This story about 7 Yemeni muslims was reported in a few different places but none seemed to address why they were fired. Cruise News however, provided some insight and suggests the "firings occurred when one of the Muslim men asked another crew member about the location of the ship's security office, engine room and bridge. The crew member notified ship's security and NCL contacted federal authorities to investigate whether the man, as well as six other crew members who were Muslims, posed a threat."

Of course muslim isn't a race but the cruise line settled anyway and the settlement is sharia creep at its finest: " Along with the financial settlement, NCL America has agreed to hire an equal employment consultant, as well as revise its policies on equal employment opportunities."

May 19, 2008
Pride of Aloha Still Stinging NCL

Pride of Aloha, once one of three Hawaii-based ships under Norwegian Cruise Line's American-flagged fleet, may now have been transferred back to the parent company and is headed to the Bahamas. But problems from the ship's troubled three-plus year tenure in Hawaii continue to emerge. The latest? Last week, according to Pacific Business News, the cruise line settled a racial discrimination lawsuit for $485,000.

The case was brought against NCL by the U.S. federal government on behalf of seven former Pride of Aloha crewmembers who claimed unfair termination in July 2004. Six were officially handed walking papers; the seventh quit because he feared he'd be fired as well.

It's difficult to say what actually happened almost four years ago, but according to the Pacific Business news report, the "firings occurred when one of the Muslim men asked another crew member about the location of the ship's security office, engine room and bridge. The crew member notified ship's security and NCL contacted federal authorities to investigate whether the man, as well as six other crew members who were Muslims, posed a threat."

The men, all Muslims from Yemen, had their case taken up in August 2006 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal employment protection agency, who said that six of the men were unfairly fired from the Hawaii-based ship after being labeled "terrorist risks" (the other, as we noted, had resigned for fear of firing).

NCL has remained mum on the reason for the firings. A spokeswoman also did not immediately respond to other queries about the men -- in what capacity they worked, if they had previous experience working with NCL -- or offer any details about the line's hiring practices. At the time of the firings, 75 percent of workers onboard were required to be U.S. citizens. The other 25 percent could be made up of either U.S. residents or green card holders, which we assume -- but can not confirm since our questions have not been answered -- that the fired men were.

NCL has issued a statement:

"NCL America has agreed to settle the crew members' claims, but continues to deny that it acted improperly.

"We are proud of our employment practices and record and do not condone discrimination of any kind. Our employees come from a very broad range of ethnic and religious backgrounds, which provides an excellent diversity among our staff."

Along with the financial settlement, NCL America has agreed to hire an equal employment consultant, as well as revise its policies on equal employment opportunities.

As we've reported elsewhere on Cruise Critic, Pride of Aloha has moved back into the NCL internationally flagged fleet and has finished its assignment in Hawaii. The ship, after a refurbishment and a change of name back to Norwegian Sky, will begin sailing three- and four-night Bahamas cruises from Miami in July.

--by Dan Askin, Assistant Editor

Hent spillet her:
Execution.zip

Er du interesseret i problematikken, kan du læse mere hos http://www.stopchildexecutions.com/

From the Cannes web site synopsis:
Because he had published the twelve Danish cartoons that had triggered the wrath of Muslims worldwide, Philippe Val, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, was cited to court by the Great Mosque of Paris, the World Muslim League and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France. Daniel Leconte has been covering this extraordinary trial in real time, aiming at deciphering the international political, ideological and media-related stakes with the key participants. The film features lawyers, witnesses, the media, editorial conferences, demonstrations of support... as well as the stances of intellectuals and politicians, the reactions of the prosecutors and of Muslim countries... A reflection on Islam, on the press, on the state of the public opinion in French society, but also an endeavor to answer the challenges that fundamentalism poses to all democracies.

Mohammed caricatures documentary provokes at Cannes - from EJP

CANNES (AFP)---A French film championing freedom of expression against attempts by Muslim activists to censor caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed highlighted a key front in the culture wars at the Cannes festival.

"It's Hard Being Loved By Jerks" by Daniel Leconte takes as its subject a bitter legal battle by the editor of a French weekly who was acquitted last year on charges of offending Muslims for reprinting the offending cartoons.

The landmark trial was seen as an important test for freedom of expression in France, after the publication of the "blasphemous" caricatures sparked violent protests by Muslims worldwide.

Philippe Val, who runs the leftist satirical Charlie Hebdo weekly, was sued by two Muslim organizations which argued that the cartoons, first printed by a Danish newspaper, drew an offensive link between Islam and terrorism.

One of the three drawings in question was a French cartoonist showing a despondent Mohammed holding his head in his hands, muttering the film's title, under the caption "Mohammed overwhelmed by fundamentalists."

The key players in the high-profile trial get a chance to speak in the two-hour documentary, which maintains a brisk pace with dashes of humour.

Leconte said he had not aimed to pour oil on the fire in tackling the sensitive subject.

"The film is intended to ease tensions, not exacerbate them," he told reporters in Cannes. "The trial and its verdict were historic, redefining the line between the religious and the political." Leconte said that while interest in the project was sizeable, the financing was hard to come by due to the sensitivity of the subject.

"The television networks refused to back the film," Leconte said.

One of the sharpest exchanges in the film occurs when Richard Malka, one of the lawyers for Charlie Hebdo, asks the Muslim plaintiffs whether they aim to be treated like other religions in France.

He then cites a raft of caricatures over the last decade that have been far more shocking in their views on Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism.

"Until now, Christians have been treated 10 times more insultingly by Charlie than Muslims," Malka argues.

"But be careful, if that is what you really want, we'll take your word for it." In one chilling passage, the director of the Holocaust film "Shoah", Claude Lanzmann, says: "If the plaintiffs win this case, we won't wake up in the same France."

A few of those interviewed imply that the French government was secretly behind the lawsuit to send a conciliatory message to Middle Eastern countries to protect its interests in the region.

Film industry bible Variety gave the picture a rave review at Cannes, saying it "offers a strong example of individuals unafraid to stand up for basic but sometimes neglected principles even in the face of heavy intimidation and even death threats."

The Hollywood Reporter called it "rousing, if hilariously biased" in favour of the magazine, but added "you'll be cheering for Charlie and for its crucial defense of freedom of speech, no matter what your politics are."

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1219701&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26] from noblesseoblige.org posted with vodpod
_

I won't be surprised if, in the future, the police have to use deadly force. I'll be saddened, of course, but not surprised, and I won't blame the police -man or -woman. If that were to happen, it's the man with the megaphone inciting a mob who is responsible.

"We wear short shorts".  Heh!  And it's tickling Muslim sensibilities...and stuff.  I bet old Arafat wishes he could have been there to stage a "protest"...or invite the boys in for a little..."negotiation".

h/t kuffarharbi at lgf links and TheReligionofPeace.com

Dalam Q.S. al-Mulk ayat 15, Allah swt berfirman yg terjemahannya:

Dialah yang telah menundukkan bumi sehingga memudahkan kalian. Maka, jelajahilah di seluruh pelosoknya dan makanlah dari rezeki yang dikeluarkan dari bumi itu untuk kalian. Hanya kepada-Nyalah kaian akan dibangkitkan untuk diberi balasan.

Ada sebuah link membahas ini ayat yakni mengenai keharusan mencari rizki.

Saya bukan ahli tafsir, mungkin salah pemahaman saya. Tapi di sini saya ingin membold mengenai perintah untuk menjelajahi seluruh pelosok bumi, maka saya ingin melakukannya walaupun tidak di seluruh pelosok bumi, tapi di beberapa pelosok saja. Dan tidak lupa saya akan mencari makanan yang halal di pelosok tsb, jangan sampai memakan makanan yang mengandung B2 dan etanol.

Registrar sues for right not to marry gays
Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Telegraph
Islington council in London has told Lillian Ladele she could lose her job unless she agrees to preside at the ceremonies. She claims “discrimination or victimisation on grounds of religion or belief”. The employment tribunal ruling could set a precedent over whether employees can be required to act against their consciences. The Civil Partnership Act was introduced in 2004, giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples.

Swelling chorus demands: Save Our Churches
Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Telegraph
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, have backed the Save Our Churches campaign. The campaign calls for a number of measures to keep churches at the heart of community life including changing planning rules to help them adapt and providing grants. It has also won the backing of public figures, including the actress Joanna Lumley and the musician Jools Holland.

Sssh! It's the silent majority
Musab Bora, Guardian CiF
Yesterday's Islamophonic podcast featured an interview with a very nice lady from British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD) which was launched earlier this month. While the notion of any group speaking out for tolerance should be applauded, it was rather surprising that a single issue group is given so much prominence. I look forward to a similar level of exposure for the newly-formed Birmingham Muslims for Mild Curries (BMMC).

Neoconceit and the Iraq Debacle (Tabsir)
Why the police now have to ask teenage muggers: 'Do you eat chips? (Eileen Fairweather, Mail)
How do international Shariah Boards work? (Austrolabe)
UK inquiry into torture and death of Iraqi in UK custody must be independent (Amnesty International)

El gobierno de Oslo había hecho hace tiempo un llamamiento a los imanes del pais para que aclaren a los jóvenes musulmanes que en Noruega violar  no es ningún acto de caballería. Pero este llamamiento no ha ayudado a las mujeres noruegas, al contrario. La dirección policial de Oslo ha publicado la nueva estadística de violaciones del 2007 y en ella se ve una gran subida de violaciones, sobretodo por jóvenes procedentes de Somalia, un pais de cultura islámica.

La estadística es del 2007 y estamos en 2008 pero según el panorama, no parece que la situación vaya a mejorar: el sábado pasado un grupo de jóvenes del círculo cultural de Somalia y Senegal, en el parque Sofienpark de Oslo violaron en grupo a un total de diez mujeres. Como esto ya es rutina en Oslo, el canal noruego P4 envió al abogado Abid Raja, a que le haga un reportage sobre el tema de las violaciones a esos hombres musulmanes. El resultado ha sido choqueante para los noruegos. Los hombres dijeron que las muchachas noruegas no quieren otra cosa que ser violadas. Son culpables de las violaciones. Si no van cubiertas por velos, envían una senal a los hombres de "viólame".  Por qué van a tene mala conciencia ellos? Si ellos solo ayudan. Con estas palabras drásticas explicaron a los noruegos la forma de ver las cosas desde la perspectiva de la cultura islámica. 

De aquí y aquí 

Poole's piece was published a few weeks after the Doug Farah piece in Part 2, and shortly thereafter, Jim Guirard responded (more to Farah's revelation of Stephen Coughlin's analysis) with "TrueSpeak Responds." While Guirard relies on Muslims with questionable intents and connections, he does conclude:

...in reviewing these and other Arabic and Islamic terms, we should not imagine ourselves using them quickly, expertly, loudly or in a fashion of pontificating or of lecturing to any audience -- particularly Muslim audiences.

But we should at least understand them well enough -- one word at a time if necessary -- to know which ones will serve our purposes and which ones are to be avoided because they are preserving and enhancing the legitimacy of the "Irhabi Murderdom" ...

The question still remains, if we don't imagine ourselves using these Arabic terms quickly or expertly, how did such theory go from concept to policy at DHS? Who was involved? Why the desire to separate the perpetrators from their ideology and religious motives?

Important reads, both of them, that indicate just how much influence Muslims have on U.S. policy, and how much time officials are wasting on semantics rather than researching mosques and their funding in the U.S., improving immigration processes and background checks, and deporting known terrorist collaborators. (Bold and font colors added)

September 18, 2007

What's in a Name? 'Jihad' vs. 'Hiraba' -By Patrick Poole

What's in a name? When it comes to identifying what we are fighting against in the war for our civilization, quite a lot. Members of a movement among military and intellectual circles want to avoid asserting that we are fighting against "jihad" because that term is loaded with religious significance in Islam, replacing it with "hiraba", to highlight the criminal nature of Islamic terrorists:
Walid Phares, writing in American Thinker several weeks ago, challenged these advocates. As Phares noted in his article,<Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad:

The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the "real" Muslim leadership. According to this thesis, those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers." The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that "jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense."

I limit my discussion in this paper to domestic terrorism because a discussion of international terrorism would take us into the complicated issue of extraterritoriality and the question of the applicability of Islamic law outside the lands of Islam, an issue on which the jurists differed widely. (p. 306)

Close examination of the classical Islamic law of hirabah, however, reveals that this law corresponds in its most salient features to domestic terrorism in the American legal system. This holds despite a number of important differences between hirabah and domestic terrorism. First, the importance of the political motivations of would-be terrorists appears to be inversely proportional in the two systems. Whereas the pursuit of political aims tends to heighten or perhaps establish the correspondence between publicly directed violence and terrorism in American law, in Islamic law it tends to have the opposite effect. In other words, to the extent that a group declares itself or is deemed by the government to be acting in pursuit of political objectives (and the assumption here is that these are grounded in some interpretation of religion), their activity is actually less likely to fall under the law of hirabah. Second, the importance attached to numbers appears to be inversely proportional in the two systems. Under Islamic law, the greater the number of individuals involved in a prima facie act of terrorism, the less likely to fall under the laws of hirabah. By comparison, according to FBI guidelines issued in 1983, a terrorism investigation may not even be initiated unless circumstances indicate that two or more persons are involved in an offense. Third, hirabah, at least in its fully developed form, appears to be potentially a much broader category than terrorism proper, covering as it does a spectrum of crimes ranging from breaking and entering to "hate crimes" to rape to terrorism proper. (pp. 293-294, emphasis added)

• 1) If a group has legitimate (in the eyes of Islam) political aims, such as al-Qaeda's call to reestablish to global Islamic caliphate or groups like the Muslim Brotherhood trying to overthrow secular Arab leaders to reinstitute shari'a or inflict a "civilization-jihadist process" to undermine the West for establishing Islamic governments, the use of hiraba for terrorism is not warranted;

• 2) The more members a group has, such as al-Qaeda's international network of thousands of individuals or the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in more than 70 countries, the more legitimate their claims become and the application of hiraba for their actions does not hold;
• 3) Hiraba is a malleable category in which Jackson is trying to make terrorism fit. But the scholarly interpretations that he relies upon nowhere seem to contemplate the equation of hiraba for terrorism in its contemporary understanding.

There were essentially two major considerations on the basis of which an act of hirabah was to be distinguished from an act of baghy, or rebellion....

The first of these considerations was that the rebels be motivated by what jurists referred to as a ta'wil, or "a plausible interpretation" that might justify, at least in their minds, rebellion as a means of redress or of carrying out the Qur'anic imperative to command what is good and forbid what is evil. It does not matter if the interpretation is "wrong" or even heterodox; what matters is that it be plausible; that the language of the Qur'an and/or Sunna or the circumstantial and contextual indicators surrounding this language could accommodate such a reading. In fact, the focus of the rebels' interpretation might even be purely "political" as opposed to religious.... In sum, it is essentially the appearance or the rebels' insistence that their actions are based on their understanding of their duty as Muslims that confers upon these actions the status of "political speech." This sets them apart from criminal acts of hirabah.

The second stipulation was that the rebels be backed by a sufficient level of force (shawkah), measured mainly in numbers and military preparedness. The jurists differed on this number. The 7th/13th century al-Qarafi notes that a number of jurists placed it at ten.... This stipulation has the effect of reserving the more lenient law of rebellion for the most serious and widespread cases of public disaffection. That is to say, the gieivances that allegedly prompt a group to rebel must be serious and widespread enough to enlist the support of significant numbers of people. Otherwise, small groups of extremists, sophomoric idealists, prurient bandits or terrorists will be denied the refuge afforded by the law of rebellion and be treated under the more severe and salutary law of hirabah. (pp. 302-303, emphasis added)

• 1) If the rebels are acting under what they themselves understand to be a "reasonable" interpretation of Islamic law, such as those many fatwas issued by Islamic scholars throughout the Muslim world permitting attacks against the US;
• 2) If they are well-coordinated and use sufficient force, such as ramming fuel-laden airliners into military headquarters, government offices or skyscrapers.

Indeed, a number of early jurists had associated hirabah with the activities of groups who had formally apostatized and resorted to violence in an attempt to overthrow the Islamic social and political order. (p. 305)

...these jurists confirm that hirabah is distinguished by its connection to the spreading of fear (ikhafah) and helplessness (àdam al-ghawth) and the fact that no effective security measures can be taken against it (taàdhdhur al-ihtiraz). (p. 296)

In war our main objective is the opponent's heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts.... Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him. ([Delhi, 1992], p. 59; emphasis added)

Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the "great leap forward" made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real jihadists but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.

Dr Humayon Dar is a member of the Islamic sharia supervisory board at BMB Islamic. He has also helped the Cass Business School, at London's City University, to offer an Executive MBA in Islamic Finance.

He is not a classically trained scholar, who has undergone years of training and studying of Islamic sciences, such as Quranic hermaneutics, but describes himself as a sharia technician or Islamic economist.

"There is a new breed of scholars, who are not traditional, but have a great understanding of finance as well as Islamic law and conventional economics.

"There are about 260 classically trained scholars worldwide who advise on sharia and about 20 of these are renowned, they have a great reputation. I call them tier one sharia scholars. They have a lot of power."

One scholar was so well known that his criticism of sukuk, an Islamic bond, sent shockwaves through the financial world, with some commentators suggesting that sharia finance was doomed.

Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani sits on the board of the Bahrain-based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions, a body charged with setting sharia standards and institutions. Another figurehead in this influential organisation is Sheikh Nizam Yaquby.

Dar said: "He is the most glamorous scholar of Islamic finance. He is very popular and has a refined sense of humour. He sits on the most number of sharia boards and advises around 60 organisations. These guys have great integrity. They issue fatwas on real sharia. They are not in it for money, money is not a consideration for these scholars."

Riazat Butt, Guardian.co.uk 12/03/2008

Leslie Sacks

Denmark, long the liberal, open society that welcomed immigrants, has done an about face. After being the symbolic envy of Universalists, of Socialists, of cultural liberalism, Denmark today has the strictest immigration policy in Europe.

The Muslim population in Denmark, constituting a mere 4% of the total, refuses to integrate, consumes 40% of the welfare, and constitutes a majority of the country's convicted rapists. The Danes now acknowledge that their core values of personal liberty, free speech, equality for women and tolerance of other ethnic groups are incompatible with Islam as they know it.

Muslim leaders openly advocate introducing Islamic law in Denmark. Danes at the forefront of advocating free speech and Western values are subject to fatwas and increasingly violent attacks from the Muslim population.

This haven of tolerance and openness has opted for survival and rationality. For citizenship, the country now requires of new immigrants:

- 3 years of language classes
- tests on Denmark's history, culture and language
- 7 years of residency prior to application
- proven job opportunities and commitment to work

New mosques will not be allowed to be built in Copenhagen. Assimilation will be actively promoted. The country that once courageously and righteously saved their 7,000 Jews from the Nazi death camps now is accused of racism.

America is no stranger to accusations of profiling, political incorrectness and racism. Yet Muslims worldwide still beat down our doors to gain immigration status to the U.S. - they tellingly do not do likewise to the majority of UN nations habitually accusing the U.S. of racism. When did Cuba or Russia, Syria or even Saudi Arabia, those bastions of tolerance and freedom, last receive a deluge of immigrant applications?

So we in the U.S. spend our time being sued by aggressive Imams testing nervous airlines. Open season has been declared on the West by demanding Islamist organizations hoping to force the government and our municipalities to kowtow into passive submission. We now clearly need footbaths in every university restroom. We also need two taxi lines at every airport - one for those with short skirts, dogs or alcoholic beverages and one for Shari'a-compliant Americans.

Yet little spunky Denmark is showing us and everyone the way. They opened their borders and their coffers to welcome Muslims, in a show of remarkable generosity and goodwill. Now, bruised and battered by an unappreciative, increasingly fundamentalist, and sadly uncompromising Muslim community, they are closing their doors and battening down the hatches.

It is only a matter of time before America's similar generosities and freedoms are likewise pressured. It will not be too long before our remarkable naiveté, our exquisitely refined political correctness, are replaced by realistic pragmatism and a strong commitment to our own cultural survival, to uncompromising freedoms and our non-negotiable security and liberty.

A new found taste for Danish pastries perhaps?

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Leslie Sacks is an art dealer and gallerist in Los Angeles. Before that, he founded and operated Les Art International in Johannesburg, South Africa, where he was active in opposing apartheid and in supporting the Johannesburg Jewish community.

As we suggested last week in this Creeping Sharia post, the origins of the policy are not new, in fact, the topic of jihadi semantics has a long history. The 'TrueSpeak' theory has been discussed in various circles including the military, scholars (Muslim and non), the Muslim Brotherhood, and by those who oppose the theory such as Stephen Coughlin, Walid Phares, and Patrick Poole (to name a few).

We'll start with Walid Phares commentary (note the date) and in upcoming posts, we'll delve further into the history of the jihad lexicon.

Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad - By Walid Phares, July 17, 2007

In the years that followed 9/11, two phenomena characterized the Western public's understanding of the terrorists' ideology. The first characteristic stemmed from the statements made by the jihadists themselves. More than ever, Islamist militants and jihadi cadres didn't waste any opportunity to declare, clarify, explain, and detail the meaning of their aqida (doctrine) and their intentions to apply Jihadism by all means possible. Unfortunately for them, though, those extremely violent means changed the international public opinion: the public now was convinced that there was an ideology of Jihadism, and that its adherents meant business worldwide.

From Ayman al Zawahiri in Arabic to Azzam al Amriki in American English, via all of the videotapes made by "martyrs" in Britain, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the public obtained all the evidence necessary. Against all the faulty academic literature of the 1990's, the statements by the jihadists themselves were very convincing.

The second phenomenon of help to the public was the surfacing of a new literature produced by alternative scholars, analysts, journalists, experts, and researchers who, from different backgrounds and countries, filled in some of the gaps is "jihadi studies." Producing books, articles, and blogs from Europe, India, the Middle East, and North America, a combination of Third World-born and Western-issued scholarship began to provide the "missing link" as to what Jihadism is all about. These factors came together to shift the debate from "Jihad is spiritual yoga" to "Why didn't we know it was something else as well?" And this triggered in response one of the last attempts to prevent jihad from being understood.

In the 1990's, apologist literature attempted to convince readers and audiences in the West that jihad was a "spiritual experience only, and not a menace." [1] That explanation has now been shattered by Bin Laden and Ahmedinijad. So in the post-9/11 age, a second strategy to delay public understanding of Jihadism and thereby gain time for its adherents to achieve their goals has evolved. It might be called the "good cop, bad cop" strategy. Over the past few years, a new story began to make inroads in Washington and the rest of the national defense apparatus. A group of academics and interest groups are circulating the idea that in reality jihad can develop in two forms: good jihad and bad jihad.

The practice of not using "Jihad" and "Jihadism" was lately defended by two academics at the National Defense University [2] who based their arguments on a study published by a Washington lobbyist, Jim Guirard.[3] On June 22, 2006, Jim Garamone, writing for the American Forces Press Service, published the study of Douglas Streusand and Harry Tunnel under the title "Loosly Interpreted Arabic terms can promote enemy ideology." Streusand told CNN that "Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith." [4]

The article was posted under the title "Cultural Ignorance Leads to Misuse of Islamic Terms" by the US-based Islamist organization CAIR. [5] Since then the "concept" of deflecting attention away from the study of Jihadism has penetrated large segments of the defense newsletters and is omnipresent in Academia. More troubling though, is the fact that scholars who have seen the strategic threat of al Qaeda and Hezbollah have unfortunately fallen for the fallacy of the Hiraba. Professor Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics in Washington wrote recently that "Jihad has been hijacked" as he bases his argument on Jim Guirard's lobbying pieces.[6] Satisfied with this trend taking root in the Defense intelligentsia of America, Islamist intellectuals and activists are hurrying to support this new tactic.

The good holy war is when the right religious and political authorities declare it against the correct enemy and at the right time. The bad jihad, called also Hiraba, is the wrong war, declared by bad (and irresponsible) people against the wrong enemy (for the moment), and without an appropriate authorization by the "real" Muslim leadership. According to this thesis, those Muslims who wage a Hiraba, a wrong war, are called Mufsidoon, from the Arabic word for "spoilers." The advocates of this ruse recommend that the United States and its allies stop calling the jihadists by that name and identifying the concept of Jihadism as the problem. In short, they argue that "jihad is good, but the Mufsidoon, the bad guys and the terrorists, spoiled the original legitimate sense."[7]

When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood as a plan to prevent jihad and Jihadism from being considered by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore forbidden activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy and plunges democracies back into the "black hole" of the 1990's. This last attempt to blur the vision of democracies can be exposed with knowledge of the jihadi terror strategies and tactics, one of which is known as Taqiya, the doctrine on deception and deflection. [8]

First, the argument of "good jihad" raises the question of how there can be a legitimate concept of religious war in the twenty-first century to start with. Jihad historically was as "good" as any other religious war over the last 2,000 years. If a "good jihad" is the one authorized by a caliph and directed under his auspices, then other world leaders also can wage a "good crusade" at will, as long as it is licensed by the proper authority. But in fact, all religious wars are proscribed by international law, period.

Second, the authors of this lobbyist-concocted theory claim that a wrong jihad is called a Hiraba. But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a "genuine" war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts "spin" on jihad but leaves the core idea of jihadism completely intact. The "spoilers" depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate's long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon "fail" their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.

This scenario fits the relations of the global jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the "hotheaded" Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the "great leap forward" made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real jihadists but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.

Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. This piece was adapted from his recently published book The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.
[1] See John Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? 3rd edition. (New York: Oxford University Press) 1999.

[2] May 23, 2006

[3] "Hiraba Versus Jihad," the American Muslim. August 2003.

[4] See Henry Shuster, "Words in War," CNN, October 19, 2006.

[5] Quoting the American Forces Press Service on June 29, 2006.

[6] Michael Waller. "Making Jihad Work for America." The Journal for International Security Affairs. Spring 2006

[7] See James Fallows, "Declaring Victory," Atlantic Monthly (September 2006).

[8] According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Taqiya: "spelled Taqiyah, Arabic Taqiyah ("self-protection"), in Islam, [is] the practice of concealing one's belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury to oneself or one's fellow Muslims. The Qu'ran allows Muslims to profess friendship with the unbelievers (3:28) and even outwardly to deny their faith (16:106), if doing so would save them from imminent danger," on the condition that their hearts remain attached to faith. Also see Larry Stirling, "On Taqiya' and ‘Fatwas,'" San Diego Source, September 25, 2006; also Walid Phares, "al-Taqiyah: The Muslim Method of Conquest," Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, December 1997.

Halløjsa Pia: hvad med at du siger hvad du selv mener og lader os andre sige vores egen mening. Her kunne lyndemokrati være på sin plads. SMS-afstemning om lovændringer - bare sådan for at vejre stemningen i befolkningen og tage ordet ud af munden på Pia K.

Birthe Rønn har fat i den lange ende, og det er skandaløst for et demokrati at en politiker ikke kan udtale sig om et politisk emne uden at der skal gives mundkurv på. Hvem var det lige der ville af med smagsdommerne og indførte kanon for demokratiets bastion: kunsten, litteraturen og skuespillet.

Kommer der ikke snart et nyt parti igen? Hvis Birthe Rønn laver et, så har hun min stemme.

In the blockbuster action movie Independence Day, alien spacecraft hover simultaneously above strategic spots around the globe, the better to maximize chaos and destruction when they finally attack all at once.

A more mundane version of that scenario played itself out in real life this week, when three new stories appeared within 24 hours, all documenting a worldwide phenomenon that has come to be known as "sharia creep."

In Australia, Muslim students (mostly Saudi citizens) asked Melbourne universities to adjust class times to fit in with their daily prayers.[1] They also requested female-only recreational areas on campus.

One institution rejected their demands outright. "That would seriously inconvenience other people at the college and it is not institutionally viable," La Trobe University's Martin Van Run told The Australian. "We are a secular institution ... and we need to have a structured timetable."

In a surprise reaction, the Saudi Government unveiled a plan to curb radicalization among its students in Australia by ensuring they make up only one percent of the student body at any given campus.

The idea is to prevent radical students from reaching critical mass, and thereby encouraging all Saudi-born students to mingle with non-Muslims.

"The move is a marked turnaround from past initiatives by the Saudi Government," reported The Australian,[2] "including allegedly bankrolling hard line Muslim clerics, such as Canberra-based Mohammed Swaiti who openly praised jihadists; and pumping an estimated $120 million into the local Islamic community since the 1970s to influence its ideological bent."

Meanwhile, on February 26, local officials in Zwolle, Holland decided to lift a ban on Muslim women wearing so-called "burkinis" in public swimming pools.[3] The garment, also known as a hijood, leaves only the wearer's face, hands and feet exposed.

But the next day, a different municipality pledged to retain the burkini ban, because the garment doesn't meet regulations and "might scare off" other swimmers. However, the same Hanzebad public pool has already offered female Muslim swimmers separate hours for several years.

The Dutch TV newsmagazine Netwerk sent a reporter wearing a burkini to various public pools. According to one report,[4] "the fiercest reaction shown was by a Muslim man, who said the burkini was an example of oppression of women and tolerating it an example of the influence that orthodox Islam is gaining in the Netherlands."

Closer to home, Harvard University announced new women-only access times at the student gym,[5] to "accommodate religious customs that make it difficult for some students to work out in the presence of men."

This decision came one month after men were banned from the athletic center during certain times, following successful petitions from the Harvard Islamic Society as well as the Women's Center.

Harvard Islamic Society's Islamic Knowledge Committee officer Ola Aljawhary said she does not consider the women-only gym hours discriminatory against male students or a "case of minority rights trumping majority preference."

"We live together in one community, it only makes sense for everyone to compromise slightly in order for everyone to live happily," she said.

As one blogger[6] observed, "I also like how minorities have 'rights' while the majority has a 'preference.' And here I was thinking we all had exactly the same rights. How silly of me."

News stories like these have multiplied exponentially during the past few years. Hardly a day goes by without similar reports, such as Muslim nurses in the UK[7] refusing to roll up their sleeves to scrub up before surgery, claiming that sharia modesty rules trump concerns about contamination.

"IT'S ALL PART OF THE CAMPAIGN OF SOFT JIHAD," wrote Roger Kimball[8], editor of The New Criterion. "Traditional jihad is waged with scimitars and their contemporary equivalents, e.g., stolen Boeing 767s, which make handy instruments of mass homicide. Soft jihad is a quieter affair: it uses and abuses the language and the principles of democratic liberalism not to secure the institutions and attitudes that make freedom possible but, on the contrary, to undermine that freedom and pave the way for self-righteous, theocratic intolerance."

Western countries do not always go along with the plan, however. Witness the public outcry back in 2003, when some Muslims in the province of Ontario, Canada demanded they be allowed to set up sharia courts, ostensibly to arbitrate domestic disputes in the manner of pre-existing Catholic and Jewish tribunals.

Public protests in Canada, as well as abroad, led Premier Dalton McGuinty, who'd initially voiced tentative support for the new courts, to rule against the move. Unfortunately, that meant that those long established Catholic and Jewish tribunals throughout the province had to be shut down too, in the interest of "equality."

Author and expert on radical Islam Robert Spencer has been sounding the alarm about "sharia creep" for years at his website DhimmiWatch.[9] In an exclusive interview with FrontPageMag.com, Spencer reflected on whether or not his efforts to warn the public were paying off:

I think we may be getting through to a very small number of people, but Muslim Brotherhood front organizations in the U.S. are still making tremendous headway by portraying these Sharia-creep initiatives as simple matters of civil rights, and playing on fears among public officials, and the public at large, of being seen as racist and bigoted.

It is getting worse, because there is a concerted effort by the MSA's [Muslim Student Ass'n] on various campuses and other groups to push Muslim accommodation issues aggressively, but this effort is relatively new. We didn't see it on this scale ten or even five years ago. I think it is a natural outgrowth of the post-9/11 anxiety on the part of government and media not to appear 'Islamophobic.' As long as that continues to be a matter for concern, there will be continued accommodation of Muslim practices and Islamic distinctiveness, which only aids and abets the Islamic supremacist agenda.

At the same time, Spencer sees "an increasingly discussion of the creeping Sharia/stealth jihad issue by an increasing number of writers." Writers like Daniel Pipes and Diana West have devoted recent columns to the domestic front on the War on Terror. But despite the work they and others do, the "level of awareness right now is so abysmal," continued Robert Spencer, "that I think the main thing people can do is try to call attention, via letters to the editor, contacts to their elected officials, the blogsophere, etc., to the explicit campaign being undertaken here. The idea would be to awaken as many people as possible to what is going on here –– who the groups are that are pursuing this agenda, and what the agenda really is, behind all the talk of 'hate speech' and accommodation of cultural practices in the name of multiculturalism and diversity."

And that agenda seems to be everywhere –– from the big issues right down to British fish and chips. When it was revealed in late February that a popular British snack food contained traces of alcohol,[10] a Muslim Council of Britain spokesman declared, "Certainly we would find it very offensive to have eaten food with alcohol."

In turn, Richard Kimball voiced "a modest proposal, which I offer to British Food and Beverage industry free and for nothing: start putting a bit of alcohol in everything edible or potable."

"It's only a start, Kimball continued, "but from a tiny acorn the mighty oak does grow."

Footnotes

1. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/
0,,23269447-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

2. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/
0,25197,23282588-15084,00.html

3. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/02/
swimming_pool_relents_on_burki.php

4. http://www.expatica.com/nl/articles/news/
Row-over-Muslim-swimming-costume-in-Netherlands.html

5. http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/
storage/paper87/news/2008/02/25/News/To.Accommodate.Muslim.
Students.Harvard.Tries.WomenOnly.Gym.Hours-3232133.shtml

6. http://pursuingholiness.com/2008/02/25/ivy-league-dhimmitude/

7. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020107.php

8. http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/rogerkimball/2008/02/23/
quiet_crusading_vs_soft_jihad.php

9. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

10. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article3412749.ece

A blogger since 2000, Kathy Shaidle runs FiveFeetOfFury.com. Her new e-book Acoustic Ladyland has been called a "must read" by Mark Steyn.

This article appeared March 3, 2008 in Front Page Magazine
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= C9A33CD4-88D4-4162-A1C1-6777D90821EC

Hezbollah Spy Prouty Gets $750 Fine, NO JAIL TIME; Same for Sis-in-Law, but $500 Fine Carter appointed judge no less

20th 9-11 hijacker has all charges DROPPED!

What's next? Will the Palestinian imam on trial in New Jersey for lying on his immigration application about being arrested and a member of Hamas, be allowed to stay in the U.S. and continue preaching jihadi hatred?

An unnamed panel at the National Press Club hosted by CAIR, the terrorist founded and unindicted co-conspirator to the Holy Land Foundation trial, entitled 'Separating Religion from Terror: Implications for US Policy' is evidence of such destitution. That the NPC would host a terror-related organization, despite having a code of Ethics that would readily eliminate CAIR, has come to be expected. The media, aligned with the multi-cultural, anti-American propagandists are complicit with the Islamists. Yet it is the propaganda, all too common from CAIR, spewing from such panels that influence members of groups like the Homeland Security Policy Institute that are frightening. Some quotes from this May 6th, 2008 event:

Frank Cilluffo, of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, said, “Some of our own terms don’t help. War on terrorism, to me, is the wrong metaphor. It’s not a war. It’s quite obvious we’re elevating the adversary to a status they don’t deserve.”

Appointed by President Bush, could Cilluffo and CAIR have been part of the team who wacked all forms of the word jihad from the front line vocabulary? Were 9-11, 7-7, and other events not an indication to the Homeland Security Policy Institute that Islamists are at war with the West? Are we not fucked?

All of the members of the panel agreed that Islam is the solution to terrorism and not the problem. Cilluffo asserts that long term sustained solutions have to come from within. “We need to see more Islamic scholars."

Douglas Johnston, of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, “The best antidote for bad theology is good theology."

When the Homeland Security Policy Institute believes that more Islam is the answer it seems they ignore what has happened in the Middle East where there is nothing but Islam. Islam hasn't solved any problems there, how will it solve any problems here? More Islam will result in more appeasement of Muslims, more sharia law, and less freedoms. And while Johnston suggests a good v. bad theology antidote - he fails to note that all Islamic theology comes from the same sources, primarily the Quran. So is Islam a religion of peace or is Johnston revealing that there is bad theology in the Quran?

The panel goes on to blame Americans and the media for the issues of Islamic terrorism:

...they recognized the challenges ahead. Loose knit extremist organizations without a central leader, the American lack of understanding of how Muslims view freedom and religion, and the skewed media that we are presented with has made the job of those who seek peace and understanding among all people that much more difficult.

No central leader, but a central belief in Islam, and a central text - the Quran. Had such nonsense come from a foreign group it may not be so offensive, but then again, how many CAIR officials are foreign born? But why is the council on American islamic relations discussing foreign policy issues? They are supposedly a civil rights group focused on helping minorities in America. And don't we know the Islamic view on freedom and religion? Isn't it called sharia law? Continuing on their foreign policy appeasement, CAIR went on to state this:

[Parvez] Ahmed urged that we not shun political organizations..like Hamas...or Hezbollah...but to make them part of the civic process. “To bring extremists and people who are espousing political violence as a way of conflict resolution into a civic process, we have to encourage democratic and electoral processes,” said Ahmed. He added that they need to be part of the solution.

Again not surprising for a Muslim group with terrorist beginnings, but the influence this type of rhetoric seems to have with policy makers is astonishing. This is the same rhetoric we hear from Hamas and Hizbollah themselves as well as Barack Hussein Obama advisors, past and present. Should the terrorists preferred candidate, Obama, win the presidency, you can be sure similar panels will be meeting not only with CAIR, but with Hamas, Hizbollah, and other terrorist groups already present in the U.S.

We, the people, are the last line of defense and sanity. Read it all.

A War of Words: CAIR Pushes for Removal of Islamic Terms in Anti-Terror Rhetoric

By Daniel Hayes
Muslim Link Contributing Writer

The Council on American-Islamic Relations hosted a panel discussion at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. As the title suggests, Separating Religion from Terror: Implications for US Policy, the goal of the discussion was to distinguish the slew of violent attacks sweeping across the geo-political field, and the radical ideologies that inspire them, from the tenets and foundations of the Islamic faith.

Two of the principle arguments touted were critical of the rhetoric used by the US administration on a semantic level.

Opposed to the declaration of a war on terror, CAIR chairman and North Florida University professor, Parvez Ahmed, claimed, “That by declaring a war, you are conferring warrior status to people who are essentially criminals.” Frank Cilluffo, of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, said, “Some of our own terms don’t help. War on terrorism, to me, is the wrong metaphor.

It’s not a war. It’s quite obvious we’re elevating the adversary to a status they don’t deserve.”
Ahmed, implicitly declaring a war on words found commonplace in American, and subsequently international, media that meld intrinsically Islam and terrorism, made clear his disdain for the association made between unwarranted violence and fundamentalism. “Extremism is a better descriptor [than fundamentalism] of this militant piety because it denotes the deviation from the normative teachings of the faith,” said Ahmed.

All of the members of the panel agreed that Islam is the solution to terrorism and not the problem. Douglas Johnston, of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, described a successful hostage negotiation he had with Taliban leaders that was mediated by a parliament style group of respected religious leaders in Afghanistan. “They sat down with open Qurans and within the first hour said, ‘when are you going to release the women,’ because it was against their religious principles.”

Cilluffo asserts that long term sustained solutions have to come from within. “We need to see more Islamic scholars. We’ve seen some positive programs overseas play a role in demonstrably showing how the extremists are taking the narrative out of context.”

Cilluffo identified the importance of having counter-narratives to contend with the radical ones of extremist organizations that use religious scriptures out of context in order to promote their own political agenda. “Once you expose the narrative itself, it will fall upon its own weight of inconsistency,” said Cilluffo. His words echoed those of Johnson who said, “The best antidote for bad theology is good theology.”

Although the panel was hopeful for reconciliation, they recognized the challenges ahead. Loose knit extremist organizations without a central leader, the American lack of understanding of how Muslims view freedom and religion, and the skewed media that we are presented with has made the job of those who seek peace and understanding among all people that much more difficult. “The media has focused disproportionately on the negative which has fostered a sense of paranoia and fear,” said Ahmed.

Muslim youth with access to the internet were identified as the most susceptible to being seduced by the inflammatory messages of radicals. Chat rooms in which beliefs are influenced and affirmed, that also offer a sense of connection for marginalized youth, were deemed more effective than web pages.

A poignant suggestion, drawn from the success of the stabilization and restructuring of Northern Ireland, was to include extremists in the political process. The world saw in 2007 the election of Protestant unionist hardliner, Ian Paisley as first minister, with Catholic Sinn Fein leader, Martin McGuiness, former Irish Republican Army member, as second minister.

Prior to the inclusion of right and left wing factions, moderates who drafted treaties without broad base support of the people would consistently be outflanked, making little to no political and social gains. The end of Britain’s 38 year occupation of Northern Ireland in 2005 helped ease tensions as well.

Ahmed urged that we not shun political organizations that legitimately win elections in their countries, like Hamas which was identified by the American government as a terrorist group, or Hezbollah which is part of the political process in Lebanon, but to make them part of the civic process. “To bring extremists and people who are espousing political violence as a way of conflict resolution into a civic process, we have to encourage democratic and electoral processes,” said Ahmed. He added that they need to be part of the solution.

Muhammad Ali Abu Raziza, a psychology professor in Mecca, was arrested by the Kingdom’s feared religious police, the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. He was accused of breaking the Islamic injunctions under the Khilwa code, which restricts the independence of women. It stipulates that women must not meet men alone, other than relatives.

However the professor has alleged police entrapment. He claimed a history of personality disputes with the arresting officers, who were once his students. In his defence, Abu Raziza had said he had called the woman to ensure she had a chaperone but despite her assurances, she was alone when he arrived. No information has emerged about the fate of the woman since the incident.

Amnesty International has urged Saudi authorities to release the professor: “Saudi Arabia should stop needlessly persecuting people like this - we want to see a complete end to people in the kingdom being punished for 'khilwa’ offences.”

Read how it transpired and how sharia creeps across America; from the request for a separate room in one mall (they got an open space), the plan to upgrade to a better space in that mall, to plans for prayer spaces in more malls. Even suggesting that the mall is losing revenue by not having an Islamic prayer space.

While this piece instructs Muslims not to wash their feet in the sink because it's a federal health violation, it does instruct them to wipe the sink with the towel they used to wash their hands and face or an extra towel. Will the sinks be used to wash dirty feet when infidels are not present? What is not mentioned is that the wudu ritual also includes rinsing the nose with water and blowing it back out three times, washing the beard, and wiping the ears and head clean.

The prayer room must also be a well communicated policy as the article instructs Muslims they can ask the information desk for directions to the prayer space. How long before the request for Islamic foot baths are initiated? How long before prayer mats, Qurans, and other Islamic items become common place in Tysons Corner? Is mall management (click for mall Contacts) aware of these possibilities? Are they prepared for large 'congregations' of Muslims praying?

Tyson's Mall: Shop Till You Have to Drop (In Sujood)

Assalamu’alykum. I wanted to pass on some important information to our community. As we all share the common concerns with performing our daily prayers while away from home, it is very important that we have musallas [prayer rooms] in different areas for us to be able to offer our prayers while nearby.

I have contacted the Tysons Corner management and spoke to the general manager Corie who has been very nice in offering us a place to pray in Tysons mall. I strongly recommend that we make great use of this opportunity so that the management understands and hopefully will upgrade us to a better location within the mall.

I have originally asked the mall management to allot us a designated room, however currently they don’t see it fit as the demand is not really there. I have conveyed to them that thousands of Muslims that visit the mall leave the mall at prayer times just to perform their prayer which takes 5-10 minutes. This actually is loss of revenue for the Mall as we cut short our shopping lists and delay our purchases. Corie has been a great help in providing us this place so that we can make use of it. I strongly recommend that we heavily utilize this opportunity while visiting the Tysons Mall, and hopefully this will be the starting point to copy this arrangement to other mall locations.

Please pass this email to whoever you deem necessary and think will benefit from it.

PRAYER AREA IN TYSONS’ MALL:

As you enter the mall area coming out from Nordstrom on the main level there is an alley to your right hand side that has signs for “Security, Elevators and Restrooms”. Go into that alley and down all the way till you see the Elevators on your right hand side. (You’ll pass the Restrooms on your right and security office on your left.) Directly across from the Elevators is an area underneath the stairs behind the glass wall where there is ample room to pray even with a small congregation. Currently there you will see some extra furniture and other small items laying around, please ignore that.

You will probably need the prayer rug or something to put there for prostration. Currently there is marble flooring and no carpet in this area.

(You may also ask the information desk as to the location of the prayer area and/or security office and they’ll provide you directions to it)

Please be considerate and not leave any trash and any other items behind which cause any problems for the cleaning crew of the mall.

Qibla Direction:

If you are behind the glass wall area and facing the Elevators. Turn to your right about 30 degrees and that is the location of the Qibla. www.qiblalocator.com

WUDU INSTRUCTIONS (prohibited acts):

There are restrooms close by the prayer area. It is very important that we DO NOT WASH OUR FEET in the sinks there. We must make Masah. Regardless of the weather (winter/summer), we must abstain from putting our feet in the sink as this is a public mall restroom and federal health regulations prohibits this act of placing feet in the sinks for any reason. We don’t want to lose this place due to our non-conformance with Federal and Mall regulations.

Some people may not understand these restrictions, in which case it becomes incumbent upon us to remind them politely if we see them violating these rules in the restroom area. It is our duty to remind the person that due to his/her actions in violating this rule, all local Muslims may suffer at his/her hands by losing the place of prayer in Tysons Mall.

It is natural to have some water spill on the sink counter while washing our arms, hence it is very important that once you wipe your face and hands with the paper-towels, please use it to clean/wipe the area around the sink. It is better to grab a few paper towels ahead of time and keep them with you while making wudu, because once you leave the sink to go get paper-towel, someone else might take your place and have a very bad impression of you. This is a courteous act in which others looking at the Muslims making wudu will have respect for our action. Please repeat this action after each person makes wudu, even if you have someone behind you who will be using the sink for the same purpose. So, the cleanest sink in that restroom should be the one you have just made wudu in because you have just wiped it down. Cleanliness is half of Iman, and all this should become second nature to us. I would also go the extra mile of wiping down someone else’s place of wudu next to us in case they forgot or didn’t pay attention to it.

This is the best form of dawa that we can have where we do it quietly demonstrating our best manners. It will only make people think twice with what they hear on the media and maybe open up a Quran just because they saw you making proper clean wudu and offering prayer in humbleness.

May Allah bless the Muslims wherever they may be. Thanks. -- Nabil Ahmed (Source: ADAMS Community Email List)

Last Tuesday (April 29) a court in Djilfa, 150 miles south of Algiers, charged the 33-year-old Muslim convert to Christianity with “printing, storing and distributing” illegal religious material. A written copy of the verdict has yet to be issued.

The Protestant, who requested anonymity for security reasons, told fellow Christians in his home city of Tiaret that police pressured him to return to Islam while in custody.

The conviction is the latest in a wave of detentions and court cases against Algeria’s Protestants and Catholics. Since January police and provincial officials have ordered the closure of up to half of the country’s 50 estimated Protestant congregations.

Officials in several instances have cited a February 2006 law governing the worship of non-Muslims. Clarified by subsequent decrees in 2007, the law restricts most religious meetings to approved places of worship and forbids any attempt to “shake the faith of a Muslim.”

On the morning of April 25, the Tiaret resident and eight-year convert to Christianity was stopped at a police roadblock in the vicinity of Djilfa while riding in a shared taxi. Officials took the convert into custody upon finding a Bible and several religious study books in his luggage.

A Christian from Tiaret told Compass that Djilfa police appeared to have previous knowledge of the Protestant’s Christian connections. Officers refused to let the convert call friends to let them know of his detention, naming a church member in Tiaret whom they claimed he would contact.

“We will call your family for you,” the officials said, according to the Christian source from Tiaret.

According to one Algerian human rights lawyer, police violated the convert’s rights by refusing him the telephone call.

“Any detained person has the right to call his family,” said the lawyer, who requested anonymity.

A leader from the Protestant Church of Algeria, an umbrella association for mainline and evangelical congregations, said that Christians remained unaware of the detainee’s location for several days.

Precarious Position

The Christian source in Tiaret said that Djilfa police verbally attacked the convert because of his faith during his five-day detention at city’s police station.

“They did not hit him, but they tried to convert him back to Islam,” he said.

Under Algerian law, police can detain a suspect up to 48 hours before bringing him before a state prosecutor, the human rights lawyer told Compass.

“It is not legal for them to hold him for five days,” said the lawyer, who clarified that any detention between 24 and 48 hours had to be approved by a state prosecutor.

After five days in Djilfa’s main police station, the Christian was brought before a state prosecutor and then a Djilfa judge. According to the convert, the judge convicted him of “printing, storing and distributing” illegal religious literature, though the charge remains uncertain until a written verdict is issued.

Before releasing him, the judge told the convert he would be given a 300 euro fine and a one-year suspended sentence.

According to the Tiaret Christian, the convert received the “printing” charge because he was traveling with a computer printer in his possession. The convert has yet to receive a written copy of the verdict, though observers said this was common in Algeria, as court verdicts are normally sent by mail following a ruling.

Because the sentence is suspended, the convert will only have to do jail time if convicted of another crime. But the Tiaret Christian said that the verdict constituted an ongoing threat to the Christian.

“A policeman could bring false accusations against him, that he gave one of them a Bible, and he would be thrown in jail,” the friend said.

Christians in Tiaret reported two separate instances in which undercover police officers pretended to be interested in Christianity and then detained Protestants for giving them Bibles.

Charges were thrown out for the first incident in March. In the second case a Tiaret court handed a Christian a two-year suspended sentence and a 100,000-dinar (US$1,540) fine on April 2. The written verdict was delivered on April 9.

At least five Christians from Tiaret have been detained or tried for Christian activities since January 2008.

According to unconfirmed reports, Tiaret police detained six more Christians today.

Christians constitute a tiny minority of Algeria’s population of 33 million. Catholics count several thousand congregants, mostly expatriates, while numbers for Protestants are less certain.

Conservative estimates place the number of Protestants at 10,000, though evangelism via satellite TV has reportedly led to a large number of isolated conversions unaccounted for in church attendance figures.

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=lead&lang=en&length=long&idelement=&backpage=&critere=&countryname=&rowcur

If you think the report is limited to a few books or schools, fathom this. Last weekend while out for a walk, I stumbled across a folded up piece of paper in a church parking lot. Always inquisitive, I picked it up and unfolded it. Much to my dismay, among the first words I saw were "Muslim Brotherhood".

The paper was Test-Form B of Chapter 16, Unit 5 from McDougal Littell Inc. The topic was North Africa and Southwest Asia Today. The fill in the blank question, one of the few this student got correct, was, "Members of the (Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt object to the cooperation of the Egyptian government with Israel and the United States."

Is it necessary for children to learn about the Muslim Brotherhood? And if so, only in a fashion that presents them as peaceful and anti-American? The same test had a map of the Middle East with Palestine but without Israel. Coincidentally, the chapters from the same publisher found on a teachers blog for a school named Smitha, teaches:

"when the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the Jews no longer had their own country. They lived scattered around the world but still considered Palestine their home" (pdf)

One history class there appears to be taught be a Mr. Kemal - see his presentation of historical topics here.

Coincidence or affirmation that creeping sharia is moving at full speed? Read the WND story.

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
History textbooks promoting Islam
New report says Muslim activists 'succeeding' in expunging criticism
Posted: May 10, 2008

By Bob Unruh © 2008 WorldNetDaily

History textbooks being used by hundreds of thousands of public school students across the U.S. are blatantly promoting Islam, according to a new report by an independent organization that researches and reviews textbooks.

WND has reported several times on issues involving the promotion of Islam in public school texts, including a recent situation in which California parents complained their children were being taught that "jihad" to Muslims means "doing good works."

The new report is from the American Textbook Council, which was established in 1989 as an independent national research organization to review social studies textbooks and advance the quality of instructional materials in history.

In the two-year project, whose report was authored by Gilbert T. Sewall, the ATC reviewed five junior and five high school world and American history texts, concluding:

"Many political and religious groups try to use the textbook process to their advantage, but the deficiencies in Islam-related lessons are uniquely disturbing. History textbooks present an incomplete and confected view of Islam that misrepresents its foundations and challenges to international security."

The report finds that the texts present "disputed definitions and claims [regarding Islam] ... as established facts."

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

"Particular fault rests with the publishing corporations, boards of directors, and executives who decide what editorial policies their companies will pursue," the report said.

Reviewed were:

* Medieval and Early Modern Times by Jackson J. Spielvogal

* Medieval to Early Modern Times by Stanley M. Bernstein and Richard Shek

* World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times by Douglas Carnine, Carlos Cortes, Kenneth R. Curtis and Anita T. Robinson

* Medieval and Early Modern Times by Dianne Hart

* History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond by Bert Bower and Jim Lobdell

* World History: The Modern World by Elizabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler

* World History: Modern Times by Jackson J. Spielvogel

* America: Pathways to the Present by Andrew Cayton and others

* The American Vision: Moder Times by Joyce Appelby and others and

* The Americans: Reconstruction to the Twenty-first Century by Gerald A. Danzer

The report noted that several of the textbooks have found harsh critics among parents and others, and "History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond" published by the privately held Teachers Curriculum Institute has been criticized repeatedly.

In Lodi, Calif., parents "were not objecting to a word or two that they took out of context but to a textbook long on chapters filled with adulatory lessons on Islam."

This was the same book cited by parents who contacted WND with their concerns about such indoctrination.

A parent whose child has been handed the text in a Sacramento district at that time accused the publisher of a pro-Muslim bias to the point that Islamic theology has been incorporated into the public school teachings.

"It makes an attempt to seem like an egalitarian world history book, but on closer inspection you find that seven (not all are titled so) of the chapters deal with Islam or Muslim subjects," wrote the parent, whose name was being withheld, in a letter to WND.

"The upsetting part is not only do they go into the history (which would be acceptable) but also the teaching of Islam," she said. "This book does not really go into Christianity or the teachings of Christ, nor does it address religious doctrine elsewhere to the degree it does Islam."

She said the book's one page referencing Jews "is only to convey that they were tortured by Crusaders to get them to convert to 'Christianity.' (It fails to mention that the biggest persecutors of Jews throughout history and still today are Arab Muslims). It gives four other one-liner references to the Jews being blamed for the plagues and problems in the land. It does not talk about the Jews as making a significant impact on the culture at large."

Bert Bower, founder of TCI, told WND at that time not only did his company have experts review the book, but the state of California also reviewed it, and has approved it for use in public schools.

"Keep in mind when looking at this particular book scholars from all over California (reviewed it)," he said.

One of those experts who contributed to the text, according to the ATC, which earlier released a scathing indictment of that specific project, was Ayad Al-Qazzaz.

"Al-Qazzaz is a Muslim apologist, a frequent speaker in Northern California school districts promoting Islam and Arab causes," the ATC review said. "Al-Qazzaz also co-wrote AWAIR's 'Arab World Notebook.' AWAIR stands for Arab World and Islamic Resources, an opaque, proselytizing 'non-profit organization' that conducts teacher workshops and sells supplementary materials to schools."

The newest report cited the same issue raised by parents.

"In a passage meant to explain jihad, they encountered this: 'Muslims should fulfill jihad with the heart, tongue, and hand. Muslims use the heart in their struggle to resist evil. The tongue may convince others to take up worthy causes, such as funding medical research. Hands may perform good works and correct wrongs,'" the new report said.

The ATC report noted a complicating factor is a ban in California, to whose standards most textbook publishers align their work, on "adverse reflection" on religion in school.

"Whatever 'adverse reflection' is, such a mandate may be conceptually at odds with historical and geopolitical actuality," the study said.

"None of this is accidental. Islamic organizations, willing to [provide] misinformation, are active in curriculum politics. These activists are eager to expunge any critical thought about Islam from textbook and all public discourse. They are succeeding, assisted by partisan scholars and associations... It is alarming that so many individuals with the power to shape the curriculum are willfully blind to or openly sympathetic to these efforts," the report said.

Regarding the TCI book, the report said its lessons contain "stilted language that seem scripted or borrowed from devotional, not historical, material." Also, the "Medieval to Early Modern Times" book features a two-page prayer to Allah "the Merciful."

"Among the textbooks examined, the editorial caution that marks coverage of Christian and Jewish beliefs vanishes in presenting Islam's foundations. With materials laden with angels, revelations, miracles, prayers, and sacred exclamations; the story of the Zamzam well; and the titles 'Messenger of God' and 'Prophet of Islam' the seventh-grade textbooks cross the line into something other than history, that is, scripture or myth."

Among the lessons public school students must learn from the various books:

* Muhammad "taught equality"

* Fasting reminds Muslims of people who struggle to get enough food

* Muhammad told his followers to make sure guests never left a table hungry

* Arab traditions include being kind to strangers and helping needy

"These effusive formulations stop just short of invention and raise questions about the sources of information," the report said.

The books' praises of Islam continues, the report said. "TCI devotes 13 text-heavy pages to textiles, calligraphy, design, books, city building, architecture, mathematics, medicine, polo, and chess, some of it spun like cotton candy," the report said.

For example, the book reports: "Singing was an essential part of Muslim Spain's musical culture. ... Although this music is lost today, it undoubtedly influenced later musical forms in Europe and North Africa."

"Undoubtedly, the TCI volume declares. Yet the book acknowledges the music is lost and the claims are speculative. Empty text dilates Islamic achievements," the report said.

Glossing over the actual physical conquering of some peoples, the "World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times" says people were converted to Islam because they were "attracted by Islam's message of equality and hope for salvation," the report said.

Another book teaches: "Q: How did the caliphs who expanded the Muslim Empire treat those they conquered? A: They treated them with tolerance."

"At a time when intolerance marks Islamic cultures worldwide and multiculturalism is a ruling idea in U.S. schools, these 'wonderland-of-tolerance' tropes constitute a major content distortion," the report said.

The books teach the Crusades were "religious wars launched against Muslims by European Christians."

"When ... Muslims groups attack Christian peoples, kill them, and take their lands, the process is referred to as 'building' an empire. Christian attempts to restore those lands are labeled as 'violent attacks' or 'massacres,'" the report said.

Some of the books are rife with other errors. In the TCI book, it says the Crusaders wore red crosses. "No. Only Templars did," said the report.

"While Christian belligerence is magnified, Islamic inequality, subjugation, and enslavement get the airbrush," said the report, which also found inaccuracies in teaching about sharia religious law, women's rights and terrorism, especially the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, which killed nearly 3,000.

"The Modern World" says, "On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, teams of terrorists hijacked four airplanes on the East Coast. Passengers challenged the hijackers on one flight, which they crashed on the way to its target. But one plane plunged into the Pentagon in Virginia, and two others slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York..."

"The flatness and brevity of this passage are dismaying. In terms of content, so much is left unanswered. Who were the teams of terrorists and what did they want to do? What were their political ends? Since 'The Modern World' avoids any hint of the connection between this unnamed terrorism and jihad, why September 11 happened is hard to understand," the report said.

If voters in Florida and Michigan are not seated at the Democratic National Convention in August, we might as well repeal the Civil Rights Act. The principle, if not the importance, is much the same. Just because some wise-guys at party headquarters in these two states thought they would be clever and juggle dates is no reason to deny people the franchise. That is precisely what used to happen in the southern states in the 1950s. Back then "Negroes" were told, "Just because the Fifteenth Amendment gives you the right to vote doesn't mean you're going to get one." Literacy tests for voter registration, obscure poll taxes and outright intimidation stopped African-Americans from voting, both in party primaries and local, state and federal elections. The Twenty-fourth Amendment of 1964 put an end to the poll-tax trick and the Civil Rights Act later that year tidied up the details.

The people who lined up to vote in Florida's January primary thought they were exercising their democratic entitlements, just like those brave blacks who showed up at the polling stations in the 1950s. In the main, they did not even know the names of the back-room boys who did the fancy fiddling with the calendar. But now Howard Dean and other Democrat bigwigs are telling them: "rules are rules, and as you broke them you must bear the consequences." Maybe some party hacks broke rules, but ordinary Floridians didn't. Unless their primary votes are counted in the proportion they cast them, the Denver Convention organizers had better keep a nervous eye on the doors to guard against angry interlopers from Miami.

The seasoned old pols of the party must know in their smoke-filled hearts that giving the nomination to Barack Obama means giving the keys of the White House to John McCain. Those southern states where Democrat African-Americans chose him over Hillary Clinton by margins of up to 90% are going to be in the Republican camp come November. And in the Electoral College, you don't split delegates proportionally. In Midwestern states, educated young white liberals who scarcely ever see a black man are captivated by Obama's winning smile and safe Harvard cadences, and rejoice in the chance to demonstrate how free of prejudice they are. Indeed, they are head over heels in love with Obama. But that is not going to keep their states from going for McCain in November.

The Democrat candidate, whoever it is, will certainly win Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, Maryland, California and a few other states. But it will be Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania that decide who wins in November. You can always count on at least a 45/55 split for the parties in the popular vote, so it is always the marginal states that decide the outcome. The archaic 18th century Electoral College makes sure of that. A few tens of thousands more votes in Ohio would have put John Kerry in the Oval Office in 2004 even though he was three million votes behind Bush nationwide. A few hundred more for Al Gore in Florida in 2000 would have done the trick, but Bush got the keys even though he was half a million votes behind.

Setting aside the question of abolishing the Electoral College, which is not going to happen -- though it might have been if Kerry had won the 2004 election immediately after Gore's 2000 defeat -- the Democratic super-delegates are going to have to decide whether to back a loser on principle or choose someone with a real chance of winning. The way super-delegates are categorized in the press makes them sound undemocratic. But the whole idea of having them was to make sure the most electable person gets the nomination. If they choose Hillary Clinton, blacks in the south may well stay at home, but those states are in McCain's camp anyway. If Obama is nominated, white democrats in the big marginal states may stay at home, in which case McCain will take both Florida and Ohio.

It's no use saying the American democratic process is not about race and religion. Everyone knows it is. To make himself more palatable, McCain could well choose a younger black person as his running mate -- Condoleezza Rice for example. (What a smack in the eye it would be if the old man had a stroke the week after his inauguration!)

In Europe, race means a lot but religion doesn't. Ask a European politician about God and you will be very angrily told to buzz off. American politicians, on the other hand, have to wear their religion on their sleeves -- whether it be an expedient form of faith or a devout one -- because without declaring yourself a believer in the Christian god you can't get elected to anything. Jimmy Carter and George Bush are committed Christians. Everyone else says they are, but what they really think is none of our goddamn business. The Constitution says so.

Both Obama and Clinton have skeletons in their closets, but neither has reached into the other's and rattled the bones. Indeed, they have both very scrupulously avoided that. Obama has had some dealings with real estate tycoons whom some have labeled shady. Clinton has a list as long as her arm. Remember Whitewater, the cattle futures, Travelgate, the missing documents found under her bed? Bring any of this up and you will get a dismissive wave of annoyance for digging up boring old stories dealt with in the 1980s. Plenty of people had serious reservations about the Clintons' integrity back then, but it has become a hurtful, unhelpful thing to bring up two decades later.

The 600-pound gorilla in Obama's front room is religion. Maybe the Clintons are saving this weapon for a desperate last effort as their ship founders. And it is not the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, however disingenuous it is of Obama to claim he sat in that congregation for 20 years listening to the eminent "theologian's" racist 1960s-style rants and claim the man was only a spiritual pastor. Obama attended the church for reasons that are no business of ours. We can say that not joining some prominent black congregation is a risky way to try and get elected to the Illinois State Senate in the 13th district in Chicago's South Side. Obama had never been interested in religion before he thought of running for office in a place where you need African-American votes. You can say that much without fear of contradiction because Obama has said it himself. But no American can in fairness say anything at all about his personal faith.

Others can, however, and they are not Christian. Barack, however you spell it, is a common Muslim name, as indeed is his middle one Hussein. He was born to a Muslim father. This unfortunately makes him a Muslim by Koranic law even though he never attended a mosque after the age of about ten and is now a committed Protestant. Nobody but the lunatic fringe thinks he has a secret Muslim agenda -- and these people are rightly dismissed as not even worthy of rebuttal. But that is not the issue. The Clintons are not stupid. They must know about precepts of Islamic law. If they are going to drag out the big gun before they sink beneath a storm surge of pro-Obama sentiment, it will have to be this week or next.

It has nothing at all to do with Obama's opinions on religion, politics, race or life itself. It has nothing to do with him at all. If, say, the Iranian-born Iraqi grand ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who sits on a cushioned carpet in Najaf, were to judge Obama an apostate -- someone who has abandoned the faith -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki could not meet him. What a thing it would be if the leaders of a country for whom 4,075 young Americans have given their lives could not shake the hand of the president of the United States! If Sistani so declared, the injunction would not be against Obama so much as Maliki. All five traditions of Islamic jurisprudence prescribe death as the punishment for apostasy as well as harsh penalties for any Muslim who associates with an denier of the Prophet.

To reiterate and state it as flatly and bluntly and finally as it possible: Barack Obama is not a Muslim in any way an American would consider reasonable. If he ever was a Muslim, it was only as a very small child. Every fair American, and most unfair ones, knows and accepts that Obama is a practicing member of the vast Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and is as good a Christian as anyone in Congress. His rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment. But it is not up to him to say if he is or is not an apostate. That is for religious scholars to rule upon, both Shia ayatollahs in Iran and Iraq and Sunni mullas in most of the rest of the Muslim world.

There are many liberal Muslim clerics who would say a young boy abandoned by his Muslim father, and then separated from his Muslim stepfather at a young age cannot possibly be called an apostate. But there are harsh, unforgiving Sharia judges all over the Muslim world, especially in the Sunni Wahabbi sect in Saudi Arabia and among the ayatollahs of Qom, for whom simple justice and common sense mean very little. Some of these men are straight out of the eighth century. If they should take it upon themselves to adopt a strict view of the Koran that once a Muslim always a Muslim, and if they were senior and influential enough, then about 40 Muslim heads of state could not meet Obama as president of the United States. Not if they valued their own souls -- and perhaps their heads.

It is better to have this out now. Before the American people vote, they should have all the facts and know all the consequences. If they know and choose him anyway, that will be a great vindication of the Constitution. But if they only find out later, the American media will have done them a great disservice.

Related Posts in This Blog:

Obama's Islamic Origins

Barack is a Muslim Name

Silencing Ferraro

(PHOENIX, AZ, 5/2/08) - On Thursday, May 1, the Arizona House of Representatives begin their session with recitations of the Holy Quran.

Hafiz Ghufran - Ullah Shah and joined by CAIR-AZ representatives and members of the Muslim community.

A CAIR-AZ representative and Muslim leaders also attended a Prayer Breakfast sponsored by the Governor of Arizona, who declare the first of May “National Prayer Day” for Arizona.

]]> http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?p=532 Fri, 16 May 2008 18:37:22 +0000 creeping http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/?p=532 Part II of our look at some of the history behind the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy to ban or replace words like jihad delves further into Walid Phares' notion that "this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood."

Several months after Phares published his view, Doug Farah revealed a previously classified Department of Defense document from the Holy Land Foundation trial that also addresses the TrueSpeak campaign, which we suspect influenced the DHS policy.

This is a must read not only in terms of understanding the origins of the DHS policy, but also revelations about the Muslim Brotherhood and its strategy, its affiliates in the United States, as well as the verdicts in the HLF trial. It is somewhat lengthy and we've added bold and red fonts to highlight segments.

- - - Sep 10, 15:24 - - - - [2007]