The Five Pillars Of Islam — In Kansas
Students at Minneha Core Knowledge Magnet Elementary School in Wichita, Kansas, were greeted with this on the wall Wednesday:
BY: PATRICK RICHARDSON
The questions presents themselves: First, why would a school in the middle of the Bible Belt present something like this? Second, will they give the same pride of place to Christianity? Judaism? Mormonism? Zoroastrianism? Third, where is the ACLU? They have been quick to sue over so-called establishment clause issues in school in the past, so why are they not hammering Minneha Core Knowledge Magnet Elementary School for this outrageous promotion of religion?
I will, of course, be making inquiries.
“The next thing could be that Danish nurses are forced to go under cover as Muslim women in order to please Muslim patients.” — Martin Henriksen, Spokesman, Danish People’s Party [DF]
One of the largest hospitals in Denmark has admitted to serving only halal beef — meat that is slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic guidelines — to all of its patients regardless of whether or not they are Muslim.
The revelation that Danes are being forced to eat Islamically slaughtered meat at public institutions has triggered a spirited nationwide debate about how far Denmark should go to accommodate the estimated 250,000 Muslim immigrants now living in the country.
The halal food row erupted in July when the Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet reported that Hvidovre Hospital near Copenhagen has been secretly serving only halal-slaughtered meat for the sake of its Muslim patients, for the past ten years. The hospital serves more than 40,000 patients annually, many (if not most) of whom presumably are non-Muslim…
Isn’t this nice. If you are of the Muslim religion, you don’t have to give all the new Obamacare healthcare reform regulations and penalties another thought. Because the concept of being compelled to participate in such a healthcare program offends Islamic sensibilities, Muslims are specifically exempt.
This means that if you are Christian and abortion is against your religion tough luck.
If you are Jewish tough luck as well.
OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal court today struck down an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering what is broadly described as Islamic “Sharia law” and “international law.”
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment on behalf of Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter.
"We’re very pleased with the result, which will help secure religious freedom and equality for all Oklahomans," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "Throughout the case, the state couldn’t present even a shred of evidence to justify this discriminatory, unnecessary measure."
The proposed constitutional amendment also would have barred state courts from applying or considering “international law.”
"The court got it right," said Chandra Bhatnagar, senior attorney with the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. "The Supreme Court has held that international law is part of our law. Moreover, our Constitution requires ratified treaties to be treated as the supreme law of the land. Preventing courts from considering foreign or international law raises serious questions about the separation of powers and the independence of courts and judges."
"This law unfairly singled out one faith and one faith only," said Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. "This amendment was nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. We’re thrilled that it has been struck down."
Idiots! The ACLU Is so against Christianity yet condones Islamic Sharia in Oklahoma? I suppose when they wake up to find themselves being forced covert or die or living as Dhimmis under Sharia they’ll regret this decision. -ToT
Last week, under the headline “A French Town Bridges the Gap Between Muslims and Non-Muslims,” New York Times reporter Alissa J. Rubin celebrated what she depicted as the multicultural harmony of Roubaix, a heavily Muslim burg in northeastern France. Muslims, she raved, “feel at home here,” largely because Roubaix “has made a point of embracing its Muslim population, proportionately one of the largest in the country.”
This deliberate “embrace” of Muslims, Rubin explained, distinguishes Roubaix from other French municipalities, where, she maintained, Muslims are systematically made to feel like “outsiders” by bigoted natives. (At the Times, of course, the only problem relating to Muslims in Europe is Islamophobia.) In France, Rubin lamented, anti-Muslim crimes have “increased 28 percent this year.” (There was no mention – surprise! – of crimes committed by Muslims, which vastly outnumber those committed against Muslims and have turned more and more French neighborhoods into no-go zones.)
Okay, so how has Roubaix succeeded in not alienating its Muslims? By breaking, Rubin said, “with a rigid interpretation of the country’s state secularism” and promoting “an active Muslim community.” Meaning what, exactly? Well, things like this: the town hospital has a Muslim chaplain; the mayor’s office helps Muslims find places to worship. Then there’s the town’s “consortium” – an official board whose members, representing various religious constituencies, try to figure out how “to respond to the needs of different groups.”
And that was about it. Rubin’s piece was bafflingly short on convincing details illustrative of Roubaix’s Muslim “embrace.” But whatever Rubin was praising, her bottom line was clear: Roubaix should be a role model for other French towns and cities. “Roubaix is a cradle…Roubaix is representative of living in harmony,” a Muslim activist told her. A mayoral spokesman called the town “a laboratory.” And Farid Gacem, the full-bearded, jellaba-wearing president of Roubaix’s Abu Bakr Mosque, pronounced that he was “comfortable in these clothes here in Roubaix.” Rubin concluded by introducing us to Josiane Derenoncourt, a French widow who long ago “converted informally” from Christianity to Islam, her late husband’s faith. “Is she Christian or Muslim?” asked Rubin, who answered her own question: “In this corner of France, she can be both.”
Thus ended Rubin’s piece – with the absurd claim that in a town that “embraces” its Muslim population, a person can somehow be both Christian and Muslim at once. Does Rubin really not know that for a Muslim to call himself a Christian amounts to apostasy, and that Islam regards apostasy as a capital crime? Does she realize that untold numbers of Muslim-born individuals throughout the Islamic world are executed annually for saying that they’re now something other than 100% Muslim? Or can it be that she’s fully aware of this fact, and is simply hoping that her readers will be unaware of it, so that they’ll buy her pretty – but preposterous – picture?
Does Rubin not know – or does she know, but not want us to know? This, as it happens, is the question one keeps asking throughout Rubin’s piece, almost every sentence of which is the product of either wholesale dishonesty or thoroughgoing ignorance. But which? Does Rubin know, for example, that Islamic militants in France call Roubaix “le beau jardin de l’islamo-gauchisme” – “the beautiful garden of Islamo-leftism”? Or did she leave that out on purpose? Does she know that as long ago as 2003, it was an established fact that the town’s Dawa Mosque is run by Salafists? Is she aware that, as I wrote in my 2006 book While Europe Slept, a public official once “met with an imam at the edge of Roubaix’s Muslim district out of respect for his declaration of the neighborhood as Islamic territory to which she had no right of access”?
The list goes on. Does Rubin know that, in partnership with the town government and with a Palestinian “charity,” the Roubaix Association of Encounter and Dialogue (ARD) – which would appear to be the “consortium” Rubin praises as central to the town’s successful multiculturalism – solicited donations in 2006 for “Palestinian orphans” who turned out to be the children of shahid (i.e. suicide bombers)? Does she know that that fundraising campaign was part of a broader venture run by radical cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and that the donations were channeled to Hamas? Does she know that in 2004, after Le Figaro unearthed a recording of a vile anti-Semitic rant by radical cleric Hassan Iquiossen, the ARD chose not to cancel but just to postpone an event featuring Iquiossen – an ARD leader explaining that he wasn’t put off by Iquiossen’s anti-Semitism but was merely responding pragmatically to “the unleashing of the media machine”?
Then there’s the president of the Abu Bakr Mosque, Farid Gacim, who told Rubin he felt comfortable wearing his jellaba in Roubaix. Does Rubin know that Gacim’s mosque was the subject of a headline-making 2010 documentary directed by Jean-Paul Lepers for France 4? Is she aware that Lepers spoke in the documentary to Gacim himself, who confessed his longing for a more “normal” society than that found in France – by which, he explained, he meant a social order of the sort imposed by the Taliban, including the enforced wearing of burkas and the stoning of transgressors?
Is Rubin even unaware of the French newsweekly Marianne‘s alarming four-page report about Islam in Roubaix? Marianne‘s article, published in 2006, painted a picture very similar to that painted by Lepers’s TV program – and very different from Rubin’s. In Roubaix, according to Marianne, “the Republic is losing ground” because “the proponents of hard-core Islam are rampant and enjoy complete impunity.” A Roubaix resident told Marianne that Roubaix is dominated by something he called “Islamo-Roubaix leftism” and that the town serves as an incubator for “violently anti-Republican” politics. Roubaix’s elected leaders, he complained, had “long given their blessing, and tens of thousands of dollars in annual subsidies, to associations whose objective is to promote political Islam.” Chief among these groups, he said, was the ARD, which had sponsored talks not only by Iquioussen but also by Tariq Ramadan, the dodgy grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Bana. When Marianne‘s reporter phoned Ali Rahni, the head of the ARD, Rahni reacted belligerently, warning: “If you play with fire, you’ll get burned!” Like Lepers’s documentary, Marianne‘s article received widespread attention. It’s available online in its entirety. And yet Rubin is silent about it. Why?
If Rubin wasn’t aware of these and the other sources I’ve cited (despite the fact that a quick Google search of “Roubaix” and of words like “mosque” and “Islam” will turn all of them up in a trice), it means one thing: she did virtually zero research for her piece, relying entirely on the testimony of a few Muslims in Roubaix and their political allies. If this is the case, it’s more than fair to ask: Why? This was, after all, a non-deadline article for the august New York Times. Couldn’t she spare an hour or two to read the materials I’ve cited? If, on the other hand, she has consulted these sources, why isn’t there any trace of that reading in her piece? Doesn’t she think it’s relevant that, for example, the charming imam who told her he was at ease wearing his jellaba on the streets of Roubaix is an advocate of Taliban-style justice?
What the Lepers documentary, the Marianne article, and the other sources I’ve cited make abundantly clear is that Roubaix is indeed a model – a model of rank, shameless official dhimmitude. Roubaix has attained social harmony – if you want to call it that – by selling out completely to the proponents of sharia. This, it would appear, is the achievement that Rubin was celebrating in her article. But the question remains: is she an outright liar who deliberately whitewashed the reality of Roubaix in order to disguise the fact that what she was celebrating was nothing more or less than dhimmitude? Or is she an utter fool, who honestly doesn’t recognize that what she witnessed in Roubaix is not some kind of triumph of multicultural concord but an ignominious capitulation?
That’s according to Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network.
His organization has been so strong in its opposition to radical Muslim expansion in the U.S., he’s been targeted in a $30 million defamation lawsuit by a group called Muslims of the Americas, founded by Pakistan Sheik Mubarak Ali Gilani.
The claims are that Muslims of the Americas was damaged by CAN’s publication of the book “Twilight in America: The Untold Story of Islamist Terrorist Training Camps Inside America.”
The book accuses Muslims of the Americas of “acting as a front for the radical Islamist group Jamaat al-Fuqra.”
CAN leaders Tuesday told WND the case is at the stage of exchanging documents in preparation for further discovery.
Mawyer recently told Fox News that the leaders of the Muslim organization “feel they have to defend themselves to their own members,” because he would have expected the case to be dropped. It is based on the claims of a former New York informant who posed as a member of the Muslims group and alleged it was involved in “street crimes, drugs, brothels, unemployment fraud and other offenses.”
There is no question that terror training camps exist across the U.S. According to a documentary, “Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around the U.S.,” there are nearly three dozen Islamist terrorist training compounds operating under the name Muslims of the Americas.
The documentary states: “Under the leadership of a radical Pakistani cleric, Sheik Mubarak Gilani, Muslims of the Americas has thousands of devoted followers who are being groomed for homegrown jihad.”
The project by CAN “exposes these dangerous terrorist compounds and reveals for the first time a secret training tape in which American Muslims are recruited to join one of the most advanced training courses in Islamic military warfare … right here in America.”
Training includes instructions in “explosives, kidnapping, murder, firing weapons and guerrilla warfare,” the documentary explains.
See a trailer here:
Mawyer told WND he now has learned that the Muslim organization is attempting to model the previously secretive training camps after the European “no-go” zones.
Across the EU, there are enclaves where Muslims make up almost 100 percent of the population. They have been known to set up Shariah religious-law courts alongside secular court systems. They exert control over every facet of life, up to and including applying Islamic limits to what people do, say, wear and believe.
“What they’re trying to do is step up from the training camp, the secretive, plotting location … and become their own state within a state,” he told WND.
Law enforcement often even is afraid to enter such zones, he noted.
Then, he said, they want to “connect the dots” and link all of the “no-go” zones together.
The concept is shocking to Western civilization, where for generations the rule of law has prevailed, he said.
“We are so used to in the past hearing about [Islam’s plan], now there’s a whole strategy change, to infiltrate and immigrate, and set up societies within societies,” he said.
Dearborn, Mich., where hundreds of thousands of Muslims have settled, is an example, he said. There, city and police officials have been sued in many cases that allege discrimination against Christians effectively by applying Shariah law.
He said the new idea of “no-go” zones is significant.
“They provide weapons and guards, and government officials in their own societies. They build what they want on their compounds, they bury their own people, [their] kids do not go to public schools,” he said.
The concerns about Islamist compounds continue to rise. Only a few weeks ago, according to WTOV-TV in West Virginia, Brooke County Sheriff Chuck Jackson tried to assure residents that there is no terror cell active in his region.
He told the station he would reviewed the claims. He investigated the purported site as recently as this year.
“Myself and the chief deputy talked to the farmers in the area over there. We went over to the property in question. It’s primarily a hunting camp. There’s some guys out there. They do some target practice and they’re all local guys. It is not a terrorist training camp, I assure you,” he said.
But the West Virginia Intelligence Fusion Center said it’s actively investigating information that suggests terrorists are within the borders of the state, the report said.
WND’s own reporting on the issue has revealed some surprising elements in America.
The report said Jamaat ul-Fuqra, known in the U.S. as Muslims of the Americas, owns or is leasing hundreds of acres of property from New York to California in which the leader boasts of conducting “the most advanced training courses in Islamic military warfare.”
In a captured recruitment video he states in English: “We are fighting to destroy the enemy.
The recruitment video shows American converts to Islam being instructed in the operation of AK-47 rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns and C4 explosives. It provides instruction in how to kidnap Americans, kill them and how to conduct sabotage and subversive operations.
Jamaat ul-Fuqra’s attacks on American soil range from bombings to murder to plots to blow up U.S. landmarks. A 2006 Department of Justice report states Jamaat ul-Fuqra “has more than 35 suspected communes and more than 3,000 members spread across the United States, all in support of one goal: the purification of Islam through violence.” In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security predicted the group would continue to carry out attacks in the U.S.
Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was attempting to interview Jamaat ul-Fuqra’s leader, Gilani, in 2002 when he was kidnapped and later beheaded. One year later, Iyman Faris, member of both Jamaat ul-Fuqra and al-Qaida, pleaded guilty in federal court to a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
“What we are witnessing here is kind of a brand-new form of terrorism,” says FBI Special Agent Jody Weis in the documentary. “These home-grown terrorists can prove to be as dangerous as any known group, if not more so.”