Taliban: “… and we killed them all.”

The Taliban today took responsibility for the cold blooded murder of 8 medical doctors in Afghanistan calling them “Christian Missionaries”

One has to ask oneself, how the Taliban and indeed Muslims in general, would define a “Christian Missionary” in order to justify slaughtering them for no other reason.

Clearly, Doctors would be busy relieving the pain and suffering of the unwell, and healing injuries, and so creating a crisis of confidence in Islamic doctrine, which seems more about self sacrifice for an abstract Islam as well as hate for all those who are not sufficiently Muslim and of course, killing people.In other words, the chances of these doctors being actual Christian missionaries in any sense that we might understand it is unlikely. But the Taliban felt the need to define them as such in order to slaughter them.

Here is the actual quote of the Taliban who today took ‘credit’ for this slaughter.

“Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahed claimed responsibility for the death of eight foreign medics who were found shot dead Aug. 6, AFP reported Aug. 7. Mujahed said, “Yesterday at around 8:00 a.m., one of our patrols confronted a group of foreigners. They were Christian missionaries and we killed them all.”

Quote courtesy of Stratfor:

I don’t know what our troops are doing in Afghanistan, but so long as they are there, I hope they are killing a lot of Taliban.

Eeyore for Vlad.

Diana West: Eyeless in Afghanistan

Written by: Diana West

Friday, August 06, 2010 3:18 AM 

This week’s column:

“Live our values,” Gen. David Petraeus wrote recently to troops in Afghanistan. “This is what distinguishes us from our enemies.”

Unfortunately, this is also what distinguishes us from many of our “friends.” This culture-chasm is what makes the infidel struggle for hearts and minds across Islamic lands so recklessly, wastefully futile, something I was once again reminded of on reading Time magazine’s cover story featuring 18-year-old Aisha. Aisha is a lovely Afghan girl whose husband and brother-in-law, on instructions from a local judge and Taliban commander, sliced off her ears and nose and left her dying to set an example for other wives thinking of running away from abusive in-laws. Only her discovery by U.S. troops saved Aisha’s life.

But where was Aisha’s father? Where was her family? Where were her town’s elders? Where was Hamid Karzai? Turns out her family did nothing to protect her from the Taliban, Time writes. Why? The magazine describes a mixture of fear and shame that I hope still strikes the average American family as so foreign as extra-terrestrials. Time further explains: “A girl who runs away is automatically considered a prostitute … and families that allow them back home would be subject to widespread ridicule.” When Aisha’s father enticed her home with promises of a new husband, the girl refused because she was fearful that her family would sell her into slavery, or murder her. Continue Reading →

The Talibanisation of British childhood by hardline parents

The Daily Mail:

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

Last November, on the steps of Tate Britain, I witnessed a scene that troubles me still.

A furious Asian father was shaking his young son and tearing up the picture his child had drawn.

The boy kicked and cried. Recognising my face from TV appearances I had made as a commentator on current affairs, the father came across to say ‘hello’.

So I asked him what his child had done that had made him so angry. He explained that according to his Islamic mentors, drawing pictures of people was forbidden.

The rise of fundamentalism: An increasing number of children go to madrassas

I was flabbergasted. After all, this was in the middle of Britain’s multi-cultural capital  –  a modern metropolis, not some dusty backstreet in Kabul.

What harm can there be in a picture?

So I asked the man if he owned a camera. ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘And a video camera.’

So why, I asked, was it acceptable for him to take pictures, but not for his child to draw a stick figure?

‘The madrasa teacher told me children are not allowed to,’ he said, referring to the places of religious instruction for Muslim children, which are the equivalent of Sunday schools for Christians.

‘I am not an educated man, so I must listen to them.’ Continue Reading →

Mainstream Islamic organisations ‘share al-Qaeda ideology’

Many apparently mainstream Muslim groups have the same ideology as violent Islamists, according to a secret report from the think tank Quilliam. The Telegraph:

H/T Snaphanen

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Published: 2:59PM BST 05 Aug 2010

The report, sent to the government’s Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT), was not intended for publication but has now been leaked on the internet.

Entitled “Preventing terrorism, where next for Britain?” it says the ideology of non-violent Islamists is “broadly the same as that of violent Islamists” adding “they disagree only on tactics.”

It produces a list of those it believes are “non-violent Islamists” and adds: “These are a selection of the various groups and institutions active in the UK which are broadly sympathetic to Islamism.

“Whilst only a small proportion will agree with al-Qaeda’s tactics, many will agree with their overall goal of creating a single ‘Islamic state’ which would bring together all Muslims around the world under a single government and then impose on them a single interpretation of sharia as state law.”

The document adds that if the government engages with such groups “it risks empowering proponents of the ideology, if not the methodology, that is behind terrorism.” Continue Reading →

CAIR’s ‘Summer of Censorship’ Campaign Comes to Florida for Election 2010

From Big Peace

CAIR’s ‘Summer of Censorship’ Campaign Comes to Florida for Election 2010

Posted by Adam Savit Aug 5th 2010 at 11:32 am in Islamic extremism, Justice/Legal, Politics | Comments (9)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is investing time, money and political capital in an attempt to deflate dissenting political voices in Florida.  In the space of just four days CAIR put out two national press releases condemning the “U.S. Constitution Freedom Rally” (PDF) to be hosted by the Emerald Coast Tea Party Patriots in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida on August 21.  Why all the fuss (and PR money spent) over a Tea Party event in a small community?  Apparently because of CAIR’s staunch foreign-inspired political opposition to ACT! for America – the country’s largest grassroots national security citizens’ organization – which they call an “anti-Islam hate group,” and its founder and the keynote speaker at the August tea party event, Brigitte Gabriel, whom they term “an extremist anti-Islam speaker.”  CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper said, “Now is the time for Tea Party leaders to clearly demonstrate that their movement will not allow itself to be associated with bigotry of any kind, including Islamophobia.”  Hooper appears to want to censor any critics of Islamic Shariah law, such as ACT! Director Gabriel.

Even stronger attempts to silence Shariah critics came from CAIR-Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush just last week, in the context of a dispute over how California school textbooks should portray Islam.  He said, “Involving ACT! for America in educational material on Islam is akin to allowing the KKK to educate American students on the history of African Americans or Judaism.” Ayloush went on to tell the Orange County Weekly, “ACT! for America represents a small, but vocal, minority of extremists promoting anti-Muslim bigotry and religious disharmony around the country.”

Let’s put Mr. Ayloush’s inflammatory language aside and consult the inconvenient facts.  ACT! for America has a highly successful and growing base of support, with 415 chapters and 115,000 members across the country.  In 2002, Brigitte Gabriel founded the American Congress for Truth (ACT) as a 501(c)(3) non-profit whose mission is conducting research and providing educational and informational materials to the public, funded by tax-deductible contributions.  Years later, she found it crucial that a separate organization, ACT! for America, be founded as a 501(c)(4) “in order to accomplish the goal of having a grassroots citizen organization that would engage in activities such as lobbying and issues advocacy.”  Furthermore, both the American Congress for Truth and ACT! for America have consistently filed their Form 990 tax returns with the IRS in accord with the law.

Conversely, recalling Hussam Ayloush’s language it seems that CAIR could be more aptly described as “a small, but vocal, minority of extremists promoting… bigotry and religious disharmony around the country” than either ACT! for America or the Tea Party movement.  The Washington Times reported that the number of CAIR members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006.  CAIR’s finances and membership information since then remain a mystery as they have failed to file a Form 990 tax return with the IRS since 2006.  With such a small pool of domestic membership, CAIR has turned to foreign sources for funding.  They have received at least $6.6 million in cash and loans from foreign principals and met and coordinated with those foreign principals on more than 30 occasions; yet they have not registered as foreign agents with the DOJ in contravention of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA).  And as a 501(c)(3) tax deductable organization CAIR is not supposed to devote a substantial amount of their time and resources to lobbying.  Yet they seem to spend a lot of time on Capitol Hill, and a lot of money criticizing elected officials and candidates.  And as an unregistered foreign agent, all of their acts “whose intent is to influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States” are illegal according to FARA § 611(o). Continue Reading →

Parents’ fury at council plans for halal-only menus in primary schools

Leftists please take note: When there are only a few Muslims in a free nation, they are of course, and as they should be, free to bring their own dietary needs so long as those products do not violate local laws on food handling, preparation, ingredients and animal welfare. The fact that Halal food usually violates all of these not withstanding, once you have a few more Muslims they demand that schools provide Halal, (food stuffs prepared in the Islamic manner) and other public institutions must supply and pay for it, for the Muslims who go there.

Up to now, some leftists may go along with it all, as so many have no real understanding of what freedom of religion was supposed to mean, namely, people being free to practice their religion, free of state persecution, but not free to break laws or impose it on others. But now we see as soon as Muslims feel they have enough percentage to get away with it, they impose their lifestyle choices on the rest of us. This is a critical shift. Having granted Muslims the freedom to break local animal welfare laws to slaughter animals in a barbaric fashion, Muslims demand that no one else have the freedom to make their own choices outside of the Islamic set of options.

This is in England. If it happens there, the home of Magna Carta, and arguably the birth place of the very idea of individual liberties, it can, and will, happen here, wherever here happens to be for you.

Eeyore for Vlad T

From The Daily Mail

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:33 PM on 5th August 2010

Parents have expressed fury at plans to serve pupils halal-only menus for school dinners.

In a move which has also enraged animal welfare groups, only meat from animals killed and prepared using Islamic teaching may be allowed at 52 primaries in Harrow.

Critics say the plan puts the needs of Muslim children before those of other faiths, while parents say they have not been consulted over the scheme.

Harrow high street: Schools in the borough are to serve halal meat under council plansHarrow High Street: Schools in the borough are to serve halal meat under council plans

Schools are free to opt in to the programme or look elsewhere for their meals from the start of next month, according to Harrow Council.

The local authority is thought to be the first in England to consider insisting on a halal-only menu apparently after recommendations of dietitians.

According to the 2001 Census, Harrow is one of the most religiously diverse areas in Britain with fewer than 50 per cent of the population Christian, a fifth Hindu and 7 per cent Muslim and six per cent Jewish.

The council says the composition of the area’s primary schools is now significantly different, and the Muslim population is larger.

Using the halal method, animals are slaughtered by being slashed across the neck and being left so that the blood drains from the carcass.

The religious ritual, which does not allow the animals to be stunned beforehand, is considered cruel by campaigners and is exempt from animal welfare laws.

Harrow resident Sheila Murphy told the Harrow Observer: ‘I am appalled at Harrow Council’s decision to serve only Halal meat in the borough’s schools.

‘The Farm Animal Welfare Council has lobbied the government in the past to get the Kosher and Halal method of slaughter banned.

‘The Halal method, in which animals are slaughtered by a single slit to the throat, is the only way of killing livestock allowed under Islam but this method is deemed cruel by some animal-lovers, who object to the slow death it involves.

‘Harrow Council’s decision is also taking away the choice of children and their parents over what meat they eat and I urge Harrow residents to make their views known to Harrow Council and get this decision overturned.’ Continue Reading →

Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions

Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions Big Peace.Com

Posted by Christine Brim Aug 4th 2010 at 8:57 am in Justice/Legal, Obama, Uncategorized | Comments (0)

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems.  To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap:  the substitution of one liberal justice for another.

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history.  A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court.  And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan, because other than her work as Obama’s Solicitor General, she has no judicial experience.

But Kagan has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system – Shariah – and Senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her.  Her 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them  shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah law.

Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court.  Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:

1. PRO-SHARIAH MISSION: With Kagan’s direction,  Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.”  That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean. Continue Reading →

Four guilty of bungled ‘honour killings’

By Kim Pilling, Press Association

Monday, 2 August 2010

'); } else { document.write(' '); } // ]]>

 


 

Four men were convicted today of murdering a couple in a bungled honour killing arson attack.

Abdullah Mohammed, 41, and his wife, Aysha Mohammed, 39, were overcome by smoke and fumes after petrol was poured through their letterbox and set alight.

Hisamuddin Ibrahim, 21, wanted to punish a man who was having an affair with his married sister and ordered three men to cause a blaze at his terraced home in the early hours while he was asleep.

But the wrong address was targeted as the blaze was started at the home of the Mohammeds in 175 London Road in Blackburn, Lancashire - instead of the intended address of 135 London Road.

A jury at Preston Crown Court took just 90 minutes following a six-week trial to convict Ibrahim, Habib Iqbal, Sadek Miah and Mohammed Miah (no relation) of their murders. Continue Reading →

NER: ‘What is a mosque? Interview with Sam Solomon

This is an interview quite similar to the one Vlad Tepes did of Mr. Solomon on June 7th of this year. Here is a written transcript of that interview from The New English Review:

What is a Mosque? An Interview with Sam Solomon

by Jerry Gordon (August 2010)


Gordon: Greetings Mr. Solomon and thank you for consenting to this interview. Let us start with the simple question, what is a mosque and what is its basic function in the Muslim community?

Solomon: A mosque, totally unlike a church or a synagogue, serves the function of orchestrating and mandating every aspect of “life” in a Muslim community from the religious, to the political, to the economic, to the social, to the military. In Islam, religion and life are not separate. They are indivisible. In Islam religion is not just a part of life, but “life” is absorbed and regulated to the tiniest detail by religion (See Figure 1). In other words every aspect of a man or woman’s life must be defined and governed by religion. So there is no concept of personal choice whatsoever, or in theological terms, there is no “free will,” but only limited preferences between prescribed courses of action. In addition, there is no concept of a personal relationship between the person and the entity being worshiped, so “worship” itself, is of a different nature than that performed in a church or synagogue.

Figure 1: Comparison of Non-Islamic vs Islamic views of one’s freedom of choice and options in life.So we see that a mosque is a seat of government. A mosque is a school. A mosque is a court. A mosque is a training center. A mosque is a gathering place, or social center. It is not a place of “worship” per se as understood and as practiced in Western societies.
Specifically, how is a mosque a threat to the community within which it is built?

Every single mosque in the world, by definition, is modeled on the mosque of Muhammad in Medina in accordance with the Sunnah. The Sunnah interprets the Qur’an by reporting exhaustively on everything that Muhammad said, did, or consented to. Therefore, his Medina mosque, the first mosque, was a place where he gave judgments, where he decided who would be executed, where he instituted policy—domestic and military— where Jihad war strategies were designed. Consequently, it was a storage place for arms, a military training base, and was where troops were blessed and dispatched. Literally they were sent to conquer – first the whole of Arabia, and then the rest of the known world. Therefore if the present-day mosque is modeled as per the Sunnah of Muhammad then there should be very serious concern. As is well-known, Muslims are required to follow the example (Sunnah) of Muhammad—and according to Sura 33:36 it is not an option or a matter of opinion: “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.”  This explains and establishes beyond doubt why arms have been found in mosques in various countries, and in different capital cities.
In addition to the undisputed significance of the Medina mosque as the role model for all Mosques, there is also the Islamic policy of establishing strategic Mosques as beachheads with interconnected networks. Taken together, these two policies do constitute a clear and present danger—and a need for concern.
For example, when Abu Hamza[1] was the Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque in the United Kingdom, he trained people, he sent out terrorists  and British authorities found arms stored there.  He was well within his Islamic mandate as these activities were sanctioned by Islam. He didn’t find it wrong because it is in the Islamic manuals. Another prime example of a mosque being found to have engaged in high-level political, military and intelligence activities is the Munich Mosque, which is now considered by Islamists to be on a par with some  of highest-ranked Mosques in Muslim countries.[2]

What comment do you have on the significance of the Ground Zero Mosque set to open on 9/11, 2011?

First of all, the sponsors and supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque insist that the significance of the building of this mosque is that it constitutes a refutation of the radical “fringe” within Islam, and as such, is a gesture of peace and reconciliation toward America and the victims of 9/11.
But, it is ludicrous for anybody to accept that this is a gesture of peace in the Western sense—rather it is a different definition of “peace.” It is the Islamic definition of “peace” as a suspension of “struggle” which is ultimately said to emerge once opposition ceases, and Islam reigns supreme as Muhammad has stated, “Islam rises and nothing rises above it.”
The rationale of the sponsors is that acts of terrorism are being carried out by misguided “radicals” rather than true Muslims and that as a consequence, Islam itself has been victimized and defamed and needs to be defended. Their solution is to appear to decry all “radicalism”, and to take the bold symbolic act of erecting a 13 to 15-story Mosque—ostensibly representing true Islam—on the site itself, in their words, to “bridge and heal this divide.” [3]

So, if allowed to be built, this mosque would consolidate, solidify, and embody a fallacious and pernicious interpretation of what really happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.[4]

In one fell swoop, it will be a re-writing of American history with American cooperation, and will achieve another major Islamic goal of setting a high profile beachhead at a strategic location in the seat of American economic power. Continue Reading →

Canada: Air security won’t ask Muslims to lift veils to prove ID

From The Toronto Sun

Lifting the veil on airport security

Air security won’t ask for veiled Muslims to prove ID

By Brian Lilley and Bryn Weese, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: August 1, 2010 5:16am

OTTAWA – Frequent flyers know the drill: take off your shoes, surrender your tweezers and pack your shampoo in those little plastic baggies before lining up for the naked body scanners. But lift your niqab? Apparently not.

QMI Agency can reveal that neither airlines nor security services are asking Muslim women to lift their veils and prove that the face beneath matches their photo ID.

The issue came to light through a video taken by Mick Flynn of Bradford, England. Flynn was boarding a flight at Montreal’s Trudeau International Airport when he witnessed two women with their faces covered board an Air Canada Heathrow bound flight without being asked to remove their veils.

In fact, in the video that Flynn has posted online, a man traveling with the group hands in all the passports and is the only one to interact with airline staff while two veiled women simply walk through.

“I complained at the desk — and again as I boarded the plane — asking if the pilot was happy that two women boarded without being identified,” Flynn told QMI Agency. “Both members of staff whom I spoke to were flustered and clearly embarrassed.”

Flynn’s communication with Air Canada and his video posting have resulted in a threatened lawsuit from the airline. As for answers from the company about security procedures, their response reveals holes in Canada’s air security.

“Airline passengers have already undergone multiple security checks before arriving at the boarding gate,” Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick told QMI. “A final check is made at the gate prior to boarding in order to confirm passengers on the flight.”

Air Canada says it is capable of checking identification in a private room away from the check-in counter, but said the real responsibility for security measures lies with CATSA, the Canadian Air Transport Security Agency.

Not so, says CATSA.

Greg MacDougall, a spokesman for CATSA, tells QMI that their guards are primarily looking for metal, weapons or other banned material, not ensuring that veiled faces match passport photos.

“We don’t have concerns with that. We have concerns with the fact if the person has any metal under their clothing,” MacDougall said.

A former CATSA employee, who, until recently worked as a frontline screener, tells QMI: “We were never allowed to ask anyone with a veil to lift it. It is their religion.”

Frontline workers for several airlines say that any checks, if they happen at all, would likely happen at the check-in desk, not at boarding or security.

Most airports have wide gaps between where baggage is checked and the secure portions of the airport.

Transport Canada says there should be no confusion: “The airline must be able to verify the identity of all passengers before they are allowed to board,” the department said in a written statement.

Lawyer David Harris of INSIGNIS Strategic Research says Canadians should be concerned about what he deems preferential treatment.

“Full veiling has been a boon for those participating in criminal and terrorist operations,” Harris said pointing to the story of Mustaf Jama.

Jama, a Somali national with a long criminal record, was wanted in Britain for the 2006 murder of police constable Sharon Beshenivsky. As police closed in to arrest the career criminal, Jama was able to escape back to Somalia by wearing a full veil and boarding a flight at Heathrow airport.

Harris’ call for lifting the veil is backed up by two Muslim groups often at odds with each other, the Muslim Canadian Congress and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Canada.

“You cannot allow a person wearing a mask to be in the perimeter of an airport,” says Tarek Fatah of the Congress. “If you don’t want to take off the mask, take the TTC (public transit) to Cairo.”

“Women who wear the niqab are not constrained by the religious belief from removing their veil for legitimate reasons, and security is one of them,” said Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of CAIR-CAN.

Gardee admits that Canadian officials may be reluctant to deal with this issue head-on due to concerns about political correctness. “It’s something that needs to be addressed,” Gardee said.

Gardee says it would be preferable if female staff were able to conduct any screening that involved removing the veil but adds that if female staff are not available, the women must still be forced to remove their niqab.

Excellent example of Islamic word games and making marionettes out of leftists

Posting has been light today because I was working on this one post. The clip at the bottom took a great deal of time. I felt it was worth it when I watched the Muslims leading the demonstration in the clip at the top, turn it from a peace rally, to a distinctly different one.

Watch the chants on this protest for peace. Notice how it starts out demanding an end to war and for peace and so on, then changes rather quickly to, “no peace without justice”, a common Islamic rhetorical device. As most in the west do not realize that Muslims redefine common terms to suit their purpose, while knowing full well we non-Muslims are understanding something fundamentally different when we hear that term, (think ‘marriage’ just for one example) I thought it might be useful to explain what Muslims mean by the term, ‘justice’.

Below, some clips from two very important documentaries, Farewell Israel, and Atomic Jihad. I have grabbed a few clips that attempt to explain the Islamic concept of ‘justice’ which have about as much to do with a Western concept of justice as womens rights do in Afghanistan vs. USA

Muslims vow to take more African territory, force sharia on everyone.

Stratfor:

Somalia: Islamist Rebels Vow To Attack Puntland
July 28, 2010
An Islamist rebel group based in Puntland said it would wage war against the semi-autonomous region’s government until Shariah is enacted, Reuters reported July 28, citing a July 27 statement from the group’s leader, Sheikh Mohamed Saiid Atom. Speaking in the town of Galkayo near the border with Somalia proper, Atom said his group is allied with al Shabaab and urged local residents and businessmen to join their cause. Atom said his group and al Shabaab are “brothers united by Islamic Shariah,” and will never stop fighting the government in Puntland.

Iranian Mosque drops disguise and becomes a brothel

From Pajamas media.

Holy Shiite! Pious pilgrimage just got more exciting at Imam Reza’s shrine in Iran, where for a reasonable fee (see price list below) a mullah can join any eager pilgrim in holy matrimony of “temporary marriage” with his choice of a lovely, fully hijabed, and properly veiled prostitute for a period between 5 hours to 10 days. Pedophiles welcome: girls as young as 12 years of age are standing by. Not to worry, the mullahs got them covered: all “temps” under 14 must show a written consent from their fathers or male guardians (no doubt on advice from the recently fired, now freelancing ACORN specialists).

We are not making this up.

For the rest please click on over to Pajamas Media here.