Category Archives: Islam in the Americas

4 N.Y. men convicted in synagogue bomb plot

Posted on by

(This is from the Calgary Herald. It is worth noting that the NYT version of this story does not say ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ anywhere in it, yet that was the entire motivation for this terror plot on Jews and Americans in general.)

NEW YORK – Four New York men on Monday were convicted of plotting to blow up synagogues and shoot down U.S. military aircraft after a trial hinging on the testimony of a paid FBI informant, the federal prosecutor’s office said.

James Cromitie, 44, and three others had been accused of wanting to wage Muslim jihad in their own country, attacking the Jewish house of worship and a Jewish community center in the Bronx, and firing Stinger missiles at planes at a nearby Air National Guard base.

They face sentences of up to life in prison.

“Homegrown terrorism is a serious threat,” Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said.

“The defendants in this case agreed to plant bombs and use missiles they thought were very real weapons of terrorism. We are safer today as a result of these convictions.”

The jury in Manhattan federal court took a week to reach the verdict following a trial in which the court heard how an FBI informant lured the four men deeper and deeper into an extended sting operation. Continue Reading →

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

UK: Secret Halal Meat Sale – Why not Label it?

Posted on by

Christianvoice.org.uk Halal Focus Net

Britain ’s biggest supermarket chains are selling halal lamb and chicken without telling unsuspecting shoppers, reported the Mail on Sunday.

The paper had to force an admission out of Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose, and M&S, none of whom tell shoppers whether their lamb is ritually slaughtered, even when a Muslim slaughterman is intoning ‘Bismillah Allah-hu-Akbar’ (meaning ‘In the name of Allah, who is the greatest’) over each animal killed.

No beef sold is halal, it seems. But 5% of chicken sold in Tesco is halal as is 35% of the store’s UK lamb. None of it is labelled as such. The Co-op is the same. We believe that only Asda and Morrisons clearly label their ritually-slaughtered meat but we were waiting for confirmation as we went to press.

NEW ZEALAND LAMB IS 70% HALAL
The scandal applies mostly to lamb. 70% of New Zealand lamb sold by British supermarkets is slaughtered according to Muslim law. The reason is that New Zealand supplies a growing Muslim consumer base in the Middle and Far East . It was the New Zealanders who developed the ‘pre-stun’ method of slaughter, rendering the animal unconscious by electric shock, rather than by a captive-bolt pistol, which is very ‘haram’ (forbidden).

But none of the New Zealand halal lamb is labelled as such, so consumers do not know that they are buying and eating ritually-slaughtered meat. A growing proportion of meat slaughtered in British abattoirs is also halal, using the same method, and that does not appear to be labelled ‘halal’ in many stores either.

In their statements, the supermarkets were determined to present the issue as solely one of animal welfare. They appeared oblivious to the religious implications of the Islamic blessing pronounced over each animal killed. But even that could not explain the procrastination, ignorance and/or inability to explain the facts to consumers that the supermarkets displayed.

TESCO AND THE CO-OP
For example, when the Mail on Sunday rang them, Tesco were initially reluctant to admit they sold any halal meat at all. Tesco said in a peculiar statement: ‘It is not the case that all the meat we sell is halal or that our suppliers only offer halal meat.’

But when quizzed further, a spokesman was more forthcoming: ‘All our New Zealand lamb is halal-slaughtered, as is 35 per cent of our UK lamb. Less than five per cent of our chicken is halal.’ Continue Reading →

Setting the record straight on the Khadr family.

Posted on by

Found this story over at Blazing Cat Fur:

Sins of the Father: ‘Ahmed Khadr was very close to bin Laden’

Mohamed Fadil, a confidante of Ahmed Saeed Khadr who worked alongside him for almost five years, poses for a portrait in Toronto.

Tyler Anderson/National Post

Mohamed Fadil, a confidante of Ahmed Saeed Khadr who worked alongside him for almost five years, poses for a portrait in Toronto.

Stewart Bell, National Post · Friday, Oct. 15, 2010

Sometimes when Mohamed Fadil is at the mosque or having a meal with friends, he hears mention of his former boss, the late patriarch of the Khadr family, Ahmed Saeed Khadr. They’ll say he gave up his life in Canada to help the needy in Afghanistan. “They say, ‘He’s a great man who left a legacy behind,’ ” Mr. Fadil said. “They don’t know what he did.”

But Mr. Fadil said he knows.

Until now, Mr. Fadil has kept quiet about what he saw when he worked alongside Mr. Khadr in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the late 1980s. They crossed paths again in the late 1990s until Mr. Khadr fled Kabul following the 9/11 attacks.

But he said he decided to break his silence to set the record straight about the “breach of trust” he claims Mr. Khadr committed by using charities as a cover while he waged and facilitated violence.

While the Khadr family name is now widely associated with Omar Khadr, Mr. Fadil’s account bolsters the case that the young Canadian at Guantanamo Bay is to some extent paying for the sins of his father.

Among Mr. Fadil’s claims:

  • Mr. Khadr was an influential advisor to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda deputy Ayman Al-Zawahiri. He also kept Egyptian terrorists on his payroll, notably Abu Khabab, a bomb expert who experimented with chemical weapons and ran one of al-Qaeda’s most notorious terrorist training camps.
  • Despite raising money in Canada for the needy, Mr. Khadr neglected his charity duties to participate in fighting in Afghanistan and allowed more than 100 Egyptian militants to use his office as a transit point for their journey to jihad in Afghanistan.
  • Mr. Khadr is linked to several deadly attacks, notably the 1989 assassination of Abdullah Azzam, a popular Islamic scholar. Mr. Fadil also alleged that Mr. Khadr repeatedly plotted to kill him, apparently viewing him as a rival and a threat to his fundraising efforts in Canada. “Khadr tried to kill me three times,” Mr. Fadil said.
  • The Khadr family has denied the allegations. They accused Mr. Fadil of spreading “rumours and half-truths” and said he was only trying to get back at the family for telling the CIA and CSIS what they know about him. Continue Reading →

    • Moonwalking terror suspect Khurram Syed Sher granted bail

    Posted on by

    From The Ottawa Sun

    News Ottawa and Region

    Second terror suspect granted bail

    By KENNETH JACKSON, Ottawa Sun

    Last Updated: October 13, 2010 11:04pm

    Terror suspect Dr. Khurram Syed Sher was released on bail in Ottawa on Wednesday. Errol McGihon, Ottawa Sun
    Terror suspect Dr. Khurram Syed Sher was released on bail in Ottawa on Wednesday. Errol McGihon, Ottawa Sun

    The alleged terrorist who once moonwalked across the stage auditioning for Canadian Idol was granted bail Wednesday.

    Dr. Khurram Syed Sher didn’t dance out of the courthouse but did break out the robot in jail before attending the bail hearing, his lawyer Anser Farooq said.

    Farooq said his client has a sense of humour and did the ’80s dance move at Ottawa’s provincial jail on Innes Rd. despite not knowing how Wednesday would turn out.

    Sher stopped for a throng of media waiting for him outside the Elgin St. courthouse. Besides a “no comment” Sher didn’t respond to questions until a television reporter asked how the fresh air felt.

    “It’s nice,” he replied with a small smirk.

    Sher, 28, and co-accused Misbahuddin Ahmed, 26, and Hiva Mohammad Alizadeh, 31, are charged with conspiring with people in Canada, Iran, Afghanistan, Dubai and Pakistan to facilitate terrorism.

    The reasons for Justice of the Peace Louisette Girault’s decision are covered by a standard publication ban.

    Sher will reside at a family member’s home in Mississauga and have to report to the RCMP in Etobicoke once a week. He also can only use the Internet to continue his studies under supervision of a surety, as well as not communicate with the accused. His sureties posted a $183,000 bond.

    Ahmed and Alizadeh are also charged with possessing explosives and Alizadeh with financing terrorism.

    “It’s going to take some time to sink in,” said Farooq of his client being on bail.

    Farooq said their goal is to get the case moving along so Sher can clear his name. Farooq said he’s going to push to the Crown to reassess their case against Sher because he feels there isn’t enough evidence that implicates him.

    Ahmed has already been granted bail but the Crown is appealing it. Alizadeh has yet to have a bail hearing.

    Investigators with Project Samossa allege a plot to build and detonate bombs in Canada and raise money to help Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.

    Soon after his arrest, a video of Sher showed his awkward 2008 appearance on the Canadian Idol reality talent show.

    Sher, then a 25-year-old McGill medical student, drew laughs and ridicule from the panel for his butchered rendition of Avril Lavigne’s hit song Complicated.

    Bearded and wearing traditional Pakistani clothing, Sher performed the moonwalk, kicked up his leg Michael Jackson-style and performed robotic breakdancing moves.

    The young doctor had told the panel that he liked hockey, music and acting. He had been heavily involved in sporting events and student life as a medical student at McGill, where he graduated in 2005.

    Sher left Montreal in June for a job as a pathologist in London, Ont.

    Colleagues at St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital were shocked when they learned of his arrest.

    — with QMI Agency files

    ke*************@******ia.ca

    More cultural enrichment in Canada: the importation of polygamy, child brides, forced marriages

    Posted on by

    From The Ottawa Sun

    Polygamy, child brides pose problems for immigration officials

    By BRIAN LILLEY, Parliamentary Bureau

    Last Updated: October 12, 2010 4:13pm

    OTTAWA – Forced marriages, child brides, polygamy and arranged marriages between first cousins are some of the problems that Canadian immigration officials in Pakistan have to deal with.

    The revelations are contained in a 26-page report prepared by Canadian officials working out of the immigration and visa office in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The report was obtained by immigration lawyer Richard Kurland through access to information legislation and supplied to QMI Agency.

    “With few exceptions, the Islamabad spousal reunification programme involves Muslim proxy marriages arranged by the families, the vast majority of which take place between first cousins,” reads the report.

    According to Kurland, polygamy is most common among wealthy Pakistani families trying to immigrant to Canada. Canadian officials often won’t reject an application just because a man has more than one wife, Kurland said.

    “They say we can’t do this because you are polygamists so you have to divorce some, keep one and work it out domestically,” Kurland said. Kurland told QMI that often second or third wives will be sponsored into Canada as skilled workers for a business or as a maid for the household.

    As for first cousins marrying, while the practice is not common in Canada due to a higher risk of birth defects, marrying your cousin is legal in this country.

    “Marriages that are legal in Canada are legal for the purposes of immigration and sponsorship,” said Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

    Tazeen Ahmad, a British woman of Pakistani descent, produced a documentary earlier this year for Channel 4 called Dispatches: When Cousins Marry.

    Ahmad documented the cultural reasons for the practice among British Pakistanis as well as the problems, such as a high rate of recessive gene disorders.

    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

    Longueuil girl, 13 dies after father ‘slapped’ her for not praying/preying

    Posted on by

    Found on TROP

    ‘Ray of light’ was under pressure to pray, neighbours say

    By René Bruemmer, The Gazette October 11, 2010

    Family and friends place a notice for members of the media outside the appartment complex of the family where a 13-year-old girl died over the weekend, a few days after a slap from her 71-year-old father that reportedly placed her into a coma.

    More Images »

    Family and friends place a notice for members of the media outside the apartment complex of the family where a 13-year-old girl died over the weekend, a few days after a slap from her 71-year-old father that reportedly placed her into a coma.

    Photograph by: Vincenzo D’Alto, The Gazette

    This story has been updated.

    MONTREAL – A 13-year-old Longueuil girl died Saturday night as a result of injuries she sustained Wednesday when police say her 71-year-old father slapped her and she went into a coma.

    Police said Mousaa Sidime, who was arrested for aggravated assault and has been detained since the incident, could now face a more serious charge when he appears in court Tuesday.

    The girl, whom neighbours identified as Noutene Sidime, was found by emergency responders shortly after 6 p.m. Wednesday at her family dwelling on Chambly Rd. in Old Longueuil when the elderly father called police to say he had slapped his daughter, Longueuil police Constable Mark David said.

    “When we got there the girl was bleeding around her nose and she has been in a coma ever since,” David said. Continue Reading →

    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

    Melanie Phillips: Fairness and the middle class

    Posted on by

    Canada as I understand it, has even more absurd laws in terms of where government money goes. Having three or four wives all on welfare in the same house for example, while actual Canadians are not allowed to have more than 1 persons collecting welfare in a single household even as room-mates springs to mind. Frankly, no one should be getting welfare at all…

    Daily Mail, 11 October 2010 from Melanie Phillips. Click here to read the rest please.

    The explosive reaction to Chancellor George Osborne’s child benefit proposal continues to ricochet round the Coalition’s ears.

    The plan to axe this benefit for anyone earning above the higher-rate tax threshold, currently just under £44,000 per year, caused a furious backlash.

    This has been followed by the backlash to the backlash. The response to the outcry has been to sneer that while the better-off rail against handouts for the poor, they react like scalded cats to the suggestion that they should lose their own from the state.

    Such sour petulance is only to be expected from the Left. But what is startling is that exactly the same sneering is also coming from the Cameroons, who have accused middle-class objectors of ‘fiscal nimbyism’ – morphing from ‘not in my back yard’ into ‘not in my back pocket’.

    How spiteful. And how unfair. For the child benefit proposal itself breaches the most elementary understanding of fairness.

    It is deeply unfair, for example, that a family with one stay-at-home parent will lose this benefit if the sole earner earns more than £44,000, while a family with two working parents earning up to £88,000 will keep it.

    Next, it offends against any real idea of social justice that young women should continue to receive what is effectively a financial incentive to have one baby after another, regardless of whether or not the fathers stick around, while traditional, responsible families are penalised.

    Blazing Cat Fur shows us more Islamist infiltration in Government

    Posted on by

    What the hell is is going on at DFAIT?

    DFAIT (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada) made the news recently for its role in the decision to invite the extremist Canadian Islamic Congress to speak at an absurd DND event purporting to celebrate Islamic History Month. Bad enough I’d say but it always seems to get worse.

    DFAIT employs Shujaat Wasty . My question is; Did Shujaat Wasty participate in this conference “The 3rd annual e-learning forum” held by Hamdan Bin Mohammed University under DFAIT auspices? This document suggests he presented a paper with DFAIT’s blessing:

    For the rest of this article please click over to BCF here.

    Team B II Report with Frank Gaffney

    Posted on by

    I would like to post this 37 minute video here in response to some comments made by ‘Yahya’, who I believe is the key person of the blog that appears to have taken over for, or is at least connected to, a site Vladtepesblog has quoted from time to time, ‘Montreal Muslim News’. A site which published all sorts of highly illiberal fatwas, or Islamic rulings on, pretty much every single aspect of life and how a Muslim should do it, and often, how to impose that ideology on all the rest of us in Canada and by extension the rest of the Western, non-Islamic, world as well.

    In a recent comment, Yahya made the statements:

    Well, first of all, Muslims are in fact not trying to supplant what you call “our millennium old system of jurisprudence” by advancing a 7th century sharia code. I honestly don’t know where you come up with these fantasies. Many Muslim scholars and intellectuals have said there is no contradiction between western laws which are just and Islamic jurisprudence. The unifying principle is justice, and if a western law adheres to that principle then it is in accordance with Islamic law. Do you have something against justice?

    Speaking of Islamic jurisprudence, what does anyone know of it here other than a small sampling of the penal code which is much more complex that how you may understand it. Once would have to study Islamic jurisprudence for years to address this topic in an educated way, yet people here cut and paste statements they get from a google search.

    Ignoring the close call with the Clay Pot Logical Fallacy Yahya makes here, Muslims use the word Justice in a dramatically different way. Justice of course means, under the sharia, or that Islam is supreme while others “pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued”.

    Justice in no way means what Muslims know we think it does when they use the word. Less obtusely, Muslims use the word Justice, much like they use the concept of womens rights. Further, it is no fantasy that England has over 100 legal sharia courts operating now, and have hundreds more illegal ones. It is no fantasy that girls who run away from home because they are afraid of being killed by their families in England for adopting British culture, are being returned to their families by Muslim police from women’s safe houses so often, that women are now afraid to call emergency services for help.

    It is no fantasy that in many western nations, illegal sharia ‘police’ patrol Islamic neighbourhoods making sure that women dress according to code and other aspects of sharia are observed to the extent they can get away with it. It is also no fantasy that many nations now find that food is halal and unmarked so that people cannot know that they are eating meat that has been butchered in a way that violates all cruelty to animal laws that our civilization has built over centuries. This means that people are violating their own principles often each day and are not even allowed to know it.

    So in that light, I offer you this video.

    Eeyore for Vlad T.

    Imam Delic of the CIC.

    Posted on by

    Ottawa Imam and token president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, (I say token as Mohamed El Masry’s name, writing and influence was felt long after he was supposed to be gone) was invited and then un-invited to speak at Canada’s DND because his illiberal and extreme views and the views of his organization was exposed. He then did this damage control video. I hope this undoes it at least a little. Delic is An anaesthetist. He would have us believe that he does not want sharia law in Canada and that he holds other groups as equals. A closer look may show otherwise.

    Why MacKay was right to uninvite the imam

    Posted on by

    By Robert Sibley,

    The Ottawa Citizen October 7, 2010

    We are known, it is said, by the company we keep. If so, it is worthwhile to consider the recent controversy surrounding Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s cancellation of a speech by a prominent Muslim imam at the department’s Ottawa headquarters.

    The minister was verbally shelled last Friday after revoking an invitation for Zijad Delic, the national executive direct of the Canadian Islamic Congress and the former imam the Jami’a Mosque in Richmond, B.C., to speak at a forum marking Islamic History Month in Ottawa.
    MacKay’s decision “shattered any hopes” Muslims had in the political process, critics said. He displayed “knee-jerk intolerance” by caving into right-wing Christian zealots, said others.

    Not everyone agrees with this judgment, including some Muslims. Salma Siddiqui, vice-president of the Muslim Congress of Canada, “strongly welcomed” MacKay’s decision, not only for exposing the fraud of Islamic History Month but also for acting in the best interests of national security.
    “In the past few years we have seen so-called Islamic History Month turned into a propaganda machine for Islamists who want to introduce Shariah law and who wish to hide behind the cover of teaching history to infiltrate the highest levels of government in Ottawa,” Siddiqui said.
    So, who’s right, the CIC or the MCC? Is the CIC genuinely committed to Canadian values as its leaders, including Delic, claim? Or do some of them, as Siddiqui implies, actually promote Islamist doctrine, even to the point of engaging in a campaign of taqiyya, or “holy deception,” whereby Canadians eventually accept Shariah?
    Consider some of the evidence. One of MacKay’s reasons for cancelling Delic’s invitation was, according to spokesman Jay Paxton, because of the “extremist views promulgated by the Canadian Islamic Congress.” Continue Reading →