All Things Piggy To Be Banned By Oxford University Press To Avoid Offending Muslims and Jews

Oxford University Press (OUP) has taken political correctness to an absurd level. Apparently, the schoolbook publishers have decided to ban references to anything porcine in their children's books in order to avoid offending Muslims and Jews. That means no mention of piggies, bacon, sausage. Nothing porky. Authors are being asked to take into consideration any 'cultural differences and sensitivities" when writing kiddies' books.

The bizarre clampdown, apparently aimed at avoiding offence among Jews and Muslims, emerged yesterday during a discussion about free speech on Radio 4’s Today programme.

Presenter Jim Naughtie – whose writer wife Eleanor Updale is in talks with Oxford University Press (OUP) over an educational book series – said: ‘I've got a letter here that was sent out by OUP to an author doing something for young people.

‘Among the things prohibited in the text that was commissioned by OUP was the following: Pigs plus sausages, or anything else which could be perceived as pork.

‘Now, if a respectable publisher, tied to an academic institution, is saying you've got to write a book in which you cannot mention pigs because some people might be offended, it’s just ludicrous. It is just a joke.'

A spokesman for OUP said:

 ‘Many of the educational materials we publish in the UK are sold in more than 150 countries, and as such they need to consider a range of cultural differences and sensitivities.

'Our editorial guidelines are intended to help ensure that the resources that we produce can be disseminated to the widest possible audience.’

The decision has been ridiculed by many including Tory MP Philip Davies who responded:

 ‘How on earth can anyone find the word “pig” or “pork” offensive? 'No word is offensive. It is the context in which it is used that is offensive.’

‘On the one hand you have politicians and the great and the good falling over each other to say how much they believe in freedom of speech and on the other hand they are presiding over people being unable to use and write words that are completely inoffensive.

'We have got to get a grip on this nonsensical political correctness.

‘The political correctness brigade appear to have taken control of our schools.

'The Secretary of State needs to get a grip over this and make sure this ridiculous ban is stopped at once.’

And by both Jews and Muslims. Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood said:

"... That’s absolute utter nonsense. And when people go too far, that brings the whole discussion into disrepute."

Spokesman for the Jewish Leadership Council added:

 ‘Jewish law prohibits eating pork, not the mention of the word, or the animal from which it derives.

I know the Jews are not offended by things like The Three Little Pigs, and photos of bacon, but was glad to see the Muslim measured response. That's not to say there aren't Anjem Choudary types who were probably thrilled to hear about the ban, and who are offended by anything to do with pigs.  In Germany last year, Muslims protested a butcher shop that had a decorative pig display because they were offended. Back in 2007, a school in Amsterdam stopped teaching about rural life because the Muslim refused to talk about the pigs.

This has to stop.

Source and video: Daily Mail

France's 'Charlie Hebdo' Publishes More Mohammed Cartoons- Update

Charlie Hebdo, the French (mostly leftist) weekly satirical magazine that had the guts to republish the Danish Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons back in 2006, and was subsequently sued by a group of Muslims in 2007, is at it again.  In today's edition, it plans on publishing a few more Mohammed cartoons that the editor claims will "shock those who will want to be shocked." And, no doubt, there will be plenty.

However, those champions of 'freedom of expression' don't seem to be too worried about being the next targets of Muslim rage; after all, Charlie Hebdo survived a firebombing of its offices last November over the "Charia Hebdo" edition. If you recall, that was the one "guest edited" by the "Prophet Mohammed", and captioned with "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter."  Well, we all know there is no humor in Islam, or at least its adherents are sorely lacking.

Naturally, everyone is panicking in that country- considering the amount of disenfranchised, unemployed Muslim youth just waiting for an excuse to rampage.

Jean-Marc Ayrault, the prime minister, issued a statement expressing his "disapproval of all excesses."

The magazine's editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time.

"The freedom of the press, is that a provocation?" he said. "I'm not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo, just like I wouldn't go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe."

Muslim leaders have also piped in, not that anything they might say will change the minds of those hell bent on revenge.

Dalil Boubakeur, the senior cleric at Paris's biggest mosque, appealed for France's four million Muslims to remain calm.

"It is with astonishment, sadness and concern that I have learned that this publication is risking increasing the current outrage across the Muslim world," he said.

"I would appeal to them not to pour oil on the fire."

France's Muslim Council, the community's main representative body, also appealed for calm in the face of "this new act of Islamaphobia."

Muslim leaders need to control their wayward followers, and not simply try to appease them.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for the news about the angry mobs taking to the streets in France.

UPDATE 9/19/12:  Here is one of the cartoons published on the front of Charlie Hebdo.

The cover of Charlie Hebdo (seen above) shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title Intouchables 2, referring to an award-winning French film about a impoverished black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic. Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine shows a naked Mohammed exposing his backside to a film director.

Asked if it was a provocation, Editor Stephane Charbonnier said:

“The freedom of the press, is that a provocation? I’m not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo, just like I wouldn’t go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe.”

Many people do. But as Charbonnier says, if you are offended by something just turn your head. No-one is forcing you to watch or read something you might find offensive.

Muslim Prayer Rooms For All Australian Football Venues

At the behest of Bachar Houli, the AFL's one Muslim player, all Australian Football venues will eventually have prayer rooms.

Muslims are delighted they'll have somewhere to go for their mandatory 5 prayers per day while attending football games;  others, aren't so thrilled about pandering to a minority religious group.

Federal Appeals Court Overturns Oklahoma State Ban On Sharia Law

In 2010, an amendment banning any Islamic (Shariah) or international law from being implemented in Oklahoma courts was approved by an overwhelming 70 percent of  voters. But, the ban was shot down by a federal appeals court in Denver on Tuesday because it violated Muneer Awad's First Amendment Rights. And can you guess what organization Awad is executive director of in Oklahoma?  Bingo. Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR).  Yes, poor Awad bemoaned the fact that his whole life would be affected (including his will upon his death) if the law took effect, and so he won his lawsuit. 

The Oklahoma amendment, called "Save Our State" was deemed unconstitutional because it discriminated against religions. It was actually blocked soon after its approval by dhimmi  U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange because she knew he would prevail. Isn't that telling. And, although the amendment called Save Our State was aimed at banning all religious laws, the backers made the mistake of using the term 'Islamic' as an example. 

"The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."

Because the amendment mentioned Sharia Law twice, the appeals court determined it was an attack on Muslims, so bye-bye ban. Another reason it was blocked was none of the backers were able to prove that Sharia Law (or any other international law) had been used in Oklahoma courts. Yet!

"When the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad's in having his constitutional rights protected," the court said.

So, the so-called constitutional rights of one individual takes precedence over the will of the people, it seems. And I guess 'separation of church and state', part of that same First Amendment, means absolutely nothing.  Because we can't ruffle their feathers, right?!

This court decision, sadly, will set a terrible precedent. Down the line, it will pave the way for implementation of Sharia Law in our court systems.

Egyptian Copt Blames Obama For Facilitating Creeping Shariah In The U.S.

Egyptian-born Dr. Ashraf Ramelah, Founder and President of the Voice of the Copts, has some interesting things to say about creeping Shariah in America, and how Barack Obama is facilitating that.

Will we ever know the extent to which President Obama’s most recent submission to the pressured demands of Islamists has endangered American national security? When the Obama administration yielded to the outcries of Muslim-American citizens and Islamic organizations recently with the removal of FBI training manuals containing certain anti-terror material deemed “offensive,” the President was either ignorant of the goals of Islam, complacent about what he knows, or notching up another win for appeasement and promotion of Islam ─ for now a mystery.

He ends with:

Will Americans settle for a repressed society governed by political correctness waiting for Islam to build a stronghold inside our country? Immigrants living in America having once been subject to Islamic law are much more cautious than those who were born into freedom and have only known the freedom of the West. Take the word of the Copt living in America; the signs of Jihad are everywhere, seeking to dismantle our liberty and way of life. It is the Copt living in America who will speak the truth having lived it never allowing the falsehoods of Islam to dominate.

The rest of his article is worth the read.

Richard Landes On Charlie Hebdo and Freedom Of Speech

Richard Landes, an American professor, writer and historian, has written an excellent response  to Bruce Crumley's commentary (on Time's website) regarding the Charlie Hebdo firebombing incident.

Crumley, is your typical apologist/appeaser who believes anyone critical of Islam is 'Islamphobic', and wants that criticism to stop:

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren't going to tell “us” what can and can't be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

Landes, on the other hand, believes  Muslims should just "grow up". Although he does agree "in principle" with Crumley's objection to "gratuitous insult", he does not believe the criticism should stop.

Gratuitous insult is not what we need. Much better purposeful, serious criticism. If Crumley really embodied the maturity he pretends to, then he’d have serious challenges to Islam to his credit. That would attest to his readiness to treat Muslims as adults, capable of listening to as well as proffering criticism, to his faith that “the vast majority of Muslims are moderates.”

But if he is primarily trying to spare Muslims’ feelings – if he secretly believes that they are incapable of playing by the minimal rules of civil society; that they are not far from sympathising with jihadis for whom violence is a legitimate response to any form of criticism of Islam – then he unconsciously reveals that he thinks Muslims are primitive, violent people who must be appeased at all costs.

Here’s where Crumley and I part ways: he treats Muslims as animals or little children, and believes that he can win them over with carrots. Sticks will just spook them. So he finds Charlie Hebdo’s behavior “childish, futile, Islamophobic [sic!]… inflammatory… obnoxious, infantile… outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable.”

[snip]
I’d rather treat Charlie Hebdo as a teaching moment, as a shibboleth for detecting genuinely moderate Muslims. Here’s an occasion to teach our Muslim co-citizens about “sticks and stones.” If we can’t find Muslims to whom we can say: “this part of modern civil society, and your learning to get past the implied/imagined insult constitutes minimal adherence to principles of reciprocity,” then what does it mean to carry on about “moderate Muslims”? This reciprocity is especially significant given how virulently critical of infidels many of the most vocal Muslims are.

This radical (and pre-modern) asymmetry of “us” and “them” reflects one of the most disturbing – and to liberals, incomprehensible – principle of Wala wa bara - “loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels.” It constitutes the exact opposite of the modern principles that underlie civil polities in which citizens are guaranteed “human rights.”

Landes is spot on in his analyses, and it's worth a read. Click here for the whole article.

Offices of Charlie Hebdo Firebombed Over 'Charia Hebdo" Islam Edition

Charlie Hebdo is back in the headlines again.  In 2007, the far-left, French satirical weekly took major heat for re-publishing the Danish Jyllands-Posten 'Mo-toons', and posting on the front page a cartoon of Mohammad with the caption "It's hard to be loved by idiots" in French. As a result, publisher Philippe Val was sued by the Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations for racism. A staunch supporter of Israel, the lefty Val won that lawsuit.

The latest with Charlie Hebdo came the day it was due to publish its latest weekly edition skewering Islamic Shariah law.  The name Charlie was replaced with Charia, Prophet Mohammad listed as guest Editor-In-Chief,  captioned with "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter" and dedicated to the Arab Spring.

This time, no-one was going to wait to lose a lawsuit, so in the wee hours of the morning on Wednesday November 2,  the offices of Charlie Hebdo were firebombed, and their website was hacked. Apparently, there was a photo of Mecca and "No God But Allah" along with messages in Turkish and English. But as of today, there are just the words "it works!",  on the screen. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

There are, of course, those dhimmis who condemn Charlie Hebdo for provoking Muslims, like Romina Ruiz-Goiriena of France24 in her Huffington Post article.

By definition, satire is based on the premise that however serious the subject, it can achieve a greater effect if a society's follies are held to ridicule. The greater purpose is constructive criticism. However, the Charia Hebdo number did everything to scorn the Arab Spring abroad and nothing to contest French clichés and institutional racism against Muslims.



The issue was not thought-provoking; it simply contributed to burgeoning anti-Muslim sentiment. What it should have been doing was pushing the conversation forward to confront the seemingly dormant but rampant institutional bigotry. After all, is that not the point of having a free press tradition in the first place?

An extremely angry editor, Stéphane Charbonnier (Charb), said that

"The arsonist didn't read this magazine -- no one knows what's in this magazine except for the ones who will buy it this morning.  People acted violently over a magazine where they don't even know the content. This is what is most deviant and dumb."

But Muslims who commit these kinds of violent acts don't think before reacting. They just lash out because it's the only thing they know, and people are intimidated enough to give them reason to continue acting out. Granted, many in the Muslim community have condemned the violence, but there's something fundamentally wrong when your adherents find no other recourse but to resort to threats and violent pursuits.

Back in 2006 Jacques Chirac was highly critical of  Charlie Hebdo for the Mo-Toons publication, which he claimed was  "overt provocation" adding,

"Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided."

The current government, however, values freedom of speech and fully supports the magazine. Interior Minister Claude Gueant said

"The freedom of the press is a sacred freedom for French people. Everything will be done to find the perpetrators of this attack."

The  mayor of Paris said it best,

"We may not agree with this week's edition of Charlie Hebdo, but we are in a society that needs freedom of expression, and any violence that undermines this freedom... is absolutely unacceptable."

If we continue to allow violence or the threat of violence to dictate how we conduct our lives, we might as well lock ourselves up and throw away the key.

Complaint Filed Against Catholic University Alleges Violation Of Muslim Students' Rights

The latest asinine, Muslim-instigated frivolous law suit (and no, not initiated by CAIR  believe it or not) is a complaint (60 pages no less) leveled against Washington DC based Catholic University of America.  George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf (who apparently has nothing better to do), has filed a complaint with the Office of  Human Rights in Washington DC alleging that Muslim students' human rights are being violated because the poor things have to pray in a room with Jesus Christ looking down on them and

“... surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

Well, duh, what part of Catholic don't they understand?  Private Catholic Universities will, obviously, promote Catholicism and if some of the Muslims (or others for that matter) are offended by it as Banzhaf claims they are, then they need to find another college to attend.  Preferably a public, non-religious affiliated school. Or if they prefer a Muslim education and like-minded students, then there are lots of them in the Middle East.

Human rights being violated? Please!

Banzhaf told Fox News that

“It shouldn’t be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus."

Why should they care who or what is looking down upon them?  If you are a faithful believer of any religion you should be able to pray anywhere, heck Muslims pray out on the streets of Paris in droves, and who knows who or what is looking down upon them there.

And no-one else seems to have any complaints.  Victor Nakas, from the public affairs office of the University said

“Our faithfulness to our Catholic tradition has also made us a welcome home to students of other religions. No students have registered complaints about the exercise of their religions on our campus.”

That's because most other religions are not demanding, as Islam has increasingly become. And it's not that the Muslim students are being prevented from praying. A university spokesman told NPR in an interview in 2010 that

“We make classrooms available, or our chapels are places where they can pray. We don’t offer Halal meat, although there are always meals that conform to Halal regulations, that allow students to do what they want.”

 No Muslim University would make any concessions for students of other religions- if they are even allowed to attend.

The Office of Human Rights has said the investigation could take up to 6 months to complete. What a waste of energy.

Photo Source: The Tower

Islam Takes Over Paris Streets- Video

Some of the information in this video is somewhat old, but it's a very good reminder of what is happening in France, and what could happen in other nations that are too afraid to oppose Muslim imperialism and thuggery. 

This could happen anywhere in the West, not just on the streets of Paris. Pray in your churches, mosques, temples and synagogues, but not on the streets. Not only is it an imposition on others, it's dangerous to clog the streets up in such a manner.

UPDATE: Paris banned prayer in the streets September, 2011

Egyptian Tycoon Receives Boycotts, Lawsuits & Threats Of Severed Tongue For Posting Mickey and Minnie Mouse in Islamic Garb

Disney's Mickey Mouse has taken center stage, yet again, in the Middle East.  But this time, rather than being a tool for teaching terrorism to kids- remember Farfour the Palestinian Mouse-  he and his gal pal Minnie created a firestorm of protest against Egyptian Telecom and media tycoon-cum-politician, Naguib Sawiris.  Sawiris has had lawsuits and boycotts launched against him for posting a cartoon of Mickey with an Islamic beard and a niqab-clad Minnie from his Twitter feed. Apparently, the cartoon had already made the rounds in an email that featured the mouse couple and the quote: "this is the future of Egypt"- which is more than likely where the country is headed, given the overreaction to the post.  It probably doesn't help that after the fall of Mubarak, Sawiris formed a political party- Free Egyptians-  determined to create a secular Egypt and is a Christian Copt, to boot. As an 'infidel', he justifiably (in the minds of the Salafis who are at the bottom of all the protests) deserves all the obligatory death threats etc. that are being leveled at him, in spite of having apologized on Twitter:

 "I apologise for any who don't take this as a joke, I just thought it was a funny picture no disrespect meant! Assef!! ". [sorry]

According to various news sources, Facebook pages materialized calling for a boycott of  Sawiris' cell phone company, with one group accruing over  60,000 followers.  Although I was unable to track it down, the "We are  joking Sawiris" group supposedly had the following posted on its page:

 "If you are really a Muslim, and you love your religion, boycott his projects. We have to cut out the tongue of any person who attacks our religion."

It's quite obvious conservative Muslims lack a sense of humour. Time and again they demonstrate a serious inability to find the grace and humour in life, which is perhaps why they so often resort to violence. If they lightened up a bit, life would be  much more pleasant- and peaceful-  for the rest of the world. But no, they  consistently choose to be offended by even the most innocuous of things. Like a veiled Minnie and bearded Mickey.

Sources: ArabTimes , TelegraphUK,
photo from The Blaze

"Losing Our Sons" Documentary Film About The Radicalization Of American Muslims

Few people are taking the threat of Islamic radicalization very seriously, in spite of the fact that it is occurring all over this country.  One would think that those who would most easily fall prey to radicalization would reside in areas like Dearborn, Michigan, considered the Muslim capital of America. But that's not the case- Nashville, Tennessee, home of country music and the Grand Ole Opry, and smack dab in the middle of the 'Bible Belt',  has the dubious honor of being the city where Carlos Bledsoe, now known as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, turned into a cold blooded killer. 

Born into a Baptist family, 23-year-old Carlos went to Tennessee State University, converted to Islam, was radicalized by local extremist leaders, made his obligatory trek to Yemen, learned the tricks of the terrorist trade, came back to the U.S. and wound up murdering 23-year-old Private William Long, on June 6, 2009, outside an Army recruitment center in Little Rock, Arkansas.   He injured one other Army recruiter, and had planned on targeting  Jewish organizations, a child care center, a post office and other recruitment centers in other states.

Before and after photos of Carlos are quite telling, as is his justification for killing Private Long:

"I don't think it was murder. Because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason....and what I did is Islamic justified, and also justified by common sense, you know. U.S. soldiers are killing innocent Muslim men and women, and we believe that we have to strike back."

An upcoming documentary film, entitled "Losing Our Sons", produced by Americans For Peace and Tolerance (APT) tells the tragic tale of Carlos' journey from good son to jihadi killer. APT is an organization of Christians, Muslims and Jews  "... dedicated to promoting peaceful coexistence in a ethnically diverse America by educating the American public about the need for a moderate political leadership that supports tolerance and core American values in communities across the nation."

The film

.. will reveal how radical Islam dominates the leadership of the Muslim American community in Nashville; and how misguided government and university officials, the media, as well as civic and religious leaders failed to acknowledge, intervene, or report clear indications of Islamist radicalization in the community. 


APT has been working with grassroots community groups in support of local efforts to educate the public about the threat to American civil society from the radicalization of America's historically moderate Muslim community. This effort includes empowering truly moderate Muslims to reclaim their community.

You can view the trailer below.  Hopefully, this will open people's eyes because thinking it's not a problem doesn't make it so. Carlos' father, Melvin Bledsoe, is devastated and has effortlessly tried to make people aware of what happened to his son on an American university campus.  Apparenly not many seemed to care, and even his attempt to share his concerns at Republican Congressman Peter King's hearing on the radicalization of  American Muslims for the Homeland Security Committee fell on deaf ears.

U.S. Taxpayer Dollars Refurbishing Mosques Overseas

With our economy tanking, and the suffering we will all inevitably have to endure as a result of projected federal and state budget cuts, why are we still sending money overseas to refurbish Mosques and churches in countries like Egypt and Cyprus? We are also providing computers and Internet access to local Imams in places like Mali and Tajikistan. All courtesy of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Doesn't charity start at home?

Shariah For America Demonstration At The White House- March 3rd

UPDATE: March 3, 2011- Anjem Choudhary cancelled the demonstration. Indefinitely. He still calls for global Shariah.

There are many in the West who are blissfully ignorant about the Islamist goal of establishing global Shariah, foolishly believing "it will never happen in a democracy". Most of my colleagues share those beliefs- they feel that those who fear the spread of Muslim extremism are simply alarmists, racists and xenophobic. Little do they know, that it's not just Britain that is dealing with extremists trying to make Shariah Law the law of the land, we too have haters like Britain's Anjem Choudhary who has been a very vocal advocate of creating an Islamic state in the U.K.

Although Choudhary's shariah4uk.com website no longer exists, with his rights to free speech he has been given ample opportunities in England to preach his hate, as treasonous as it seems to me. Many of us freedom lovers in this country look at England as a lost cause, with its historically politically correct attitude and penchant for appeasement, but are we that far behind? Apparently not. It appears we too have a contingency of Muslims hellbent on making this country an Islamic state; and our own shariah4america.com replete with all sorts of information regarding the goals for a non-Democratic America.

In fact, they are planning a demonstration tomorrow, March 3rd in front of The White House, to

... let the tyrant Barack Obama and the American people know that a new constitution beckons the US called the Shari’ah, and that this worldwide revolution will see it implemented inshaa’allah (God willing) very very soon.

They obviously believe that the people's uprising in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere has nothing to do with a quest for democracy and freedom, but rather a wish to overthrow what they deem "apostate", Western-backed governments.

The decades of Western backed oppression that have violated the sanctity of Allah (SWT) and plundered Muslim resources is coming to an end and the dawn of a new age is indeed beginning. In light of this, sincere Muslims have come together, from different parts of the world, to orchestrate an unprecedented event on 3rd March 2011 that will undoubtedly add a new dimension to this intensifying conflict and send shockwaves across the world.

Preparations are now underway for the ‘Shariah4America’ project that will inshaa’allah (God willing) become an unanticipated wild card for the West, galvanising the immense support for Shari’ah in the Middle East and bringing it directly to the doorsteps of the United States of America.

We hereby call upon the Muslims in the US, particularly in New York, Michigan, Chicago and Washington DC to take lessons from their Muslim brothers and sisters in North Africa and the Middle East and rise to implement the Shari’ah in America.

And they could be right. If this isn't worrisome enough, take a look at Islamic Thinker's Society's website and their hopes for the U.S.

Perhaps few will show up, although Choudhary and several other extremists are scheduled to make an appearance, that is, if the U.S. is stupid enough to allow them to enter this country. If not many attend, then indeed those who call us alarmists might feel vindicated, but it will definitely be telling to see what happens.

There are some counter-protests that have been planned, and if you happen to be in the D.C. area tomorrow, you might want to show up between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. All are welcome, including freedom-loving Muslims.

A New Year- Reflections On The Islamist Violence In 2010 And What The New Year Might Bring

I always have hope that with the ringing in of a New Year things might change - hopefully for the better. I know it's just another day, but for some reason the fact that we start back at January 1st, once again, signals a kind of shift- a renewed energy and excitement about the many possibilities a new year might bring.

2010 was not so great both on a personal and global level, with all the natural disasters and economic woes. But what concerns me more than my petty challenges in life are the worsening global conditions, specifically the ever increasing, never-ending violence around the world, mostly in the name of one specific religion. And sadly, I don't think a new year is likely to change the course of those events. The ranks of those hell bent on establishing a third caliphate are increasing exponentially. We saw evidence of this in all the incredible violence across the planet in 2010- all the thwarted terrorist attempts, and actual acts of terrorism. Yes, there was some violence perpetrated by lunatic anarchists, but the bulk of the death and destruction last year was in the name of Allah.

And while Muslims in the West increased their demands for special treatment and other ( sometimes major) concessions through threats and lawsuits, and attempted to muzzle criticism of their religion through howls of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia (successfully at times), non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries experienced an increase in violence and intolerance. Christians (and other minority religions) continued to be killed and persecuted in most if not all of those countries. And to cap that intolerant mind-set, on Friday, December 31st Pakistan came to a standstill when a mass strike by Pakistanis (instigated by Sunni Muslim clerics) occurred in response to reports that the government was considering doing away with the Blasphemy Laws. Those oh-so humane laws which can arbitrarily condemn a man or woman to death for insulting Islam or Mohammad, and on mere hear-say, mind you. I suppose it was a fitting end to the year.

And my pollyanna-ish hopes that things might change this coming year came to a crashing halt when I read today, the first day of 2011, that a suicide bomber blew up a Coptic Christian Church in Egypt. At least 21 were killed.

No, nothing is going to change until Islam joins us in the 21st century.

YouTube Closes Down Palestinian Media Watch's Account

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) along with MEMRI are two of the best sources for information concerning the Middle East and beyond.

PMW needs our help after essentially being censored by having their account closed on YouTube.

The following is an email I received asking for help. It doesn't specifically mention what to do, but an email to YouTube might help. Anyone with half a brain knows that PMW isn't promoting hate speech, they are merely attempting to shed light on the plethora of hate speech that does exist in the Middle East.

YouTube closes down PMW account

PMW needs your help. YouTube has closed down PMW's main video account - PALWATCH - for "violating YouTube terms of use", by supposedly propagating hate speech. Of course PMW does not promote hate speech, but exposes the hate speech of the PA and the Hamas, in order to bring about its elimination.

YouTube stated that the account was henceforth terminated "due to repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Use" and they specified the following PMW videos from Palestinian sources, promoting the killing of Jews:

1. "Hamas TV teaches kids to kill Jews" formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwN2M6ZIIRU
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 10/02/2009.

2. "Jews are a virus like Aids" formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYaGl3KjPUw
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 01/18/2010.

3. "Farewell video before suicide attack of Hamas suicide bomber Adham Ahmad Hujyla Abu Jandal" formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYdTudQhWM4
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 06/10/2010.

4. "Hamas suicide farewell video: Jews monkeys and pigs; Maidens reward for killing Jews" formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryc7RqXlVdE
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 08/14/2010.

5. "PA cleric: Kill Jews, Allah will make Muslims masters over Jews" formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjuDTO8fgqM
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 12/12/2010.

6. "Hamas suicide terrorist farewell video: Palestinians drink the blood of Jews" formerly at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSftYIGH6-w
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 12/15/2010.

PMW urgently seeks to have this account reopened, since some of these videos have accumulated hundreds of thousands of viewings and the exposure is critical to our ongoing work.
If any of our subscribers could help, it would be much appreciated.



Thank you,
Itamar Marcus

Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg Walk Off "The View" Set In Unprofessional Hissy Fit

When I heard the news that Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked off "The View" in protest, I couldn't imagine what hideously offensive comment Bill O'Reilly might have made that would prompt these women to leave in such a huff. A very unprofessional turn, I might add, to walk off a show you are co-hosting, but I was curious to know what terribly 'bigoted' remark O'Reilly actually made that warranted such action. I cringe, at times, with some things some of our conservative talk show hosts say, but when I eventually found out what this so-called 'bigot' said I was totally shocked. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, considering the sources, but it would have at least been understandable had it been justified.

While trying to explain Barack Obama's low approval ratings, O'Reilly brought up the whole polarizing 'mosque near Ground Zero issue'. Not buying that the polls state 70% of the American population oppose it, the women questioned the validity. When questioned further, O'Reilly revealed that the reason was "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11." Whoopi called it "bullshit" and after some shouting both Whoopi and Joy, like angry children, walked off the set.

Since when is calling a spade a spade bigotry? And since when do we have to qualify our statements every time we speak about "terrorism"? Oh, of course, we're not really supposed to be using the word 'terrorist' (according to Obama) or associating Islam with terrorism, when the majority of terrorists these days just so happen to be Muslims. Or, in this case, we're supposed to refrain from saying that Muslims flew planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania? I think most of us assume when someone refers to Muslims killing us on 9/11 that they're referring to extremists and radical Islam. When we spoke of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and all their terrorist activity during their violent heyday, should we not have called them Irish?

The fact is, it was Muslims not Catholics, not Buddhists, not Hindus, not Jews (although lunatic, delusional Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to think they had something to do with it) Muslims rammed those planes into the Twin Towers in the name of their religion. Yes, they were extremists, but that doesn't change the fact that they were Muslims, and telling people they aren't allowed to mention that is absolutely absurd. Walking off a show because someone mentioned that is even more absurd. Barbara Walters did berate them for walking off, not because she agreed with Bill O'Reilly's statement, but because in this country we should be allowed to debate without being censored or throwing hissy fits.

Whether one agrees with what O'Reilly said or how he said it, he had every right to opine. That's what makes this country great, our freedom of speech which is slowly being whittled away by people like Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg who call us bigots for having opinions that differ from their own.

Grow up and wise up. Being pc about the whole radical Islam issue is not going to make it go away, it's just making its ranks grow stronger.



Source: NYDailyNews

9/11 2010 -Lest We Forget

There are some things in history that should never be forgotten. What happened on 9.11.2001 is one of those occurrences that should remain indelibly etched in our memories, lest we forget. However, there are many who already seem to have forgotten what happened that horrifying morning, when radical Islamists changed our world forever. They don't seem to realize that when we forget, we become less vigilant, and that's when our enemies take advantage of us. Those with evil intent will capitalize on our inherent goodness, and the supreme stupidity that comes with thinking that everyone should be trusted. They know that when we become polarized as a country, we become weakened, and that's when they will strike. Not necessarily in the form of a terrorist attack, but through dividing and conquering us as a people. They will start by separating us through issues that we all hold near and dear. Like freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

The whole debate surrounding the proposed mosque near Ground Zero (conveniently changed from the Cordoba Initiative to Park51), demonstrates just how this tactic can work. I have been debating many of my colleagues and friends on Facebook, who in their admirable yet naive efforts to think the best of people, fail to realize that evil does exist in this world. They refuse to see that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and his so-called attempts to heal the rifts created post 9/11 between Muslims and other religions. In spite of the fact that most of the over 70% of Americans opposed to the mosque being built near Ground Zero have no problems with it being built elsewhere, my friends insist that it should be allowed to be built as planned, and vilify those of us who disagree. We are called Islamophobes, racists, bigots, xenophobes, and no matter what you say, or what arguments you present them, or what articles you forward to them, they are incapable or unwilling to see the truth.

They couldn't care less that Rauf promotes Shariah law and, in fact, has written a book about it.

They couldn't care less that Rauf essentially blamed the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks by claiming we were an accessory to the crime.

They couldn't care less that the financing behind the project is questionable.

They couldn't care less that it was initially called "The Cordoba Initiative", and that the multi-faith prayer room was only included after people balked about both these issues.

They couldn't care less that even Muslims have criticized the decision to build a mosque in that particular space. Here, here and here.

With Islam the fastest growing religion in the world, and the surging trend towards fundamentalism, our freedoms are slowly being eroded in the West. Freedom of religion (which I will defend to my death) is not reciprocated in Muslim majority countries, and yet is demanded of Western nations. In fact, Muslim minority sects ( the Ahmadis and Ismailis, about the only ones you can truly consider moderates) are as persecuted as non-Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere. Forget freedom of speech. It doesn't exist over there, so they are trying to take it away from us in the West. Muslim organizations worldwide are trying to turn criticism of Islam into a 'hate crime'. Bloggers in Canada have been sued for being critical of the religion, and one Austrian woman has been charged with a hate crime , as has Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is still awaiting the verdict.

In our over zealous attempts to accommodate everyone, to be the good hosts not wanting to offend, we are losing the battle to what is coined as 'creeping shariah'. I realize there are Muslims in this country willing to adapt, and who love freedom as much as we do, they are the ones opposing Park51; but there are just as many who don't, and who want to turn this into a Shariah compliant nation. Shariah has no place in a modern, democratic, free society, and my good-hearted but very foolish friends can't seem to see that we're headed in that direction.

How can people not see what Islam turns into when faced with criticism, most notably the violence that ensues. I do not condone the burning of Qu'rans, as the Gainesville publicity-whore Pastor Jones had planned on doing (and still might do), in spite of the fact that Bibles have been burned by Muslims in the past. But the monumental global overreaction to this lunatic Pastor of no more than 50 congregants is beyond the pale. And as we all know, this isn't the first time there has been a major, violent reaction to something Muslims take offense to, and it seems that they take offense to pretty much everything these days.

I refuse to tiptoe around anyone, and will continue to criticize anything I feel is worthy of criticism. If we give in, they win. Though it seems they've already won, since all they have to do now is threaten violence and we back down. In fact, Rauf's interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" with Soledad O'Brien says as much, insinuating that if the mosque is not built in the planned location, it will inflame the radical Muslim world. It's obvious that most Muslim clerics exacerbate the problem by either fueling the flames or saying nothing at all; and those that do bother to condemn the violence and extremism are in danger themselves of retaliation.

It might just take another terrorist attack on our soil to open our sleeping eyes and say enough is enough. I just hope we pull our heads out of the proverbial sand before it's too late.

Not All Muslims Support Building A Mosque At Ground Zero

Building a mosque at ground zero is an affront to all those who lost their lives on 9/11 (and thereafter, as a result of 9/11) and all their loved ones. And regardless of the reasons and so-called good intentions for Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build a mosque where so many innocent Americans lost their lives through an act of Islamic terrorism, not all Muslims believe it's a good thing.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a Syrian/American, and former US Navy lieutenant commander thinks not. In an op-ed in the New York Post he explains why ground zero is not an appropriate place to build

an ostentatious $100 million, 13-story Muslim community center including a gym, a swimming pool, a performance-arts facility and a mosque.

As a man whose parents moved here from Syria, and who helped construct local Muslim community-built mosques in the various towns they lived, he's concerned that some of the funding for the mosque at ground zero is possibly being provided by foreign Islamists, and whatever those ramifications are, could be troubling.

I am an American Muslim dedicated to defeating the ideology that fuels global Islamist terror -- political Islam. And I don't see such a "center" actually fighting terrorism or being a very "positive" addition near Ground Zero, no matter how well intentioned.

To put it bluntly, Ground Zero is the one place in America where Muslims should think less about teaching Islam and "our good side" and more about being American and fulfilling our responsibilities to confront the ideology of our enemies.

Jasser is one of those rare few who appreciate that they are Americans who happen to be Muslim and looks at things from that perspective.

This is not about the building of a mosque or a religious facility. It is not about religious freedom. This is about a deep, soulful understanding of what happened to our country on 9/11.

When Americans are attacked, they come together as one, under one flag, under one law against a common enemy that we are not afraid to identify. Religious freedom is central to our nation - and that is why the location of this project is so misguided. Ground Zero is purely about being American. It can never be about being Muslim.

The World Trade Center site represents Ground Zero in America's war against radical Islamists who seek to destroy the American way of life. It is not ground zero of a cultural exchange.

We American Muslims cannot merely passively avoid Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots. We need to ask ourselves: Are we Americans who happen to be Muslim or Muslims blindly demanding to be American?

This is one of the rare few who realize that radical Islam is just as much a threat to them as it is to the rest of us.

On Sept. 12, 2001, I was first an American. When those planes hit the World Trade Center, they hit at the core of my being as an American. The attack on my faith by the terrorists was secondary to their attack on my homeland.

We need to focus our efforts more transparently on teaching Muslim youth that the American concepts of liberty and freedom are preferable to sharia and the Islamic state. American Muslims represent the best opportunity to fight Islamist radicalization not because we understand Islam but because we have experienced and understood what American liberty provides to the Muslim experience.

Americans must always remember the horrors of 9/11 and must be vigilant in not allowing political Islam to wear down the principles that built our country.

We need more like Jasser to speak up.

To read the entire op-ed click here.

RevolutionMuslim Spawns RevolutionIslam- We're mad and we're not going to take it anymore!

In retaliation, I presume, for RevolutionMuslim's death threats against the guys at "South Park", Trey Parker and Matt Stone, for their Muhammad the Bear episode (which the chicken- livered people at Comedy Central censored beyond recognition) comes ta-da.....

RevolutionIslam.

It's a bare-bones site, but makes its point clear. RevolutionMuslim.com is not up and running right now, but I'm sure it will resurface, either in its past form or in a different incarnation.


People are getting very fed up with the overreaction from the Muslim world (like Malyasia's demand for an apology from Parker/Stone) and they're responding in kind. Blazing Cat Fur has a post with some interesting links, including one from Europe. The Islam In Europe blog talks about the Swedish anti-Islam Skåne Party's naked Mohammed with Aisha posters plastered around Malmö. You can check him out in all his naked glory at BCFs blog.

Allah But No Jesus In Indiana School Holiday Show

Children at Lantern Road Elementary School in central Indiana were set to sing "Allah is God", in their 'all-inclusive' holiday production, until the reference was removed after much hoopla. What Christians took offense to was the fact that "Allah" was the only deity mentioned throughout the programme. So some parents, with the help of American Family Association (AFA), lobbied for its removal. This, naturally, offended the Muslim Alliance of Indiana:

“It’s unfortunate if that was removed from the program just because of Islamophobic feelings,” Shariq Siddiqui told the Indianapolis Star. “Schools are a place where we should learn more about each other rather than exclude each other based on stereotypes and misconceptions.”

Siddiqi's anger would be totally justified if the school had altogether removed the Muslim section of the show- which included Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Las Posadas and Ramadan- which it did not. And I think no-one would have had any problems with a song mentioning 'Allah', if they had mentioned 'Jesus' during the Christmas portion of the programme, which they did not.

The principal of the school stated that the holiday production was a means of teaching inclusiveness to the children, which is a wonderful concept, as long as you are being inclusive. I have no problem with inclusiveness. Celebrating and learning about other people's cultures and religions teaches us respect and tolerance of others. But singing:

"Allah is God, we recall at dawn,

Praying ‘til night during Ramadan

At this joyful time we pray happiness for you,

Allah be with you all your life through.”

and then

“I didn’t know there was a little boy at the manger. What child is this?

I’m not sure if there was a little boy or not.

Then why did you paint one on your nativity window?

I just thought if there was a little boy, I’d like to know exactly what he (sic) say.”

That's not quite equitable. Micah Clarke of the Indiana AFA had this to say of the inequity

“(This show) affirmed Islam and negated Christianity. I wouldn’t have had a problem if it had been equal to all faiths.”

Which is what it all boils down to. Had there been any mention of Jesus which is what Christmas is all about, I don't think there would have been any problems.