When the Spanish conquered the Aztecs, they promptly demolished the Aztec capital (Tenochtitlan) and built a cathedral on top of the natives’ great and most important twin temples — the city center. Did the desecration/destruction of Tenochtitlan and slaughter of the Aztec people legitimize the Spanish conquest of the great Valley of Mexico? Of course not. The Spanish were greedy, murderous thugs. Similarly, Arabs invaded and destroyed Jerusalem in 691 A.D. and built their al-Aqsa mosque on top of the indigenous Jews’ most holy place. So yippee for the Arabs?
So now we find that Muslim Arabs point their fannies at the “sacred(?)” al-Aqsa Mosque during their daily prayers. That’s a strange way for showing reverence for the “third most important” Muslim shrine. It’s plain silly. Watch for yourself:
In 2005, Saudi prince Alwaleed Bin Talal donated $20 million dollars each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities. In the years since, Georgetown has earned considerably more press for its use of the prince’s largesse, through which it renamed an extant center founded in 1993 as the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU). This is due in no small part to the efforts of the center’s director, John Louis Esposito, America’s foremost apologist for ultra-fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam. The result of the Saudi-Esposito lash-up has been the emergence of ACMCU as an academic institution that promotes vigorously the “Palestinian narrative” and hostility to Israel.
…If Florida courts accept provisions of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign laws and legal codes which are inconsistent with American laws it will undermine public policies enacted by our representative form of government and change our value system. …
The dangers of Shariah should be self-evident and, thankfully, the good people of the Florida Family Association (FFA) are working against Islamism in their home state. The Obama administration, some other Western governments, and the Western mainstream media are generally soft-peddling the dangers of radical Islam, so people who value freedom and democracy should be ever vigilant. If the FFA can fluster Ahmed Rehab of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the terrorist-apologists and Shariah pushers du jour, the FFA must be doing something right.
What would Shariah mean? It would mean Islamists attempting to “destroy Western civilization from within.” It would mean misogyny and “honor killings” of innocent women. It would mean religiously-sanctioned lying (“taqiyya”) to advance the overriding of our Constitution with Islamic “law.” It would mean non-Muslims (”infidels”) living at best as third-class citizens (“dhimmitude”). It would mean Muslim cab drivers refusing blind customers with “unclean” seeing-eye-dogs. It would mean allowing the creation of autonomous Islamic “no-go zones” right here in the U.S. where American law would have no standing. Should I go on? Would you live under Shariah for fear of “inciting” Muslim anger rather than standing up for democracy? I won’t. Luckily, there are groups like the Florida Family Association fighting Shariah — and succeeding:
Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992. On January 18, he spoke to the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia.
A jury on Sunday found three members of an Afghan family guilty of killing three teenage sisters and another woman in what the judge described as “cold-blooded, shameful murders” resulting from a “twisted concept of honor,” ending a case that shocked and riveted Canadians.
Prosecutors said the defendants allegedly killed the three teenage sisters because they dishonored the family by defying its disciplinarian rules on dress, dating, socializing and using the Internet. …
Federal departments and agencies tasked with safeguarding the U.S. must first safeguard themselves against Islamistinfiltration. Recent news items about Muslims having security clearances rejected or revoked suggest that at least some government entities are forgoing political correctness and taking this problem seriously. More need to follow suit, but the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is determined to make life difficult for them.
On a single day, the New York Times has been known to publish anywhere from two to six anti-Israel articles, editorials, op-ed pieces, and letters. Today, I see a new danger arising in their pages.
After spending a year proclaiming the triumph of democracy and the miracle of the Arab Spring and, as PM Netanyahu has just noted, refusing to document the existential danger in which Israel finds herself, the Newspaper of Record has now begun the process of normalizing Islam in North America and Europe. Its pro-Muslim “multicultural” agenda is, paradoxically, another form of racism, but I quibble.
Iran is quickly becoming the cause celebre and darling of the Left. On a Canadian campus I recently listened to Zafar Bangash, director of the Islamic Society of York Region, make an outrageous defense of Iran and scathing attack on Western civilization — Imperialism, according to Bangash, is the greatest problem in the world, Iran, however, has been assigned favourite victim status by Bangash. He was being sponsored by leftist groups, Islamic students, a Jewish anti-Israel group called Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), and the “Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War.” That last group concentrates on only one country for very special critical treatment — Israel.
The Obama administration supports “democracy” and “self determination” in the Middle East—two euphemisms that, in the real world, refer to “mob-rule” and “Islamic radicalization,” respectively. Yet, as Jimmy Carter recently put it: “I don’t have any problem with that [an "Islamist victory" in Egypt], and the U.S. government doesn’t have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed.”
When Egypt’s Lower House convened on Jan. 23, Islamists held 360 out of its 498 seats, or 72 percent. This astounding figure, however, reflects less the country’s public opinion than it does a ploy by the ruling military leadership to remain in power.
In a recent article (”Egypt’s Sham Election,” Dec. 6) we argued that just as Anwar El-Sadat and Hosni Mubarak in the past “tactically empowered Islamists as a foil to gain Western support, arms, and money,” so do Mohamed Tantawi and his Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) “still play this tired old game.”
Why should the president speak up on the oppression of religious minorities? For starters, because it is the right thing to do, and reflects American values and principles.
He should speak up because religious cleansing is currently underway in nations like Nigeria, where Boko Haram—”Western Education is Forbidden”—and other Islamic groups have declared jihad on the Christian minorities of the north, killing and displacing thousands, burning and bombing hundreds of churches, most notoriously this last Christmas, where over forty people were killed while celebrating Christmas mass. Likewise, since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, about half of Iraq’s one million Christians have been forced by targeted violence to flee their homeland, the most notorious incident, again, being a church attack, where some 60 worshippers were killed.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist hate group founded by terrorists, has called GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to task for Gingrich’s refusal to support a Muslim candidate for president if said candidate adhered to Sharia law.
According to CAIR’s National Legislative Director Corey Saylor:
Has there ever been a time when one group of people openly exposes its animosity for another group of people—even as this second group not only ignores the animosity, but speaks well, enables, and legitimizes the first group?
Welcome to the 21st century, where Western politicians empower those Muslims who are otherwise constantly and openly denouncing all non-Muslims as enemies to be fought and subjugated.
Google speaks with a forked tongue. The Internet giant is a hypocritical company, censoring valid news because of political correctness while at the same time urging its customers to act to oppose those whom want “the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.” Google has shut down the venerable Palestinian Media Watch’s (PMW’s) YouTube account because PMW dares to translate anti-Jewish violent hate-speech produced by Palestinian media from Arabic into English. This is not the first time Google has stifled PMW — the Internet portal has also permitted, “YouTube [to] host… genocidal antisemitic videos.”Important point: There’s a difference between 1) exposing hatred for the purpose of enlightening the public, as PMW does, and 2) groups whom are actually posting videos to promote hatred. Does Google understand this?
Here’s the scoop: “In response to yesterday’s PMW video-bulletin which showed the PA Mufti’s speech that Muslims’ destiny is to kill Jews, YouTube has frozen PMW’s account. All PMW videos are working except this one but the account is frozen and PMW cannot upload new videos for the next two weeks.” WRITE TO GOOGLE AND ASK THEM TO PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH.
PMW is pleased to report that YouTube has reopened PMW’s account. Thanks to those of our subscribers and supporters who contacted YouTube on our behalf, the video of the PA Mufti saying Muslim destiny is to kill Jews is once again available for viewing. …