Doc's Talk: Protecting Western Values From Encroaching Sharia

Monday, March 19, 2012

Protecting Western Values From Encroaching Sharia

A Project of the Middle East Forum

Islamist Watch is devoted to unveiling and combating "Lawful Islamists" who exploit our Constitutional freedoms to incrementally and non-violently undermine American and Western values while imposing aspects of Sharia law, creating special rights for Muslims, preventing criticism of Islamists, intimidating moderate Muslims, depriving women and non-Muslims of their civil and Constitutional rights, and creating "no-go" autonomous zones within the United States and other Western countries.

Lawful Islamism is a radical and supremacist interpretation of Islam that seeks to destroy Western society from within -- culturally and politically rather than violently. Methodically and patiently. With words not bullets. Activism not bombs.

The goals of Lawful Islamists and Islamic terrorists are the same. Only their methods differ. Islamism in the News: 02/16/12 – 03/14/12:

Government

"Al-Qaeda Bar Advancing Inside Department of Justice," by J. Christian Adams. PJ Media, March 5, 2012. (Remember the infamous "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh? President Obama has appointed his attorney to the number three position at the Department of Justice. Before coming to the Justice Department, Tony West and his San Francisco law firm represented some of the most radical Islamic terrorist causes. What could go wrong?)

Law Enforcement

"FBI, Muslims Report Progress Over Training Materials," By Omar Sacirbey. Washington Post, February 16, 2012. (FBI officials say they are willing to consider a proposal from a coalition of Muslim and interfaith groups to establish a committee of experts to review materials used in FBI anti-terrorism training. Among the group is the Islamic Society of North America, named and described in seized Muslim Brotherhood documents as one of their front groups engaged in a "grand jihad to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within.")
Last October, the Obama administration confirmed it was eliminating all references to Islam in law enforcement and national security training materials, which some Islamist groups claimed were offensive to them. "I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this President, this Attorney General and Department of Justice stand for," said U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton. "They will not be tolerated."
"Chicago Police Head Raises Money for CAIR," Ryan Mauro. FrontPage Magazine, March 9. 2012. (Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy has agreed to speak at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group that the FBI has officially cut ties with over its links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. McCarthy promised that the Chicago Police Department would not use the surveillance tactics that CAIR has criticized the NYPD for using.)

Co-opting Politicians – Chris Christie's Continuing Islamist Problem

"The Roots of the Christie-King Border War," Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary Magazine, March 6, 2012. (Christie and King found themselves lining up with two competing Muslim factions: Christie with extremist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), who oppose all efforts to investigate homegrown Islamist terror, and King with those Muslims likeDr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who have taken the position that American Muslims have a responsibility to root out radicals.)
"Chris Christie is Clueless in Claiming He Didn't Know About NYPD Anti-Terror Intel," New York Daily News Editorial, March 7, 2012. (Meanwhile, everyone else in New Jersey state government did.)
For background on Chris Christie's disturbing ties to New Jersey's Islamists, including appointing a terrorist-defending Islamist attorney to a Superior Court judgeship, preventing the deportation of an imam who was a member of both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, refusing to take a stand against the ground zero mosque, and endorsement by CAIR, see:
"Governor Christie's Dirty Islamist Ties," Daniel Greenfield. Sultan Knish, January 16, 2011.
"Chris Christie Has a Muslim Problem," Terry A. Hurlbut. Conservative News and Views, June 28, 2011.

Courts: Sharia vs. the First Amendment in Pennsylvania

"The Sharia Court of Pennsylvania," by Andrew C. McCarthy. National Review, February 24, 2012. (A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin ruled that Talag Elbayomy's Sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim. Includes an extensive court transcript. Martin has threatened to hold the victim in contempt for recording the proceeding.)
"Pennsylvania Judge Throws Out Charge For Harassing Atheist While Calling The Victim A Doofus," by Jonathan Turley. Res Ipsa Loquitur, February 24, 2012. (Includes video of the assault. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech of all American, even "doofuses."

American Laws for American Courts

"Bizarre Verdicts Could Fuel Rep. Larry Metz's Anti-Sharia Bill," Kenric Ward. Sunshine State News, February 28, 2012. (Florida's "anti-Sharia" legislation received some added impetus last week when a Pennsylvania court bowed to Islamic sensibilities and acquitted a Muslim defendant of assault.)
"The Necessity of Anti-Sharia Laws," Robert Spencer. American Thinker, March 13, 2012. ("As Thomas Jefferson said, it doesn't matter whether my neighbor believes in one god or seventeen; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. It is only when my neighbor believes that his god commands him to pick my pocket or break my leg that his beliefs become a matter of concern for those who do not share them.")

Women's Rights

"My Mother Wants Me Dead: Catholic Convert Speaks Out After Fleeing Her Muslim Family Following 'Honor Killing' Threat," Rob King. The Daily Mail (UK), March 9, 2012. (A women's rights campaigner has revealed how she fears for her life after her strict Muslim parents threatened to kill her when she dared to refuse an arranged marriage. Her parents sued her for defamation – and lost.)

Media Bias and Free Speech

"Will There Always Be an England?" Bruce Bawer. FrontPage Magazine, March 7, 2012. (The Director-General of the BBC admits to double standards and fears when it comes to covering religion. In 2010, the BBC claimed a weekly global audience of 241 million people for its international news services.)

Free Speech

"Free Speech vs. Islamists: Why the West is Losing. A Steady Retreat Worldwide," by Adam Turner. PJ Media, March 12, 2012. (Back in 1989, most in the Western world were shocked by the threat against Salman Rushdie, and after some hemming and hawing eventually came out in support of his right to say what he wanted to say about his own, lapsed religion. Today when Islamists threaten free speech, Western intellectual elites actually join in the effort.)
"Gainsborough [England] Man Jailed Over Anti-Islam Images In His Flat Window,"Gainsborough Target (UK), March 9, 2012. (Sometimes speech is unpopular, but should people be sent to jail over it? In England, as in Europe, people can literally go to jail for what they say if some prosecutor decides that some group finds it offensive. These cases are subjective and selectively prosecuted. In the US, the First Amendment provides absolute protection for the free exercise of expression, unless it's ethnic intimidation in the context of specific threats against specific individuals. Islamist groups such as CAIR want to bring Europe's laws against free speech to the US. And they want to be the ones to decide what's offensive and who goes to jail.)
"U.K. Thought Police Send Man to Prison," Bruce Bawer. FrontPage Magazine, March 14, 2012. (Analysis of the Gainsborough case. Notes a "chillingly Orwellian understanding of the concept of freedom, which has its roots not in Magna Carta or the Enlightenment but in Sharia. When [prosecutors] say that it is 'essential that everyone in our community is free to live without harassment,' [they] mean nothing more or less than this: that it is the right of Muslims in Britain to live in a society free of criticism of their religion."

Moderate Muslims Defend NYPD

"Muslims at Rally: NYPD Surveillance Keeps Us Safe," Associated Press via Fox News, March 5, 2012. (Rally organizers say the danger is clearly coming from within the Muslim community and that it's up to other Muslims to help law enforcement stop the threat. They said Muslims do not want to give up civil rights and are behind transparency in police work, but it is wrong to suggest that all Muslims are somehow afraid of the NYPD.)
"Muslim Journalist Defends Surveillance by NYPD, Says Some Muslims 'Use Religion as Cover,'" Catherine Herridge. Fox News, March 13, 2012. ("We're saying that you can't go into our mosques, you can't look at our Muslim organizations, you can't even look at Muslims because that's to target us," she told Fox News. "But the truth is, we do have a problem in our Muslim community." Hat Tip: Innavich.)

Hamas-Linked CAIR

"Hamas-Linked CAIR Holding Rally for Accused Jihad Synagogue Bomb Plotter," Robert Spencer. Jihad Watch, March 12, 2012. (Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh were arrested last May for plotting to bomb synagogues and attack Jews. The arrests marked the end of a seven-month sting led by New York police officers.)
"Former Hamas-Linked CAIR Official Running for President in Egypt, Pledges to 'Complete the Implementation of Islamic Law in Egypt,'" Robert Spencer. Jihad Watch, March 12, 2012. (The former community affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Bassem Khafagi was arrested in January 2003 on suspicion of aiding terrorists. Khafagi is also the founder of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), a radical, Ann Arbor, Michigan-based organization. He pled guilty in Detroit federal court to two counts of bank fraud and one count of visa fraud.)

Islamist Watch maintains an extensive database of news articles concerning Islamism. The above links are a small sample. For a complete list of articles by date, please click here. Also, please click here for a listing of "creeping dhimmitude" articles by topic (see box at right of page).

The Lawful Islamist "is the polite collector you pay in the hope that the leg-breaker won't be next at your doorstep. And even as he sneers in his nice suit at the leg-breaker's crudity, you somehow know all your money is going to the same place." -- Andrew C. McCarthy, The Grand Jihad, p.14

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk