Freedom to Chose

In my two recent posts (Ban the Burqa & Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad" & the burka) I touched on the issue of the burka and tried to show that it has no place in Canadian society. I believe that it is part of a belief system that is repressive to women, and in opposition to our Canadian values of freedom of thought and expression, as embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My reasoning is that our Canadian system comes from a Judeo-Christian heritage: both the Old Testament and the New Testament affirm the right to chose God or reject him. Here's one of many examples from the OT from Joshua 24:15 (English Standard Version)

And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." 

"Choose this day whom you will serve," there is no compulsion attached to this invitation, no threat of beheading as dictated by Mohamed if a conquered foe would not adopt Islam. If not face execution by beheading there was the alternative of becoming a second class citizen called a dhimmi; a grinding life of submission, a second class citizen who's testimony bears no weight at all against that of a Muslim. That is basically the condition of non-Muslims in most countries under Islamic authority.

If we read through the New Testament we will see the gentle invitation to accept Jesus.

The Charter should protects that right to chose, and therefore it would be a perversion of the intent of the Charter to use it to promote traditional Islam, which is committed to taking away a woman's rights to chose and a man or a woman's right to chose to leave Islam. A Muslim person in Islamic lands is not free to chose to become a Christian, or a Buddhist, or become an atheist. The sentence is death. 

Islamic lands prohibit the preaching of Christianity - how could we use our Charter of Rights  and Freedoms in a way that promotes a religion that does that?

If we argue that the Charter should protect a woman's right to wear the burka, then we use the Charter to further cause of Islamification, which is a step towards taking away a woman's right to chose.

I make a difficult argument because our freedoms are so deeply ingrained in us; but those freedoms cannot be used for the purpose of allowing tyranny, and that is what the burka represents: a tyrannical religion which seeks to take away the freedoms that we hold precious and subjugate the conquered people to the will of Mullahs.

Gurth Whitaker

Calgary, AB 

The Bible's Approach to Relationship's and the Body

A great comment by a friend and Christian brother reinforced the great gulf between what the Bible teaches and those beliefs that insist that a women must be hidden, and if she is not then she is a legitimate target for rape. Here's this wonderful comment from a reader on this post: Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad" & the burka

In reading your comments Gurth I am reminded that in Ephesians Chapter 5, verse 21 there is a very different model given by the Apostle Paul on how men are to treat their wives. They are called to love their wives as they love their own bodies. Even more importantly, they are called to love their wives as Jesus loves the church. This is something that speaks to the very essence of the incarnational nature of Christianity. The God of the Christian Scriptures loves matter. Although infected by the Fall, all of matter is being redeemed in and through Jesus Christ. The way we treat our bodies, and the way we treat our wife's body is a sign of the redemptive and restorative work of Christ.

There the body is to be treated with respect. I Peter 3 speaks about modest dress but nowhere in the New Testament is there the dictate that women are to hide their bodies.

There is always a respect for the beauty of the body and the call to treat it as the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Biblical Christianity instructs us to relate to our bodies in this way and for men to love their wives as Jesus loves the Church because Jesus loves us totally; our mind, soul, body and spirit. 

I do not know enough about the burka issue to comment on it directly. What I will says is that Ephesians 5 gives a very different way to relate to women from the one governing the burka practise.

Read Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 5 at Bible Gateway

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

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

Hasan Called War on Terror ‘War Against Islam’

Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS.

"Hasan Called War on Terror ‘War Against Islam," Classmate Says
by Justin Blum for Bloomberg (here)

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 others at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, regularly described the war on terror as "a war against Islam," according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him.

While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.

"He was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second," said Finnell, 41, a preventive medicine doctor in Los Angeles, in an interview today. "He was always concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted."

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, said she was told by Fort Hood authorities the suspect was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and had been “very upset and angry” in the past few days.

Finnell said he remembered Hasan “vividly” and said of the shooting: “I’m not surprised, based on the things he said in the past. I’m shocked that it happened, but not surprised.”

In conversations, students challenged Hasan on his statements and he would become “visibly upset, sweaty, nervous,” Finnell said.

Toward the end of the program, in 2008, Hasan gave a presentation that was billed as a survey of the climate for Muslims who serve in the U.S. military, Finnell said.

“It wasn’t really very objective,” Finnell said. “It was like he was trying to prove a point.”

 As I said in my previous post - there should be both screening and monitoring. It is immoral to put innocent lives at risk because of some politically correct ideology of avoiding profiling.

It is clear that there was inadequate monitoring of Major Hasan; here's the conlcusion from my post earlier today (here) "The Liberal Conclusions on Major Hasan"

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 Jihadists and therefore makes their purpose easier.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

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.

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

Pakistan Christian Parties Against Blasphemy Laws

Via the "Pakistan Christian Post" today comes this news: 

All Christian Parties Conference set to launch (a) movement to end the Pakistan Blasphemy law, Islamabad: October 18, 2009. 

Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are not only extremely harsh and unjust, but they are used  in nefarious ways "against Christians (for the purposes of) business rivalry and personnel grudges."

"Blasphemy is subject to capital punishment in Pakistan law - it caries a death penalty". And we know that in many Islamic environments the "kafir" (infidel, unbeliever) has no defence against a Muslim; in fact it is enshrined in sharia law, so it is very easy for a Muslim in such societies to do mortal harm to an enemy by accusing him of blasphemy.

The mobs are so volatile that any such accusation will usually end in the murder of the accused - whether there is any justification or not. If for some reason that doesn't happen, the Christian or Jew will have little chance in a sharia court, and a fatwa by an Imam will ensure that someone will carry it out.

By doing the Imam's bidding, to execute the blasphemer, they believe that they are doing Allah's will .

We have to understand that sharia law is harsh to the dhimmi, or people under the "protection" of Islam. This is a euphemism by our standards, it means that the Islamic regime will not kill them for being non-believers as long as they submit and accept the role of second-class citizens.

Sharia is completely contrary to the law we have in the west which is based on our Judea-Christian principles.  For example, our Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms states that "Every individual is equal before and under the law" this is not so under sharia, for example women do not have equality with men under the law, and kafir do not have equality with Muslims.

The Charter continues that all people have the "right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law ... without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability". This is not so under sharia for the reasons already stated - men are in ascendancy over women, as is the Muslim is in ascendancy over the kafir.

The nature of sharia law is contrary to the mind-set for a reader with a western upbringing, however we have to have some appreciation of sharia to understand how the persecution of Christians in a country such as Pakistan can occur so easily; I have included some notes as an Addendum at the end of this post..

The dire urgency for blasphemy reform is apparent when we consider the brutality of Christian persecutions on blasphemy charges, as the "Pakistan Christian Post" reports:

On accusations of blasphemy Islamic militants have destroyed hundreds of homes and killed dozens in year 2009 (alone), while children, women and elders were burnt alive.

The federal government of Pakistan and Punjab provincial government failed to secure life and property of Christians and to adopt necessary measure to stop violence against Christians.

The extent of the cruelty to Christians in Pakistan has been truly horrific, and not restricted to a few isolated cases. Christian persecution in general receives relatively little attention in the western media, falling outside the favoured liberal topic of the Palestinian question, and of course the Islamic world is not disposed to criticise persecution by Islamic regimes (silence on Darfur for example).

Islamic persecution of Christians has certainly not received the attention it deserves in the western media, and so I intend to cover this topic in more detail in future posts; here I will just note one such horrific incident as reported by the Daily Mail UK in August of this year:

Pope Benedict XVI has condemned the 'senseless attack' in Pakistan in which seven Christians were burned alive.

Hundreds of Muslims torched and looted Christian homes in Gorja. A man, a woman and four children were burned to death in their house, and two other men were shot dead by the rioters.

The killings began after false rumours that the Koran had been defaced spread through a city in Pakistan.

~~!~~

Blasphemy in Canada

How should we consider blasphemy in Canada?

What would be blasphemy under Islam? It would be blasphemy to state that "Mohamed is not the prophet of Allah", or to state that "Mohamed is a false prophet".

Similarly it would be blasphemy to state that "the Koran is flawed" or "the Koran is not the word of God."

I was brought up to give respect for other peoples beliefs and religions, and I still adhere to that today, but respect does not mean I agree with them, nor should I pay lip-service. We have to speak honestly and clearly, otherwise how can we have a reasoned discussion leading to a better understanding of the issue at hand. 

So now let's look at this issue of the prophet Mohamed, and the matter of Koran a little further, and let's also add Islam's teaching on Jesus Christ.

Orthodox teaching in Islam states that Jesus Christ was not crucified, and he did not rise from the dead as the Bible relates.This is what Imams teach their congregations from the pulpit.

Furthermore according to orthodox Islamic teaching, the Imam will also teach that the Bible is a Holy Book but it was tampered with, and therefore it is not the accurate word of God. Furthermore they are dogmatic that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, they say He is a prophet but he is not deity, he is not both God and man, as the Bible teaches.

Let's step back and consider this matter logically. Looking at this dispassionately we see that the orthodox teaching of Islam is actually a blasphemy to Christianity. We usually do not consider blasphemy charges in Canada, especially against Christianity, but in fact that is what it is - blasphemy.  

Stepping back again let's look at Christianity from a Jewish perspective. Consider Jesus' words in the Bible in the Gospel of John chapter 8:  

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

But this statement by Jesus, was actually blasphemy to the Jews, because he was claiming to be God. For orthodox Jewish teaching it is blasphemy for a man to claim that he is equal to God.

Summarising: 

• The fundamental belief in Christianity, the core of the faith, is actually blasphemy according to orthodox teachings of the Jewish faith
• A fundamental belief and teaching of Islam is a blasphemy according to orthodox teachings of the Christian faith. 

But under our Charter we are all free to practice our religion; just as Jews and Christians live together and respect each other's faiths without blasphemy charges, so Muslims must conform to the same norm if they want to live in Canada.
If an Imam can legally declare from the pulpit that Jesus is not who He says He is, and a Rabbi can say that Jesus is not the Son of God, then a Pastor can say that Islam has it wrong. It is one rule for all ... or for none.

We are all guaranteed the right to practice our religions in Canada under the Charter

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

As we see core teachings of some religions are blasphemy to others, and therefore blasphemy laws are incompatible with the Candian Charter.

So Canadians in our quest to be fair and just should not give a special privilege to Islam, or for that matter to Christians or Jews; but under according to our Charter we are all equal under the law.

Fundamental justice is a concept that comes from Judeo-Christian principles and it is enshrined in our Charter, therefore let us all remember that this applies to all faiths, all races, and genders; we do not have a special treatment for blasphemy for Islam. (I include atheism as a faith too)

"right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"

We can practice our religions free from persecution under the law and we can rejoice that we are protected  by our Charter

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

++++++++++++++++

ADDENDUM: Notes on Sharia Law in general and dhimmi or kafir in particular

Sharia is subject that should get further attention and will be covered in future posts at Lux et Veritas.

The source of the Sharia is the Koran and the Sunna (found in the Sira and the Hadith). Since the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims do not agree on which Hadith to use, they have slightly different Sharia systems.


Sharia law covers all aspects of life, including how a man and woman should have sex, for instance. Roughly there are five areas of Sharia law:

1. Belief-Allah, His angels, His books, His prophets, the Day of Judgment and the decrees of God.
2. Moralities-giving good counsel, humility, patience and so forth.
3. Devotions-the Five Pillars, alms, pilgrimage to Mecca, and jihad.
4. Transactions-business law, marriage, divorce and disputes.
5. Punishments-stoning, amputation, lashings, and retaliation

Dhimmis
The Sharia is very detailed how the dhimmi will live under Islamic domination.

O11.1 a formal agreement with Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Samarians, Sabians, and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham of one of the other prophets.

O11.3 such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam(b) and pay the kafir poll tax (jizya) Note: this is a tax that applies to kafir and is designed to show that he is greatfull for the protection of Islam - i.e. they don't kill him for being a non-believer

O11.5 Kafir subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

(4) Must keep to the side of the street ; Note to show that they are below the Muslim population

(6) Are forbidden to openly display wine or pork. ( or to ring church bells or display crosses) recite the Torah or Gospels aloud, or make public display of funerals and feast days.  Note: prayers by Jews are forbidden on the Temple Mount (Dome of the Rock) by the Islamic authorities, and this is stated by the Israeli police to all Jews before they are allowed to go up to the Temple Mount. Mouthing silent prayers is strictly forbidden. Muslims are passionate about this rule because Muhamed said that the prayers of Muslims are nullified if a Christian or Jew prays in the vicinity. A curious concept that God is limited by such a law.

(7) And are forbidden to build new churches.

Calgary Herald wont publish my rebuttal to CAIR

On Thursday, I published a post on Lux et Veritas, concerning the Calgary Herald publishing a pro-veil essay by Canadian CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations); read it here: CAIR Article in the Calgary Herald.

Canadian CAIR is an affiliate of CAIR, (who were) named as one of the "un-indicted co-conspirator in the HLF terror funding trial";

the Holy Land Foundation For Relief And Development (HLF) was a pro Hamas organisation.

I submitted a letter of rebuttal to the Calgary Herald Friday morning, but since it isn't published in today's Herald, I have to think that it's rejected by the editor.

I am including my full letter, but first I want to comment as to why the Calgary Herald would publish a piece from Canadian CAIR (do they know about CAIR?), and why they wouldn't publish my letter.

First why not publish my letter? Well the answer may be as simple as they don't think it is worthy, or it is too late, they have published a couple of letters already (I was a bit late submitting - the original article was published Wednesday & I didn't submit till Friday morning).

OR, perhaps the content is too dangerous for the Herald.

I wondered why the Herald would publish an essay by CAIR in the first place?  Here's a couple of possibilities:

1. They do know about CAIR, this is likely because their sister newspaper (big sister) the National Post was subjected to legal action by the Canadian CAIR.
2. They do not know about CAIR; they published the CAIR essay thinking it represents a moderate Muslims voice. 

If the reason is (1), then they published it to attract comment to bring this issue out into the open; however if that is true why not publish my letter?

If the reason is (2), they show a lack of good research; remember that CAIR is the named "un-indicted co-conspirator in the HLF terror funding trial".

Could there be a third possibility? This one I find very hard to imagine: could the Calgary Herald have some pro-CAIR sympathies within its staff? I  know, I find it hard to believe this is true either, but it is a logical possibility.

Here is my letter to the Calgary Herald submitted by email Friday October 16, 1:15 (not strictly speaking Friday morning)

09-10-16 Letter to Calgary Herald
Rebuttal to Mr. Riad Saloojee’s Article: “For Muslim women, veil is power and beauty”

Mr Riad Saloojee, dismissed concerns about the face veil (niqab) in his article published by the Calgary Herald on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, as “fear-mongering”. However concerns are well warranted; the niqab is associated with the most extreme forms of Islam and has no place in Canadian democratic society.

Mr Saloojee is a member of Canadian CAIR, whose parent organisation CAIR was named by the US government prosecutors as the “unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF terror funding trial.” The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development was a pro-Hamas organisation.

The niqab is widely worn in Saudi Arabia, where religious police beat women in the streets who are not appropriately dressed. Herald readers are probably familiar with such beating in Afghanistan by Taliban police. On occasions the woman beaten were actually wearing a burka, however a little ankle was visible so the police would set on them with whips. Sometimes these were older women.

In 2002, Saudi Arabia's s powerful religious police beat girls trying to flee a burning school in Mecca, because they were not properly attired. The police forced them back into the school where they perished.

According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam

The niqab is associated with authoritarian societies such as Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda; Canada should not allow the niqab here.

There may be women who choose to wear the niqab, but it irrelevant because it is imposed by Islamic ideology, and enforced by men, and is accompanied by other Islamic abuse of women such as wife-beating, and marriage to pre-pubescent girls.

Canadians should not mistake this matter as a freedom or rights issue; veils, niqabs, or face masks, should be banned in public in Canada to protect moderate woman.

NOTE: I also submitted a reference to the Herald on the burning school story in Mecca, which can be seen here Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue.

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

Temple Mount - a tinderbox of mixed interests

It's nine years ago since Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, which caused Palestinians to erupt in violent demonstrations. The second intifada was born.

Now the third Intifada is spawned... 

In 2007, the Jerusalem Municipality and Israel Antiquities Authority began rebuilding the Mughrabi Gate, one of the main entrances to the Temple Mount, perched next to the Western Wall.

While violence was minimal, the renovation work - which was immediately suspended - drew international condemnation and a Muslim outcry.

This week, violence again broke out on the Temple Mount. The difference was that in this case, there was no purported Israeli "instigation" - no Sharon visit or renovations at the Mughrabi Gate. Instead, this time around, the violence was believed to be the result of a politically motivated campaign launched by Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the Islamic Movement's northern branch.

The Temple Mount - a tinderbox of mixed interests | Jerusalem Post 

Anti-Semitism in Egypt

Farouk Hosni, Egypt's Culture Minister for 20 years, failed in his bid to lead the to lead the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

But this had nothing to do with his suitability for the position but it "was a Zionist plot"; complained Mr. Hosni, a notion echoed by much of the Egyptian media and government officials.

We learn that this was a "Western-Zionist conspiracy."

The Quran And Me, Tarek Fatah, Aug. 21.

Here is my letter in response to an article by Tarek Fatah in the National Post

titled Re: The Quran And Me, Tarek Fatah, Aug. 21.

…and the nature of Islam August 25th.

I respect Tarek Fatah for his aim to speak the truth against violent behaviour from the Islamic world. However, this column gives rise to some very difficult questions.

Mr. Fatah describes himself as “a hardened secularist,” so why does he write “Prophet Muhammad … received the first verse of the Quran from God”? Why would a self-proclaimed secularist elevate Muhammad to the status of prophet of God? (then add “peace be upon him”)?

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'.

Egypt's Coptic Christians call for general strike on September 11 to protest persecution

The plight of Coptic Christians

Jihad Watch posts that Christians in Egypt will strike for the right to build their churches...

"Traditional Islamic law for dhimmis forbids them to build new churches."

"Christians in Egypt still suffer from a cultural hangover of that law."

(NOTE: in many Islamic countries no churches, crosses or even praying in public are tolerated; in Egypt new churches were not allowed.)