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

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 →

We are being tricked into violating our own principles and buying halal meats.

This is a big deal. Western civilization had to spend centuries developing technology as well as social awareness to get to the level where we have strict laws for the humane treatment of farm animals.
If an exception is to be made for religious groups, and I most earnestly believe there should not be, then at least the products should be labelled so that those buying it are aware that the meat they are looking has been slaughtered in a way of enormous cruelty to the animal, and had some, Islamic-conduit-to-the-imaginary chanting Arabic over it at the time.

The right to know what you are buying is basic. Triply so with food. Ask where you shop if the meat is halal, and refuse it if it is. We cannot allow this shyster like Pascal’s wager to be played on us, where producers figure that if all meat is Halal then they do not lose any of their market share. They have to know that the cost of Islamification of the west, as well as abandoning all civilized rules for agriculture and animal husbandry, is the loss of the business of we poor kuffar.

Niqabs in Canadian courts???

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.

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.

Blazing Cat Fur: Shocka! Imam Zijad Delic’s Islamic History Month Advisory Board Includes Mohamed Elmasry, 911 Truther, Louis Farrakhan Fanboy, Muslim Brotherhood Member

Big Hat Tip to Evil Good Web Elf Binks for finding this.

If indeed Imam Delic of the Canadian Islamic Congress is the moderate he claims he may wish to moderate his acquaintances.

The Islamic History Month Board of Advisors of which he and and The CIC’s 911 Truther President Wahida Valiante are both members includes such luminaries as:

Mohamed Elmasry – Who needs no introduction.

Jamal Badawi CAIR-CAN board member, Muslim Brotherhood Member and “unindicted co-conspirator” in the “Holy Land Terrorist Funding Trial”

Dr. Munir El-Kassem who has publicly praised Louis Farrakhan and wrote this apologia for the Taliban’s destruction of the Hindu Statues in Afghanistan

Dr. Anthony Hall 911 Truther, gee he and Wahida Valiante will have something in common…

Oh and the anti-semitic Islamist Front Organization Canadian Arab Federation is a sponsor as well as the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) – which openly supports and adheres to the doctrines of Hassan Albanna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Below: A Message from the Chair of IHMC, Sr. Wahida Valiante

For the rest please click over to BCF

A Guide for the Perplexed Parent—Countering Public School Indoctrination on Islam (Updated)

Andrew Bostom

A Guide for the Perplexed Parent—Countering Public School Indoctrination on Islam (Updated)

September 25th, 2010 by Andrew Bostom |

As parents, we have a moral obligation to our children and our Western heritage to combat the corrosive indoctrination on Islam that currently passes for “Islamic education” in public school curricula. That effort must begin by providing our children ready home access to objective, unapologetic Western scholarship on Islam, such as the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam.

The Texas Board of Education issued a press release, Friday 9/24/10, which included a self-described “most debated item on the board’s Friday agenda”—a non-binding resolution that barely passed by a 7-6 vote, with two members absent. The resolution concludes with the statement that the board,

…will look to reject future prejudicial social studies submissions that continue to offend Texas law with respect to treatment of the world’s major religious groups by significant inequalities of coverage spacewise and/or by demonizing or lionizing one or more of them over others.

Additional media reports of the resolution adopted Friday maintained it cited “…politically-correct whitewashes of Islamic culture and stigmas on Christian civilization…” in current textbooks, while warning that, “…more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the US public school textbook oligopoly.”

But defenders of the textbooks in question, such as the Rev. Bobbi Kaye Jones, superintendent of the Austin District of the United Methodist Church, representing the Texas Freedom Network, an interfaith group of religious leaders, insisted,

Realistic information takes a back seat to religious intolerance [in Texas], and education suffers a blow.

And Imam Islam Mossaad of the North Austin Muslim Community Center, affirming the “objectivity” of the textbooks in question,  stated,

Our children’s textbooks must treat all religions accurately and fairly.

Gilbert Sewall, although critical of the reasoning in the Texas School Board resolution, was favorably inclined toward its intent. Sewall is founder of the American Textbook Council, a nonprofit that reviews history and social studies textbooks utilized in U.S. schools. His organization issued a comprehensive, evidenced-based 2008 report entitled,  “Islam in the Classroom—What the Textbooks Tell Us”.

This 2008 report observed, prominently, that the deficiencies in Islam-related lessons were uniquely disturbing, with history textbooks presenting, “ an incomplete and confected view of Islam that misrepresents its foundations and challenges to international security.” Among textbooks copyrighted before 2001, “deficiencies” regarding Islam, “ persist and in some cases have grown worse.” Sewall also maintained that publishers and editors in lieu of making corrections or adjusting contested facts,

…defend misinformation and content evasions against the record. Biases persist. Silences are profound and intentional. Particular fault rests with the publishing corporations, boards of directors, and executives who decide what editorial policies their companies will pursue. Publishers have learned of contested facts and have had the time to correct imbalances. But instead of making changes, they have sustained errors or, in deliberate acts of self-censorship, have removed controversial material.”

And Sewall concluded the 2008 report with this appropriate, but as yet unaddressed warning:

Islamic activists use multiculturalism and ready-made American political movements, especially those on campus, to advance and justify the makeover of Islam-related textbook content.

Responding to the current Texas Board of Education resolution controversy, Sewall opined,

My complaint is the misinformation and selected information that attend chapters on Islam. The resolution is correct that textbooks routinely doctor the meaning of jihad (or fail to cover it) and that Muslim intolerance/military aggression, (is) soft-pedaled or excised.

And Sewall reiterated his 2008 concerns about the corrosive impact of cultural relativism, which he argued undermines the ability to defend ourselves against jihadism. The publishing industry, he stated,  …

…[R]esists ugly facts about Islam…From what they read in history textbooks, students and teachers are not likely to grasp why the United States and its allies consider militant Islam an enemy.

The raging textbook controversy in Texas, because of the Lone Star State’s purchasing power, will ultimately affect textbooks distributed across the country. But regardless of which side prevails, and the content of such textbooks, revised or not, I suggest a modest proposal to help resolve this dilemma for concerned parents. As a small investment in our children’s (and their parents’) objective education about Islam, purchase your household a copy of the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam (used from $30.00; new at $140.00 to $143.20).

Originally published in 1953, and edited by the eminent scholars of Islam, H.A. R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, this single volume includes all the articles contained in the first edition and supplement of the nine-volume classic Brill Encyclopedia of Islam, pertaining, in particular, to the religion and law of Islam. The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam remains an unequalled—and unbowdlerized—reference work.

Consider the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam entry on jihad (spelled “djihad”)—arguably the most important single subject today’s students must grasp about Islam. The concise discussion of jihad was written by Duncan B. MacDonald (1863-1933), a very sympathetic scholar of Islam, renowned for his seminal analyses on the development of Muslim theology and jurisprudence. Here are MacDonald’s key observations about the nature and conduct of jihad, which he defines with doctrinal and historical accuracy, as “holy war”:

[H]oly war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general…This position was reached gradually but quickly. In the Meccan Suras [chapters] of the Koran patience under attack is taught; no other attitude was possible. But at Medina the right to repel attack appears, and gradually it became a prescribed duty to fight against and subdue the hostile Meccans. Whether Muhammad himself recognized that his position implied steady and unprovoked war against the unbelieving world until it was subdued to Islam may be in doubt. Traditions [especially the hadith, the canonical collections of Muhammad’s words and deeds recorded by his most pious Muslim companions] are explicit on the point; but the Koranic passages speak always of the unbelievers who are to be subdued as dangerous or faithless. Still, the story of his writing to the powers around him shows that such a universal position was implicit in his mind, and it certainly developed after his death, when the Muslim armies advanced out of Arabia. It is now a fard ala l-kifaya, a duty in general on all male, free, adult Muslims, sane in mind and body and having means enough to reach the Muslim army, yet not a duty necessarily incumbent on every individual but sufficiently performed when done by a certain number. So it must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam…

The people against whom the jihad is directed must first be invited to embrace Islam. On refusal they have another choice. They may submit to Muslim rule, become dhimmis and pay jizya and kharadj [specific taxes imposed on the vanquished non-Muslims—the former, in lieu of being slain] or fight. In the first case, their lives, families and property are assured to them, but they have a definitely inferior status, with no technical citizenship, and a standing only as protected wards. If they fight, they and their families may be enslaved and all their property seized as booty, four-fifths of which goes to the conquering army. If they embrace Islam…they become part of the Muslim community with all its rights and duties. Apostates must be put to death. But if a Muslim country is invaded by unbelievers, the Imam [Muslim sovereign] may issue a general summons calling all Muslims there to arms, and as the danger grows so may the width of the summons until the whole Muslim world is involved. A Muslim who dies fighting in the Path of Allah (fi sabil Allah) is a martyr (shahid) and is assured of Paradise and of peculiar privileges there [a genteel reference to the willing virgins awaiting jihad martyrs]. Such a death was in the early generations, regarded as the peculiar crown of a pious life. It is still, on occasions, a strong incitement….

MacDonald concludes his Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam entry on jihad—published in the mid-1930s—with this warning, relevant then, and now:

Even yet, however, any war between Muslims and non-Muslims must be a jihad with its incitements and rewards…[T]he Muslim masses still follow the unanimous voice of the canon lawyers [Muslim clerics]. Islam must be completely made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.

Two obituaries (published in the New York Times, and Yale News) from 2003 for Yale Professor Franz Rosenthal—the Sterling Professor Emeritus of Arabic—highlighted his escape from Nazi totalitarianism. Rosenthal’s work included lucid, timeless analyses of Islamic “martyrdom” vs. suicide, and the antithetical Islamic and Western conceptions of “freedom.” Franz Rosenthal also wrote an obituary for the Austrian-born US scholar Gustave E. Von Grunebaum (1909-1972) which included these observations about von Gruenbaum’s seminal contributions, and uncompromising standards:

For the rest of this article please click over to Andrew Bostom’s website here:

Shariah: The Threat to America

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:

Muslim Disneyland employee agrees to wear a beret over her hijab after theme park objected to her head scarf

Before I show you Disney’s solution, Please allow me to show you mine.

remember the issue. A woman was hired to work for Disney and there was no problems until the day after she passed the point where she could no longer be easily fired, and suddenly started insisting on her ‘right’ to Ignore Disney dress codes and wear the Niqab. Well Disney has come up with a compromise. But I would like to show you mine first:

Thank you Tundra Tabloids for this excellent photoshop

Continue Reading →

Stunning French video of the Islamification of England.

I don’t know which is more shocking. This footage of how Muslims have taken over parts of London and enforced the sharia against British laws, or the fact that this was done by a French media outlet when Paris is as bad or worse.

Mainstream Islam Rejects Freedom of Conscience

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) will be meeting in Chicago later this month, sponsoring a program promoting values antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.
September 23, 2010 – by Andrew G. Bostom

<script language=”javascript” type=”text/javascript” src=”http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5235/1142577/0/170/ADTECH;loc=700;cookie=info;target=_blank;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=000004″></script><noscript><a href=”http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/3.0/5235/1142577/0/170/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=000004″ target=”_blank”><img src=”http://adserver.adtechus.com/adserv/3.0/5235/1142577/0/170/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4;grp=000004″ border=”0″ width=”300″ height=”250″></a></noscript>

On September 28-30, 2010, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), in cooperation with the American Islamic College (AIC), is sponsoring a program at the AIC’s Chicago campus titled “The Role of the OIC and the scope for its relations with American Muslims.”

Founded in 1969, the OIC is now a 56-state collective which includes every Islamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims) and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations.

John Laffin, the late (d. 2000) military historian and prolific writer on Islam, warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, under Saudi Arabia’s patronage, was persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to pre-colonial era (pre-Western) retrograde systems of Sharia, or Islamic law. The Saudis proffered sizable loans and grants from their institutions in return for the more extensive application of Sharia in these targeted OIC countries. Laffin also noted the unprecedented Saudi distribution of media and print materials which extended to non-Muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans, translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of Muslims (and non-Muslims) who did not read Arabic. He concluded at that time:

Propaganda is carried on from Riyadh on a scale comparable to Moscow’s effort to spread communism.

Fast forward 22 years, and two special U.S. envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current envoy, Rashad Hussain, will be in attendance at the Chicago OIC program), and one must seriously consider the extent of OIC propaganda efforts aimed at the Islamization of our country. Perhaps in Chicago some intrepid (and informed) mainstream media reporter — underscoring how the OIC’s agenda is diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution — will ask the representatives of this avatar of mainstream Islam about its blatant rejection of freedom of conscience, described below.

Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary about the plight of brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:

Sharia’s principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy (rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic discrimination; violent religious apartheid …

In Egypt, as in virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)

Thus Kendal concludes:

There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.

Islam’s refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified, and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam,” was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …

The preamble continues:

Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible — and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.

In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains:

[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Sharia: the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on “divine revelation,” which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions the gross inequalities inherent in the Sharia, and its Western human rights counterparts (the U.S. Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, and stress the absolute equality of all human beings.

Enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights is the guarantee that laws may not be made that interfere with religion “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Absent the right to freedom of thought, or conscience, other rights such as the right to freedom of speech are rendered meaningless. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo reasoned elegantly in Palko v. Connecticut (1937):

Freedom of thought … is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal.

This principle of freedom of conscience is also upheld in Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further makes explicit the fundamental right to change one’s religion:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

For the rest of Dr. Bostom’s excellent article, please click here to go to page 2 of Pajamas Media Blog:

Six arrested after burning of Koran on 9/11 ‘for the boys in Afghanistan’ is posted online

it should be noted that as more and more Muslims achieve positions of authority in Western nations, we will, and in fact are, seeing more and more applications of sharia law by authority as we did with the USD $10,000 reward offered by a Muslim police chief and many many more examples such as Muslim police stopping people from burning korans in England, a perfectly legal thing to do, while allowing Muslims to burn US and UK flags and call for the destruction of the British state in favour of the umma.

This is actually happening, not a prediction for the future, except the frequency and degree of Islamic law being applied in our nations will and is going up.

Here is just the example of the moment:

From the Daily Mail:

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:25 PM on 23rd September 2010

A gang of men have been arrested after filming themselves burning a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 – and posting it on YouTube.

Six suspects were seized after allegedly setting fire to the Muslim holy book in the backyard of a pub.

The men, who hid their faces, then posted the video of the burning on the popular website.

Six men have been arrested after filming themselves burning a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 - and posting it on YouTubeSix men have been arrested after filming themselves burning a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 – and posting it on YouTube

In the film the gang are seen gathered round a copy of the Koran in the backyard of The Bugle pub in Leam Lane, Felling, Gateshead.

Appearing with what seems to be tea towels wrapped around their heads, the men show the holy book to the camera before dousing it with fuel from a red can and lighting it.

One man in a grey Adidas tracksuit and white trainers, who has a blue cloth wrapped around his head makes a series of obscene gestures towards the book as it burns.

Laughing, the track-suited gang shouts ‘This is for the boys in Afghanistan.  September 11, international burn a Koran day, for all the people of 9/11.

‘This is how we do it in Gateshead, right.’

One man then attempts to add more fuel, but instead sets the plastic petrol can on fire.

He then kicks the book across the yard, leaving a trail of flames which he is forced to hastily stamp out.

Koran burning
Koran burning

The men hid their faces behind what appear to be tea towels and claimed the action was ‘for the boys in Afghanistan’

The men claimed 'This is how we do it in Gateshead!' during the sick stunt The men claimed ‘This is how we do it in Gateshead!’ during the sick stunt

Police visited The Bugle last Wednesday after the video was posted online.

Two men were arrested on suspicion of stirring racial hatred, and have since been released on bail. Continue Reading →

England: 2 men arrested for watching video of Koran burning

The world is becoming a sharia state much faster than expected. At least by me. I really think as many of us as humanly possible should get korans and burn them. There is only one way to preserve freedoms and that is use them. If we allow every thug to determine what our limits are, we will be slaves in no time at all.

Eeyore

From civil liberty.org.UK

Two Gateshead men arrested for watching 9/11 Koran burning video

20th September 2010

Civil Liberty correspondent

Warning from those practitioners of a peaceful religion Warning from those practitioners of a peaceful religion

In a disturbing development, Northumbria Police in Gateshead last week arrested two men after they watched and shared a video on Facebook of a man burning the Koran in the US during the recent 9/11 commemoration at Ground Zero in New York.

The men were drinking in the Bugle pub, Leam Lane, Gateshead, when they were arrested after watching and sharing the videos.

Around 30 people staged a protest outside Gateshead police station on Wednesday evening, the 15th of September, following the arrests.

The group stood outside the doors to the police station with an England flag for about three hours watched by a contingent of uniformed officers.The protesters had gathered at around 8pm after the two men were arrested earlier in the day on ‘suspicion of inciting racial hatred’.

The protest continued until around 11pm when the two arrested men were bailed pending further enquiries.

Please click over for the rest

A few links for Monday Sept 20 2010

I have been quite busy and still am, trying to improve the audio and editing the Ayaan Hirsi Ali speech from Denmark Sept. 18 2010 so I have not been able to post as many stories as I would have liked to, not to mention the number of stories that actually need the attention. Here is a set of links that has crossed my desk in the past few days. By the way, congratulations to the SD party in Sweden that met and exceeded their expectations with something like 20 new members of the Swedish Parliament and especially congratulations to Kent Eckeroth, someone who Vlad has been subtitling speeches for, and promoting for quite a while now. Sweden is lucky to have him.

Eeyore for Vlad

Here is an audio-only interview with a man who wrote a book explaining how Obama has flagrantly violated his constitutionally limited powers in a variety of ways. He does not advocate impeachment and is not an extremist in any way but does detail how Obama is limiting individual liberties in the US and transforming America as he promised he would, but in ways he simply is not allowed legally to do.

Andrew Bostom sent me this from American Thinker:

Halal to the Queen? Britain’s Stealth Halal-ization

Andrew G. Bostom
Creeping Sharia has already extended to the dietary practices of British dhimmis, who are involuntarily consuming meats ritually slaughtered and prayed over in good Islamic practice.

Although this Daily Mail investigation of the stealth Islamization of the British meat industry is largely fixated on the “animal cruelty” aspect of the story, the findings provide another disturbing example of Britain’s steady Islamization, as evidenced by its “stealth halal-ization”:
….[S]chools, hospitals, pubs and famous sporting venues such as Ascot and Twickenham are controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public. All the beef, chicken and lamb sold to fans at Wembley has secretly been prepared in accordance with sharia law, while Cheltenham College, which boasts of its ‘strong Christian ethos’, is one of several top public schools which also serves halal chicken to pupils without informing them. Even Britain’s biggest hotel and restaurant group Whitbread, which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains, among many others, has admitted that more than three-quarters of its poultry is halal.

Rest of article is linked here

Here is one of my favourite examples of selective tiflosis. Israelis are frequently called racist for not allowing themselves to be subjected to sharia law and destroying themselves as a state, while the PA affirms the death penalty for selling land to Jews. To be clear, if a Muslim Arab sells property to a Jewish person or an Israeli in the west bank, he will be killed for this crime. PA has affirmed it. Yet oddly, this is not racist and does not seem to catch the attention of the west’s secular left. As Mr. Spock was wont to say, ‘facinating’.

PA affirms death penalty for land sales to Israelis

The PA says the land law is necessary to prevent the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority on Sunday reaffirmed the death penalty for any Palestinian found guilty of selling land to Israelis.

The decision came in response to a ruling by a Palestinian court according to which such acts were only a “minor offense.”

RELATED:
PA to ban work in settlements

PA Prosecutor-General Ahmed al-Mughni appealed against the ruling to a higher court, arguing that the sale of land to Israelis was a “major offense” punishable by death.

The appeal was accepted.

More later.

Eeyore

Britain goes halal… but no-one tells the public: How famous institutions serve ritually slaughtered meat with no warning

From The Daily Mail

By Simon Mcgee and Martin Delgado
Last updated at 11:04 PM on 18th September 2010

A Mail on Sunday investigation – which will alarm anyone concerned about animal cruelty – has revealed that schools, hospitals, pubs and famous sporting venues such as Ascot and Twickenham are controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public.

All the beef, chicken and lamb sold to fans at Wembley has secretly been prepared in accordance with sharia law, while Cheltenham College, which boasts of its ‘strong Christian ethos’, is one of several top public schools which also serves halal chicken to pupils without informing them.

Even Britain’s biggest hotel and restaurant group Whitbread, which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains, among many others, has admitted that more than three-quarters of its poultry is halal.

Manchester United fan eating a burger at the new Wembley Stadium, during the FA Cup Final Chelsea v Manchester UnitedA Manchester United fan tucks into a burger at Wembley Stadium, which serves only halal meat

Animal welfare campaigners have long called for a ban on the traditional Islamic way of preparing meat – which involves killing animals by drawing a knife across their throats, without stunning them first – saying it is cruel and causes unnecessary pain.

Sharia law expressly forbids knocking the animal out with a bolt gun, as is usual in British slaughter­houses. Instead, it must be sentient when its throat is cut, and the blood allowed to drip from the carcass while a religious phrase in praise of Allah is recited.

The extent of halal meat consumption, even in areas of Britain with a very small Muslim population, was revealed as the Pope, on his first visit to Britain, expressed fears that the country was not doing enough to preserve traditional Christian values and customs.

In a strongly worded speech to Parliament, he said: ‘There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none.’

But it is animal rights groups which have been most vociferous in their opposition to halal slaughter. Campaign organisation Viva!, whose supporters include Heather Mills and Joanna Lumley, said in a statement: ‘Other practices which may be undertaken for religious reasons, such as polygamy or the stoning of adulterers, are not permitted in the UK.

‘Religious freedom does not override other moral considerations and the suffering caused by this form of slaughter is so severe that it cannot be allowed to prevent action to be taken. Consumers can do their bit by boycotting places that persist in selling meat from unstunned animals.’

Race-goers indulge in some fast food at AscotRace-goers indulge in some fast food at Ascot where meat is slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law

An RSPCA spokesman added: ‘The public have a right to know how their meat is produced. Many people are extremely concerned about animal welfare. What The Mail on Sunday has discovered shows that people are not being kept informed. The key to a more humane death for these animals is that they are stunned before slaughter.’ Continue Reading →