Category Archives: Establishing Primacy in Dar Al Harb

French Defence League is planning to fight back against occupation

Posted on by

The French Defence League is going to have a pork in to fight back against the Muslims who have taken over various streets for public prayers, which by the way is illegal in France for any group, in over 40 cities.

Here is a video which loosely explains the plan. More is available on their website but I would ask all who can afford it, to please consider sponsoring a pig, or at least buying a membership and if you are in France, or can go there for the event, join in. This, should be a day to remember. Bring some wine.

Eeyore

Remember the video on Muslims taking over a Paris street?

Posted on by

For those who thought it was a small thing, just an overflow from a local mosque look again. Now they have added loudspeaker equipment and are carpeting pretty much the whole street and not just individual mats on the sidewalk.

If this is not a show of Islamic primacy than what would be exactly?

Blazing Catfur: The Imam Delic saga continues

Posted on by

From Blazing Catfur with thanks…

Conservative Senator, Usual Opposition Suspects Meet With Imam Zijad Delic & Muslim Brotherhood Student Association

Imam Zijad Delic of the Canadian Islamic Congress gets booted from a DND function on Oct 4th because of his organizations radical Islamist stance.

On October 29th Imam Delic met with Conservative Senator Salma Ataullahjan and the usual assortment of Liberal/NDP apologists in the House of Commons. But that’s not all…

Who were these Senators and MP’s hosting? Why the MSA, the Muslim Student Association. What is the Muslim Student Association?

There is overwhelming evidence that the MSA, far from being a benign student society, is an overtly political organization seeking to create a single Muslim voice on U.S. campuses—a voice espousing Wahhabism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism, agitating aggressively against U.S. Middle East policy, and expressing solidarity with militant Islamist ideologies, sometimes with criminal results.

Please click over to Blazing for the rest:

Anjem Chaudery once again, honestly lays out the facts.

Posted on by

This man is so blunt and factual (about most aspects of Islamic politics at least if not Islam) that I am tempted to send him money. Notice that what he say in terms of Muslim ambitions and the nature of Islam overall.

Some Catholics nearly get it…

Posted on by

…but they miss the mark on Mary. Mary is the only female named in the Koran by name and that is because Mohamed ventrilouises her as saying that her son Jesus (Isa) is not the son of God (Allah). Other than that, they seem to have a clue.

From Catholic Culture:

Lebanese prelates caution Synod on problems of dialogue with Islam October 22, 2010

Two Lebanese Catholic prelates questioned the feasibility of dialogue with Islam during discussions on October 21 at the Synod of Bishops.

Commenting on propositions advocating inter-religious dialogue, Syrian Catholic Bishop Flavien Joseph Melki of Dara, Lebanon questioned whether the suggestions were realistic:

Is it even thinkable that the Arabic countries of the Middle East, where fundamentalism is becoming more entrenched, will accept in the near future abandoning their theocratic regimes founded on the Koran and the Sharia, which constitute flagrant discrimination towards non-Muslims? To me this seems to be in the domain of utopia, for the centuries to come.

Archbishop Raboula Antoine Beylouni, also a Syrian-Catholic prelate from Lebanon, raised similar questions. Because the Muslim believes that the Qu’ran offers the absolute and complete truth, the archbishop said, “he comes to dialogue with a sense of superiority.” More ominously, he continued, the Qu’ran “commands the imposition of religion through force—with the sword.” As a result, the archbishop said, Muslims are unlikely to recognize religious freedom.

Archbishop Beylouni offered a practical suggestion for efforts at dialogue with Islam. Because the Qu’ran treats the Virgin Mary with great reverence, he said, “we should turn to her for all dialogue and all encounters with the Muslims.” He concluded his remarks with a reference to one very significant inter-faith agreement in his own country: “If it pleased God that the Feast of the Annunciation was declared a national feast day in Lebanon for Christians and Muslims, may it also become a national feast day in other Arab countries.”

More here and worth the click

sheikyermami on the newest West supported Islamic fiefdom

Posted on by

by sheikyermami on October 23, 2010

The Bunglawussi mob is jubilant:

Useful idiot Red Ken  Livingstone with the Sultan of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman

Lutfur Rahman elected Mayor of Tower Hamlets

Lutfur Rahman with spiritual advisors…..

Andrew Gilligan reminds us who Lutfur Rahman is: ‘Britain’s Islamic republic’: full transcript of Channel 4 Dispatches programme on Lutfur Rahman, the IFE and Tower Hamlets

Labour: London borough becomes ‘Islamic republic’

Outside the Wellington Way polling station in Tower Hamlets yesterday, as at many other polling stations in the borough, people had to run a gauntlet of Lutfur Rahman supporters to reach the ballot box. As one Bengali woman voter went past them, we heard one of the Rahman army scolding her for her “immodest dress.”

That incident is perhaps a tiny taste of the future for Britain’s poorest borough now it has elected Mr Rahman as its first executive mayor, with almost total power over its £1 billion budget. At the count last night, one very senior figure in the Tower Hamlets Labour Party said: “It really is Britain’s Islamic republic now.”

Please click over to the Sheik for the rest of this excellent and important article.

Here is a little clip KitmanTV put together on the chief advisor to Lutfur Rahman, ‘Adel Al-Kalbani’ in Tower Hamlets.

I feel I have to add my two cents to this clip. 1 cent, Every time I see one of these guys I imagine a table at an Italian restaurant that is missing its cloth and the second cent…

Wouldn’t it be just grand if he meant that for Muslims ‘visiting’ Western lands and not just as he does, for infidels in Muslim countries.

Australia: male journalists ordered out of courtroom while Muslim woman testifies without niqab.

Posted on by

I predicted this. I knew it would only be a matter of time before sharia standards would be granted formal legitimacy and folded into western court proceedings. This woman refused to remove her niqab at a previous hearing, so to satisfy her irrational sensibilities, the judge decided that sacrificing Australia’s own laws of gender equality to suit Islamic gender apartheid practices would be a fair cultural exchange.

From The Australian

Muslim woman removes niqab to give evidence, as male journalists are barred from court

  • From: AAP
  • October 18, 2010 5:28PM

A MUSLIM woman who sparked a national debate when she asked to give evidence in court wearing a niqab has uncovered her face to testify in a fraud trial.

Tasneem, whose last name has been suppressed by the Perth District Court, gave evidence for just 15 minutes today in the trial of Anwar Sayed.

Mr Sayed, 50, is accused of falsifying student numbers at the Muslim Ladies College of Australia in Kenwick, in Perth’s south, to fraudulently obtain part of $1.125 million the school received in state and federal government grants.

Tasneem, 36, has worn a niqab since the age of 17 and wanted to wear it while giving evidence in the trial.

But Judge Shauna Deane in August ruled she must remove the face-covering garment so that the jury could see her facial expressions.

Tasneem only removes the niqab when she visits the doctor and dentist, at customs in airports and when she has her driver’s licence photograph taken.

Judge Deane last week ruled that to make it easier for Tasneem to give evidence comfortably, men would be removed from the court.

The only men allowed in the courtroom while she gave her evidence today were male jurors, the judge’s usher, Mr Sayed and the lawyers.

While female journalists were allowed to stay in the court to report on Tasneem’s evidence, male journalists were ejected.

A lawyer representing Network Ten and the Seven and Nine networks made an application on Friday to alter the order so that male journalists could remain in court, but the application was rejected.

Giving evidence via video link today, Tasneem appeared comfortable, flanked by a security person and a support person, both of whom were female.

During her brief evidence she explained that she worked at the school as an Islamic studies teacher for two hours a day, five days a week.

Tasneem said that “from time to time” some students would go overseas on holiday or to visit family, mostly in Afghanistan, so it was possible they were enrolled at the school, but did not attend for long periods of time.

Mr Sayed is the director of Muslim Link Australia, which runs the Muslim Ladies College.

He allegedly knowingly signed a declaration that in the 2006/07 census year, more than 180 students were enrolled in the school when there were 80 to 100 fewer than that.

The school received about $164,000 from the state government and about $961,000 from the federal government.

The trial continues.

AAP

Shariah law has come to Canada.

Posted on by

From The Ottawa Sun

Court decision puts veil over women’s rights

By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency

Last Updated: October 17, 2010 2:00am

It is illegal for a woman wearing a face-obscuring veil to board a plane in Canada. But a unanimous ruling last week by the Ontario Court of Appeal says it’s just fine for that same woman to give testimony in court with her face covered.

There’s more. Ontario’s highest court says veiled women can ask for an order to clear men out of the courtroom — any men in the public gallery, any male court staff, even her opponent’s lawyer, even the judge himself — in return for taking off her veil. It’s paragraph 85 of the ruling.

Shariah law has come to Canada.

Face-obliterating veils called niqabs are a medieval tool for gender apartheid. They destroy a woman’s identity. They turn her into an object, a chattel owned by her master — which is why they’re the norm in Saudi Arabia, where women have fewer rights than men and only slightly more than animals.

Burkas — an even more prison-like shroud, with just a tiny beekeeper’s screen to peek through — are the Taliban variety. Those are now allowed on the witness stand in Canada, too.

Rip the Ten Commandments off the wall, because we must have separation of church and state. But when the most un-Canadian expression of radical Islam walks in the court, our judges follow the Qur’an.

But that’s not fair to the Qur’an. No verse in that book requires face-covering. But our judges now say it’s a Charter right.

To their shame, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened to support this. They have demanded Bibles be removed from schools and the Lord’s Prayer be banned from legislatures. But Muslim veils — a chastity belt for the face — have their support in a secular court.

The CCLA has found religion. And LEAF, the feminist law organization built with Canadian tax dollars, has a new view on a woman’s proper place. They argued for the niqab, too.

As National Post columnist Barbara Kay points out, a survey of Muslim women in France found 77% wear the veil out of fear of men.

Australian Imam Taj Din al-Hilali put it another way, in a sermon about rape: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street … and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.”

LEAF supports covering up “the meat.” Now our courts do too.

The Ontario ruling came about because a Muslim woman alleged she was molested as a child by her uncle and her cousin in the 1980s. It’s a horrendous accusation and, if true, the woman deserves our sympathy and the accused deserve our most punitive punishment. But before we get there, there’s the matter of a trial.

In Canada, even accused rapists have the right to question their accuser and the court has the right to observe her demeanour. It’s why we don’t allow testimony from someone wearing a mask.

But this accuser didn’t want to take off her mask.

“It’s a respect issue, one of modesty and one of — in Islam, we call honour,” she told the judge at the preliminary inquiry “It’s to conceal the beauty of a woman.”

She had only been wearing a veil for about five years and the judge found her religious belief was “not that strong.” But “I would feel a lot more comfortable if I didn’t have to, you know, reveal my face.”

Sure, she took the veil off to get her driver’s licence. But that was important, you see. Not like accusing a man of a horrendous crime.

The judge told her to take off her veil. That’s what was over-ruled last week.

This could be great, says the Court of Appeal. The reliability of her veiled testimony could actually be better.

“Without the niqab … one could not expect her to be herself on the witness stand … her embarrassment and discomfort could be misinterpreted as uncertainty and unreliability.”

But it’s more than law. It’s politics, they say. Allowing the niqab “could be seen as a recognition and acceptance of those minority beliefs and practices.”

That’s exactly the problem.

In heaven, Aqsa Parvez is screaming again.

— Read Levant’s blog at ezralevant.com

Niqab is the “British way”

Posted on by

From The Telegraph U.K.

Islamic face-veil part of ‘British way of life’

The full Islamic face-veil is a part of the “British way of life” and should be celebrated along with religious symbols such as the crucifix, according to a report published today.

By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor
Published: 8:30AM BST 16 Oct 2010
Islamic face-veil part of 'British way of life'

Politicians in France and Belgium have voted in favour of banning the full veil Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Opponents of the veil claim it oppresses women and presents a barrier between those who wear traditional dress and the rest of society.

But in a new report from think-tank Civitas, Alveena Malik, a former faith adviser to the last Labour government, said the test of whether religious symbols are appropriate should be based on whether they are practical.

Politicians in France and Belgium have voted in favour of banning the full veil, or “niqab”, and other European countries are thought to be considering similar action.

In a new report, Women, Islam and Western Liberalism, Mrs Malik said: “We in Britain need to take a different direction from others in Europe and to accept the veil as part of a modern British way of life.”

She continued: “The wearing of religious symbols, including the full veil, should be a fundamental human right of an individual in both the public and private sphere.

“The real test for religious symbols in the public sphere should always be: ‘Does the wearing of a symbol (such as the kirpan, turban, yarmulke, crucifix and the veil) hinder a citizen’s ability to perform their public civic duties?’”

Britain is in a “unique” position to embrace such a public display of faith because of the role the church plays in the affairs of the state and its “multicultural diversity”.

Mrs Malik was appointed by last government to a panel of faith advisers for the Department for Communities. She has overseen British Council guidance on “intercultural dialogue”.

Canadian Court of Appeal ‘decides’ on niqabs in courtrooms

Posted on by

From The Ottawa Sun

Putting face on religion

By MICHELE MANDEL, QMI Agency

Last Updated: October 13, 2010 10:08pm

TORONTO – It is a typically Canadian solution.

The Ontario Court of Appeal won’t ban Muslim witnesses from wearing a face veil. Nor will the highest court in the province grant them an automatic right to do so.

Instead, in its highly anticipated decision, the appeal court has ruled right down the middle, saying “each case must turn on its own facts.”

As long as it doesn’t prejudice a fair trial, the court ruled, Muslim women should have the religious right to wear their niqab when testifying.

But if a judge is convinced by the accused that he can’t properly defend himself if she’s testifying against him behind a veil, the witness must remove her niqab and allow the face-to-face confrontation that is the norm in Canadian courts.

Justice system

“The criminal justice system as it presently operates, and as it has operated for centuries, places considerable value on the ability of lawyers and the trier of fact to see the full face of the witness as the witness testifies,” wrote Justice David Doherty in the ruling released Wednesday morning on behalf of the three-judge panel.

“There is no getting around the reality that in some cases, particularly those involving trial by jury where a witness’s credibility is central to the outcome, a judge will have a difficult decision to make.”

It was not a clear-cut victory for any side, but one cautiously applauded by all.

“It’s a real step forward,” said David Butt, lawyer for N.S., the Toronto woman who was ordered to remove her niqab at a preliminary hearing. “This walks a middle ground that balances two very important, competing rights.”

N.S. came forward in 2007 and accused her uncle and cousin of sexually abusing her as a child. When the case went to a preliminary hearing in 2008, she said she wanted to testify while wearing her niqab. When the judge ruled against her, she took her case to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June.

In its 54-page decision, the three-judge appeal panel ruled that there needs to be a “case by case assessment” and for the first time set out guidelines for judges in these previously “uncharted waters”.

For N.S., the appeal court overturned her niqab ban and said she must be given a proper hearing to show why her religion requires her to cover all but her eyes.

The defence must also be allowed to call evidence on the issue before the judge decides if she can testify wearing her veil or whether accommodations can be made for her testimony — such as an all-female court.

“The court did not decide the crux issue of whether the niqab comes off or stays on,” said N.S.’ lawyer.

“On the other hand, the court has given us a very firm set of factors to guide us.”

The Criminal Lawyers’ Association had argued that a witness can’t be properly cross-examined if their face is concealed but was satisfied with the ruling.

“It is a paradigmatic, Canadian decision insofar as it strikes a very workable compromise rather than making a choice between two important competing values,” noted association president Paul Burstein. “Time will tell.”

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, was relieved the court of appeal did not grant an automatic right to give testimony behind the veil, which he insists is a political, not a religious, symbol. But he was troubled the appeal court seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate women wearing a face covering many in the west see as backward and misogynistic.

“They do not think that Muslim women are women per se, but some kind of exotic species that they have to nurture in the laboratory that’s called Canada,” Fatah complained.

For its part, the appeal court wisely shied away from making a definitive ruling on a piece of cloth that continues to divide.

“The wearing of a niqab in public places is controversial in many countries including Canada,” Doherty wrote.

“The controversy raises important public policy concerns that have generated heated debate. Those difficult and important questions are not the focus of this proceeding and cannot and should not be resolved in this forum.”

mi************@******ia.ca

Niqabs in Canadian courts???

Posted on by

From The National Post

Ontario court to rule if woman can wear niqab while testifying

The Ontario Court of Appeal is expected to rule if women can testify in court while wearing a niqab.

For the first time in Canada, an appellate level court is going to rule on whether a woman can testify in court while wearing a niqab.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is scheduled to release its ruling Wednesday in the case of a 32-year-old Muslim woman who says she was sexually abused as a child by two male relatives.

The decision will be issued just days after the constitutional council in France approved legislation that will ban the wearing of a burqa or a niqab in public places. Women who wear the face-covering clothing could face fines of nearly $200. Anyone in France who forces a woman to wear a burqa or niqab could be sentenced to a year in jail.

In the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, the woman was originally ordered by a provincial court judge in October 2008 to remove the Muslim veil, which covers most of her face except for her eyes, while testifying at the preliminary hearing of the defendants.

The alleged sexual assault victim refused and the Ontario Court of Appeal heard arguments from the Crown and defence, as well as several other groups, during a two-day hearing in June.

The Ontario government urged the court not to issue a “blanket statement” and instead set out a legal framework for courts to decide the issue on a case-by-case basis. The appeal court could for example, allow limited questioning of a female Muslim witness, to ensure that her religious reasons for wearing the niqab are legitimate.

A lawyer for one of the two defendants argued that there is a long-standing right to assess the demeanor of witnesses when they testify and the woman should have to remove the niqab. The Muslim Canadian Congress sided with the defendants and its lawyer told the court that wearing the niqab is a political statement and the issue is not about religious freedoms.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) argued in favour of the woman’s right to testify while wearing the niqab. The lawyer representing LEAF suggested the woman should not have to “relive being forcibly uncovered,” if ordered to remove the niqab in court.

sk***@**********st.com

CIC’s Islamic History Month Canada? Not on my dime.

Posted on by

Vlad Op-Ed

The affair concerning the barred Imam and DND is fast becoming even more mired in controversy and confusion. Imam Zijad Delic has remarked in a purely defensive move there is no truth to the allegation, adding it compromises Canada’s interests and the well being of our troops in Afghanistan. Mrs. Valiante, president of the CIC, called Mr. MacKay’s decision a crass attempt to pander to the far-right, evangelical base of the Conservative party by smearing the representatives of Muslim and Arab communities.

Meanwhile, Mr. MacKay defended his position in the House, reiterating that his decision was based on the fact that the Canadian Islamic Congress is deemed an extreme outfit whose sentiments are not welcome. Jason Kenney referenced the group in a 2009 speech in which he said it is part of an ongoing review. We are warned time and again by both security experts and moderate Muslim groups of the increasing infiltration of government departments by those actively seeking to impose Islamist standards. Yet despite this, celebrations of Islamic History Month went ahead at DND even without the Imam.

Those critical of MacKay’s decision are calling for an inquiry. I agree there should be one; but chances are not for the same reasons. I have no quarrel with this government’s approach to combating extremism as a matter of fact, I support the initiatives. But, I do want to know why Islamic History Month Canada, the creation of a publicly known extremist group, continues on it’s traveling road show every year.

I want to know why my tax dollars funded it’s launch with an appearance at the Ottawa Police Station last Friday and why Kingston became the first Ontarian city in 2007 to proclaim CIC’s Islamic History Month a yearly event, signed by proclamation by its mayor. I want to know why it would be seen as suitable, that last years IHMC’s theme revolved around ‘Islamic solutions to finance’; an introduction to sharia finance/banking alternatives in Canada. I want to know why on October 25, a portion of my taxes will fund a contest for Muslim school children to participate in a contest for this year’s theme ‘Islam and the Environment’ to be held at Dalton’s Queen’s Park while my family struggles to pay him more in increased taxes for his costly eco-initiatives.

But most of all I want to know this: why do our government officials (of all parties) continue to host the CIC’s advancement of Islamist standards through their creation of Islamic History Month to any degree while simultaneously denouncing extremism? We’re seeking outreach with the wrong folks and are mistaken if we believe such bridge building efforts are not in fact, sharia compliant.

Shariah: The Threat to America

Posted on by

Now and again, a document comes along that actually matters. Here is one of them.

From The Centre for Security Policy:

Center for Security Policy | Sep 13, 2010

This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as “shariah.” It is designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate “second opinion” on the official characterizations and assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government. This study challenges the assumptions underpinning the official line in the conflict with today’s totalitarian threat, which is currently euphemistically described as “violent extremism,” and the policies of co-existence, accommodation and submission that are rooted in those assumptions.

UPDATE: The Team B II Report, Shariah: The Threat to America, wil be released in early October as a 370-page paperback volume, and will be available to purchase at Amazon.com for $14.00. This official version will include an expanded section on the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as the complete text of the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,”entered into evidence in the US v Holy Land Foundation trial.

Please add your name to the Center’s mailing list, the National Security Brief, on the right of this page for updates.

NOTE ON REPRODUCTION: Shariah: The Threat to America may be reproduced, distributed and transmitted electronically for personal or non-commercial purposes (including permitted reproductions of multiple copies), with appropriate attribution. For a letter authorizing reproduction, click here.



Read the report…

Shariah - The Threat to America (Team B Report)
On September 15, 2010 the Center for Security Policy presented its Team B II Report, Shariah: The Threat to America, to Congressmen Trent Franks and Pete Hoekstra on Capitol Hill. Present at the event were Team B II members Frank Gaffney, Andy McCarthy, Lt. Gen. Soyster (Ret.), David Yerushalmi, Amb. Hank Cooper, Michael Del Rosso, Christine Brim, Stephen Coughlin, John Guandolo, Adm. “Ace” Lyons, Tom Trento, Patrick Poole, Clare Lopez, and Diana West.
The video of the press conference is below.

Andy McCarthy’s introductory comments.

David Yerushalmi answered a question comparing Shariah to traditional Jewish law, called Halacha. He later expanded on it in a piece for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace.

UPDATE:
Tom Trento does press release on this document above, and where the U Government is falling down on the issue:

Lancashire: Catholic school may become mosque as number of Christian pupils plummets

Posted on by

From The Daily Mail U.K.

Roman Catholic school could be handed over to a mosque after number of RC pupils falls to ‘five or six’

By Liz Hull
Last updated at 12:54 AM on 25th September 2010

A Roman Catholic primary school could become the first in the country to be run by a mosque after a dramatic rise in the number of Muslim pupils, it emerged today

Church bosses want to close Sacred Heart RC Primary School, in Blackburn, Lancashire, because the number of Catholic students has plummeted from 91 per cent to just three per cent in a decade.

In what would be the first case of its kind in Britain, the primary would be handed over to another organisation to run – most likely the local Tauheedul mosque – and re-opened with a new name.

Facing closure: The Sacred Heart Roman Catholic primary may be run by a mosque after the number of pupils following the Christian faith plummetedFacing closure: The Sacred Heart Roman Catholic primary may be run by a mosque after the number of pupils following the Christian faith plummeted.

Around 95 per cent of the school’s 200 pupils are of Asian origin. Many do not speak English as their first language and the majority follow the Islamic faith.

The Diocese of Salford has told Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council that it no longer believes it is “appropriate” for the church to be in charge. Continue Reading →