CAIR Drops The Mask

Hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance, citing this source:

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla., Nov. 3, 2010 — On Thursday, November 4, the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) will hold a news conference with religious and civil rights leaders in the State Capitol Building to announce the filing of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an anti-Islam ballot measure (State Question 755) passed in yesterday’s election. The measure amends the state constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic law or international law when making a ruling.

In the post at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, Pastorius makes this very important point:

Let us be clear, it is not simply that they are religious zealots. Sharia law is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries. When a person, or a group of people advocate for the replacement of our system of law with that of another country, that is called Sedition.

In effect, CAIR is advocating the subversion of our law of the land, the United States Constitution.

Read more about CAIR's real agenda HERE at Anti-CAIR. The information at that site has been available for years, yet our government continues to forge ties with CAIR. Why, why, why?

Turn the page ....

Shari'a Law In New Jersey

[Note to readers: Please see the post below the one for musical satire with a political twist!]

(Hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for the above graphic)

The case recently in New Jersey involved a restraining order, and the first court's decision to uphold Islamic law, also called "shari'a law, was struck down in appellate court.

But before rejoicing in justice done, check out the following about the first judge's ruling, a ruling which elevated shari'a law over New Jersey law:

...The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

More about the first judge's ruling below the fold.

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant's advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff's contrary wishes.

Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff's domestic violence action....

Shari'a law does have guidelines about sexual relations between man and wife, never mind all the Islamophilic propaganda to the contrary:

Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).

That any court in the United States should even temporarily elevate shari'a law over our rule of civil law should sound an alarm bell!

Additional details about the recent case in New Jersey are HERE. Also see the text of the ruling by the appellate court (pdf). Please read the links as my posting has not begun to cover all the details of this case. It is worth your time to read the links in order to understand the precipice upon which we are standing.

Turn the page ....

Pat Condell: The Enemy Within

With a hat tip to Brooke, the video is below the fold:

Turn the page ....

Shari'a Law In The United States?

Nonie Darwish on the topic:



[END OF THIS POSTING]

Turn the page ....

Must-Read AP Article About The Beheading In Buffalo

A follow-up to this posting I did on February 13 (hat tip to Raven for the link to the AP article):

Gruesome killing poses another test for US Muslims

Feb 21, 2:27 PM (ET)

By ERIC GORSKI

The crime was so brutal, shocking and rife with the worst possible stereotypes about their faith that some U.S. Muslims thought the initial reports were a hoax.

The harsh reality of what happened in an affluent suburb of Buffalo, N.Y. - the beheading of 37-year-old Aasiya Hassan and arrest of her estranged husband in the killing - is another crucible for American Muslims.

Here was a couple that appeared to be the picture of assimilation and tolerance, co-founders of a television network that aspired to improve the image of Muslims in a post 9-11 world.

Now, as Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan faces second-degree murder charges, those American Muslims who have spoken out are once again explaining that their faith abhors such horrible acts, and they are using the tragedy as a rallying cry against domestic violence.

The killing and its aftermath raise hard questions for Muslims - about gender issues, about distinctions between cultural and religious practices, and about differing interpretations of Islamic texts regarding the treatment of women.

"Muslims don't want to talk about this for good reason," said Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur, a Muslim author and activist. "There is so much negativity about Muslims, and it sort of perpetuates it. The right wing is going to run with it and misuse it. But we've got to shine a light on this issue so we can transform it."

There is evidence of movement in that direction in the 10 days since the Hassan slaying. In an open letter to American Muslim leaders, Imam Mohamed Hagmagid Ali of Sterling, Va., vice president of the Islamic Society of North America, said "violence against women is real and cannot be ignored."

He urged that imams and community leaders never second-guess a woman in danger, and said women seeking divorces because of physical abuse should not be viewed as bringing shame to their families.

Muslim women's advocates consider the statement significant after years of indifference in a community which has seen only recent progress - for example, the opening of shelters for battered Muslim women in a few major cities.

"This is a horrible tragedy, but it gives us a window," said Abdul-Ghafur, editor of the anthology "Living Islam Out Loud: American Muslim Women Speak.""The next time a woman comes to her imam and says, 'He hit me,' the reply might not be, 'Be patient, sister, is there something you did, sister? Is there something you can do?' The chances are greater the imam will say, 'This is unacceptable.'"

At least nine mosques, imams and Islamic organizations also agreed to denounce domestic violence this week at the behest of a coalition of Muslims that organized on Facebook after Aasiya Hassan's death.

"What you have is a cultural problem our communities have been silent about too long," said Wajahat Ali, a journalist and playwright who helped drive the effort. "What people with an agenda are trying to do is say this is an example of a barbaric religion. This is an example of barbaric misogyny and domestic violence."

At the South Bay Islamic Association in San Jose, Calif., Imam Tahir Anwar said he preached at Friday prayer services about keeping peace in the family and denounced physical and emotional domestic violence.

"I wouldn't say (the problem) is particular to the Muslim community, but to the immigrant community whether you're Muslim or otherwise," Anwar, whose parents are from India, said in an interview. "Women don't speak up about it. It's a taboo that all immigrant communities sort of face."

Of Islam's potential role in the Hassan slaying, Anwar said: "All religions have texts that can be misinterpreted. Good people regardless of faith would never do something like this."

While sermons like Anwar's are encouraging, other Muslim clerics in the U.S. likely preached that Aasiya Hassan could have avoided her fate by being more obedient, said Muqtedar Khan, an associate professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware.

"The imam has to be enlightened enough to recognize this violence happens, to not hide in denial or somehow blame it on American culture," said Khan, author of "American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom."

"In order to essentially condemn violence against women, they will have to treat women with greater respect. Unfortunately, the level of enlightenment among imams in North America varies significantly."

Asra Nomani, a Muslim journalist, author and activist from Morgantown, W.Va., challenged Muslims who say the murder has no link to Islamic teachings. While Islam does not sanction domestic violence or murder, a literal reading of a controversial verse in the Quran taught in some mosques can lead to honor killings and murder, she said.

"It's sort of like the typical reaction to terrorism in the community, where people want to say, 'This had nothing to do with Islam,'" Nomani said. "Well, it doesn't have anything to do with your interpretation of Islam that teaches you can't kill innocent people. But terrorism, violence, honor killing - they are all part of ideological problems we have in the community we need to eradicate."

The passage - Chapter 4, Verse 34 - has been widely translated to sanction physical discipline against disobedient wives. There is disagreement about to what degree and whether it's punitive or symbolic.

The verse is cited "all the time" to justify domestic violence, just as people of other faiths cite scriptures to support oppression of women, said Salma Abugideri of the Peaceful Families Project, which offers training and workshops to combat domestic violence in Muslim communities.

"People will use whatever they can to justify their behavior," she said. "It just seems that people outside the Muslim faith just tend to buy that rationalization as true."

There also has been speculation - by the head of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Woman, among others - that the Hassan case involved honor killing, in which a person is slain by a relative who believes the victim has brought shame to the family.

Aasiya Hassan was killed six days after her husband was served with divorce papers and a protective order. Mo Hassan is a native of Pakistan; acquaintances said he was not overtly religious, and his lawyer has said neither religion nor culture played a role in what happened.

Marsha Freeman, director of the International Women's Rights Action Watch at the University of Minnesota, said honor killing is a cultural and not religious phenomenon. She said it's practiced in some Muslim countries but not others and is present in nations with people of other religions.

"I wouldn't go running around talking about honor killings without knowing more," Freeman said.

On Web sites and e-mail lists, many Muslims are rejecting the term.

"Calling it an honor killing, it sort of takes it out of the mainstream conversation and makes it a conversation about those people from over there from those backwards countries," said Abugideri, of the Peaceful Families Project. "In fact, in this country and in mainstream society there are many cases where domestic violence escalates to the point where a woman is killed."

In her posting, Raven made the following observation, which is being overlooked in the mainstream coverage of brutal murder of Aasiya Hassan:

...[T]he religion practiced by Muslims...is the biggest factor in their culture.

I wonder, did Hassan scream "Allahu akbar!" when he was murdering his wife?

Note: I've reproduced the entire AP article because such information has a way of disappearing.

Turn the page ....

Ten-Year-Old Muslim Girl Demands And Gets A Divorce (Updated: Must Read!)

But she had to financially compensate her husband. And no charges were filed against him.




YouTube link

(Hat-tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for the video)

UPDATE showing what happens when a girl tries to seek a divorce under Islamic law (Thanks, Chuck!):

Girl Forced to Marry at Nine Murdered After She Sought Annulment

Saturday , September 06, 2008

A 17-year-old Pakistani girl forced to marry a 45-year-old when she was only nine was reportedly killed by her parents...

The murder has intensified despair among human rights workers in Pakistan over a recent spate of "honor killings," in which two women and three teenage school girls were buried alive in Baluchistan Province because they wanted to marry the men of their choice.

Saira Nusrat Bibi was successfully fighting a legal battle to have her marriage annulled. As she left court in the Punjabi city of Sahiwal, she was surrounded by a group of men reportedly sent by her parents, and shot in front of police...

Weep for Saira Nusrat Bibi and for all the other girl children trapped by the barbarism of shari'a law. Pray that the beautiful child in the video posted above doesn't meet the same end as Saira Nusrat Bibi.

Turn the page ....

Inversionism

Max Publius of Brave News World explains:

Inversionism is a process in which an ideological group finds to its horror it has allied with or even become the "boogyman" it has assailed previously. In full panic mode, rather than reassess its situation, the group attempts to "invert" reality. This phonomena is everywhere these days.

No doubt, regular readers here will be able to cite numerous examples of inversionism.
---------
In his first posting about inversionism, Max Publius cited this July 13, 2008 article from the Daily Mail:

A BBC drama has triggered a barrage of complaints after it showed gruesome images of a Muslim being beheaded.

Bonekickers, about a group of archeological sleuths, depicted an extremist Christian decapitating a man with a sword.

The bloody scene has prompted 100 complaints since it was broadcast on BBC1 on Tuesday evening.

[...]

The show, watched by 6.8 million, also sparked new claims of anti-Christian bias in BBC programmes.

One viewer wrote on the corporation's website: 'If it had been another religion portrayed in that manner, the PC police would have been up in arms about the nastiness and their rights not to have their religion ridiculed - as it was Christians, it was apparently OK.'

Last fall, in the season opener, the popular CBS television series Cold Case presented a similar case of inversionism. In that episode, a group of Christian high-schoolers stoned a wayward member of group. That's right — a stoning, in a modern American high school in 1998.

Additional reading: World Net Daily has two stories about the above episode of Cold Case, one here and one here.

(Hat-tip to Nanc for the photo here)

Today, in the Twenty-first Century, who is carrying out stonings? Consider the following excerpt from this source:

Stoning is a brutal and outdated practice that is kept alive only by Muslims under Sharia rule. Although it has been practiced since biblical times, every other culture has systematically ceased the practice in favor of more humane forms of punishment. The torturous sentence leaves the victim in agony.

[...]

Typically, a stoning victim is first wrapped in cloth and buried up to the waist for men, or up to the chest for females. Then the crowd is to throw stones at the victim. However, it is very important that, “… no stone should be thrown that should kill with the first or second blow, or so small as a pebble to do no injury to the condemned.” (Hulagu's Web, 64) Stoning is a unique form of punishment in that there is no single executioner. The simplistic act of gathering the victim’s peers around him creates killers out of everyone.

Today, stoning is only practiced in Islamic culture in order to maintain the submission of its women and those in the lower cast.

[...]

Among the countries that still practice stoning are Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates. Other Islamic countries denounce the practice as inhumane and indicate that the Qur’an provides no grounds for such a vicious practice. Those who practice stoning claim that it is demanded by Islam and have gone so far as incorporating it into their countries penal codes.

Read the rest.

For some time, I've been saying, "I feel as if I'm living in an alternate universe." Max Publius's term, inversionism, however, better expresses the surreality with which we are confronted every day.

As ever, commenters are invited to share their own observations as to various manifestations of inversionism.

Turn the page ....

Islamic Divorce Denied In Maryland

The information below the fold is an encouraging development that provides some anti-dhimmitudinal satisfaction. Nevertheless, the case may not have larger significance in the greater counter-jihad.
---------

Excerpt from the May 7, 2008 edition of the Baltimore Sun:

Saying "I divorce thee" three times, as men in Muslim countries have been able to do for centuries when leaving their wives, is not enough if you're a resident of Maryland, the state's highest court ruled yesterday.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals rejected a Pakistani man's argument that his invocation of the Islamic 'talaq', under which a marriage is dissolved simply by the husband's say-so, allowed him to part with his wife of more than 20 years and deny her a share of his $2 million estate.

The justices affirmed a lower court's decision overturning a divorce decree obtained in Pakistan by Irfan Aleem, a World Bank economist who moved from London to Maryland with his wife, Farah Aleem, in 1985. ...

Irfan Aleem had lived for nearly twenty years at the top echelons of the bankings in the West. But when his wife filed for divorce in Montgomery County, Maryland, in 2003, Mr. Aleem decided to pursue a shari'a avenue to limit the cost of the settlement terms:

But before the legal process could be completed - and without telling his wife - Aleem went to the Pakistani Embassy in Washington and invoked the 'talaq', in effect attempting to turn jurisdiction of the case over to a Pakistani court that later granted him a divorce.

The Maryland Court of Appeals nullified his Aleem's plan, although

Muneer Fareed, secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America, said that if Aleem had traveled to Pakistan and invoked his talaq there, it might have been recognized in a U.S. court under the concept of comity, under which nations accept the premise of a law in another country "whether or not we agree with the law or its spirit."

Read the entire article. Additional information about the case is here and here.

The above small victory for anti-dhimmitude, apparently achieved because Irfan Aleem didn't physically travel to Pakistan to invoke 'talaq', is encouraging. But, at the same time, another form of shari'a law — shari'a banking — continues to gain ground within Western nations.

From this source, an article entitled "The Silent Jihad Against the West" (Hat-tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance):

Islamic Sharia banking is coming to the United States and other western nations, thanks to global banks such as Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Great Britain is now pledging to become the Islamic banking center of the world. Clearly the headlong rush by all global banks to enter the world of Islamic banking is well underway. Why do western banks seek to participate in Sharia banking; because it gives them a chance to enter the Islamic banking industry which has over $1.5 trillion available today and is growing at a steady and explosive rate of over 15% per year.

The implications for the west, and especially for the United States, are staggeringly destructive. Islamic banking working through global banks is doing for Islam what it could never do on its own: giving legitimacy to Sharia law and infiltrating it into the fabric of western society.

For those not familiar with Sharia Banking; it is a system which creates and sells services and products that are in strict accordance with Sharia law. Sometimes it is referred to in the Islamic culture as "Sharia finance". It dictates how the practices of banking, investment, bonds, loans, brokerage, etc, are to be conducted.
To insure compliance and to become "Sharia banking" compliant, banks must hire Sharia experts to review and approve each product and practice of the bank....There is a shortage of such Sharia experts so there is competition among banks to find such experts to sit on their boards of directors. By having an "expert" involved in banking decisions, this provides the legitimacy to each banking decision because it is made at the director rather management level. However, most of these Sharia experts" are from the radical Wahhabi school of Islam in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and they hold views diametrically opposed to the basic values of Western civilization.

Read the entire article.

For current developments in shari'a banking, please visit Shariah Finance Watch.

[Cross-posted to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS]

Turn the page ....

The Murders Of Amina & Sarah Said (Updated)

Other bloggers have been following the story of the murders of these two beautiful girls in the Dallas, Texas area, although I did post about the story HERE.

According to this source and this source, Yaser Said, the girls' father, remains the prime suspect. He is still on the loose, and the reward for his apprehension has been doubled.

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs is one of the bloggers who have been following the story of the murders of Amina and Sarah Said. The following is an excerpt from Pamela's posting of April 20, 2008:

These girls trusted the West. These believed the West would save them. They believed that education would save them They poured themselves into school, were enrolled in many AP level classes. They played soccer, tennis, ......they got scholarships. They secretly went to certain teachers to express their terrible fear of their father.

Read the entire posting, which has numerous photos and links.

Also see this January 10, 2008 posting at Atlas Shrugs. The posting, with numerous photos and links, provides information about allegations of abuse on the part of Yaser Said. The man's history of accusations previous to the murders of his daughters is ugly and includes stories of physical and sexual abuse perpetrated on his daughters. Although the allegations of sexual abuse were later dropped, the girls' mother, at the time (Amina and Said were only seven and eight years old then) did sign an affidavit as to the truth of those allegations.

On Wednesday, April 23, at noon Eastern Daylight Time, Pamela will interview the girls' aunt on Blog Talk Radio to discuss the cover-up of an Islamic honor killing right here in the United States. Because of my work schedule, I won't be able to listen to the entire show live, but I will definitely be listening to the podcast.

UPDATE #1: Anyone with information on Mr. Said's whereabouts can call Crime Stoppers at 1-877-373-TIPS or go to this web site.

North Texas Crime Commission Said Fund.
NTCC
1601 Elm Street,
Suite 2350
Dallas, Texas 75201

This posting shows pictures of Yaser Said.

UPDATE #2: Yaser Said's possible ties to Al Quaeda.

Turn the page ....

What Does The Muslim Brotherhood Support?

For one thing, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood seems to favor female genital mutilation:

The Religious Affairs Committee at the People's Assembly has discussed questions tabled by MB [Muslim Brotherhood] deputies al-Sayyid Askar and Ali Laban on the action taken by the Awqaf Ministry of printing and distributing booklets on the female circumcision. The two deputies made strong accusations to the Awqaf Ministry of squandering public funds by printing and distributing thousands of copies of a booklet that has already been printed twice under the provocative title of "female circumcision is not part of the Islamic rites."

The two deputies have also accused the Awqaf Ministry of violation of the constitution and law. MB Deputy Askar said that this title was in conflict with the consensus of the fiqh experts [Islamic jurisprudents] that female circumcision was one of Islam's rites.

[...]

Another member of the MB Parliamentary bloc Mahir Aql has warned against the danger of this campaign [against female genital mutilation] which seeks to undermine the Islamic Shari'ah....

Who gets the blame?

[S]uspect foreign bodies, some of which are Christian evangelical while the others were Jewish, were behind the financing of the campaign against female circumcision

and

[T]he government seeks from this [anti-FGM] campaign to uproot Islam in order to please the West and to appease the suspect Zionist-US organizations.

So, opposing the mutilation of girls and women is a conspiracy against Islam? Infidels and modern Muslims cannot agree that such a practice is barbarism?

Note: Today's edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show will include a discussion of FGM with our guest Cassandra. Maybe Cassandra, WC, and I will be considered fatwah-worthy?

[Hat-tip to Pastorius, who notified me of this posting at Isaac Schrodinger]

Turn the page ....

Approving Honor Killings & Undermining Hygiene?

The UK doesn't officially approve honor killings. Not yet.

Nevertheless, the silence and the omission to act is coming from the tyranny of political correctness — an idiotic idea carried to unimaginable extremes and, according to this article at the Daily Mail, threatening even the proper enforcement of the law, thereby endangering the lives of women and young girls:

Police and authorities 'afraid to act against honour crimes in case they are called racist', claims report

Honour killing victim: Surjit Kaur Athwal disappeared on a trip to India in 1998
Teachers, police and councils are afraid to take action against so-called honour crimes for fear of being accused of racism, it is claimed.

Women are also being betrayed by community figures who believe those who break traditional taboos deserve to be punished, the report found.

Researchers say taxi drivers, police and government workers of Asian origin are returning women to the domestic abuse they want to escape...

Read the rest of the article at the Daily Mail.

Have the police in the UK become so politically correct, so afraid of criticism, that they are reticent to prevent murder?

Moral relativism and political correctness are eating away at the very fabric of Western society in the UK, as reflected in two other recent stories: the recognition of Muslim polygamy and the Archbishop of Canterbury's declaration about the inevitability of some aspects of shari'a law being implemented in the UK so as to prevent further fragmentation of British society.

Right now, the outcry of outrage over the archbishop's remarks has British citizens all fired up. One can only hope that they hold onto that anger. Maybe then the politicians will understand that the people, including many Muslim immigrants, want British law in the UK — not shari'a law.

Another lesser known story is one which threatens the health of the everyday person in the UK. Article from this source on February 3, 2008 (Hat-tip to WC of The Gathering Storm):

Muslim women working at U.K. medical facilities are increasingly refusing to comply with the basic hygiene standard of rolling up their sleeves when their washing hands, it was reported.

According to the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, female workers are ignoring Britain's Department of Health rules requiring medics to be "bare below the elbow" because they consider showing any skin — outside the hands and face — immodest.

The guidelines were put into place to stave off the spread of infectious killer bugs like MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have been implicated in the deaths of hundreds of hospital patients, according to the paper.

Hygiene experts said the standard should hold for all workers— even if it goes against their religion.

"I don't think it would be right to make an exemption for people on any grounds. The policy of bare below the elbows has to be applied universally," Dr. Mark Enright, professor of microbiology at Imperial College London told the Telegraph.

Some fear the enforcing the rules will open the door to lawsuits charging discrimination against female Muslims working within the medical professions.

The Islamic Medical Association, for one, has issued a statement that "no practicing Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," according to paper.

Western countries are going to have to make some unnegotiable decisions and stick to them if all of us are not to be endangered even further. Otherwise, we are headed for a New Dark Age, just as Mark Alexander has been warning.

[Hat-tip to World Divided for the first link in this posting]

Turn the page ....

Honor Killings In Dallas?

The story of the murders of Amina and Sarah Said in the greater Dallas-Texas area is still developing. Are the murders of these girls "honor killings"? Early reports seem to indicate so. From the Chesler Chronicles, on January 3, 2007:

Just yesterday, an Egyptian Arab Muslim father in Dallas, Texas allegedly shot his two beautiful teenage daughters to death because he disapproved of their American-style ways. Their names were Amina and Sarah Said and their father’s name was Abdul Said. The girls looked sassy and full of life; they looked like Dallas teenagers. They were 17 and 18 years old and their friends considered them “geniuses.” Abdul was a taxi driver. (In parts of Europe, taxi drivers are known to aid and abet honor murders).

Perhaps how Amina and Sarah dressed, and how they thought, shamed their father Abdul. He was no longer in control of his women—a mark of shame which provoked his need to kill them. Perhaps their flowering sexuality enraged him because it made him desire them—and from this he concluded that other men might desire them too and if he could not have them, no man could.

The blogs and the local Texas media (the Dallas Morning News) were all over this. Hot Air, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, were too. The only national coverage of this story was contained in the Washington Times. SEE HERE Why did the national and international media so far shy clear of this story? Perhaps they chose to dig deeper first or maybe they were waiting for an arrest to be made. But one also wonders: Were they afraid of being accused of “Islamophobia” if they reported the truth? Did they not want to use the word “Arab” or “Muslim” lest they be attacked as “racists”?

But these beautiful and now murdered sisters feared for their lives. They told people that their father was threatening them. Their own mother has now led police to the father as the probable murderer.

They could have been saved if a school or police official had been trained to pre-emptively recognize and rescue all such girls and women in danger of being killed by their families in honor killings....

More information, from this story in the Dallas Morning News:

Police provided no clues about the motive for the killings. "There are several things we're looking into," said Irving police Officer David Tull, noting that the suspect faces capital murder charges.

Officer Tull said there have been some "domestic issues" with the family, but he did not elaborate.

Police did say they are looking into the possibility that the father was upset with his daughters' dating activities.

"It's something well worth looking into," Officer Tull told WFAA-TV (Channel 8).

Officer Tull said at a news conference that the mother of the victims is cooperating with police and that she and her 19-year-old son are in a safe place. He believes the couple is married, but he didn't know whether they had been living together.

[...]

Mr. Said, who is from Egypt, has lived in the Dallas area since at least the mid-1980s, records indicate.

[...]

The victims' mother provided information that pointed to the victims' father as the suspect," the Irving police report stated.

Friends describe Amina and Sarah as quiet but well-liked students at Lewisville High School. They played tennis and soccer and were enrolled in many Advanced Placement classes.

"They were extremely smart – like geniuses," said Allison Villarreal, a senior at Lewisville High, where Amina was a senior and Sarah was a junior.

Liz Marines, secretary of the Lewisville High School Student Council, had classes with both of the sisters and also remembers their scholastic abilities.

"Amina was very nice with everybody. She helped me in [Advanced Placement English] class," she said. Sarah was a sophomore when she took an Algebra II class with Liz, who was a junior at the time.

She said the sisters, who wore typical American clothes, didn't talk much about their family. "I didn't know they were Muslims until she told me they were Egyptian and Muslim," Liz said.

She said the Student Council is organizing a prayer vigil at 6 tonight at Lewisville High. Students are being asked to wear pink to school today to honor their friends.
"It's because pink was their favorite color," Liz said.

From the comments section over at Jihad Watch, here is what appears to be the MySpace page of Amina Said. I found the page, with lots of pink, in the comments section over at Jihad Watch.

Additional information: Video, from cbstv11.com

As I said at the beginning of this post, the story is still developing. Perhaps the case isn't what it appears. Perhaps there are no similarities to last month's murder of Aqsa Parvez. But, so far, the resemblances are eerie.

Watch the blogs. Set up Google alerts, comprehensive ones. Forget the cowardly mainstream media.

Turn the page ....

Challenging Shari'a Law

(All emphases by Always On Watch)
Photo credit
Recently, Saudi Arabia defended the sentence passed on a nineteen-year-old Muslima who was gang raped. Originally she was sentenced to ninety lashes, but upon review the Saudi General Court in Saudi increased her sentence to 200 lashes. The woman had defied shari'a law in that she was in the company of an unrelated male. According to this November 21, 2007 article in the Washington Post,

The attack occurred in 2006. The victim says she was in a car with a male student she used to know trying to retrieve a picture of her. She says two men got into the car and drove them to a secluded area where she was raped by seven men. Her friend also was assaulted.

Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by a system of religious courts according to the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islamic law.

Our State Department has "expressed astonishment" over the barbarism of punishing the victim. Hello, State Department? Are you unaware of how Saudi enforces shari'a law? Are you aware of how all-encompassing shari'a law is in some Muslim countries? According to this source,

[C]alling the Sharia 'law' can be misleading, as Sharia extends beyond law. Sharia is the totality of religious, political, social, domestic and private life.

[...]

Dogmatically, Sharia is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong, it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of God.

According to this article in the Washington Post, the victim's attorney has himself become a target because he has repeatedly challenged the application of shari'a law in the Saudi justice system:

Saudi officials have revoked the license of human rights lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, who has handled the country's most controversial cases and defended a gang-rape victim sentenced to jail time and lashes.

Lahem, 36, faces a disciplinary hearing Dec. 5 to determine the length of his suspension.

Lahem is accused by the prosecutor general of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image," according to an official letter he received Monday.

Since he started practicing law almost five years ago, Lahem has defended clients whom other lawyers refused, including a school administrator suspended for criticizing the religious establishment, a man convicted of promoting homosexuality for saying it was genetic, three political reformists seeking a constitutional monarchy, and the first Saudis suing the country's powerful religious police.

Lahem said that losing his license would be a blow to the country's budding human rights movement.

"If I am banned from practicing law, nobody will dare go up against the judiciary again," said Lahem, a slight man with a limp from a childhood accident. "If I win, it will open a new chapter for human rights in Saudi Arabia."....

At the same time that this modern-thinking Saudi attorney is himself facing a legal battle, we read the following in the Telegraph, a news source in the UK:

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

[...]

Mr Yusuf told the programme he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country. "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious — it's just a cultural thing."

Sharia's great strength was the effectiveness of its penalties, he said. Those who appeared before religious courts would avoid re-offending so as not to bring shame on their families.

Some lawyers welcomed the advance of what has become known as "legal pluralism".

Dr Prakash Shah, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such tribunals "could be more effective than the formal legal system".

In his book Islam in Britain, Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, says there is an "alternative parallel unofficial legal system" that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis.

"Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their traditions," he says. These are based on sharia councils, set up in Britain to help Muslims solve family and personal problems.

Sharia councils may grant divorces under religious law to a woman whose husband refuses to complete a civil divorce by declaring his marriage over. There is evidence that these councils are evolving into courts of arbitration.

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. "It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it's less awesome an environment than the English courts," he said.

Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.

And to add to the irony, this source states the following:

Sharia is primarily meant for all Muslims, but applies to a certain extent also for people living inside a Muslim society. Muslims are not totally bound by the Sharia when they live or travel outside the Muslim world.

As at least some in Saudi are attempting to modernize its interpretation of shari'a law, will the West be allowing the entire camel into the tent?

Turn the page ....

Creeping Shari'a

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

Two recent stories, both involving medical professionals, from the UK:

1. Story from September 27, 2007 edition of the Times Online:

A Muslim dentist insisted that a young woman wear an Islamic headscarf before he would agree to treat her for toothache, the General Dental Council was told yesterday.

The patient, a community nurse, alleges that she reluctantly told Omer Butt, 31, who runs a dental practice in Bury, Greater Manchester, that she was a nonpractising Muslim.

It is alleged that the dentist then told her that he would refuse to register her as an NHS patient if she did not cover her head. She was in so much pain that she agreed to borrow a scarf from a nurse at the clinic.

The panel was told that when the dentist, quoting the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, told her to wait in the waiting room, she felt so humiliated that she left the clinic and made a complaint about his behaviour.

Mr Butt denies the charge that he has undermined public confidence in his profession by discriminating against a patient and failing to act in her best interests. If found guilty of the charge by the council’s professional misconduct committee he could be struck off the register.

After learning of the charges laid against him, he wrote to the council praising Allah. He referred to the patient as his “sister” and concluded: “May Allah protect us all from the evils of Shaitan [Satan].”

John Snell, for the council, said that the woman, referred to as Patient A, went to see Mr Butt at his clinic in April, 2005.

Mr Snell said: “He asked her if she was a Muslim and she asked him why it mattered. He said he needed to know.”

The nurse allegedly told her: “Inside the surgery it is Mr Butt’s world and his rules that apply.”

Patient A told the hearing: “I did ask what would happen if I did not wear a headscarf and was told I would not be able to register there as a patient. I did feel that I was under duress.”

Andrew Hockton, defending the dentist, said that Mr Butt asked Muslim women to cover everything except their hands and faces “in order to protect his honour”.

The hearing continues. [Hat-tip to Kender, who alerted me to the above story]

2. Story from the October 7, 2007 edition of the Times Online:

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.

Some trainee doctors say learning to treat the diseases conflicts with their faith, which states that Muslims should not drink alcohol and rejects sexual promiscuity.

A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.

The religious objections by students have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions.

It will intensify the debate sparked last week by the disclosure that Sainsbury’s is permitting Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers’ alcohol purchases on religious grounds. It means other members of staff have to be called over to scan in wine and beer for them at the till.

Critics, including many Islamic scholars, see the concessions as a step too far, and say Muslims are reneging on their professional responsibilities.

This weekend, however, it emerged that Sainsbury’s is also allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds.

The BMA said it had received reports of Muslim students who did not want to learn anything about alcohol or the effects of overconsumption. “They are so opposed to the consumption of it they don’t want to learn anything about it,” said a spokesman.

The GMC said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate”. Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice”.

Shazia Ovaisi, a GP in north London, said one of her male Muslim contemporaries at medical school failed to complete his training because he refused to examine a woman patient as part of his final exams.

“He was academically gifted, one of the best students, but gradually he got in with certain Islamic groups and started to become more radical,” said Ovaisi.

“You could see there was a change in his personality as time went by. During the final exams he was supposed to treat a female patient in hospital. He refused to do it, even though it would have been a very basic examination, nothing intrusive.

“But he refused and as a result he failed his exams. I was quite shocked and disappointed about it because I don’t see there being anything in our religion that prohibits us from examining male and female patients.”

Both the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Doctors and Dentist Association said they were aware of students opting out but did not support them.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, of the Islamic Medical Association, said: “To learn about alcohol, to learn about sexually transmitted disease, to learn about abortion, it gives us more evidence to campaign against it. There is a difference between learning and practising.

“It is obligatory for Muslim doctors and students to learn about everything. The prophet said, ‘Learn about witchcraft, but don’t practise it’.”

[Hat-tip to Mark Alexander for alerting me to the above story]

I've been doing research for an upcoming speech and learned that, according to some sources, shari'a law is supposed to apply only to Muslims or to those living under Islamic rule. But Muslims living in Western nations are pushing the envelope. The above two examples are extremes, but other less obvious attempts at applying shari'a law and Islamic customs are also proceeding, most in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism.

Will the West refuse to slide further into dhimmitude (defined HERE by Bat Ye'or)? The National Health Service of the UK must take a solid stand against Muslims such as those in the above two stories! Otherwise, the pushing of the envelope will continue to get worse.

The greater danger of Islamification lies in the West's concessions and in the media's not making certain stories very public, not in the sporadic attacks by jihadists, though the latter get a lot of attention. The West's own desire to be tolerant is leading us down the path of the destruction of Western civilization. No wonder I'm sick!

Turn the page ....

Divorce — Saudi Style

From this source, via a posting at Covenant Zone:

RIYADH: A Saudi man divorced his wife for watching alone a television programme presented by a male, an act he deemed immoral, the Al Shams newspaper reported on Saturday.

The man, whom the paper did not identify, ended his marriage on the grounds his wife was effectively alone with an unrelated man...

Weird, just plain weird. And downright absurd.

Here we have a couple with modern technology in their home and still applying the legalism of Wahhabism as applied to a television set.

Turn the page ....

Colossal and Premeditated Abuse of Women in America by Muslims

By Cassandra (USA)
Author of Escape! From An Arab Marriage:
Horror Stories of Women Who Fled From Abusive Muslim Husbands

What is normal for one culture is not necessarily normal for another. Neither is what might be considered “normal” the equivalent of “sameness”. So, while any given culture promulgates practices that are “normal” for that specific culture, those same practices will not necessarily be the “same” or “normal” from culture to culture.

Individuals within a given culture are presented with, and conditioned from the time they are children to use, the societally preferred way to think, to do things, to manage their environment, and to perceive the world around them by their parents, by the schools they attend, by the religious precepts they are taught, and by the culture’s governing bodies. This conditioning is usually lifelong and consistently reinforced. As a result, these preferred ways seem “right”, especially when an individual finds himself in an environment unlike the one in which he grew up. To follow the ways of the culture he came from, to the extent that it is possible, helps him to feel that he is in control of his own situation and to maintain his own self-image. While he may make an effort to adapt to his new environment in order to wend his way successfully in society and will often fit in quite well as a result, he will always find the way in which he was brought up to be “the way it should be” and to be the most comfortable manner in which to live life. The traditional way to do things is considered the best way simply because it is the most familiar.

The above is especially true where relations with the opposite sex are concerned, especially in cultures with a long history. The Muslim male’s behavior patterns, no matter where the individual may be living, are prime examples.

* * * * *
The practices of degradation, exploitation, humiliation, subjugation, and physical abuse of women by Muslim men have been, and still are, time-honored traditions since the 7th century.

Muslims’ abominable treatment of the fairer sex was established by Muhammad and copied by his Beduoin Arab followers. They swept across Arabia and into neighboring countries, butchering the male inhabitants, looting and stealing their belongings, and taking their women and children captive to be raped, sodomized, forced into slavery, and shipped off on in droves to the harems and households of the wealthy men of the day.

Muhammad based his “right” to the above behavior on conveniently timed justifications which he passed off as “revelations” on the subject. Because he was ruthless in eliminating anyone who disagreed with him, his followers let him get away with this practice.

After Muhammad died, the bits of bone and leaf and other materials upon which Othman wrote his utterances (Muhammad was an illiterate trader), were organized by him into what are today called the suras of the Qur’an. They were arranged by length, the longest being first, rather than by chronology.

It is the suras concerning women in this collection of statements, and in the thousands of comments and analyses called the Hadith by Muslim jurists and philosophers based on the words of Muhammad, which began the institutionalization of relegating women to the status of non-persons to be used and exploited in any way Muslim males chose. Those jurists and philosophers who hated women took every opportunity to craft ever more limitations on how women were to be thought of, how they were to be treated, and what they were and were not allowed to do.

The following are “authorities” of that express the prevailing opinion of Muslim males from Muhammad’s time until today. Because it is forbidden to question or analyze the Qur’an and the Hadith, these statements, set forth 14 centuries ago, remain unchanged and written in stone to this day.

Sura al-Baqarah 2:23: Your women are a tilth to you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will, and send good deeds before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will one day meet Him.

Sura an-Nisa 4:34: As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them.

Sura an-Nisa 4:24: And all married women are forbidden to you save those whom your right hand possesses (captives).

Sura al-Baqarah 2:222: They question thee concerning menstruation. Say it is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not unto them till they are cleansed.

These are called in Islam the “golden rights and provisions for all Muslim women:”

The right to be treated as diseased and as sex toys
The Qur’an – 2:222; Sahahi Bukhari -3.31.172

The right to be used as a sowing field
The Qur’an – 2:223

The right to enjoy another husband after the third divorce from the previous husband (hilla marriage)
The Qur’an – 2:230; Sahih Bukhari – 8.73.107; Sahih Bukhari - 7.63.187

The right to engage in Islamic prostitution through Mut’a marriage
The Qur’an – 4:24;Sahih Bukhari – 8.3246, 3247, 3248;
Sahih Muslim – 8:3252, 8:3253, 8:3258

The right to be treated as impure or as a drunkard
The Qur’an – 4:32; The Qur’an – 16:92

To uphold the inalienable superiority of men over women and the right to be beaten by husbands—no questions asked
The Qur’an - 16:92; Sunaan Abu Dawad - 11.2142; Abdur Rahman – 1 DOI, the recognized authority on Sharia in his book, Women in Society”

To uphold the right of the husband to have four wives at any time and any number sex-slaves for all times; in case of objection by any wife, the husband can beat her
The Qur’an – 4:3; Sunan Abu Dawad – 30.2.13; The Qur’an – 23:5-6, 70:29-30

The right to be treated as a dog, a pig, a monkey, or an ass
Sahih Bukhari – 1.9.490, 493, 498 Sahih Muslim – 4.1039;
Sunaan Abu Dawad – 11.2155; Mishkat ul-Masabih – vol 2, p.114, Hadis no. 789

The right of ordinary women to be treated as crows
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

The right of a Muslimah to be stupid and to become a servant
Sahih Bukhari – 1.6.301; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

Muslim women forfeit their right to travel alone
Sahih Bukhari – 2.20.192, 193; Sahih Bukhari – 3.29.85, 4.52.250
Abdur Rahman 1 Doi, the recognized authority on Sharia in his book, “Women in Society

Women must keep their sexual organs ready at all times for the husband to enjoy them unhindered at any time—night or day
Sahih Bukhari – 4.54.460, 7.62.81; Sahih Muslim – 8.3367, 3368;
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 43

Women have the right to breast-feed an unrelated bearded man to make him haram (forbidden to her in marriage)
Sahih Muslim – 8.3424, 3425, 3426, 3427, 3428

Women are slaves (prisoners) and men are their masters (owners)
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 33; Hedaya – p. 47

Islamic marriage is about sex for money (prostitution)
Sunaan Abu Dawud – 11.2105, 2.11,2106; Milik’s Muwatta – 28.4.12;
Sunaan Abu Dawud – 11.2126; Hedaya – p. 44

If a woman wishes to get rid of her tyrannical husband she must refund the ‘sex money’ (Mahr) she received from him during marriage
Sahih Muslim – 7.63.197, 198, 199; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 12,2220;
Malik’s Muwatta – 29.10.32

Women have the right to undergo female circumcision (FGM)
Sunaan Abu Dawud – 41.5251

Women are slaves and infidels—they are not fit to join the moral police force
Ghazali – vol 2, p.186

A husband has the right to have sex with his wife by force (the right to rape)
Hedaya – p. 141

Women are cheap—you can have sex with a woman by simply teaching her how to recite a few verses from the Qur’an
Sahih Buhkari – 6.61.547, 548; Ghazali – vol 2, 31

Barren women should be confined at home—they are fit only to be in the house-prison
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 24; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 3.29.3911

A woman has no say when her husband decides to add more wives in his harem; she can’t even ask her husband to divorce her
Sahih Bukhari – p. 141

A wife has the right to decorate her husband when he goes out to have sex with his other wives
Sahih Bukhari – 1.5.270

A woman should never be selected or elected as a ruler
Sahih Bukhari – 5.59.709; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

Muslim women uphold the right of Islamic Jihadists to rape captive women right in front of their vanquished husbands
The Qur’an – 4:24; Sahih Muslim – 8.3371, 3373, 3374, 3377;
Sunaan Abu Dawud – 2.11.2150, 8.77.598

Women are devils; they are as dirty and filthy as private parts are
Sahih Muslim – 8.3240, 3242; Ghazali – vol 2, p. 26, vol 2, p. 43

Fear the company of women—they bring bad luck
Sahih Bukhari – 7.62.30, 31; Bukhari – 4.52.110, 111;
Malik’s Muwatta – 54.821, 22; Sahih Muslim – 36.6603. 6604;
Ghazali – vol 3, p. 86, 87

Women have very little intelligence—their own testimony is inadmissible in rape cases; in other matters their testimony is half to that of a man
The Qur’an – 4:14, 2:282; Sunaan Abu Dawud – 3.40.4662

Women are less human—they get one-third of blood money, no booty (for Jihad) for them
Malik’s Muwatta – 43.64b; Sahih Muslim – 19.4458

Women are worse than dead persons—they cannot follow a bier
Sahih Muslim – 4.2039

Men should always oppose women
Ghazali – vol 2, p. 34

Women are easily expendable—a divorced woman gets no maintenance or alimony from her ex-husband
Sahih Muslim – 9.3519, 3522

A woman has the right to stay at home solely to provide sex to her husband
Hedaya – p. 54

A woman becomes a harlot when she wears perfume
Mishkat al-Masabih – vol 2, p. 255

Muslims grow up with these unchallenged opinions which have engendered, for 1,400 years, the attitude that men are ordained to be “superior” and treated as ‘gods” in their own households. Women are considered “inferior” from birth.

It is drilled into the women that their bodies are shameful to the family, that the family honor rests on the purity of those shameful bodies, and they are to be obediently submissive to and subjugated by their male relatives at all times. Even the slightest suspicion of a woman’s contact with any unrelated male will earn her a death sentence in order to save the family “honor”.

Is it any wonder that Muslim men feel free to subject American women to the same depraved treatment? After all, abuse, degradation, and the killing of women are the “manly” things to do.

When you and I look as an American woman or girl, we see a person with beauty, intelligence, an open and lively expression which shows a joy of living on her face, and a sense of self-respect and dignity in the way that she carries herself. And we rejoice at what we see.

When a Muslim male looks at an American woman or girl, he sees an inferior being dressed in jeans and a color-coordinated top that reveals her figure and very likely bare arms, a mass of uncovered bright hair, and that she walks with pride, joy of living, self-respect, and self-assurance. He also observes that she has the nerve to look him straight in the eye, speak to him as though he is her equal, and that she does not hesitate to contradict him or tell him “No.” if she feels like it. And he hates her and her freedom deep inside even while all he can think about is raping her on the spot to “teach her a lesson about the proper place of women”. He also considers her a slut and a “whore” because she doesn’t scuttle around in a black shroud with nothing showing but her eyes.

Muslim males hate American women or any other women who have self-respect and are accomplished in their own right because they are anathema to Muslim males who desire to have all women degraded, terrified, psychologically traumatized, available for sex on command, and endlessly pregnant with their babies—that is, when they are not cooking or cleaning.

There is very little that gives Muslim males more pleasure than taking out their frustrations, inadequacies (which includes very small penises, according to a nurse), and lack of competence at just about everything on the women in their household who are not allowed to defend themselves. It makes the males feel like they are “in control” and that they are “real men”.

This would be especially true in the case of American women who would not hesitate to snicker and point the instant they observed the undersized fungus between the Muslims’ legs.

There is an added political element that makes abuse of American women by Muslims of even wider civilizational significance than was originally perceived because . . . Everything jihadi Muslims in particular do in the United States is to further the successful destruction of American freedoms and the replacement of our Constitution with their detestable, backward, woman-hating Sharia (Islamic law).

A key point in the Muslim war strategy to overthrow America by the year 2020 is Point 9 which states,

“Accelerate Islamic demographic growth. Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years—since one cannot have the Muslim legal permission to marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America”.

In other words, Muslim men coming to the United Sates are to be on the prowl for naïve and therefore gullible American women who haven’t a clue about what Muslim men normally do to women they have under their control (because the women are terrorized on a daily basis). When they find these women, they charm them and tell them everything every woman wants to hear about being the most wonderful creature in existence until the women finally believe them. At that point, the males pressure their prey every day to marry them and live happily ever after as soon as possible.

Only there is no “happily ever after”.

The instant the women become wives of these Muslims, their new husbands pressure them to sign citizenship and permanent residence papers for them so these guys can stay indefinitely, set up terrorist cells, and possibly bring their endlessly extended families here to become citizens as well. But they never tell their wives all of this.

The new husbands also begin criticizing the way their wives dress, think, and act. The wives are told that because they are now wives of Muslims, they need to convert to Islam, cover themselves in shrouds from head to foot (no hair can show!), obey their husbands from morning ‘till night and beyond, stop associating with their ‘infidel” families and friends, quit their jobs if they are working, stay home, and have babies. And if the wives tell their husbands where they can go, the husbands proceed to beat them up within an inch of their lives, threaten to kill them if they tell anyone what has been done to them, and then repeat the process almost on a daily basis until the wives are so terrified they cannot think straight, much less summon the courage to leave and go home to their birth families.

Somewhat later, the husbands will have all joint bank accounts put in their names only so that their wives have no operating funds. If their wives own property, these “flowers of Muslim society” will also terrorize them until the wives either sell their property or take out huge mortgages on it and hand the money over to their husbands which leaves the wives with nothing—no home, no money, and no assets to fall back on.

When they have children, a new chapter in the lives of American wives of Muslims begins. Once the children are no longer nursing and can get around on their own somewhat, the mothers of these children are at risk at any time of having their children abducted without warning and taken back to the Middle East where they will have no chance of ever seeing their mothers again, much less of ever being returned to them. Their mothers are left high and dry, desolate and bereft of their children for as long as they live.

And, to add even more misery to already abused lives, if any of these wives were forced to convert to Islam and leave it to return to their own religion, they will have to live in fear of being killed for their return to their original faith. Islamic law requires that anyone who leaves or rejects it is considered apostate and must be killed at the first opportunity by any ‘good Muslim’ at any time.

The Muslim husbands will return to the United States under other names, move to other parts of the country, establish new identities, and repeat the process at least five times as directed. If the husbands do not leave the States, they will demand that all children they father be raised as Muslim since this helps swell the Muslim population in this country, and they will fight the mothers for custody of these children for years until the children are 18 and free of such coercion.

Muslims figure that they are going to gain control of the United States one way or another. If they cannot do it by force of arms, they will try to do so by overwhelming population numbers accomplished by forced conversions and by breeding little Muslims.

American women do not matter to them except as tools to be used to gain citizenship, steal other people’s property, and to increase the Muslim population.

The solution? Stay as far away form Muslim men as possible and warn all your friends to do the same. Spread the word everywhere, as far and wide as possible. If they want to hear it from someone with personal experience, send them to me.

Turn the page ....

URGENT! Save Rizana From Being Beheaded!

I was alerted to the following horrible story by Mark Alexander, whose commentary reads as follows:

It high time for the Saudis to come into the civilized world! It is also high time that the Western world shun Saudi Arabia until they do so, regardless of the cost. Some things are more important than money, profit, or oil!

YouTube link

PETITION HERE, as well as additional information

[END OF THIS POSTING]

Turn the page ....

Moderate Muslim Nation?

Some time back, I heard Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cite Malaysia as moderate. If she still believes her own statement, then Ms. Rice needs to study up on the situation with Lina Joy, who converted to Christianity 17 years ago and whose plight hasn't received nearly the same amount of media attention as that of Abdul Rahman.

Article from the May 31, 2007 edition of the Middle East Times, emphases mine:

The woman at the center of a religious controversy in Malaysia has accused the country's highest court of denying her fundamental rights in rejecting her bid to be legally recognized as Christian, her lawyer confirmed Thursday.

Lina Joy's comments came a day after Malaysia's Federal Court rejected her attempt to win recognition of her conversion from Islam.

Joy, 43, had sought the removal of the word "Islam" from her national identity card.

But the Federal Court, the highest secular legal body, threw out her case and said that only an Islamic Sharia tribunal could legally certify her conversion.

"I am disappointed that the Federal Court is not able to vindicate a simple but important fundamental right that exists in all persons," she said, according to her lawyer, Benjamin Dawson.

Joy was referring to the right to believe in the religion of one's choice, and the right to marry a person of one's choosing.

She cannot legally marry her Christian partner because Malaysian law requires non-Muslims to convert to Islam to wed a Muslim.

"The Federal Court has not only denied me that right but to all Malaysians who value fundamental freedoms," Joy said. "I am hoping that my case would have made a difference to the development of constitutional issues in the plight of many others."

Dawson said that he and Joy were considering their next move but the options were very limited.

He declined to reveal Joy's whereabouts, saying that she just wanted to be left alone.

While a coalition of Muslim groups welcomed the verdict, rights activists said that the court had failed to address concerns over religious freedom in the country.

A member of parliament for the Chinese-based Democratic Action Party (DAP), Teresa Kok, called for a constitutional amendment that would make explicit the civil courts' superiority over Sharia courts in all matters.

Islam is Malaysia's official religion. More than 60 percent of the nation's 27 million people are Muslim Malays.

But while the constitution defines the ethnic majority Malays as Muslims it also guarantees freedom of religion. The country's minority Chinese and Indians are mostly Buddhists, Hindus, or Christians.

Joy's appeal to the Federal Court centered on whether she must go to a Sharia court to have her renunciation recognized before authorities delete the word "Islam" from her identity card.

In his verdict, the chief justice said that the National Registration Department (NRD), in charge of issuing identity cards, had the right to demand that the Sharia court certify Joy's conversion.

But the only non-Muslim judge on the three-member judicial panel disagreed.

Judge Richard Malanjum said that the NRD's demand was "discriminatory and unconstitutional," and it was unreasonable to expect a person to "self-incriminate" herself before a Sharia court.

Renouncing the faith is one of the gravest sins in Islam.

The court's verdict comes amid mounting racial and religious tensions in multiracial Malaysia, where minority religious groups fear their rights are being undermined, even though the country is traditionally seen as moderate.

Other news articles about Lina Joy

According to ABC News,

"You can't at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another," Federal Court Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said in delivering judgment in the case, which has stirred religious tensions in the mainly Muslim nation.

He said the civil court had no jurisdiction in the case and that it should be dealt with by the country's Islamic courts.

"The issue of apostasy is related to Islamic law, so it's under the sharia court. The civil court cannot intervene."

About 200 mostly young Muslims welcomed the ruling outside the domed courthouse with shouts of "Allah-o-Akbar" (God is great)...

[...]

Malaysia's Muslim Youth Movement welcomed the ruling, which asserted the overriding jurisdiction of the Islamic or sharia courts in cases centering on a Muslim's faith....

For many Muslims throughout the world, shari'a law trumps civil law. Therein lies a serious problem with devout Muslims living in a Western nation; for them, religious law trumps civil law, not as the exception but as the rule.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, public schools are promoting activities such as "Open Tent" and encouraging students and parents to love an ideology and culture antithetical to Western civilization. Certainly, these activities do not include information as to the persecution of Lina Joy, Abdul Rahman, and thousands of others who do not submit to Islam as their faith of choice.

[Hat-tip to Mark Alexander, who recently posted a link to the article from the Middle East Times]

Turn the page ....