What Canadian Muslims are concerned about. The narrative.

The following is an article from Muslimlink, an Ottawa based on-line community newspaper for Muslims. The article is a summary of the “major concerns facing the Muslim community in Canada”, written by Yahya Abdul Rahman one of the papers’ columnists and blogger. It is a response to a request from the organizers of the ‘Reviving the Islamic Spirit Conference’ that was held in the Toronto area this past December 24-26.

This is the narrative, the same one echoed throughout most western nations. It contradicts the truth and seeks to manipulate. It brands free and welcoming nations as places of intolerance and racism.

What kind of magazine is Muslimlink? Blazingcatfur sums it up nicely.

WRITTEN BY YAHYA ABDUL RAHMAN FRIDAY, 24 DECEMBER 2010 18:56 I was asked by the organizers of the upcoming Reviving the Islamic Spirit conference (24 – 26 Dec.) to write a brief summary of the major concerns facing the Muslim community in Canada which would be handed to all of the scheduled speakers in advance. I asked several people for their thoughts on this issue and what follows is a summary of responses from about ten people. It is hoped that this document will provide the speakers, many of which are coming from overseas, a snapshot of the many areas of concern for Canada’s Muslim community.  It is also hoped that by publishing this document in the public domain it can be expanded upon as well as further sensitize readers to the many challenges for Canadian Muslims in the days ahead.

Many of the major concerns facing Canada’s Muslim community reflect the concerns of Canada’s population at large including employment, health care, the rising cost of living and education. Other concerns specific to the Muslim community include, but are not limited to:

  • The increasing right-wing positions of the Canadian government on a host of issues which are hurting Canada’s international reputation. Canada’s one-sided support for Israel, for example, its military presence in Afghanistan and increasing anti-Iran rhetoric from the current government is a major concern for Canadian Muslims.
  • The lack of voice for Muslims in Canada’s political system. There is no Muslim group which the current government meets with on a regular basis to discuss issues of concern to Canadian Muslims. In fact, existing groups, such as the Canadian Islamic Congress, are being marginalized and unfairly labeled as extremist.
  • Discrimination against Muslims serving in Canada’s military.
  • Ongoing spying in Mosques by Canada’s security agencies.
  • Restrictions on religious liberties. The Quebec government has announced plans to ban government agencies and public institutions from offering services to veiled women. Bill 94, when it becomes law, will effectively eject the niqab from Quebec’s public sphere in the name of ensuring gender equality and maintaining secular values in public services.
  • The general feeling that the so called “war on terror” has made Muslims an easy target. In the current social and political environment the most innocent of activities seem suspicious to the authorities. Racial and religious profiling is also a major concern.
  • Negative attitudes, stereotypes and assumptions about Muslims, Arabs and South East Asians in the media which lead to rising Islamophobia.
  • There are also calls for Muslims to integrate into the wider society and accusations that they have not properly embraced “Canadian values”. Yet it is unclear what it is meant by the terms “integration” and “Canadian values”. How do Muslims properly integrate into the surrounding society while keeping a balance between being effective citizens and realizing their distinctiveness in issues that do not align with their values as Muslims? Is Islam compatible with “Canadian values?” If so, how? If not, why not?
  • Inadequate riba (interest) free options for Muslims.
  • Continue Reading →

CIA’s Clare Lopez on Lowell Green show, CFRA hosted by Nick Vandergragt

Today, as a part II to Nick’s two show series on sharia law and Islam in the west, Nick had special guest, Clare Lopez, who’s bio is below:

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms.

Ms. Lopez is deputy director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team for the Military Department of the South Carolina National Guard and serves as a member of the Board of Advisors for the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, the Institute of World Affairs, and the Intelligence Analysis and Research program at her undergraduate alma mater, Notre Dame College of Ohio. She has been a Visiting Researcher and guest lecturer on counterterrorism, national defense, and international relations at Georgetown University. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.

Ms. Lopez received a B.A. in Communications and French from Notre Dame College of Ohio and an M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She completed Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico, Virginia before declining a commission to join the CIA.

Part I is available here and is a call in show only with no guests, but some of the calls are interesting.

Enjoy.

Clare Lopez on CFRA Jan 6 2011 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Nick Vandergragt on CFRA does call in show on sharia law

This was quite a show. It is interesting to hear attitudes change. Political correctness seems on the run and thank all things holy for that.

Get a coffee and sit back. Also, Nick promised he was going to continue this theme on tomorrow’s show so dial in to www.cfra.com for 10:00 EDT Jan 6 and hope the show is as good as this one is, and I have a sneaking suspicion it will be for a few reasons… much better even.
Enjoy

Eeyore

Nick at Night CFRA on sharia law from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

DOUGLAS MURRAY: Warning to the US: Don’t Play by Islamic Rules

This is a truly excellent piece of work by a man who I grow more and more to admire as one of the great intellectuals of the day. Douglas Murray appeared with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the IQ2 debate, ‘Is Islam a religion of peace’ and was excellent. But this piece is superb. If you read nothing else today, read this. Thank you Fred for sending it to me. This is nectar for a thirsty mind.

From Standpoint Mag

By Douglas Murray

What was your first reaction back in May when you heard of plans to build a mega-mosque near the site of the Twin Towers in New York? Did you assume it was a tasteless joke? Did your jaw drop? Or did you think: “What a good idea. No better place.”

My bet would be that most readers (including self-described liberal readers) had a touch more of the former reaction than the latter. Some people even said so at the time. A number of families of 9/11 victims spoke out against the building and for a few weeks the idea of a 13-storey mosque complex beside the World Trade Centre craters, due to cost £68 million yet with no known financial backer, seemed a dead duck.

So how was it that within a few months many of those same people, most notably the most loudly self-declared liberals, were not merely advocating the building of that same mosque but in many cases seemed eager to build it themselves, finally depicting its construction as the sine qua non of America’s survival? The distance between first and second instincts is always illuminating. But this one turns out to be more than usually so. Public debates in America tend to happen rougher, faster and more ferociously than they do in most of Europe. And so it was that a heated debate over one hot summer transformed a planning dispute into something far larger and more significant.

Daisy Khan: Wife of the Imam of the proposed Ground Zero mosque has claimed to be a victim

It was at the beginning of August that the Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg stood with the Statue of Liberty in the background to make a major announcement. The planning regulations surrounding the former Burlington Coat Factory on 45-51 Park Place, had already met opposition at the community board advisory level. National polls suggested that a majority of Americans were opposed to the building of what was then called Cordoba House, a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. But Bloomberg thought differently. Surrounded by the requisite collective of religiously-attired figures, Bloomberg declared that restrictive planning laws of New York would not be allowed to stand in the way of the planned mosque. The debate was not about a planning application any longer. It was about something more, he declared. It was about America.

In his often teary-eyed speech, Bloomberg exercised the now decade-long tendency to believe that al-Qaeda meant whatever you want them to have meant when they destroyed the Twin Towers. Bloomberg declared: “Three thousand people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.” The issue, he said, was “as important  a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime”. And it wasn’t a test he intended to fail. Expressing his support for the construction of the mosque, he said: “The community centre and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighbourhood and the entire city.”

President Barack Obama appeared to enter the debate on Bloomberg’s side when he raised the matter at a Muslim iftar (post-fast) dinner at the White House. “This is America,” he confirmed indignantly. The next day, he changed tack in the face of a popular uproar, and claimed that he had not in fact made the statement he appeared to have made, but had instead carefully avoided making any statements about the wisdom of building anything anywhere.

Despite Obama’s phantom U-turn, by the end of the summer the liberal consensus appeared to be with Bloomberg. After further negative opinion polls, Bloomberg declared that those opposed to the mosque “ought to be ashamed of themselves”, adding: “To cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists.” Al-Qaeda had attacked the World Trade Centre and as a result it was now vital that America reply by building a mosque.

Other politicians were not as distrustful as Bloomberg was of popular sentiment. In mid-August, Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, said on air: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington…We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbour.” Gingrich’s intervention allowed mainstream politicians respectfully to oppose the construction. But by then another element of the debate had emerged. It was one which points to perhaps the largest difference between the European and American debate on this issue. Continue Reading →

Eurabia: The Planned Islamization of Europe

“Europe is not occupied by any external force, but in spite of this fact the continent finds itself in the throes of one of the greatest demographic upheavals in its history…”

The following analysis of the Islamization of Europe was written by Michael Mannheimer in 2009 and originally published in German at the Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa website.

The translation below was adapted from a pdf document. Since the original has both footnotes and endnotes, I have taken the footnotes and converted them into endnotes with a different sequence, based on lower-case letters enclosed in square brackets (example: [a])

Vibevej Moske
Eurabia: The Planned Islamization of Europe
by Michael Mannheimer

“Thanks to your democratic laws, we will overtake you; thanks to your religious laws, we will rule over you. — Imam from Izmir1

The Example of Denmark

The Islamization of Europe is in full swing. The majority of Europeans are helpless against this development. They are informed neither about the true essence of Islam, nor about the background of Islamic politics on European soil. The Muslims have not come to integrate into European societies. Their goal is the transformation of Europe into an Islamic realm where Shari’a alone, the law of Islam, will rule.

This series of documents brings important information to light with regard to this issue with the hope that the expansionist desires of the Muslims and their supporters in the Western Elite will be met with much-needed resistance.

Please click on over to Gates of Vienna to see the rest of this important, excellent and thorough document.

The Sharia Shack: Toronto halal restaurant seats women in separate section.

img05161.jpg

This story first came to light when posted on Small Dead Animals, one of Canada’s more influential blogs, thanks to a reader who sent in the photograph. It appears the owners and operators of Juba Restaurant feel perfectly comfortable applying sharia standards in a public establishment. Canadian values do not support gender segregation; men and women are considered equal in all aspects of life, with legal statutes firmly in place reflecting this societal value. Sharia law considers gender mixing unIslamic, so it stands to reason that the good Muslims over at Juba’s sharia shack would defy both the value of gender equality and the laws supporting it.

Purdah, the separation of men and women, is based upon the central theme of Namus (honour) and is expected in public in many Islamic countries. Religious Saudis believe it is forbidden for a woman to eat in public as part of her veil would have to be removed to do so, revealing her face which would compromise purdah. For this reason, segregation is especially strict in restaurants and it is common for establishments to have defined areas for women only often marked as “family” and “women section only”. It is common to see western restaurant chains with both separate entrances and seating sections as they too, must abide by sharia standards. This McDonald’s in Riyhad comes complete with a segregated section where women must sit in the “family” section.

File-McDonald's_branch,_Takkassusi_street,_Riyadh,_Saudi_Arabia.jpg

Sharia law is not legal in Canada. and this is not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan or any other country where sharia is the standard. This is Canada where Islamic law finds little, if any respect.

I might add, restaurants in Canada have been declared public property, and that was the entire basis for the now nation wide smoking bans. If a restaurant is considered public property, even though I do not believe it is, for the purpose of social engineering, then surely the kind of gender apartheid, (using the word correctly for once) being applied in this restaurant must be illegal and certainly should be stopped. This will only encourage Muslim men who are trying to make certain that women from Muslim nations will not and cannot integrate into Western society, and make it that much easier to force them to standards here in Canada, that should not apply even in the Islamic Magreb.

Robert Spencer speaks at rally to support the Copts.

This is a very important issue. Robert Spencer is an expert on sharia law, and his speech here deals with a number of very important issues. Pay close attention. H/T my man FOOMF

March in England Dec 15th against legal double standards.

I am so glad, the EDL is doing this. It is an abomination and an outrage that two standards and legal systems apply to the people of England and the fact is, when you add those systems together, you get Sharia for all.

This march, perhaps of all the marches the EDL have organized, is at least in my opinion the most important and moral one. In any given jurisdiction, there only ever can be one standard and set of laws. Anything else is slavery. If you can at all make it to join this march on Dec. 15th please do so. This is a crucial issue.

Melanie Phillips on Tower Hamlets.

Sunday, 24th October 2010 The Spectator


People like myself who have warned for some years now about the steady Islamisation of Britain receive a torrent of scorn and abuse from the so-called custodians of our culture. Terms such as ‘scare-mongering’, exaggeration’ or ‘alarmism’ tumble out alongside the inevitable ‘Islamophobia’.

Now we can see what these cultural kamikazes are helping bring about. In the east London borough of Tower Hamlets, a man with reported links to radical Islamism, Lutfur Rahman, has been elected Mayor of the borough, giving him control of a billion-pound budget and thus the apparent installation of a platform for the progressive intimidation and silencing of British Muslims who do not want to live under sharia law, let alone the non-Muslim majority in the area.

In order to know anything about this crucial development, you have to read the Telegraph’s Andrew Gilligan who has been closely following what’s been going on in Tower Hamlets during the past year. He writes on his blog:

Please click here for the rest:

Cat Stephens’ real thoughts.

Yet he is not above selling his song books under his old name, Cat Stephens. Check any musical instrument store. None of them say, ‘Yussef Al Islam’s hit, Peace Train’.

Stunning testimony at the trial of Geert Wilders.

Thanks to the Counter Jihad Collective, and especially the work of V.H. as translator and the good Baron over at Gates of Vienna, we have managed to translate and subtitle a lot of the testimony given by the judge (I still don’t exactly understand that as procedure) reading from Wafa Sultan and others, on behalf of Geert Wilders.

This testimony, written by Hans Jansen, is the most blunt and insightful of all. Yes it is nearly an hour, but well worth it. Jansen does not mince words and responds to all the questions asked of him with tremendous clarity eliminating irrelevant assumptions from the questions and then discussing the pertinent aspects of Islam relative to the charges against Geert Wilders directly. This really is an excellent watch. Hans is an Arabist with world class credentials on Arabic and Islamic history and culture.

Exposing the ACLU’s rather blatant double standard.

The modern ACLU reminds me somewhat of a particular Oscar Wilde quote although without the humour.

“There are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

Except the ACLU does have 2 sets of consistent and opposing principles it acts on.

Below, is a video with which I do not entirely agree. That is to say, I do in fact believe in the separation of church and state. But this has to apply to Mosques as well, yet the ACLU actually fought for, and won the ‘right’ for Muslims to have publicly funded foot-baths for ritual prayer in federal airports. Something they do not even have in Saudi Arabia. Which makes this all the more annoying.