pay a special tax for the protection of their Muslim masters, but they do not have equal rights - quite the opposite. In fact dhimmis are very vulnerable under sharia, and any accusation, even false accusations, by a Muslim against a dhimmi, are sure to go against the dhimmi, because he is not equal to the Muslim.

Mr. Fateh continues:

Why then would so many Muslims in Canada be willing to whitewash the truth about the hateful sermons in almost every mosque in Canada?

One would hope that by exposing one imam caught on video praying for the defeat of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims, would spur ordinary Muslims to protest this type of bigotry.

Once again I have to applaud the work of Tarek Fateh and commend his excellent piece "Bigotry Unchallenged", which can be read here.

I will close about a fundamental freedom we have in Canada according to the Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms. Under Article 2, fundamental freedoms the Charter provides that:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms (a) freedom of conscience and religion

The kind of preaching Toronto Imam Said Rageah engages in, and the kind of prayer that asks for "Oh Allah, give defeat to the Kufaar" is not consistent with the Canadian Charter, because it promotes one religion (Islam) to dominate over the other religions of Canada either by coercion or ultimately by physical force or threat .No other religions seek to do that.

It is contrary to our Charter and a presents a risk not only to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, but also to moderate Muslims.


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

A Black Day for Human Rights (2)

How they voted.

According to the Guardian UK the voting at the UN Human Rights Council  in Geneva today was as follows:

In favour (25): 

Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djbouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Zambia.

Against (6):

Holland, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Ukraine, US.

Abstentions (11):

Belgium, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia, Uruguay.

Did not vote (4)

Angola, Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan.

I am not sure what the difference is between "abstaining" and "did not vote" (let me know if you understand it); this further information from the Guardian UK sheds some light on it, but it seems an overly subtle difference to me.

Gordon Brown reportedly had a heated telephone call on Wednesday with Netanyahu, who pressed him to vote against the resolution.

Brown spoke again with Netanyahu this morning, hours before the vote, and Britain then decided not to take part at all. A Downing Street spokesman said:

"We did not participate in the vote. We were involved in discussions with Israel and the Palestinians about potentially substantive improvements in the situation on the ground and therefore asked for a delay to the vote."

The Jerusalem Post has more on the reasons for UK and France not to participate in the vote:

An unnamed British diplomat told Israel Radio that in the hours prior to the vote, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy had tried to get clarifications from Israel that would enable the countries to vote against the resolution.

France and Britain reportedly decided to refrain from voting after the contacts with Israel failed to produce the results they were seeking. 

Well perhaps I was too hasty with my comments of quisling for Gordon Brown; I suppose I can't blame him for the state of the UN Human Rights Council. 


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary AB

ADDENDUM, apparently they are confused over at the BBC about the difference between "abstaining" and "did not vote." I found this gem on their website:

"No, we didn't abstain - we didn't vote."

Confused? We were. Apparently, there is a key difference between the UK government abstaining and not voting when the UN Human Rights Council backed a report into the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

Self-Defense is not a Crime of War

UN Watch

British Hero Tells U.N. Council: 'IDF Most Moral Army in History of Warfare'

Today's emergency UN Human Rights Council debate on the Goldstone Report predictably saw a line-up of the world's worst abusers condemn democratic Israel for human rights violations.

In a heated lynch mob atmosphere, Kuwait slammed Israel for “intentional killing, intentional destruction of civilian objects, intentional scorched-earth policy,” saying Israel “embodied the Agatha Christie novel, 'Escaped with Murder'.” Pakistan said the “horrors of Israeli occupation continue to haunt the international community’s conscience.”

The Arab League said, “We must condemn Israel and force Israel to accept international legitimacy." Ahmadinejad’s Iran said “the atrocities committed against Palestinians during the aggressions on Gaza should be taken seriously” and followed up by the international community “to put an end to absolute impunity and defiance of the law.”

What the world's assembled representatives did not expect, however, was the speech that followed (see video and text below), organized by UN Watch.

We invited as our speaker a man who repeatedly put his life on the line to defend the democratic world from the murderous Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the Taleban.

The moment he began his first sentence, the room simply fell silent. Judge Goldstone, author of the biased report that prompted today's one-sided condemnation, had refused to hear Col. Kemp's testimony during his "fact-finding" hearings. But UN Watch made sure today that this hero's voice would be heard -- at the U.N., and around the world.

UN Watch

UN Watch Oral Statement
Delivered by Colonel Richard Kemp, 16 October 2009
UN Human Rights Council: 12th Special Session

Col. Richard Kemp on the Goldstone Report

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

CAIR Article in the Calgary Herald

(A short post; after having flu for a few days it is starting to take over. I will develop this theme in future posts)
 
I was somewhat shocked yesterday (Wednesday Oct 14), to see an article published in the Calgary Herald  by a member of  Canadian CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations). The article was a rebuttal of the announcement by the MCC (Muslim Council of Canada) requesting that the Canadian government should ban the niquab, veils or face-mask. (I posted an article on Lux et Veritas a few days ago and can be seen here: Egypt’s top cleric to ban veils in schools)

I was surprised, but also concerned because I had heard enough about CAIR for "red-flags" to be raised. So I called my good friend Geraint for information concerning CAIR.

He supplied me with considerable evidence (all in the public domain), to confirm my suspicions; but after reading I found out that it is a lot worse than I imagined.

Canadian CAIR is an affiliate of CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF terror funding trial;the Holy Land Foundation For Relief And Development (HLF) was a pro Hamas organisation.

This is a very serious business.

"Prosecutors applied the label of "unindicted co-conspirator" to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust in connection with a trial planned in Texas next month for five officials of a defunct charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development."

Note that CAIR is named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" by the prosecutors in the case.

A court filing by the government last week listed the three prominent groups among about 300 individuals or entities named as co-conspirators. The document gave scant details, but prosecutors described CAIR as a present or past member of "the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations." The government listed the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust as "entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood."

This whole report can be read here: Islamic Groups Named in Hamas Funding Case

It should be understood that Canadian CAIR also engages in "lawfare" (as does its parent organisation CAIR), and brought legal action against the well-respected journalist David Frum and the National Post,

"Lawfare" is used by International actors to shut-up critics of Islam using our western courts. It is often funded by Saudi Arabia or other middle eastern states with deep pockets when it come to spreading militant Islam. 
 
David Frum wrote this rebuttal to CAIR and their legal action in 2004:

The author defends against libel charges from the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR has maintained indisputable ties to Islamist terrorism--a fact that must be exposed.

David Frum list evidence against CAIR:

CAIR was founded in 1994 by alumni of an older group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. The IAP, founded by senior Hamas figure Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state under Islamic law in Israel's place. (In 1996, CAIR would condemn the U.S. government's decision to deport Marzook as an "anti-Islamic" act.)

CAIR's first director, publicly declared himself a supporter of Hamas.

CAIR's first executive director, Nihad Awad, publicly declared himself a supporter of Hamas at a 1994 forum at Barry University in Florida.

CAIR board member supports the convicted World Trade bomber Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman:

One of CAIR's original advisory board members, Siraj Wahhaj, served as a character witness for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman is the blind Egyptian cleric convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to bomb New York landmarks. CAIR described Rahman's conviction as a hate crime.

 "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmed, also an IAP alumnus, is said to have declared at a public event in California in July, 1998: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." Ahmed has since disputed the accuracy of the quote--five years after it was reported by a California newspaper.

Soliciting Donations to the Holy Land Foundation, banned organisation linked to Hamas:

After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, CAIR's Web site featured a link titled, "Donate to the NY/DC Disaster Relief Fund." The link connected to the Web site of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity closed down by the United States three months later as a Hamas front.

 David Frum's article can be read here: The Question of CAIR

I have not addressed the burqa or niqab issue, I have been focusing on CAIR, and I will return to that debate tomorrow (God willing). I will address the deceptive nature of the article.

The full article can be read here: For Muslim women, veil is power and beauty, by Riad Saloojee, For The Calgary Herald, Published: Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Bio: The author of the piece is Riad Saloojee Is A Canadian Lawyer And Member Of The Canadian Council Of American-Islamic Relations's Advisory Board. He Is A Full-Time Student In Arabic And Islamic Jurisprudence.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Israel is not the enemy of Palestinians

JP reports today on Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the opening of the Knesset's winter session on Monday: Netanyahu: PA must recognize Israel as Jewish state for there to be peace.

"We are willing to work hard for peace," but added that "Without recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, we simply cannot reach peace."

I have been saying for some years now:

Israel is not the enemy of the Palestinian people.

I believe that to be true to the bottom of my heart; so when I saw this same statement in Natanyahu's speech it resonated deeply within me.

"This is also the hour for leaders of the Arab states in the area to tell the truth to their people - that the State of Israel is not the enemy of Islam."

Israel is not the enemy of the Palestinian people. Who is? I offer this short list:

Truth and Survival

Beware of Liberal Dreamers

A superb piece by Barbara Kay in Wednesday's National Post sheds light on the issue of "Islamism" starting from 9/11, and goes to the very heart of this still pressing matter.

The root issue is not just Islamic militancy and Jihad, but arguably even more dangerous,  is a distorted response by the west.

Remembering September 11

Remembering September 11

We understand a lot more about Islamic militancy and violent Jihad than we did in the days after 9/11. I recall Prime Minister Blair and George Bush explaining that Islam is a religion of peace. Many believed that at the time.

Lux et Veritas

Lux et Veritas - Light & Truth

I registered this blog on Sunday September 6, and posted my first items on Labour Day Monday September 7, and the next day Mark Steyn publishes a piece titled: 'Lux et Veritas'.