¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005
0 Kudos



Elena Kagan’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Sharia Policy

Political willfulness is not the judicial temperament.

NRO 7/8/2010


I wonder if Elena Kagan knows about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.

Ms. Ashtiani is about to be stoned. That’s where they bury you up to your chest and hurl rocks at you until you die. The rocks can’t be too big. You see, this is real torture, religion-of-peace torture. It’s the kind that happens every day but that Democrats prefer not to talk about. With stoning (or “lapidation” as the press gently call it on those rare occasions when it is mentioned at all), the ordeal must not end too quickly. Otherwise, it might not make the right impression, as it were, on the victim — the sinner — and the community at large.

Had the solicitor general heard about Ms. Ashtiani’s plight, one imagines, she’d have told her to get herself to the nearest courthouse and seek the protection of the law. Alas, it is pursuant to the law that this barbarity will take place. The stoning of this 43-year-old mother of two has been ordered by a court in her native Iran, where the only legal code is Allah’s law, sharia. It is the Islamic sentence for adultery, the crime to which Ashtiani confessed after serial beatings by her interrogators.

During her a stint at the Clinton White House, we now know, Ms. Kagan struck the pose of a champion of women’s rights — at least if you weren’t an unborn girl. So fierce was her devotion to the cause of “reproductive freedom” that she subverted science in the service of abortion on demand — specifically, to preserve the partial-birth abortion procedure,
which exceeds even stoning in its ghastliness. She then went on to Harvard Law School where, as dean, she became the champion of sharia.

Not of stoning and other grotesque penalties, of course — nothing so obviously offensive. To hear progressives tell it, we can do nice, clean, friendly sharia, just like we do nice, clean, friendly Islam. “Lapidations,” they will tell you, are no different from jihadist suicide bombings: outmoded vestiges of a long-forgotten time. Except they’re not. They are undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture, and they are happening today, with frequency, wherever sharia reigns. That is because the “moderate Islam” progressives like to banter about is a mirage in search of a cogent set of principles. There is no moderate Islam that can compete with the mainstream, sharia Islam. Thus the crimes and punishments, in all their ghoulishness, endure.

At Harvard, Dean Kagan’s gay-rights activism was as limitless as her pro-abortion activism had been.
She banned on-campus military recruitment. Doing so was a flagrant violation of federal law, but she rationalized it by her moral outrage over the armed forces’ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Once again striking the leftist’s brave “speaking truth to power” pose, she
lambasted DADT as “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.” 

It was a phony courage, the kind where you rattle your “social justice” saber in front of a pretend dragon, knowing your friends will cheer. The kind where you know it won’t cost you anything. The military wasn’t going to do anything to Kagan, and DADT wasn’t a mere military standard. It was a statute enacted by a solidly Democratic Congress with the approval of President pposition on the White House staff. Did she grandstand? Did she speak truth to power with a scoffing denunciation about the profound moral injustice Clinton had endorsed? Not exactly. She accepted the gig in a heartbeat, ditching a coveted tenured professorship at the University of Chicago’s law school, one of America’s finest.

Real courage at Harvard would have called for condemning the university’s profoundly immoral, gluttonous promotion of sharia. While Kagan was at the law school, her patron, Harvard’s president Larry Summers,
accepted a stunning $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies to lionize Islam’s history and jurisprudence. The cash came from the Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the billionaire investor whose attempted $10 million contribution to the Twin Towers fund had been refused by New York mayor Rudy Giuliani when bin Talal blamed the 9/11 atrocities on American foreign policy. Summers, the anti-Giuliani, not only took the money but named the program and an endowed professorship in the prince’s honor. And why not? By then, as Ben Shapiro reported, Harvard’s law school already had three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of sharia.

Stonings are common in Saudi Arabia, where, as in Iran, sharia is the only law of the land. Beheadings are common, too. A vice patrol, the mutaween, monitors the population, especially the women, to ensure compliance with sharia standards of dress, prayer observance, and segregation of the sexes. Sanctions are draconian, as a 19-year-old woman learned in 2007, when she was sentenced to 200 lashes with a rattan cane after being gang-raped. Saudi Arabia’s crown jewels, Mecca and Medina, are closed to non-Muslims; forget about building a church or synagogue in those cities — non-Muslims are deemed unfit to set foot on the ground. The slave trade was still officially carried on in the kingdom until 1961 and has been indulged unofficially ever since. Slavery, after all, is expressly endorsed by the Koran (see, e.g., Sura 47:4, 23:5-6, and 4:24) and was practiced by Mohammed himself. The Koran and the prophet’s legends are the prime sources of sharia.

Yet there were no condemnations from Dean Kagan over the prince’s lavish gift. To the contrary, she proceeded to forge the law school’s “Islamic Finance Project.” Its purpose is to promote sharia compliance in the U.S. financial sector.

To be sure, American law discriminates against homosexuals in the narrow area of military service. But it does not persecute them. Indeed, it tacitly permits them to serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. Were that not the case, President Clinton would not have signed DADT. In contrast, sharia brands homosexuals enemies of the Muslim state. They must be “punished, in fact, killed,” instructs grand ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq’s highest jurisprudential authority, one who is widely reputed to be a “moderate” and who, relatively speaking, probably is. He added in his fatwa that people who engaged in gay SX “should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.”

While sharia societies are backward, they do get quite creative, as Ms. Ashtiani can attest, when their legal authorities green-light severe methods of killing. It is no surprise, then, that homosexuals are brutally abused in post-Saddam Iraq. The same is true in post-Taliban Afghanistan. That is because in Afghanistan, just as in Iraq, the majority Muslim population adopted an American-brokered constitution that established Islam as the state religion, installed sharia as part of the fundamental law, and expressly stipulated that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

Besides gruesome deaths for homosexuals and adulteresses, these “beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam” hold that apostasy (the renunciation of Islam) is a death-penalty offense. Similar treasonous affronts to the umma, such as proselytism for Christianity, are also met with brutal punishments. Sharia regards women as chattel: Their rights to travel, socialize, marry, and inherit property are sharply restricted; their courtroom testimony is discounted to half the value of a man’s; they may be subjugated in polygamist marriages or kept as concubines; and they are routinely subjected to the pain and indignity of genital mutilation.

But no, the Kagans tell us, they’re not endorsing all of sharia. Of course they don’t mean to abet the sundry cruelties and the systematic abuse of women, homosexuals, apostates, and non-Muslims. They simply want believing Muslims to be able to participate in our markets without transgressing what they see as sharia’s worthy prohibition against the payment of interest in financial transactions.

Right. What they actually want, like Harvard wants, is to get their mitts on Gulf petrodollars. But even if we take their protestations at face value, they are wrong in every way. To begin with, sharia is not a Chinese restaurant menu, inviting you to pick one from column A and one from column B. It is the indivisible legal framework for a comprehensive socio-political and economic system: Islam. In that system, the state regulates all aspects of human life and seeks forever to expand its dominions.
As Daniel Pipes
recounts in reviewing the important work of Duke’s Timur Kuran, sharia-compliant finance (SCF) is the mid-20th-century brainchild of the Islamist intellectual Abu-Ala Mawdudi. His motive, the very antithesis of ecumenical inclusiveness, was economic jihad. As Pipes puts it, Mawdudi sought “to minimize relations with non-Muslims, strengthen the collective sense of Muslim identity, extend Islam into a new area of human activity, and modernize without Westernizing.” In effect, SCF is the financial iteration of sharia’s overriding objective: to insulate and fortify the umma for inter-civilizational battle.

I am indebted to the scholar Andrew Bostom for this assessment of SCF from the architect himself, an excerpt from Mawdudi’s paper, “The Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution”:

If anyone thinks it feasible that this economic system can be successfully implemented even if divorced from the complete ideological, moral, and cultural system of Islam, I will humbly request him to get rid of this misunderstanding. This economic system has a deep relationship with the political, judicial, legal, cultural and social system of Islam. And all these are fundamentally based on the moral system of Islam. . . . If you do not accept this creed, this moral system and the whole of this code of life, completely as it is, the economic system of Islam, divorced from its source, cannot be maintained or administered in its purity for even a single day, nor will any appreciable advantage accrue from it if you take it out of its wider context and then seek to apply [it] to your life.

Kagan and other apologists for SCF would absolve themselves from the real-world consequences of their allegedly well-intentioned diversity fetish. But legitimizing any aspect of sharia is the endorsement of all of it. Moreover, there is no cut-and-dried separation of sharia brutality from the tidy, white-collar world of financial transactions.

To pull off the SCF chicanery, financial institutions hire as advisers Islamic clerics who are expert in Muslim jurisprudence — there being, again, no separation between divine edicts and the secular law in Islam. It is those clerics, many of them Islamists, who decide what transactions are permissible. And very often, to purge the taint, prohibited interest payments are diverted to Islamic “charities.” It all sounds wonderful . . . except for what they don’t tell you: The major schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that support for violent jihad is a legitimate form of charitable giving.

Indeed, as the Middle East Forum’s Raymond Ibrahim
observes, the Koran actually prioritizes the need to fund jihad over the need to fight it. (See, e.g., Sura 9:41: “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah!”) In a canonical hadith, Mohammed confers on the financial backer the same glorious status as the mujahid fighter: “He who equips a raider so he can wage jihad in Allah’s path . . . is himself a raider.”

SCF is thus the Islamist triple-play: It elbows sharia’s way into our legal system, from whence it can expand its influence; it institutionalizes financial jihad; and it pressures true Muslim moderates to shun Western practices. It is, furthermore, unabashedly anti-capitalist — another reason the Left likes it so much. As Frank Gaffney
points out, the economic meltdown in late 2008 was taken by SCF proponents as “proof of the inherent corruption of capitalism” and the need to replace it with the asserted virtues of sharia.

But let’s put all that aside. Let’s pretend that there were some way you could compartmentalize sharia, some way you could even slice and dice SCF to facilitate market access without all the unsavory fallout. There would still be the matter of Elena Kagan’s bizarre moral universe.

The U.S. military is an unparalleled force for good in the world. Kagan has said as much, but she claims, straight-faced, that it is just this “extraordinary service” to our society that makes DADT “more not less repugnant” — the bathwater that requires throwing out the baby.

But let’s compare the U.S. military with sharia. Sharia is the cause of indescribable suffering in the world: for homosexuals, women, non-Muslims, and Muslims who wish to embrace the West. Yet for Kagan, sharia’s repugnance is irrelevant. Like opposition to DADT and support for abortion, the engagement of Islamists, the embrace of their case against American capitalism, is a progressive cause célèbre. So count Ms. Kagan in. She’ll worry about logic and sharia victims like Sakineh Ashtiani later — if ever.

Sheer political willfulness is an unattractive quality. In a Supreme Court candidate, it ought to be disqualifying.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of
The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



Barron's(7/12) D.C. Current: Our Tough-Luck President

Sat Jul 10, 2010
   (From BARRON'S)
   By Jim McTague

  What rotten luck! If the Oval Office were a ship, the crew would be forgiven
for suspecting that a Jonah was on board. Look at a partial list of calamities
thus far in the USS Obama's voyage: The Chicago "not" Olympics; gate-crasher Michaele and Tareq Salahi; the $787 billion economic "where's the stimulus"  package; the $30 billion-and-counting BP oil spill; four-star General "Loose Lips" Stanley McChrystal; Solyndra . . .

  You've never heard of Solyndra? That's strange, because it was supposed to be the cornerstone of Obama's vaunted green-energy future, but now is a king-size political embarrassment. Solyndra, recipient of a $535 million Department of Energy loan guarantee, last month cancelled a $300 million initial public offering because auditor PricewaterhouseCooper said its operating losses and negative cash flow raise doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern. Ouch!

  It gets worse for Obama. When he toured Solyndra's Fremont, Calif., factory in May, he gushed that the company was "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future."

  More embarrassing, Solyndra was the first recipient of a loan guarantee under the dual auspices of the Recovery Act and Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Department of Energy noted the loan guarantee was the first it had issued since the 1980s. On Sept. 4, 2009, the day of the award, Vice President Joe Biden crowed that it was "part of the unprecedented investment this Administration is making in renewable energy, and exactly what the Recovery Act is all about." DOE Secretary Steven Chu called it "part of a broad, aggressive effort to spark a new industrial revolution that will put Americans to work, end our dependence on foreign oil and cut carbon pollution."

  To borrow the words that Biden used on another auspicious occasion, it was a big f------ deal.

  Taxpayers are on the hook for $390.5 million -- 73% of the loans. Some observers questioned the wisdom of the government's deal from the start, saying the company was an inefficient, high-cost producer.

  Chu announced the Solyndra guarantee within 60 days of taking over the DOE, which in hindsight seems rather rash. DOE spokesman Stephanie Mueller said a credit-review board run by DOE Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman recommended it. The panel includes the department's deputy secretary of energy; undersecretary of energy; undersecretary for science; chief financial officer; general counsel; senior advisor to the secretary for the Recovery Act, plus Chu's chief of staff. They now must decide whether Solyndra will get an additional government-guaranteed loan of $469 million to partially fund the second phase of its factory expansion.

  Solyndra raised $175 million in new debt from existing investors after
withdrawing its IPO. But if Solyndra fails to get the new loan guarantee, it
will have a difficult time finishing the second phase, in which case ". . .we
may not be able to grow our business, realize the benefits of economies of
scale or satisfy our customer requirements," it says in an Securities and
Exchange Commission filing. Solyndra spokesman David Miller was considerably more optimistic in an e-mail Thursday, claiming, "Solyndra's viability is not in question" and that "the $175 million  provides ample liquidity to cover near-tern cash needs; and over the long run we expect to seek additional capital through other financings, which may include an IPO."

  One of Solyndra's biggest stakeholders is Argonaut Ventures I. Its  majority
owner is Oklahoma oil billionaire George Kaiser, who was a "bundler"of campaign funds for the Obama-Biden campaign. This means he collected contributions and sent them en masse to the candidates. Kaiser e-mailed us an emphatic "NO" when we asked if he played any role in the pursuit of the loan guarantees.

  In November, Chu appointed venture capitalist Jonathan Silver to oversee the DOE's loan guarantee program and its Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. Silver had been a managing partner at Core Capital Partners in Washington. Coincidentally, one of his colleagues there was Tom Wheeler, another Obama-Biden fund bundler. Silver is supposed to help Chu accelerate loan reviews. According to a November press release, "Silver will be responsible for staffing the programs, and leading origination, analysis, and negotiation, as well as managing the full range of the Department's alternative energy investments." The DOE said Silver was unavailable for comment.

  Will the extra layer of bureaucracy help Chu protect taxpayers? Well, this
month, the DOE awarded loan guarantees to Abengoa Solar, part of Abengoa, a Spanish outfit whose U.S. shares (ticker: ABGOY) trade in the pink sheets, and Abound, a Colorado-based photovoltaic-film maker.

  Abengoa Solar got $1.45 billion in guarantees to build plants in California and Arizona. Its profits depend heavily on subsidies from the government of economically troubled Spain.

  Abound Solar received a $400 million grant to ramp up production of cadmium telluride photovoltaic panels. Here's a coincidence: Russ Kanjorski, nephew of Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski, is a marketing executive at Abound, which got a $3 million federal grant in 2008. He previously had been a principal of Cornerstone Technologies, which got $9.2 million in earmarks from Kanjorski and then went bankrupt. A spokesman for Abound says Russ Kankorski had no role in the loan-guarantee negotiations.

  Let's hope for the sake of American taxpayers that Obama's rotten luck changes soon.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Terrorizing Muslim Women

 By Nonie Darwish On July 12, 2010 @ 12:00 am In FrontPage


    There is an article floating all over the Internet, “Joys of Muslim Women [1],” which discusses the horrific truth about how Islam legally treats women. The article claims to have been written by me, but that is false:  I am not the author. Let me use this occasion, however, to set a few matters straight:

The silence is deafening around the world in regards to the inhumanity and brutality of Sharia towards women. Most of the activism against stoning, flogging and abuse of women under Sharia is heard from former Muslim women, like myself, and a few others in the West who dare to expose the truth.

    Muslim women have no choice but to abide by Sharia, since rejecting it is grounds for the charge of apostasy, punishable by death. Having been exposed to Sharia for centuries, Muslim women have learned convoluted coping mechanisms to avoid Sharia’s wrath. Engaging in their own form of Stockholm Syndrome, most Muslim women publicly  defend the very laws that enslave them. Even Obama’s advisor on Islamic affairs, Dalia Mujahed, stated that Sharia is “misunderstood.” Muslim women end up as the guardians of their own jails. It is women who often report younger girls who refuse to wear the head cover, and some wives cover up for the honor killing of a daughter by their husband or son. Many have accepted their inferior status and wear it as a badge of honor.

     That is why there is no significant grass-roots feminist movement in the Muslim world today. Muslim feminists are routinely accused of apostasy — with its death penalty hanging over their heads. The only feminist movements to speak of in the Muslim world occurred during British colonial rule and, on a smaller scale, when the French conquered Egypt in 1798. By the end of the British rule, feminism ended inside the Muslim world.

      Many Muslims claim that “Islam honors women” just as they claim that Islam is a “Religion of Peace.” The truth however, is just the opposite. Islam does not honor women, but rather holds their very lives in SX bondage.

America must outlaw Sharia from ever being practiced by anyone on American soil. If we fail to do this, if we permit Sharia to creep into our legal system, we might as well say goodbye to our freedom. Here are just a few examples of what Muslim women must live under:

     [1] There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. A man can pay a dowry and sign a marriage contract with parents of a toddler girl and consummate the marriage at age 9. Recent cases in Yemen and Saudi Arabia exposed this tragedy when 8-year-old girls filed for divorce from their over 50-year-old husbands. Not one Muslim authority challenged the Saudi marriage high official, Dr. Ahmad Al Mubi, who stated in 2008, in an interview that aired on LBC TV: “There is no minimal age for entering marriage. The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow.” 

       [2] Islamic law states: “a Muslim will not be punished for killing an adulterer.” Islam, therefore, encourages honor killing of women. Since men have more sexual rights than women in Islam, it becomes harder to catch a man committing adultery. Thus women become more susceptible to becoming the victims of the above law, which allows vigilante street justice against adulterous women. I have never heard a Friday sermon stating that honor killing is forbidden in no uncertain terms.

     [3] A rebellious wife is one who “answers her husband coldly” or refuses to go to bed with him.  Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her and gives him permission to beat her (Shafi Law m10 and m11 p. 541-2). The Prophet said: “A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.–Sunaan Abu Dawud, 11.2142

     [4] Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as verbally saying “I divorce you.” Thus the wife is divorced whether the husband had the intention to do it or not. Law n3.2 p 559.

     [5] There is no community property between husband and wife in Islam. A Muslim wife would be lucky to inherit 20% from her husband. A man’s property after his death is not given to his wife, but is divided among many members of the family such as his parents, other wives; sons take double what daughters get.

    [6] A man has the right to have up to 4 wives. Polygamy is not just a right, but loyalty to one wife is discouraged. Mohammed said: The best Muslims had the largest number of wives,” Bukhari 7.62.7.  A Muslim man does not vow loyalty to his bride in the marriage ceremony and the bride must not expect it. In the Muslim marriage contract itself, the husband is asked to give name and address of wife number 1, 2 and 3 if any. (See a copy of the Muslim marriage contract in my book, chapter 2 of Cruel and Usual Punishment.)

    [7] Mutaa or pleasure marriage gives the right to a man to marry a woman for a fixed amount of time, from a few hours to several years. That takes away any holiness in the concept of marriage. The only condition is that the man must pay the woman money (dowry) in exchange for sexual rights over her body. This is simply legalized prostitution, exploiting needy and poor women. This form of marriage is not registered or regulated by the State.

Urfi marriage is another form of marriage that is usually kept as a secret. Sharia has not forgotten the traveling man and gave him “Misyar” marriage allowing him “wives” in different cities. Sharia satisfies men’s urges at the expense of women’s dignity and humanity with total disregard to limitations and wholesome standards for men to live by for the benefit of a healthy family life.

      [8] The Qur’an often uses the word “nikah,” which literally means sexual intercourse, to mean marriage. The dowry is called “ugur” in the Qur’an, meaning wage. It is payment for owning a woman’s private parts to be used by the husband as he wishes. “The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.” (Ibn Kathir)

    [9] A man is allowed to have SX with slave women and women captured in battle, and if they are married their marriage is annulled. Qur’an 4:24: “All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Sharia never abolished slavery and highly regulates it, that is, makes it “regular.” Saudi Arabia officially abolished slavery only as late as 1962 after pressure from the “infidel” Western Judeo-Christian culture. To this day, the Muslim leadership in Egypt and Saudi Arabia refuses to annul slave sexual rights for men in Sharia books.

     [10] The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man, law o24.7. You can  guess who usually wins if a man and woman face each other in court.

     [11] Revered Muslim theologian Imam Ghazali (1058-1111) defined marriage [2] for generations of Muslims without apology as: “Marriage [3] is a form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave and her duty therefore is SX obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person.”

    [12] For a Muslim woman to prove rape, she must have 4 male witnesses. “Proof of adultery and rape will be either confession of accused or eye-witness of four male adult Muslims.” Hudood ordinance #7 of 1989 amended by #8B of 20 of 1990.

    [13] A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying.” law m.8.10, page 535. This law tells the man that all he has to do to rectify a rape is to pay a dowry to the rape victim. Rape is almost always blamed on the girl who must come up with 4 male witnesses, especially if she was not covered up the Islamic way. A Muslim preacher in Australia blamed rape by Muslim men on Australian women whom he described as “uncovered meat.”

    [14] The Prophet said, “I looked at Hell [4] and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.” Bukhari 4:464. There is a book sold in British mosques entitled: “Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell” by Mansoor Abul Hakim.

     [15] A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body since Islam regards every part of a woman’s body as “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some sects of Islam demand the covering of the face and others don’t. This kind of extreme cover of even the face deepens the feeling of isolation, gender segregation and becomes the symbol of Islamic submission and presence in the West.

     [16] Muslim scriptures describe women as deficient in intellect and faith, toys, crooked, half devils, harmful and detrimental to men. Also the prophet stated: “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.” Bukhari V 7, B 62/33. “A woman’s jihad is to please her husband” is taught by some Muslim women websites such as Takva.com, posted on 11-2-2008.

   This article is dedicated to Sakine Mohammadi Ashtiani, an Iranian woman in jail who is awaiting death by stoning for alleged adultery. Under international pressure, Iran just announced that her stoning is “postponed.” [5] But the regime still plans to execute her.


Nonie Darwish is the author of “Cruel and Usual Punishment” and “Now They Call Me Infidel” and president of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005




In Search of Islam’s Contributions

by Gary Bauer

HUMAN EVENTS 07/12/2010 


    Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s special envoy to the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), last month named his boss America’s “educator-in-chief on Islam.”


     That wasn’t surprising given the President’s Muslim roots and his affinity for some Islamic traditions (he once wrote that the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth”). Obama clearly takes this title seriously, as recent events have shown. But Hussain’s designation was ironic because the more Obama talks about Islam, the clearer it becomes that he doesn’t seem to understand its most devout adherents. Obama refuses to acknowledge that radical Islamists are prompted to violence and terrorism by their understanding of their faith. And he fails to recognize that his blame-America-first foreign policy won’t appease an enemy committed to violent jihad and the installation of a global caliphate.


     Almost as bad, Obama has been going out of his way to highlight Islam’s supposed contributions—to science and technology, to America, to the world. The main effect of Obama’s Muslim ego-stroking is to call attention to just how little Muslims have actually contributed in the modern age.


     NASA administrator Charles Bolden gave an interview in late June to Al Jazeera television and told the Arabic-language news network that before he took his new job, Obama told him that “perhaps” his “foremost” duty was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”



      This is ludicrous. It is not our government’s job to make foreigners feel good about themselves. Michael Griffin, a former NASA head, responded that Obama’s NASA Muslim outreach is “deeply flawed.” But the White House is standing by Bolden’s description of his mission. And whatever happened to the liberal left’s extreme devotion to their definition of separation of church and state (which has been defined as the absence of all signs of faith)? Silent are the voices of the anti-religionists over Obama’s outreach to nations based on their faith.


      NASA’s new mission ignores that many devout Muslims view science and reason as diametrically at odds with their faith. NASA’s task is to help propel us towards a new tomorrow, while Islam’s most radical adherents want the world to recede from modernity.


     Obama’s politicization of NASA belies the image of the man who ascended to the White House promising that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” But science has repeatedly taken a back seat to ideology in this administration, on everything from stem cells to oil spills. The administration has been particularly anti-science when it comes to NASA.


    Perhaps Obama wants NASA to focus on the psyche of Muslims because it is obvious there won’t be much of a space program for it to focus on. Under Obama, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has demoted space exploration. Obama announced last spring that he would be grounding the space shuttle fleet and abandoning the Constellation project that was to take astronauts back to the Moon and beyond. Twenty-six former astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, opposed the cuts, writing in a letter to the administration that the decision was “terrible” and “devastating.”  


         But NASA has a more important mission now in Muslim outreach. Obama’s desire that Muslims feel good about themselves has become a bizarre obsession. He routinely calls Islam “a great religion” and has falsely claimed that America is one of the world’s largest Muslim countries. When the White House celebrated Ramadan last September, Obama declared, “The contributions of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country.” He said, “American Muslims are successful in business and entertainment; in the arts and athletics; in science and in medicine.” (Quick: name your favorite American Muslim athlete, entertainer or scientist. I said quick!) “Above all,” he concluded, “they are successful parents, neighbors and active citizens.” This is undoubtedly true. But the White House strained to affirm the President’s other grand assertions.


        The White House honored, among others, the first American Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, who has compared Bush’s actions after 9-11 to Nazi Germany. Then there was Nashala Hearn, who won a lawsuit against her Oklahoma school district for the right to wear a hijab, the Muslim women’s traditional head covering.


    Perhaps Obama’s constant references to Muslim contributions has less to do with what they’ve bestowed to the country as a whole and more to do with the suspicion that millions of dollars in contributions to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign came from Muslims abroad. Even Libyan President Muammar Gadhafi cheered “all the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa…[who] may have been in involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable [Obama] to win the American presidency.”   

      Then there were the votes of Muslim Americans, which, according to one post-election poll, Obama won by a more than nine-to-one margin. Muslim contributions have been significant after all—if not to America then at least to America’s President. In Barack Obama’s eyes, contributions to his campaign and contributions to the country he leads is a distinction without a difference.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005





By Nonie Darwish On July 14, 2010  In FrontPage

    “God has commanded us to kill those who leave Islam.” These are the words of Islamic scholar Sheikh Youssef Al-Badri, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs in Egypt, which were stated on Egyptian television. The interior minister of Egypt agrees with the Sheikh and is quoted in a newspaper saying: “Converts are to be killed.”

      Islamic scholars and the majority of public opinion in Egypt all agree with them — conversion to Christianity is a mortal sin legally punishable by death.

     Such statements are considered by many to be a legal death warrant, allowing the murder of apostates wherever they are. They cause much fear and panic not only to those who leave Islam in Muslim countries, but also to those who leave Islam in the West. Whereas in the West, religion is considered a matter of personal faith and conviction, being a Muslim is not a personal matter.

As you will see from the video below, it is a no-win legal matter with the state. Being a Muslim is not a private relationship with Allah, but a contract with the state in which the citizen must surrender to Islamic law whether he is a Muslim or not.

    Three former Muslims are featured in the video: Maher El Gohary and his fourteen year-old daughter, whose original petition to officially practice Christianity in Egypt was rejected; the third is Mohammed Higazy, whose petition to become Christian instead of Muslim was also rejected.

Higazy also filed a lawsuit to have the right as a parent to state on his newborn son’s birth certificate that he is Christian, or give him a Christian name. That was also rejected. The statement on his son’s birth certificate declaring that the baby was Muslim, was forced by the government against the parents’ will. All of these former Muslims converted to Christianity years ago, but are still officially Muslims on all their government IDs and passports.     

      El Gohary’s daughter is forced to attend Islamic classes at her public schools, and because she is officially a Muslim, she can never marry a Christian man. That is the law in a so-called moderate Muslim country like Egypt. Since their petitions were denied, the three are now back in court trying to gain the right to leave Egypt. All known former Muslims in Egypt are prevented from leaving the country, and some have had their passports confiscated by the government.

      Former Muslim Naglaa Al-Imam was arrested at the airport as she was about to board a plane. Hers is not the only such case. El Gohary said, “We must be on the run from this threat. Radical sheikhs have called for our blood to be shed. We are afraid of the uneducated people on the street. Condemnation by the sheikhs can be interpreted as a death order.”

        Mohammed Higazy affirmed: “The sheikhs have called for me to be killed, … my house has been set on fire; I have been shot at. If they kill us, the government will not punish the murderers.”

       This might sound unbelievable to Westerners, and indeed, Islamic advocacy groups in the West count on this incredulity in order to misinform the American public about Islam. They all deny the truth about Sharia, which violates human, religious, and women’s rights that we all take for granted.    

       They intentionally lie in their attempt to calm Western fears of Islam. But the truth cannot be denied that Sharia will not punish any Muslim who kills an apostate. The execution of apostates is delegated to the mob and encouraged by sheikhs, and practiced by many Islamic governments.

     That is what former Muslims in the U.S. are afraid of. Just like terrorists who wish to wage jihadist terror against American citizens in order to go to heaven, committed Muslims consider fatwas of death against apostates as a religious duty and Allah’s commandment. That is why those of us who left Islam cannot feel safe even if we live in America and are U.S. citizens. Terrorists are terrorists, whether they want to kill Americans or apostates, and we apostates are targets.

     To those who claim that former Muslims in America are not living with a death threat, I say: please just watch this video and see how former Muslims are treated. Muslim organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are deceiving the American public when they claim that Islam does not have a death sentence on former Muslims.

      Both organizations have refused to sign a pledge mailed to them by Former Muslims United. The pledge stated that they will denounce any law or commandment that condemns apostates to death. If CAIR and ISNA are to have any credibility, they should demand a retraction from Sheikh Al-Badri, and tell him that his fatwa for killing apostates is wrong and un-Islamic. ISNA and CAIR, who agree privately with the Sheikh, will never defy conventional wisdom in the Muslim world, which is where they derive financial support.  

       Nonie Darwish is uthor of “Cruel And Usual Punishment” and “Now They Call Me Infidel” and president of FormerMuslimsUnited.org

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Blood on Obama’s Hands

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown On August 3, 2010 In FrontPage

        With the deaths of three additional U.S. troops on July 29, July officially became the bloodiest of the nine-year conflict in Afghanistan. The death toll for July was 63 and it captured the record as the deadliest month for Americans so far.

     We all need to understand that the increase in deaths is directly the result of Obama’s personal mismanagement of the war. The blood of our servicemen is on his hands.

         Why? Upon taking management of defense policy, the Obama administration intervened to change the rules of engagement. Ralph Peters explained it this way in the New York Post: “Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they’re denied artillery or air support. If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to ‘break contact’ — to retreat.”

      Peters concludes, “When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it’s unforgivable. In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.”

        Obama dithered in adopting a new policy in Afghanistan deep into 2009. This led to criticism from even a left-wing dove like Sen. John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Of Obama’s indecision, Kerry said in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, “At the very moment when our troops and our allies’ troops are sacrificing more and more, our path and our progress seem to be growing less and less clear.”

         Next came the wrongheaded announcement of our deadline for withdrawal. Obama basically told our enemies the date of our leaving; now they are emboldened by foreknowledge of our defeat.

        And who can forget the Stanley McChrystal firing and all the interruption to the chain of command and subsequent uncertainty over policy?

Now we face the Wikileaks scandal, and even this cannot focus the foreign policy team lead by Obama. Obama is downplaying the importance of this leak of thousands of classified secret documents.

      But he won’t be able to laugh off the latest allegations. We have now learned that with quick action he and his White House staff may have been able to limit the damage, but they were too incompetent to act.

      A video interview by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business News blows this scandal wide open. When asked by Judge Napolitano why he should not be held responsible for potential deaths caused by the leak, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, answered that he contacted the White House about the leaks before they were released and asked them to review them.

   The White House’s response? Nada.

     They were too busy golfing, partying with Paul McCartney and spending the summer vacationing.

     In subsequent e-mail conversations, Assange’s people clarified that they sought an administration response through The New York Times, and even The New York Times was ignored.

       This is the part of the puzzle which could explain why Obama and his supporters have been trying to downplay this leak as unimportant.

       If someone in the Obama administration had advance knowledge of this devastating leak and they did nothing to help limit the potentially fatal consequences to our soldiers and many valiant Afghani informants, Obama has every reason to downplay the leak.

      Someone in this administration has blood on their hands, and Congress must demand a full disclosure of who knew what and when. It is imperative that this scandal is investigated and not covered up.

       Ironically, on the same day these last three heroic servicemen were dying, millions of American women were busy watching Obama on “The View.” No time to manage the war, only time for golf, parties, vacations and PR.

      As Americans, we are appalled. Please stay home and do your job, Mr. Obama. Your gross incompetence is leading to needless bloodshed.






Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005





Según el Centro del estudio del Islam político (www.politicalislam.com), en los últimos 1400 años, los musulmanes han asesinado a alrededor de 270 millones de kafir, 60 millones de cristianos, 80 millones de hindúes, alrededor de 10 millones de budistas, y unos 120 millones de esclavos africanos. Hasta hoy, por lo que sabemos, no ha habido ningún reconocimiento oficial o disculpa oficial por cualquier organismo oficial Islámico por estas atrocidades. Esta calamidad no es un fenómeno moderno. Ha tenido lugar desde la creación del Islam hace 1400 años.

    Durante un encuentro oficial sobre el diálogo islámico-cristiano el arzobispo Giuseppe Bernardini citó las declaraciones de un autorizado personaje musulmán, “Gracias a vuestras leyes democráticas os invadiremos, gracias a nuestras leyes religiosas os dominaremos; los petrodólares que entran en las cajas de Arabia Saudita y de otros Gobiernos islámicos son usados para construir mezquitas y centros culturales en países cristianos con inmigración islámica, incluida Roma”.

     Aquí en los EE.UU., no están aprendiendo una lección a partir de la islamización de Europa: a partir de ahora, nos estamos moviendo en la misma dirección por la misma infiltración mismo, por las mismas tácticas usadas en toda Europa – en los niveles más altos de gobierno, mediante normas de adoctrinamiento de la opinión pública a través de la desinformación; doblemente proporcionada por los medios de comunicación, la intimidación y las amenazas, tanto veladas como públicas.

       Como bien dijo Thomas Mann, el escritor alemán:  

   La tolerancia es un crimen cuando se aplica al mal.”

bowing down to Islamist monarch




 Turning a Blind Eye

By Faith J. H. McDonnell On August 26, 2010 In FrontPage

What do Christians in Indonesia have in common with the faithful of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, whose lovely church building was obliterated by the falling World Trade Center Tower Two? Quite a bit, it would seem.

      Like the Greek Orthodox parishioners, Indonesian Christians of the Filadelfia Batak Christian Protestant Church in the Jakarta suburb of Bekasi lost their church to an Islamic attack. Also like the New York churchgoers, they have not received permission to rebuild. And their plight, like that of the Christians in Manhattan, is disregarded by Christian leaders focused on the building of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Ground Zero Mosque/Cordoba House Islamic Center.

      In spite of the commonalities, Christians in Islamist-dominated Indonesia have a far more difficult road than the Christians of St. Nicholas, the little church that stood on Liberty Street, across from the World Trade Center South Tower. But Christians in Indonesia, and throughout the Islamic world, should serve as a warning of what may happen if tolerance and accommodation unreasonably are extended to those who are intolerant and unaccommodating.

  Although Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population, some 200 million, there is a strong Christian presence. The Filadelfia Batak Christian Protestant Church (HKBP Filadelfia) is a member of the Huria Kristen Batak Protestan [1] (HKBP) denomination founded in 1917 in the highlands of North Sumatra by Dutch and German missionaries to the Batak people. Part of the Lutheran World Federation, it is the largest Protestant church in Indonesia, with over 4 million members. This does not sit well with Indonesian Islamists.

        In 1998, Indonesian Christians purchased land to build the HKBP Filadelfia Church. According to Compass Direct New Service, they jumped through all the hoops required to ensure that they did not “offend” Muslims. They had to ssecure the signatures of at least 60 Muslim residents and officials giving consent to the building of a Christian church and they received consent from two hundred.

     But as church construction took place, the Indonesia’s religious tolerance deteriorated. Although most Indonesian Muslims were good neighbors to Christians, Islamic extremists targeted Christians. In Ambon, Maluku Island, thousands of Christians were slaughtered [2] by the terrorist Laskar Jihad, who announced a “snuff out all the candles” [3] campaign late in 2000. Although violence was not as prevalent in Jakarta, extremists burned down the almost-completed HKBP Filadelfia Church that November [4].

      Church members then bought a house to use as a temporary worship space while applying for a permit to rebuild. But Islamists mobs protested the use of the house for church activities, too. And when mobs disrupted services and threatened the church goers, Christians were accused of disturbing the peace.

      Compass Direct New Service reported [5] that authorities forbade the use of the house for worship by the church and sealed it up. At the same time they ignored the church’s request for a permit to build a church building on its own property. After this, church members were forced to meet for worship outside in an open field on the property they own.

       On June 27, 2010, following an Islamic Congress in Bekasi, Islamists announced [6] their plans to combat the “Christianization” of the Jakarata suburb. They urged local mosques to set up militia forces. They announced plans to establish an Islamic Center and to train a Laskar Permuda (youth army) to push for Shariah implementation in the region. “If the Muslims in the city can unite, there will be no more story about us being openly insulted by other religions,” Ahmad Salimin Dani, head of the Bekasi Islamic Missionary Council, announced at the gathering. “The center will ensure that Christians do not act out of order.”

       But nobody ensures that the Islamists don’t act out of order. An August 16, 2010 Washington Post [7] article reported, “For months, Christians in the industrial city of Bekasi have been warned against worshipping on a field that houses their shuttered church. They’ve arrived to find human feces dumped on the land and sermons have been interrupted by demonstrators chanting ‘Infidels!’ and ‘Leave now!’” In the latest of five such confrontations, a small group of worshippers were attacked violently by a mob of over 300, although the Bekasi administration had approved the church’s decision to meet in the field months before, and that they were promised police protection.

     The head of the extremist Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), alleged to be an Al Qaeda affiliate, Murhali Barda, said that the church’s “insistence on worshipping at the site was a provocation.” At the scene, Barda yelled (in a not-at-all provocative manner), “The Batak Christians deserve to be stabbed to death!” He then punched a few Christian women for good measure, thus demonstrating the manliness and courage of Islamists.

     According to the Jakarta Post [8], one young woman, “Berliana Sinaga, 22, suffered bruising after several men hit her in the head and face.” Pastor Palti Panjaitan demanded [9] to know what more the demonstrators wanted from them, “We have been forced to worship under the sky, on newspapers, in front of our sealed church, and they still demonstrate against us,” Panjaitan declared.

       One recent encouraging moment, relayed by Compass Direct News Service [10], was on August 17, 2010, the 65th anniversary of Indonesia independence. Moderate Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus supported the Christians in protesting the national government’s lack of response to Islamic radicalism. The group, gathering at the National Monument Square in Jakarta, warned that government inaction was fostering the growth of extremism in the country. Dr. Musda Mulia, a Muslim research professor at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, told Compass Direct News Service that all Indonesians have the right to freedom of religion. “It seems the government doesn’t want to deal with the radicals,” she said. “Persecution of Christians and other minorities has been my concern for many years, but the government is very weak.”

         Meanwhile, in the United States, supporting radical Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and the building of the Islamic center is the priority of the leaders of the Religious Left, such as the National Council of Churches (NCC). Although the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is a member denomination of the NCC, the NCC has shown no similar support for Father John Romas, the pastor of St. Nicholas Church or the people of St. Nicholas Church. Nor has the NCC uttered a statement of solidarity with persecuted Christians in Indonesia.

         In his recent statement of support [11] for the “Cordoba House and Mosque at Ground Zero,” NCC General Secretary Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon says that Cordoba House “is a gesture of neighborliness and healing.” This is not quite how those who are opposed to Cordoba House see it. They say the mosque is a gesture of a different sort altogether. And many of the 70 percent of Americans who are opposed to the plans are stunned by the NCC’s eagerness to accommodate the agenda of Islamism while ignoring the needs of fellow Christians.

    True to form, Kinnamon accuses opponents of Imam Rauf’s grand plan of “narrow-minded intolerance.” This is the “same ignorance that has led to hate crimes and systematic discrimination against Muslims,” he says. But neither Kinnamon, nor any liberal church leaders, have condemned Islamists’ narrow-minded intolerance or the hate crimes and systematic discrimination perpetrated against Christians such as those in Bekasi, Indonesia.

      Occasionally the NCC issues statements urging prayer for “ethnic conflict” (one of the few times when they are satisfied with “praying” about something rather than becoming involved politically!). But they would never articulate the problem: an Islamic jihad is seeking to wipe out Christians. Neither have they clamored for justice for Christians closer to home, the parishioners of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, still waiting for permission to rebuild their church.

      Kinnamon and his tolerant, liberal Religious Left friends appear to not understand the agenda of Imam Rauf and Cordoba House or the agenda of Islam. His ignorance of Islam is breathtakingly obvious when he protests that a “tiny minority” of Muslims have committed “violent acts” that “defy the teachings of Mohammed.” And as for violent acts defying the teachings of Mohammed – has Kinnamon never read the Koran? Or if he has, doesn’t he know that the earlier, vaguely tolerant passages are abrogated by the later, intolerant passages? And what about Mohammed’s own violent acts? Has Kinnamon never heard how Mohammed wiped out the Qurayza Jews of Medina in 627 A.D.?

      Kinnamon rightly regrets slavery in America, which he says was “justified with Bible proof-texts and a belief that blacks were inferior to whites.” But in reality, slavery is much more closely associated with Islam. “Mohammed’s teachings” include the idea that slaves are given to Muslim warriors as “booty,” by Allah. Allah’s endorsement of the rape of slave girls and (more often than not) boys, justifies such “violent acts” perpetrated by Islamists against Christian and other infidel “slaves” taking place today.

        One 9/11-haunted man who still sees “the face of the young man” who worked in his department that was killed found Kinnamon’s press release offensive. Like many non-Greek Orthodox people who worked in New York, this gentleman occasionally attended St. Nicholas. “It was pleasant and welcoming. Now it’s gone,” he said. He challenged the NCC to “lead an effort to build a 100 million dollar Greek Orthodox Church at Ground Zero” even while admitting that he knew that it was highly unlikely.

    The NCC critic also asked why the council could not “use its clout to speak out for Christians in Muslim countries who are often discriminated against” and suggested that the NCC “talk about what is good about America instead of always harping on its problems or why the people who built the country were racists, bible thumping bigots, etc.”

    The Religious Left often excuses the oppression of Christians living under Islam. Islamists in Bekasi, Indonesia, who find the very existence of the Christians of the HKBP Filadelfia Church offensive, violate Indonesian Christians’ human rights. Yet cultural sensitivity to the Islamic world is of paramount importance to Christian leaders of the Religious Left. So they are circumspect concerning Indonesian co-religionists.

         But the Religious Left also puts first cultural sensitivity to Islam in the United States [12]. It matters little that the thought of a mosque symbolizing Islamic victory is offensive to most Americans. Or that the church home of over seventy families of Greek Orthodox Christians and countless visitors, the only church to be destroyed on 9/11, still has not been rebuilt. The sensitivities of Muslims in America, and the need to accommodate the Ground Zero Mosque, are of paramount importance to Christian leaders of the Religious Left.

      When do the sensitivities, the feelings, of non-Muslims get to be taken into account? Maybe that is not a critical matter. But regardless of feelings, the situation of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York is disturbingly similar to that of the Indonesian Christian Church. At present, St. Nicholas’ plight is just a matter of red tape and indifference, not government-sanctioned discrimination. But rather than demonstrate solidarity with and the importance of this historic Christian church by pressing for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to allow its swift rebuilding, liberal church leaders are more concerned with demonstrating their accommodation to Islam. How far will their accommodation go?

     Faith J. H. McDonnell directs The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s [13] Religious Liberty Program and Church Alliance for a New Sudan, and is the author of Girl Soldier: A Story of Hope for Northern Uganda’s Children (Chosen Books, 2007).