Sunday, December 31, 2006


All of our ancestors have lost land many many times

A culture that hates schools and education

Thailand: Suspected Islamic militants shot dead Buddhist teachers and then set their bodies ablaze

Friday, December 29, 2006 by Asia News | Tags: thailand, terrorism, islam

Suspected Islamic militants this morning shot dead two Buddhist teachers and then set their bodies ablaze near the school where they used to teach in southern Thailand, local police said.

The charred remains of the bodies were found 100 metres from the school entrance, near the pickup truck they were driving when the militants attacked.

One of the victims, Chamnong Koopathanaphong, was the principal of the school in Yala province and the second man Manoo Sornkaew, was a teacher at the school. Police said they believed the two were dead before their bodies were set on fire.

The southern region of the country is a battleground of bloody clashes between the Muslim and Buddhist communities. The region, which borders Malaysia, was an independent sultanate until it was annexed by Thailand in 1902. Now a group of Muslim militants is seeking independence once again from Bangkok through violent means. Since January 2004, clashes have already claimed 1,700 victims.

Thailand's new military-installed government, which came to power following a pacific coup in September, has made a number of offers to leaders of the insurrection in a bid to make peace in the region, but so far they have been turned down.

(Read more at ...

Cultural freedom is a two way street

Saudi Arabia Bars Bible-Bearing Flight Attendant
Arutz Sheva

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

A Bible-bearing Christian flight attendant has been barred by her British employer from flying to Saudi Arabia, where Christianity is illegal.

The flight attendant, who works for British Midland Airways (BMI), is "a committed Christian [who] likes to take her Bible, which was once her mother's, with her when she travels," according to journalist Claire Bergen, who added that the case will be brought to an industrial court.

The British Foreign Office backed the airline. "The importation and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books, apart from the Quran (Koran), and artifacts are forbidden," it stated. The London Telegraph quoted a BMI official as saying, "We issue advice to all our staff and passengers that these are the guidelines. She is saying she wants to carry her Bible with her. We are saying we cannot start designing rules around individuals when we have several hundred members of staff. To take every personal preference into account would be impossible."

It is not the first time that religious practice of airline workers has been curtailed because of Saudi rules. A flight attendant working for British Airways (BA) was forbidden to visibly wear her cross on the route to Saudi Arabia.

Even Christmas trees are banned in the oil-rich kingdom, which claims to allow religious freedom. An Iowa woman wrote in a Kansas newspaper earlier this month about her experience in 2003. "Christianity was not allowed to be practiced," wrote Charlotte Brock Rady. "Shopping in the back alleys of Jeddah one night, we discovered a market that had hidden away upstairs in a dark room a small artificial Christmas tree and lights."

Another worker in the country reported that her tree was confiscated at the border.

Nevertheless, on a recent visit to Princeton University, Prince Turki al-Faisal declared, "Arab tradition and Muslim tradition is geared towards having an open mind. Muslim religion accepts Christianity and Judaism."

Last year, a Saudi Arabian court sentenced a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for discussing the Bible and praising Jews, according to a Reuters News Agency report.

"He was charged with promoting a "dubious ideology, mocking religion, saying the Jews were right, discussing the Gospel and preventing students from leaving class to wash for prayer."

A report by the U.S. State Department criticized Saudi Arabia, saying religious freedoms "are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam."

Saturday, December 30, 2006

First step out of poverty is to quit whining and blaming others for your self created problems.

First step out of poverty is to quit whining and blaming others for your self created problems. Another step is to not destroy jobs and the economy.

Edwards still doesn't get it
By Lawrence Kudlow
Saturday, December 30, 2006

So, John Edwards has thrown his hat into the presidential ring.

Unfortunately, he has a losing message.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards smiles after announcing his candidacy for president in the backyard of a house in an area affected by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans Thursday, Dec. 28, 2006. Edwards, part of the pack of a half dozen or more Democrats who hope to break through the hype about front runners Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., during the next year to win the nomination. These second-tier candidates may look more like the presidents who have previously occupied the Oval Office, but know they will have to run a new kind of campaign to get there in 2008.(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

His ultra-liberal approach will elicit only a small niche of support among the ultra lefties in the Democratic Party.

Democrats know (or at least, I think they know) that their success in the 2006 midterm election was largely a function of their best efforts to imitate Republicans. It was the conservative Blue Dog Democrats who were the tail successfully wagging the entire Democratic dog.

That said, if John Edwards somehow managed to reverse this tide and win his party's nomination, he would lead his party to a crushing defeat in 2008.

For starters, he wants to cut and run from Iraq. Such an ill-conceived policy would leave this budding nation in shambles, with terrorists following us back to the United States. It would extinguish the candle of Iraq's democracy experiment -- an experiment that could still pay enormous dividends if the United States follows through with a bold, new troop surge strategy and a refurbished plan of economic reconstruction. These are the actions that will stabilize Baghdad and their democratically elected government, not cutting and running.

On the domestic side, Edwards fares just as badly. He's recycling an old page from the liberal Democratic playbook, saying that he wants to make fighting poverty the great moral issue of our time. He says he'll accomplish this by taxing the rich in order to help the poor. Oh, really?

Tax capital in order to create new jobs? Huh? Haven't we learned that you can't create new jobs (for the poor or anyone else) without healthy businesses and plentiful new business creation? And that businesses require capital in order to expand? And haven't we learned that punishing success through higher tax rates that make it pay less to work, save and invest will only reduce investment, jobs and prosperity?

Well, Edwards forgets that entrepreneurs, not government, create long-lasting jobs and growth. Rather than government spending, it is economic freedom, through a strong incentive structure inside a market economy, that opens the door to new opportunities so that the non-rich can get rich.

What's more, Edwards has failed to consider that poverty has fallen steadily for decades.

R.I.P., Saddam, in your insane asylum that celebrates actions such as this

Friday, December 29, 2006

The only way to moderate islam is to pass strict cultural laws. nothing else will work

Abdullah says moderates must fight extremists
Hindustan Times

Abdullah says moderates must fight extremists

Vir Sanghvi

New Delhi, November 30, 2006

The time has come for moderate Muslims all over the world to stand up and fight the extremists within the community.

In an exclusive interview to the Hindustan Times, King Abdullah of Jordan said, "Let the silent majority win the street back."

King Abdullah said that Islam had been hijacked by a minority of extremists who had imposed their own agenda on the community. Further, he said, this agenda relied on miscommunication of Islam's tenets.

All over Asia, Muslims who did not speak Arabic were often misled into believing that the Koran said something which it did not. "The only solution is education and the dissemination of information." .........

China has strict cultural laws against "radicaliam"

Fear and anger in China's far west [China's muslim region]

by Jehangir S. Pocha

HOTAN, China: On a recent Friday, the holy day of Islam, crowds swelled inside the antique Jaman Mosque, the largest in this ancient town in the far western Chinese region of Xinjiang, home to the nation's small but restive Muslim minority.

The turbaned and bearded clerics who preached to the gathered faithful had all been vetted for their political beliefs by local Chinese authorities, who determine what sermons they can give, what version of the Koran they may use, and where and how religious gatherings can be held.

The Chinese government forces all Muslims in China to adhere to a state- controlled version of their religion, and banners placed around town warn locals not to stray from the official faith. The imams are not even allowed to issue the call to prayer using a public address system.

The Chinese government has tightened its constraints on the Uighur ethnic minority in western China as officials fear a rise in militant Islam. It is also acutely aware of the growing strategic importance of Xinjiang in Central Asia and the large oil and natural gas reserves under its soil.

To dissuade Uighur youths from inheriting their traditional Islamic culture, the government has banned children from entering mosques, studying Islam or celebrating Islamic holidays.

A man who identified himself only as Abdel rubbed his clean-shaven chin anxiously as his friends finished their dinner of goat soup and noodles.

"The government doesn't allow young people here to grow beards," he said as the sun set. "If you do, they will send you to the forced-labor camps."

Her life is under constant threat in our own country

Breaking the Silence (Wafa Sultan profiled in Reader's Digest)
Reader's Digest

by Kerry Howley

Wafa Sultan and her husband, David, were jolted awake by the sound of a ringing telephone. It was just before dawn on a summer morning in 2005, and Wafa couldn't help feeling nervous as she hurried to take the call. Two of their three children had moved to a nearby suburb of Los Angeles to attend college. Were they okay? A voice on the line identified himself as working for Al Jazeera television, the Arabic-language network based in Qatar which, in ten years, had become the most influential news channel in the Middle East.


Sultan woke up to the reality of her first appearance on live television: This wasn't just a conversation, but an all-out debate. She drew in a breath and opened her mouth, and the words burst forth like water through a sprung levy. She ran through a catalog of atrocities committed by radical Muslims against innocent victims: "Can you explain the killing of 100,000 children, women and men in Algeria? [Or] the death of 15,000 civilians in Syria? How can you explain the awful crime in the artillery school in Aleppo [where radicals murdered Alawite cadets]? Was this a revenge against America or Israel, or was it to satisfy the savage and barbarian instincts aroused by teachings that call for refusing the other, killing him?"

series of thefts carried out by burka-clad robbers

Spate of thefts prompts burka ban in some Indian jewelry shops

by Jeeja Purohit

PUNE, India (AP) - Muslim women wearing the head-to-toe Islamic robe, or burka, could be banned from shopping at jewelry stores in this western Indian city after a series of thefts carried out by burka-clad robbers, jewellers said Thursday.

The Pune Jewellers Association has applied to police for permission to bar people who cover their faces from their stores, said association president Fattechand Ranka. Ranka said the move comes after closed circuit cameras in stores showed that three recent thefts, each of jewelry valued at more than US$8,500, were carried out by customers wearing burkas.

"Because of the burka the police could not identify their faces," he said.

Ranka said his move was not aimed at Muslims, who are a minority in Pune in Maharashtra state, but would target anyone who refused to show their faces to the security cameras. Many Hindu women in India also wear veils.

"Anyone could be masquerading under a burka, even a man," he said.snip....

Thursday, December 28, 2006

address the compatibility of Islamic and Australian values and the wearing of religious attire, including headscarves

Schools eye Muslim dress
from The Australian

byCath Hart

THE Howard Government is to roll out a pilot program in schools in Muslim areas of western Sydney that will address the compatibility of Islamic and Australian values and the wearing of religious attire, including headscarves. The $1 million federally funded three-year program to improve understanding of other faiths and cultures will be run at schools in the suburbs of Lakemba, which has a large Muslim population, and Macquarie Fields, the site of youth riots last year.

The move comes amid broader efforts to reshape Australia's ethnic affairs policies to put a greater emphasis on integration and English-language skills.

The pilot, which will run in up to 16 schools, aims to "reduce isolation and alienation felt by some students" and to "support Australian Muslims to participate successfully in the broader Australian society", according to a government-issued request for tenders to establish and manage the program....snip........

Tuesday, December 26, 2006




Monday, December 25, 2006

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Absolutely necessary to not fly with face covered

Muslims forced to lift veil at airports
from the Scotsman

by Brian Brady

VEILED women will be forced to reveal their identities at UK airports under a government plan to tighten security, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

Home Office insiders last night confirmed that immigration officials will be ordered to impose their legal right to lift the veils of passengers after it emerged a suspected police killer may have escaped the UK dressed as a Muslim woman.

But the plan has been attacked by unions, which claim it would impose intolerable demands on their members, particularly female officers who would be the only ones allowed to look under veils.

Ministers have been forced on to the back foot in the past week after it was revealed that asylum seeker Mustaf Jama, wanted for the murder of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky, flew from Heathrow to Somalia using his sister's passport. He is believed to have been wearing a niqab, which has just a slit for eyes.

It subsequently emerged that immigration staff are legally entitled to ask any female passenger to lift her veil to verify her identity against passport photographs. But officers usually wave passengers through because they do not have the time to check everyone.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair yesterday joined the growing calls for change, saying airline passengers must remove any head-dress that covers their face. Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has consistently warned of the grave terror threat facing the country, said: "We must find methods of allowing people to take off the veil in a way that's dignified."

But a senior Home Office source insisted that existing law gave immigration officers wide-ranging rights. However, the department told Scotland on Sunday last week that it does not hold any centralised records of those checked or refused entry for failing to meet entry requirements.

Home Secretary John Reid is planning to enforce these legal rights before considering any more significant changes.

"Immigration officers can check beneath veils and they do this at every port of entry, every day of the week," the source added. "It is done sensitively and in private.

"Where they don't do it, I suspect it is more often to do with a lack of suspicion than lax procedures or overwork. But we recognise that this sort of thing should be the rule, not the exception."

The Immigration Act 1971 requires everyone entering the UK to satisfy an immigration officer as to their nationality and identity. Where there are sensitive or cultural reasons why it is not possible for a person to remove a veil or other garment at the immigration control, they will be taken to a private area where their identity can be verified

Why banning all religious headdress will send the extremists scurrying away

Why the French Government Banned Headscarves in Schools
Washington University in St. Louis

March 15th will mark the third anniversary of a law passed by the French government banning from public schools all clothing that indicates a student's religious affiliation. Though written in a religion-neutral way, most people in France, and around the world, knew the law was aimed at keeping Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to class.

But why? In March 2004, the French government enacted a law prohibiting all clothing that indicates a student's religious affiliation, including headscarves like the one above, in public schools. The perplexing move is the subject of a new book by John Bowen, Ph.D., the Dunbar-Van Cleve Professor in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.

John R. Bowen, Ph.D., the Dunbar-Van Cleve Professor of Sociocultural Anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, was in France at the time and has written an enlightening book, recently published by Princeton University Press, titled "Why the French Don't Like Headscarves: Islam, the State and Public Space."

In it, he attempts to explainthrough an examination of France's religious history, ideas about politics and society, and day-to-day media coverage and political events leading up to the law in 2003-04 why the French government made such a perplexing move.

"French public figures seemed to blame the headscarves for a surprising range of France's problems," writes Bowen in the book's introduction, "including anti-Semitism, Islamic fundamentalism, growing ghettoization in the poor suburbs, and the breakdown of order in the classroom. A vote against headscarves would, we heard, support women battling for freedom in Afghanistan, schoolteachers trying to teach history in Lyon, and all those who wished to reinforce the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity."

Bowen, an expert on religion, politics and Islam, was in France conducting research on what Muslims were doing to create their own schools and other institutions in the country.

He says that Muslims living in non-majority Muslim countries like France find it challenging to adapt their religious institutions and practices - such as the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women and girls - to secular laws and traditions.

From that research, he's working on another book, titled "Shaping Islam in France," to be published in 2008, which will examine how French Muslims strive to build a base for their religious lives in a society that views these practices as incompatible with national values.

But as the debate over headscarves heated up, he became interested in that subject and began to follow it closely.

"It's an odd enough thing to do, to ban headscarves," he says. "It led to so much international perplexity or anger that is was worth writing about. Also, it tapped into something deep about France and about people who don't fit into the French cultural mode."

Bird's eye view

Living in France provided Bowen an unusual opportunity to see first-hand how the passage of the headscarves ban unfolded. Bowen sat through debates on the topic at the National Assembly, he analyzednewspapers and television programs and he talked to many officials and intellectuals involved in these issues, both Muslims and non-Muslims.

In the book, Bowen examines the long-term nature of how the state relates to religion in France. He looks at the relationship of external events in the Islamic world and French concerns about Islam, starting in the 1980s. He then examines the 10-month period preceding the law banning headscarves to explain in a much more day-to-day way how public opinion was turned against headscarves and how political pressure to "do something" took over the country.

"France has a long-standing tradition of state control and support of religious activity despite its modern laws concerning secularity," says Bowen. "We often have the misconception that the state stays out of religious affairs. In fact, the French government pays the salaries of all teachers in private religious schools, it organized a national Islamic body, and it and city governments put a lot of money into building churches and mosques.

"But because the Republican political tradition that developed out of the French Revolution of 1789 targeted the privileges of the Catholic Church, many French citizens developed a certain allergy to religions' symbolism in public, and particularly in schools, a battleground between the Church and the Republic," continues Bowen.

"French people see schools as a place where children should leave their particular religious, ethnic or regional loyalties behind and just enter into French life. It's different from our notion of local control."

Rising tension

France has been involved in a tense relationship with the Islamic world since the late 1980s, says Bowen. Algeria, which is now a Muslim state, was part of France until it became independent in 1962.

In the 1980s, with the rise of the political Islam of Salman Rushdie and the Ayatollah Khomeini, many younger French people began claiming the right to be Muslim in public with beards and headscarves.

Also around that time, there began to be bombings in France by people associated with an Islamic military movement in Algeria.

"French people started to link what they saw as dangerous or violent Islam elsewhere in the world with what they saw happening in France," says Bowen. "Every time there was a rise in concern about that, there was a rise in pressure to keep headscarves out of schools. When fear of Islam in the world died down, then that pressure receded as well."

However, in the spring of 2003, France's Interior MinisterNicolas Sarkozy, a front-runner to be hiscountry's next president, made a famous speech denouncing Muslims who did not follow a French law requiring the removal of head coverings for identity photos. He drew a link between Muslim women wearing a headscarf and the failure of Muslims to embrace the Republic.

According to Bowen, the speech fueled a political and media bandwagon; eventually public opinion turned from not wanting to ban headscarves in schools because it seemed trivial to being massively in favor of the law.

The law was passed on March 15, 2004, and first went into effect in September 2004.

"People were prepared for a lot of tension and many girls said they were going to try to wear the scarves anyway," Bowen says. "Then there were some French reporters taken hostage by an armed Islamic group in Iraq that demanded that France rescind the law. Although the two journalists were eventually freed, the fact that they were taken hostage made it disloyal in the court of public opinion to be against the law and many opponents backed off. That was it. There have been very few incidents and things quieted down very quickly."

In fact, the major effect of the law's passage has been to build support for a private school sector that is under development for Muslims in France, Bowen says.

"Muslim public leaders have been creating schools, institutes of higher learning and other training centers to improve Muslims' futures," he says. Bowen has been following one school, which is likely to be the first to receive state funding. There, teachers follow the national curriculum, but they and the students can wear headscarves and pray together on Fridays, just as Catholics follow Catholic worship in their own schools.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Who in their right mind would belong to an organization that was genociding blacks?

Who in their right mind would belong to an organization that was genociding blacks? If a Methodist or a Lutheran organization were genociding blacks in the Darfur, or genociding jews in Israel, the entire Christian world would rise up in outrage and stop it in it's tracks. All muslims everywhere are responsible for the genocide in their names.

Ellison says Muslims pose no threat
Minneapolis-St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ by Fredric J. Frommer (A.P.)

Meanwhile, Holocaust Memorial Museum distances itself from board member's criticism of representative-elect's plan to use Quran for oath of office

WASHINGTON — Rep.-elect Keith Ellison said Thursday he would tell a Virginia congressman who expressed concern about "many more Muslims" being elected that there is nothing to fear about Muslims.

"They are our nurses, doctors, husbands, wives, kids who just want to live and prosper in the American way," Ellison, D-Minn., said on CNN. "And that there's really nothing to fear. And that all of us are steadfastly opposed to the same people he's opposed to, which is terrorists, and so there's nothing for him to be afraid of."

Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, was responding to a letter that Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., sent this month to hundreds of constituents who had written to him about Ellison's plan to use the Quran at his ceremonial swearing-in. In that letter, Goode wrote that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims" will be elected and follow Ellison's lead.

Asked in the CNN interview whether he thought Goode was a bigot, Ellison said, "I don't know the fellow, and I'd rather just say that he has a lot to learn about Islam. … I don't want to start any name-calling."

Ellison stressed that the Constitution has no religious test for members to serve in Congress.

Meanwhile, Goode held a news conference in Rocky Mount, Va., on Thursday saying he would not rescind the letter — despite complaints from an Islamic civil rights group and a New Jersey congressman. He added that he has received more positive than negative comments from constituents.

In a related development Thursday, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum board's executive committee distanced itself from statements made by board member Dennis Prager, who had criticized Ellison's decision to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in.

In an Internet column last month, Prager, a conservative talk radio host, wrote that when it comes to members of Congress taking an oath, "America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

The museum resolution, approved Wednesday but announced Thursday, reads that it "disassociates itself from Mr. Prager's statements as being antithetical to the mission of the museum as an institution promoting tolerance and respect for all peoples regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity."

The executive committee oversees the operation of the museum between full board meetings.

By tradition, all members of the House are sworn in together on the House floor. It's in the photo-op ceremony that a Bible is used — or in Ellison's case, the Quran.

The resolution by the board's executive committee comes after an Islamic civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called for Prager's removal from the board because of his comments. The board has stated it has no power to rescind appointments, which are made by the president. President Bush appointed Prager in August to fill the remainder of a five-year term, which expires in January 2011.

In a statement, Prager said he was honored to "continue serving" on the board and that he understands the pressures that caused the museum to issue a statement.

"I was appointed to the (board) because of a lifetime devoted to combating anti-Semitism and every other form of discrimination," said Prager, who is Jewish.

"My entire effort in the Keith Ellison matter has been to draw attention to the need to acknowledge the Bible as the basis of America's moral values," he added. "Judeo-Christian values are the greatest single protection against another Holocaust."

In a telephone interview, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said he found it interesting that Prager remains on a board that called his views antithetical to its mission.

"We would repeat our request to President Bush to rescind Prager's appointment to the board and ask other board members to do whatever they can to convince Mr. Prager to do the right thing and withdraw voluntarily," he said.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Why strict cultural laws will stop islam in its tracks

Sixth month in jail for Saudi woman involuntarily divorced from husband by half-brothers
And her only crime is, thanks to the divorce, not having a legal male guardian, and being also unwilling to return to the "custody" of her family. Sharia Alert. "Sixth Month in Prison for Fatima and Child," by Ebtihal Mubarak for Arab News:

JEDDAH, 20 December 2006 — Fatima, the 34-year-old woman who was divorced in absentia against her will from her husband by a judge at the request of her half-brothers, has entered her sixth month of incarceration at a prison in Dammam. The husband, Mansour Al -Timani, 37, says prison officials have impeded his ability to communicate with the woman that he still considers his wife.
In October, prison officials insisted that Mansour take custody of the older of the two children, two-year-old Noha. She was allowed to keep her 11-month-old son, Salman, in prison with her.
“Since that time the connection between me and (Fatima) by telephone has totally been cut off,” said Mansour.
The official that answered the phone at the prison, who would not provide his name, said that since the two are officially divorced, Mansour no longer has the right to call by telephone. “Communicating with prisoners has certain channels and procedures,” said the voice on the other end of the line.
Mansour said he is allowed 15 minutes with his wife when he visits in person on Saturdays so that the children — one with the mother in prison and the other with the father outside — can spend time with both parents.
Fatima in fact has the freedom to return to the custody of her family (women of any age are legally required to have a mahram, or male guardian) but she has refused saying she would only walk out of prison into the arms of the man she still considers her husband.
On July 20, 2005, Justice Ibrahim Al-Farraj divorced the couple in their absence in the northern city of Al-Jouf at the request of two of Fatima’s half-brothers. They claim that Mansour hid his tribal affiliation when he sought permission from the now-deceased father to marry the woman, a charge Mansour denies and is irrelevant because under Shariah, tribal affiliation is not a consideration for a legitimate marriage.
But also under Sharia, the half-brothers' word is worth more in court than Fatima's simply by their being men, and on their testimony, she sits in jail due to the mahram requirement.

The couple were not only divorced in absentia after nearly three years of marriage, but were not informed immediately of the decision. They were arrested later in Jeddah (where they had fled after learning of the ruling, hoping to find help from an official here). Mansour was later released, but Fatima refused to return to the custody of her family and therefore languishes in prison.
Meanwhile, Justice Al-Farraj hasn’t been seen at his court since early November. The Ministry of Justice would not comment on whether the judge is under suspension or being investigated for his ruling that has angered the public — the court’s decision was even ridiculed in the popular television comedy serial “Tash.”
Fatima’s lawyer, Abdul Rahman Al-Lahem, said his appeal against the divorce ruling, submitted Oct. 7, is still pending.
Until the next step in a judicial process that has taken over a year is made, the husband and wife have nothing to do but wait: She in prison and he outside.

Time to put up or shut up

A challenge to Muslims in the West

WASHINGTON – An initiative challenging Muslim communities living in the West to subordinate their interpretations of Sharia law to the laws of the land has been launched at the European Parliament. The Muslim Charter, written by Islamic law expert Sam Solomon and sponsored by Gerald Batten, a British member of the European Parliament, is designed to encourage Muslims to state that they reject extremist interpretations of religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the modern world.

Groups purporting to represent Muslims were encouraged to sign the charter to affirm that they reject violence and discrimination against non-Muslims, value the freedoms of the West and want to live as law-abiding citizens.

The 10-article charter calls on the Muslim community to issue a fatwa prohibiting the use of violence or threats to their followers.

It also asks that Muslims promote understanding of the precedence of national laws over Sharia law. In fact, the charter requires Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of Quranic verses that call for jihad and violence against non-Muslims.

"We call on all organizations representing the Islamic faith to endorse and sign this charter as an example to all European Muslims," said Solomon. "By doing so they will make it clear that Islam really is a religion of peace and that acts of terrorism carried out in its name are acts of misguided individuals who have misunderstood and misinterpreted its teaching."

Batten, who has written a foreword to the charter, said: "The views of so-called fundamentalists who believe in Islamic theocracy are simply incompatible with Western liberal democracy, and we have seen how dangerous they are. But the vast majority of Muslims that non-Muslims meet every day are hardworking, decent and law abiding, and we must offer them support while standing firm against extremists. This charter is a great step forward in that process."

Solomon, a human rights activist, was born in the Middle East, became a renowned Islamic scholar and went on to become a leading imam and emir with the authority to issue fatwas. He is an adviser to various governmental departments on issues relating to Islam and acts as a legal adviser to Christians suffering persecution in Islamic countries.

In 10 detailed articles, the charter calls upon Muslims to:

Respect non-Muslim religions and issue a fatwa prohibiting the use of force, violence or threats to their followers.

Respect all civilizations, cultures and traditions and promote understanding of the precedence of national laws over Sharia law.

Respect Western freedoms, especially of belief and expression and prohibit violent reaction against people who make use of these freedoms.

Prohibit the issuing of any fatwa that would result in violence or threat against individuals or institutions.

Request Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of Quranic verses calling for jihad and violence against non-Muslims. "The Western European view of religion, achieved after centuries of bloodshed, conflict and division, is that religion is a matter of private belief and conscience," wrote Batten in the foreword. "Islamic fundamentalists do not share this view. They do not believe in the nation state, democracy, the equality of women or toleration. They believe in Islamic theocracy, a universal Muslim society, the Umma, based on political rule according to the Quran and Sunnah."

He added "the West has been amazingly lax in recognizing the threat posed to its security, freedoms, values and the cohesiveness of society by Islamic fundamentalism."

Appeasement leads us down the awful road to genocide

Churchill's grandson compares the 1930s and now
CNN Glenn Beck

CHURCHILL: ... last week, the British Foreign Office issued an injunction to Mr. Blair and British ministers that they mustn`t anymore refer to the war on terror, because that might give offense to the Muslims.

Now, I recall that in the 1930s, my grandfather was out front in condemning the dangers of the rise of Nazism in Germany and the threat that they posed to the whole world, and the British Foreign Office and the British Broadcasting Corporation said, "No, no, no, we mustn`t have any of this. It might make Herr Hitler angry."

CHURCHILL: If we continue down this road, if our will fails in Iraq, first of all, the Iraqis who have committed themselves to our side, their lives will be on the line.

Secondly, all the immediate neighbors of Iraq, our friends in Saudi Arabia, in the Gulf States, and Kuwait, they will have the skids put under them. And we will see develop in Iraq the base that is being denied the terrorists of Al Qaeda. They will re-establish what we deprived them of in Afghanistan.

And all the work of the last five or six years will be out the window. And they will have, as a training base, an operational base, the country with the fourth largest oil reserves in the world. And armed with those petro-dollar billions, they will be able to foment a lot of terrorism around the world, including on the streets of the United States of America.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

UK: Murder suspect fled under Muslim veil

UK: Murder suspect fled under Muslim veil
The Telegraph

by Paul Stokes

A Somali asylum seeker wanted for the murder of WPc Sharon Beshenivsky is believed to have fled Britain dressed as a woman wearing a Muslim niqab, which covers the whole face apart from the eyes.

Four of his fellow gang members face life imprisonment for the shooting during a bungled raid on a travel agency.

Mustaf Jama, 26, was allowed to stay in Britain despite serving four jail terms in six years after arriving with his family on a false passport.

His first criminal conviction was in 1998. In August 2000 he was allowed to stay in the UK for seven years.

He was dealt with by the courts on 11 occasions for 21 matters including two firearms and weapons offences, theft and offences against the person. Home Office officials decided not to deport him to Somalia, ruling that it was too dangerous for him.

Intelligence sources suggest he stole his sister's passport and slipped though the net at Heathrow between Christmas and New Year.

He is thought to be hiding in Somalia where approaches have been made to the transitional federal government to return him to Britain.

Monday, December 18, 2006

The necessary components of totalitarianism demonstrate why cultural linchpin laws would be so effective in weakening islamofascism:

Total control over every aspect of life and mind are a part of islam. The necessary components of totalitarianism demonstrate why cultural linchpin laws would be so effective in weakening islamofascism:

from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.


(ttl´´târ´nzm) (KEY) , a modern autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society. The citizen’s duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of existing society with a perfect society. 1
Various totalitarian systems, however, have different ideological goals. For example, of the states most commonly described as totalitarian—the Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany, and the People’s Republic of China under Mao—the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China sought the universal fulfillment of humankind through the establishment of a classless society (see communism); German National Socialism, on the other hand, attempted to establish the superiority of the so-called Aryan race. 2

Despite the many differences among totalitarian states, they have several characteristics in common, of which the two most important are: the existence of an ideology that addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, and a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. The party is generally led by a dictator and, typically, participation in politics, especially voting, is compulsory. The party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military, communications, and economic and education systems. Dissent is systematically suppressed and people terrorized by a secret police. Autocracies through the ages have attempted to exercise control over the lives of their subjects, by whatever means were available to them, including the use of secret police and military force. However, only with modern technology have governments acquired the means to control society; therefore, totalitarianism is, historically, a recent phenomenon. 3
By the 1960s there was a sharp decline in the concept’s popularity among scholars. Subsequently, the decline in Soviet centralization after Stalin, research into Nazism revealing significant inefficiency and improvisation, and the Soviet collapse may have reduced the utility of the concept to that of an ideal or abstract type. In addition, constitutional democracy and totalitarianism, as forms of the modern state, share many characteristics. In both, those in authority have a monopoly on the use of the nation’s military power and on certain forms of mass communication; and the suppression of dissent, especially during times of crisis, often occurs in democracies as well. Moreover, one-party systems are found in some nontotalitarian states, as are government-controlled economies and dictators. 4

There is no single cause for the growth of totalitarian tendencies. There may be theoretical roots in the collectivist political theories of Plato Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Karl Marx. But the emergence of totalitarian forms of government is probably more the result of specific historical forces. For example, the chaos that followed in the wake of World War I allowed or encouraged the establishment of totalitarian regimes in Russia, Italy, and Germany, while the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled them to extend and consolidate their power.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Perhaps the word "genocidists" should be substituted for the word "jihadists"

Middle East: Nobody Gets It, Jihadists have only one goal to establish world-wide caliphate
Post Chronicle

The Middle East: Nobody Gets It Jihadists have only one goal – to establish the world-wide caliphate. To institute Sharia law on a global scale. To convert or kill any non-muslim

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Friday, December 15, 2006

The culture is awakening

The Mullahs Ruling Iran Are Not Iranians
American Thinker

by Amil Imani

Being Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. The barbaric Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating and demeaning ideology.

Iranians are proud spiritual descendants of King Cyrus the Great, the author of the first charter of the human rights. Some of Cyrus' children live in the patch of land called Iran. The overwhelming majority-free humans with human beliefs-live in every country, city, and village of the earth.

These world-wide people, one and all, irrespective of nationality, color, or creed are Iranians because they all adhere to the Cyrus Charter; they practice and defend its lofty tenets; and, transfer this precious humanity's treasure to the next generation.

Unequivocal genetic findings have clearly established that biologically there is only one human race; that the genetic variation within a single troop of chimpanzees, for instance, is greater than that of any two human groupings, no matter how different they may appear physically.

What makes people different is not their biology, but the "software" that runs them.

There is ample proof to support the above assertion. A case in point is the present menace posed by the people whose life is programmed by the software of radical orthodox Islam: an ideology that is anathema to the Cyrus Charter. And the results are self-evident. Hate, superstition, violence, and a raft of other inhuman beliefs drives these religious fascists. These captive followers of the primitive Islamic Charter are both the perpetrators and the victims of much suffering. The result is backward Islamic societies that are intent at dragging the rest of the world into the same sorry state. Misery likes company, it is said.

We recognize that the dysfunctional Islamic software is deeply engrained in the minds of many Muslims who opt to remain in mental bondage rather than purge their minds of the misogyny and other oppressive aspects of the faith touted by radicals, and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life and liberty.

Islamic clergy, the parasitic prime beneficiaries of Islam, are master practitioners of the carrot and stick strategy. By drawing heavily from the Quran and the Hadith, the conniving mullahs and imams have assembled a potent arsenal of threats and promises to keep the faithful in line. They have had little trouble in so doing, since Islamic scripture is replete with graphic horrific punishment awaiting the wayward and the unbelievers, while the rewards for the obedient docile, if he is male, are described as endless variety of sensual pleasures. Anyone daring to leave the corral of Islam is apostate and automatically condemned to death. And that's just for starters. The punishment awaiting the ungrateful deserter of the one and only true path, Islam threatens, is a raft of horrific eternal torment in Allah's hell.

And for the true faithful-the mindless robot-the promised rewards, all physical pleasures, are infinite and eternal.

In spite of these horrid threats and empty lavish promises, more and more people are beginning to recognize radical orthodox Islam for what it is. It is difficult, but not impossible to leave the fraudulent Islam's captivity. Hundreds of thousands have done so successfully and have enjoyed the blessings of liberty.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Lifting the Veil?...

Lifting the Veil?...Britain confronts militant Islam.

by Andrew Stuttaford

It was, I feel certain, the first time that an article in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph ever triggered a national debate. In the article, written in October, its author, Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons and a former foreign secretary, disclosed that he asked any visitor who came to his office wearing a full Muslim veil to uncover her face when she spoke to him. Naturally, he only made this request if a female member of his staff was present. He’s a gentleman, you know.

As national debates go, it was, at least on one side, very British, a spectacle of restraint, half-truths, politeness, and denial. Many participants couldn’t bring themselves to say what they meant. Many others couldn’t possibly have meant what they said. Given that the whole controversy (nominally at least) began over the Islamic veil, this was, in a way, appropriate. Designed to cover up, to conceal, and to hide, the veil can, in reality, be profoundly, and disturbingly, revealing, not only of the nature of the women who wear it, but of the society in which they live.

If this wretched garment, in at least its more stringent forms, has more to do with misogyny than piety, so the hostility it provokes owes less to outraged feminism than to the mounting unease felt by many Europeans at the presence of the increasingly assertive and increasingly extremist Islam rising within their midst. It doesn’t hurt, of course, that there is something about the very appearance of the veil (and I am here referring to the burka ) that is alien, dehumanizing, and, in the context of Europe’s current troubles, thoroughly ominous. Little more than walking shrouds, these women seem like the harbingers both of future theocracy and the slaughter that comes in its wake.

Sunday, December 10, 2006


Modern day Gog and Magog

by Ines Ehrlich

Current world events are beginning to increasingly resemble the 2,500 year old bible prophecy made by Ezekiel in chapters 38-39. Ezekiel foresaw the rise of Russia (or Turkey, depending on the interpretation) in a coalition with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries (Sudan, Ethiopia and Libya).

The coalition is foretold to attack Israel from the north in a bid to destroy it during the earth's "last days," commonly known as the "war of Gog and Magog."

Throughout history it was thought that the prophecy had been put on hold, until perhaps today when it seems frighteningly more feasible.

In Joel C. Rosenberg's book "The Ezekiel Option," the author points to Ezekiel's prophecies in chapters 36-37, which have largely come true.

Rosenberg then asks the obvious question: If prophecies such as "the rebirth of the State of Israel, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land after centuries in exile, the re-blossoming of desolate desert land to produce abundant food, fruit and foliage, and the creation of an exceedingly great army" materialized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then why shouldn't the next prophecies come true in our lifetime?

Let's try and place the biblical names and locations into today's reality, and see the parallel unfolding of events:

Gog is commonly believed to represent a person's name rather than a place, a tyrannical leader who may hatch an evil plan – in today's reality this "honor" could be most suited to the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, or perhaps Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon .

Magog, according to some scholars, refers to Russia and the republics of the former Soviet Union, or perhaps Turkey. Others will argue that the exact location has not been fully ascertained and that the word Magog may simply be a generalization for an enemy of Israel, leaving the location open.

Under attack

According to the prophecy in question, "many peoples with you" who will attack along "the mountains of Israel" implies that other countries will be involved in the Russian (or Turkish), Iranian, Sudanese, Ethiopian and Libyan coalition, and who border on the mountains of Israel. This includes Lebanon, Syria and possibly Jordan as well.

Is it so farfetched to imagine the axis between Hizbullah, Iran and Syria, especially after the second war in Lebanon when these three forces overtly united and continue to support each other's goal to destroy Israel?

In his book, Rosenberg notes a conspicuous absence of Egypt and Iraq in the original prophecy, which also makes a lot of sense at this point in time. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and Iraq is embroiled in its own war of survival and both are unlikely to join a coalition against Israel.

According to the prophecy Magog "will build a military coalition and prepare a strike against Israel." Gog "will use overwhelming force against Israel" - could this be referring to nuclear force? And his coalition will "come like a storm…like a cloud covering the land."

But let's not become hysterical. According to the prophecy, there is no need for Israel to become alarmed, "as the Lord God will bring judgment upon the enemies of Israel beginning with Gog (the tyrant)."

Ezekial prophesies a great earthquake and the turning of Gog's forces against each other. The next step, which prophesies God subjecting the enemy to "pestilence, blood, torrential rains, hailstones and fire from heaven," is unclear and sounds like someone pressed the nuclear button, and if so, then who, and who in the region would survive it?

But as in all happy endings, Israel, it is prophesied, will regain its economic prosperity.

A huge cultural mistake - no one should be allowed to cover their faces anywhere in public

International Herald Tribune

Rule on veils changed after woman kept off bus in Michigan city

The Associated Press

Friday, December 8, 2006


After a woman passenger wearing traditional Islamic dress was turned away, the public bus system in this Michigan city said Friday it will end its rule keeping those with face coverings from boarding public transit vehicles.

System administrators said the refusal in July was an isolated incident.

A driver told the unidentified woman she would have to uncover her face to ride, but she was able to board another bus that same day. She reported the incident to bus system administrators, transit officials told The Grand Rapids Press newspaper.

Busing officials regret that the woman was turned away and have apologized to her, Rapid spokeswoman Jennifer Kalczuk said.

She said the original order was a security issue, so that an on-board camera system could help identify riders in the event of a disturbance. She said religious dress or other coverings were not considered.

Debbie Mageed, an area Islamic activist, said she appreciated Rapid's response.

"We can't expect all public domains to be aware of these situations until they actually come up," said Mageed, who wears a head covering but not a facial veil. "As long as it doesn't happen again, I'll feel like they were sincere in their efforts to revise their policy."

The culture that is poisoning vulnerable young minds like this must be challenged with bloodless cultural laws

Read The FBI Affadavit On The Would-Be Mall Terrorist

There has been suprisingly little reportage of the actual details of would-be shopping mall terrorist, Mr. Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef's mindset and intentions.

Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef





1. I, Jared Ruddy, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn, state as follows: I am a Special Agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and have been so employed for more than two years. I am currently assigned to an FBI Counterterrorism squad as well as the Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF”). My duties include the investigation of individuals who criminally violate the criminal laws of the United States Code. The information contained in this affidavit is based on personal knowledge, information supplied to me by other law enforcement officers, conversations with a confidential source that participated in this investigation, and review of certain documents and records related to this investigation. This Affidavit is submitted for the limited purpose of showing that probable cause exists to charge defendant DERRICK SHAREEF, also known as (“a.k.a.”) “Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef,” with (1) attempting to maliciously damage and destroy, by means of fire and an explosive, a building and real and personal property used in interstate commerce and in any activity affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and (2) attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property within the United States, and the offense and the results of the offense would have affected interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a)(2)(D). Thus, I have not set forth each and every fact known concerning this investigation.

Background of the Investigation

2. Beginning in September 2006, SHAREEF became acquainted with an individual in Rockford, Illinois. During the course of their acquaintance, SHAREEF advised this individual that he (SHAREEF) wanted to commit acts of violent jihad against targets in the United States as well as commit other crimes in order to obtain funds to further his (SHAREEF’s) goals of violent jihad. Unbeknownst to SHAREEF, his acquaintance (“CS”) was cooperating with the FBI.1 During their acquaintance, SHAREEF advised the CS that he (SHAREEF) wanted to obtain weapons to commit violent jihad. The CS advised SHAREEF that he (the CS) had a friend who was able to obtain weapons and that he (the CS) would introduce SHAREEF to the friend. In fact, the CS’s purported friend was an undercover law enforcement agent (“UCA”).

SHAREEF and the CS Discuss Potential Targets and Visit CherryVale Shopping Center

3. On or about Wednesday, November 29, 2006, in a recorded conversation, SHAREEF and the CS discussed SHAREEF’s goals regarding an attack. The CS said to SHAREEF, “when you were talking to me earlier, you seemed really upset.” SHAREEF responded: “I was already upset from previous things.” The CS then asked: “So, what you wanna do? I was thinking about it upstairs.” SHAREEF responded: “A target? . . . I want some type of city hall-type stuff right now, federal court houses.” The CS then asked: “I didn’t know how serious you are, ‘cause I gotta know . . .” SHAREEF interrupted: “No, hell no, I don’t talk calm when it comes to this. I’m talking about stuff that’s like, . . . ‘cause man the courthouse in DeKalb where I be going every month them niggers do weak as hell. You go in there and you clock the first three niggers at the door that they got, and you up in there, you know what I’m saying? And everything else is gonna have to be tactical. But see when you dealing with stuff like that, the courthouse, there’s always a PD [police department] right down the block. Know what I’m saying? I just want to smoke a judge.” After some additional discussion, the CS asked SHAREEF: “When you wanna plan on doing this? Because we have to make specific plans and dates, time.” SHAREEF responded: “Well, I wanna case one first, we can case one when you get the car back.” The CS then asked: “What about time frame? . . . ‘Cause you got to prepare for everything?” SHAREEF responded: “What do you think? I like the Holiday season.” A few moments later, SHAREEF stated: “You gotta do stuff, hell we ain’t gotta hit nobody, just blow the place up. You gotta do stuff under severe weather conditions. That helps too. Doing stuff in the snow, rain because you see less pigs out there. That’s tactical.” Later in the conversation, SHAREEF stated: “I’m thinking stuff like courthouses, city hall, government places, government facilities.” The CS then asked: “So, you serious,” and SHAREEF responded: “I’m serious. . . .”

4. The following day, on or about Thursday, November 30, 2006, at approximately 6:00 p.m., the CS advised SHAREEF that he (CS) had received a call from the UCA. The CS stated that the UCA had asked during the call whether SHAREEF planned to purchase any weapons from the UCA. The CS and SHAREEF then engaged in a discussion about places where they could conduct an attack against civilians. Specifically, the CS then asked if SHAREEF believed it was a better idea to “hit the mall,” and SHAREEF responded that the mall was “just one potential place.” The CS then stated: “I mean, alright, we gotta look at it this way, we want to disrupt Christmas.” SHAREEF responded: “Oh hell yeah, the mall is where it’s at.” The CS then asked SHAREEF if he believed that they needed grenades for the attack, and SHAREEF responded that they did. The CS stated: “You go in there and toss a grenade, and no one’s gonna know who did it.” SHAREEF responded: “No one’s gonna be expecting no shit like that.” SHAREEF then stated: “The last thing anybody gonna be thinking about at the mall is a damn grenade.” Later in the conversation, the CS asked SHAREEF: “What targets you wanna hit, the mall’s good?” SHAREEF responded: “Any place that’s crowded, like a mall is good, anything, any government facility is good.” SHAREEF told the CS: “I swear by Allah man, I’m down for it too, I’m down for the cause, I’m down to live for the cause and die for the cause, man.” In the same conversation, SHAREEF stated: “Here, we’re gonna check out some places, see where you could possibly lob one, do you toss it, do you, could you just sit it down and tip off, speed walk away.”

5. At approximately 6:15 p.m., on November 30, 2006, FBI surveillance personnel who were following SHAREEF observed SHAREEF and the CS arrive at the CherryVale Shopping Center in Rockford, Illinois. As they arrived at the mall, SHAREEF and the CS continued their conversation which was still being recorded. Specifically, SHAREEF stated: “I think, ah, if we do, do something like this, we gotta do, we gotta do it simultaneously, like you would have to hit one spot and I’ll do another one.” The CS responded: “That’s fine.” SHAREEF then stated: “Just meet back up, so it would create more pandemonium, and nobody will really be looking at, you know, nobody will be looking for anyone suspicious ‘cause it’ll be 80 million people running.” SHAREEF and the CS then continued walking around the mall property and discussing the layout of the mall.

While they were in the mall, the CS asked SHAREEF: “But if you ever wanna back out, ‘cause you gotta let me know before I make the phone call, ‘cause I’m checking your heart now. . . ‘Cause I have to call my boy, man.” SHAREEF responded: “I’m down.” The CS then stated: “We ain’t gonna get caught, don’t worry.” SHAREEF responded: “I’m not worried about getting caught, not alive.” The CS then stated: “If we die, then we die.” SHAREEF responded: “I’m gonna fast for like three days before.” During this conversation at the mall, FBI surveillance personnel were following SHAREEF.

SHAREEF and the CS Visit the CherryVale Shopping Center a Second Time

6. The following day, on or about Friday, December 1, 2006, the CS advised SHAREEF: “He said he had an order for 11, . . . 11 pineapples.” SHAREEF responded: “Shit, did he do that so he could give ‘em to us wholesale?” The CS stated: “No, he said that he’d sell them to us for $50 a pop.” The CS then stated, you can change the time up to 15 seconds.” SHAREEF asked: “How do you do that?,” and the CS answered: “You crank it, there’s a crank on it.” SHAREEF then asked: How do you know you cranking that shit the right way?,” and the CS responded: You gotta listen.” SHAREEF then responded: “And then explode.” The CS then stated: “He said the longer you take, the harder the pin, the harder the hammer.” SHAREEF responded: “So that shit gonna be like Boom!” Based on my training and experience as well as the context of the call, I believe that the CS and SHAREEF were discussing purchasing hand grenades from the UCA. Specifically, I believe that the CS and SHAREEF were discussing the timing mechanism on the grenades which SHAREEF and the CS intended to purchase from the UCA. Approximately fifteen minutes after the preceding part of the discussion occurred, the CS and SHAREEF got into the CS’s vehicle. The two men then engaged in a discussion about shaving their body hair and meditating to prepare. Based on my training and experience as well as the context of the call, I believe that the CS and SHAREEF were discussing the preparations they would undertake prior to committing an attack.

7. A few minutes after SHAREEF and the CS discussed shaving their body hair and meditating, SHAREEF stated: “I’m ready man, these Kafirs [a term translated as “infidel”] don’t give a damn about us, niggers don’t care what happens to the Umma [an Arabic word meaning community or nation that is commonly used to mean the collective nation of Islamic states], about sisters getting raped, about brothers losing their (UI). They don’t care, man. All they care about is (UI). . . I probably would have eventually ended up just stabbing the shit outt a some Jews or something. Just stabbing them niggers with a steak knife. Dude, I ain’t gonna lie. Because during that war with Hezbollah, man, I had already started to look at synagogues out here and in the DeKalb area and everything. I was looking at synagogues, I was doing Mapquest. . . . One of them was down the block from the masjid [mosque], I knew that they do their thing on Saturdays, right. I was like, I’m gonna lay low out here, I’m gonna camp out overnight, be out there on Friday night after Jumma” [Friday payer] or Saturday morning about 12:00 or 1:00 o’clock., I be there. And as soon as I see them fools going in the building, I had planned on trying to grab one, depending on how it was, niggers trying to run in the building all at once and open up shop, I was just going to go over there and shank one or two of them.” A few minutes later, SHAREEF stated: “They definitely gonna know that this shit ain’t over, and they not as safe as they thought.”

8. Several minutes later, SHAREEF and the CS arrived again at the CherryVale Shopping Center. When they arrived at the mall, the CS stated: “This place gonna be tore up in about two weeks.” SHAREEF responded: “Damn, dude, niggers gonna be gloomy as hell out here, I don’t know how the nationwide effect gonna be, but . . . .” The CS then asked: “You don’t think it’s gonna be gloomy nationwide?,” and SHAREEF responded: “I don’t think it’s gonna be gloomy nationwide like 9/11 . . . ” The CS then asked: “You don’t think so?” SHAREEF answered: “No, not this. This ain’t big enough. It’s big enough here locally.” At about the time this conversation was taking place, FBI surveillance personnel observed SHAREEF and the CS enter the mall. After they entered the mall, SHAREEF and the CS walked around the mall measuring the amount of time it would take to walk from one point in the mall to other points. The two men also discussed placing grenades in the garbage cans at the mall. At one point in the conversation, SHAREEF stated: “It would be hard trying to do three, though, ‘cause that’s three pins you gotta pull.” The CS then stated: “I’m glad you came up with the idea, though, the garbage can. That’s sweet,” and SHAREEF responded: “That’s pandemonium. The garbage going to be shrapnel.” A few minutes later, the CS stated: Don’t forget, man, we should get the grenades some time next week,” and SHAREEF responded: “Yeah.” The CS then stated: “So you should try to get as much flous [an Arabic term for money] as you can get ‘cause we need it,” and SHAREEF responded: I got a little change in the bank.” The CS then stated: “All you need is like $100, that’s two grenades,” and SHAREEF answered: “I’m pretty sure I can get more than that from my sister.” Several minutes later, SHAREEF stated: “If Allah wills a lot of people around that garbage can, that place is crowded.” The CS responded: “It’s gonna be crowded and that can is going to blow that whole area out. Upstairs and everything. You know that. And your favorite term is sprinkler systems coming on.” SHAREEF then laughed, and stated: “Sprinklers coming on.”

SHAREEF Makes a Videotaped Statement

9. The following day, on or about Saturday, December 2, 2006, FBI surveillance personnel observed the CS and SHAREEF driving around Rockford in the CS’s vehicle. During this period that SHAREEF and the CS were driving in the CS’s vehicle, the CS and SHAREEF discussed providing a set of stereo speakers that SHAREEF owned to the UCA in exchange for four hand grenades and two handguns. Again, the two men discussed their plans to detonate the grenades in the garbage cans at the mall. Specifically, the CS stated: “I told him just to get us four grenades. You think that’ll be enough?” SHAREEF responded: “Yeah, and the sidearms, right.” SHAREEF then asked the CS: “How much do we need for ‘Cap’ [the UCA]?” The CS answered: “He didn’t say, I think what he gonna do is just take the speakers and say ‘even,’ you know what I am saying, for the grenades and the two pistols.” During this conversation, the CS asked SHAREEF if he (the CS) died before the attack, would SHAREEF carry the attack out on his own. SHAREEF responded: “Uh huh. I’ll still do this.” After this part of the conversation occurred, SHAREEF and the CS arrived at a residence where SHAREEF kept the speakers. At the residence, SHAREEF and the CS obtained a set of speakers.

10. Later that day, on or about Saturday, December 2, 2006, the CS and SHAREEF each videotaped each other making statements. Agents assigned to this investigation obtained a copy of the video from the CS and have viewed it and transcribed it. In the video, SHAREEF states: “This may be my last will and testament, the last words that I have spoken to those who know me, to those who do not know me. My name is Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef. I am 22 years of age. I am from America, and this tape is to let you guys know, who disbelieve in Allah, to let the enemies of Islam know, and to let the Muslims alike know that the time for jihad is now. . . . Be strong, oh Mujahideen. Be strong oh brothers who want to fight for jihad. . . . This is a warning to those who disbelieve, that we are here for you, and I am ready to give my life. . . . May Allah protect me on this mission we conduct. . . . So do not cry, do not mourn for me. Do not believe what the kafir [infidel] will say about me when you read in the newspapers and when you see the television articles about me. Do not believe this. Understand that your son is a strong man. . . who believes and fears his Lord to the degree that he will give his life.” Based on my training and experience, it is common for individuals planning attacks on civilians as part of violent jihad to make videotaped statements.

11. On or about Monday, December 4, 2006, the UCA contacted the CS by telephone. This call was recorded and an initial transcription of the call has been prepared. In the call, the UCA asked the CS if he could speak with SHAREEF. The UCA then asked SHAREEF: “So, you’re finally ready to do something, huh?,” and SHAREEF responded: “Yeah, we ready to put it down.” The two men then agreed to exchange the stereo speakers for the weapons. The UCA then stated: “What I got lined up for you, is a, I got four of them pineapples, and then I got that 9 . . .” SHAREEF responded: “Alright.” The UCA then stated: “So I’m gonna try and get you that. But, it’s gonna work out nice, so we should be all set.” SHAREEF responded: “That’s good news, man. This is good news.” The UCA then advised SHAREEF: “I’m gonna roll through on Wednesday – I’m gonna roll through there.” Based on my training and experience as well as the context of the call and my discussions with the UCA, I believe that the UCA and SHAREEF were discussing the delivery of four hand grenades and a hand gun to SHAREEF on Wednesday, December 6, 2006.

12. On or about Wednesday, December 6, 2006, at approximately 11:50 a.m., the UCA contacted the CS by telephone and asked the CS if he (the CS) and SHAREEF were ready to meet to exchange the stereo speakers for the weapons. The CS responded that he (the CS) and SHAREEF were ready. The CS and the UCA then agreed to meet at a store parking lot located on Walton Road in Rockford, Illinois a short time later. At approximately 12:25 p.m., agents assigned to the investigation observed the CS and SHAREEF arrive at the parking lot where the UCA was already waiting. After the CS and SHAREEF arrived, the UCA, SHAREEF, and the CS greeted each other near the CS’s car. (This meeting was recorded in video and audio format.) SHAREEF then opened the trunk to the CS’s vehicle and showed the UCA a set of speakers. After a brief discussion about the speakers, SHAREEF picked up the speakers and carried them to the open trunk of the UCA’s vehicle. The CS did not walk with SHAREEF and the UCA to the UCA’s car. At the trunk of the UCA’s vehicle, the UCA advised SHAREEF that he had locked the weapons in a lock box, and he kept them in a lock box in the event police ever stopped him. The UCA then opened a lock box in the trunk of his vehicle and showed SHAREEF four non-functioning grenades, a 9 millimeter hand gun, and several rounds of non-functioning ammunition. SHAREEF and the UCA then discussed the operation of the grenades. Specifically, SHAREEF asked the UCA how long between the time the grenade pin was pulled and the time that the grenade went off. The UCA explained that the time was approximately three to five seconds. The UCA then closed the lock box, SHAREEF took key to the lock box, and SHAREEF picked up the lock box. SHAREEF then placed the lock box containing the purported weapons inside the trunk of the CS’s car. At the time that SHAREEF placed the lock box in the trunk, the UCA gave a pre-determined signal to agents who were surveilling the transaction, and the agents arrested SHAREEF without incident.

13. Based upon the aforementioned information obtained from tape recordings, documents and witnesses, coupled with my experience investigating federal crimes, I believe that there is probable cause to believe that DERRICK SHAREEF violated (1) 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) by attempting to maliciously damage and destroy, by means of fire and an explosive, a building and real and personal property used in interstate commerce and in any activity affecting interstate commerce and (2) 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a)(2)(D) by attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property within the United States, and the results of the offense would have affected interstate commerce.


Jared Ruddy Special Agent, FBI

Sworn to me before and subscribed in my presence on this day of December 2006

United States Magistrate Judge

Friday, December 08, 2006

The reasons for difficulties lie in fundamental principles of Islam

Why cultural laws in the west would be such an effective linchpin

Instituting Democracy in Islamic Nations
The reasons for difficulties lie in fundamental principles of Islam

Alamgir Hussain

In the post-9/11 era, the Bush administration's new project of spreading freedom and democracy to countries ruled by dictators became one of the most discussed and closely followed topics in the media, and at all levels of society.

As the world faces the violence unleashed by Islamist terrorist groups, seeking out a way to turn the tide towards peace was indeed a desirable idea. Although many doubted the means the Bush administration undertook to spread democracy around the world, few disagreed with the fact that freedom and democracy can usher in peace and prosperity.


Hanson Staging Political Comeback

Japan, U.S. Tune Up Defense Policies

Quo Vadis, Petrodollar?

Report: Change Policy in Iraq

Australian Environment in Danger


Instituting Democracy in Islamic Nations

A Year of Tragic Defiance

Gaza Truce in Danger

Palestinian Refugees Are the Key

Preventing Genocide in Iraq

Believing in this fundamental premise, many in the U.S. and around the world supported the Bush administration's aggressive policy of instituting democracy by overthrowing the authoritarian governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, the adventure of spreading democracy has yet to succeed in those two countries. All indications suggest that it will never be successful. It seems that what we are witnessing today is the failure of the Bush administration's policy of spreading democracy. Not only that, these countries have, instead, become massive breeding grounds for the terrorists and the world is in a poorer condition as far as threats from such violent groups are concerned.

As it appears now, the skeptics of the Bush administration's policy of exporting democracy, who had argued that democracy cannot be exported or imposed on a people from outside, might have been right. They have argued that freedom and democracy have to evolve from within. So we can safely say that these skeptics were right and the Bush administration's war architects were utterly wrong. Upfront, I want to assert that both the skeptics of the Bush formula as well as its supporters are only partially right and partially wrong.

Can democracy be imposed from without? It is a stale analysis to go into, given that innumerable commentaries have been written on this topic in the last few years. I will try to be brief. If we look back into the 1930s and 1940s, we see clearly that two of the world's anti-democratic governments -- the imperialists of Japan, and the brutal expansionist Nazis of Germany -- were replaced with democratic governments imposed by the intervention of the allied forces in the post-war period.

The skeptics may argue that the rule of the game has changed now and it does not work anymore. Afghanistan and Iraq are the most obvious examples in their favor. They probably would appear correct.

Let us consider the intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the mid-1990s. After the downfall of communism, these regions ran into a disastrous civil war as a result of religio-ethnic fighting between the minority Muslims and the majority Christians. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, intervention quickly brought the fighting and violence under control. Since then, reconciliation, reconstruction and democratic processes have made steady progress. All indications suggest that secular democracy and peace will continue to strengthen and be lasting. However, there is one concern. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise amongst the Muslim populace and the al-Qaeda and other like-minded Islamist groups are spreading their tentacles to that region. Therefore the future of a lasting peace and democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina will solely depend on how the Muslims behave in the coming years and decades?

Similarly, the United States' forced ouster of Charles Taylor of Liberia and Aristride of Haiti, both Christian countries have so far held in good stead. More pressing interventions in Muslim countries, namely in Somalia and Afghanistan, have miserably failed during the same period. Instead of bringing democracy and peace, interventions in these countries have made the world a much more dangerous place by inspiring Muslims at far corners of the world to form new terrorist groups and strengthening the already existing ones. On the other hand, there are no indications that interventions in Christian countries, namely Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, have inspired any Christian group in far places, say in Nigeria, Philippines, Australia, USA, Canada or South America, to create terrorist groups and to unleash violence of any sort.

Those who argue that democracy and rule of law cannot be imposed by outside interventions are obviously wrong if one considers the interventions in Japan and Germany in the post-WW II era. All indications from the more recent but unfinished interventions in the Balkans, in Liberia and Haiti also prove them wrong. However they are right, while the Bush administration and their cheerleaders are utterly wrong, when one considers the intervention in Somalia in 1993 and the more recent ones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, why is this difficulty in instituting democracy in Islamic countries by outside interventions which is easily achievable in non-Islamic countries? Many commentators argue that many social, cultural, ethnic, economic and historical factors are to blame. Yet others claim "democracy is no panacea or quick-fix" in itself.

But democracy works as the better panacea and continues to strengthen in Hindu-dominated India but not in Islamic Pakistan and Bangladesh, despites both peoples having the same social, cultural, ethnic, economic and historical factors. The Muslim-majority region in northern Nigeria instituted Islamist theocracy and have been cutting arms of thieves and stoning people to death. On the other hand, the southern Christian region welcomed democracy, toleration and multiculturalism after the Muslim general-lead military rule ended.

International policy-makers, who might be at a fix over this intriguing disparity in success of outside interventions in Muslim and non-Muslim countries, should probably look into the fundamental precepts of Islam, the common ideological denominator that binds them together.

Banning any special treatment like this would be a bloodlesss cultural linchpin

'Muslim only' pool outrage
The Sun

By BEN ASHFORD | December 08, 2006

A COUNCIL has sparked fury by virtually shutting a swimming pool on Sunday afternoons for “Muslim-only” sessions.

All women are banned — and non-Muslim men may swim IF they follow the strict Islamic dress code of swim shorts that hide the navel and extend below the knee.

Croydon Council in South London runs the sessions at Thornton Heath leisure centre between 4.45pm and 6.45pm.

Similar slots are laid on for Muslim women outside opening hours, where bathers must be covered from the neck down to the ankle.

Locals who flock to the area’s only major leisure centre each week are furious. Member Daniel Foley, 44, said: “I turned up and saw a sign saying it was closing early for Muslim afternoon — I couldn’t believe it.”

Nearby Croydon Mosque defended the move. It said: “Muslims are not allowed to show off intimate parts of their body. This is non-negotiable. Muslims have as much right to go swimming as anyone else.”

Croydon Council said: “We are keen to ensure sports facilities are there for everyone.”

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Culture that needs rigid control

Somalia Town Threatens to Behead People (must pray 5 times)

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.

Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, about 124 miles northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court. His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia in recent months, bringing a strict interpretation of Islam that is alien to many Somalis.

Read more at ...

The mullahs are the puppetmasters of death and hatred

The Mullah Menace
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman


Question: What's the most dangerous geopolitical development in the 21st century? Answer: Iran's emergence as the Middle East regional superpower. Why? Because it places the center of the world's increasingly stretched energy resources more and more under the influence of an oil-rich, fundamentalist, pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic regime that has not only nuclear ambitions but the means to realize them.

Iran's malign hand now reaches directly into southern Iraq, to Syria, to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in the West Bank, and to the shores of the Mediterranean. Iran's long shadow now casts a deepening pall over the Sunni Arab countries of the region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. All the Sunni gulf states have sizable Shiite populations, which Iran could turn against them. And what once promised to be a seed for democracy in the despotic Middle East, a new free state of Iraq, has betrayed every hope in an increasingly violent religious schism aggravated by Iranian meddling. The elections in Iraq led not to collaboration between different ethnic and religious groups but to a Shiite majority with a mandate to introduce what is, in effect, a radical Islamic republic. The south of Iraq is now an Iranian quasi protectorate, with police and local militias controlled by Tehran. No longer a traditional bulwark against Iranian expansion and influence, Iraq is in a dizzying downward spiral that has left Iran the undisputed champion of political Islam.

In Iraq, Iranian agents back the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr. His ambition is to take over from the moderate Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who is suffering from heart trouble, and to swing the Shiites fully behind Iran and the Iranian-backed terrorists in Iraq. Now there is talk of negotiating with Iran (and Syria) to join us in creating stability in Iraq. We should expect little help from them.

Death and destruction. Look at the nature of the beast. It has hardly been talking peace. It has intensified its murderous anti-Semitic, anti-Israel rhetoric and reiterated its long-held position that the Middle East should be entirely Islamic, stripped of all western influence....snip.......

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Powerful cultural laws will have an instant effect on the growing threat

How the Media and the Left Have Doomed Darfur
American Thinker

by James P. Whetzel

It is ironic that the very people who claim to have the most concern for the plight of the innocent men, women, and children being massacred in the Darfur region of the Republic of Sudan are complicit in this humanitarian crisis.

On many levels this conflict represents a failure of the media and liberal ideology with its distain for decisive military action. The government of Sudan is backing the Arab Janjaweed rebels as they slaughter and displace thousands of non-Arab inhabitants of the Darfur region. This conflict represents a government annihilating its own population and an utter failure on the part of the United Nations to intervene. This is a military conflict that necessitates a militarily-imposed solution.

The problem with the solution is that it requires a significant investment of time and troops on the part of any nation or coalition to truly affect change. The United Nations has been shown to be truly impotent when it comes to affecting real change and it will not commit the necessary resources to militarily impose a stop to the on-going genocide in that country. It can pass resolution after resolution but it lacks the will to put any teeth behind its mandates. In times of crisis when the UN fails the world then looks to the United States to assist cleaning up the mess no other country can or will deal with, and herein is where the problem lies.

The US has a track record of attempting to deal with humanitarian crisis like the one in Darfur and in many cases does so quite successfully. The problem arises when the media become involved. In all armed conflicts there will be casualties, which, the media then seize upon and begin to mold perceptions that we are failing as a country. In no time the calls ring out for our capitulation and retreat from an otherwise successful engagement.

People concerned for Darfur in this country chide the US government to help put an end to the genocide but are unwilling to support military involvement. Our leaders have been burned too many times to commit troops into an unstable region against a government-sponsored rebel force. American support is present at the onset of such a campaign but as soon as the first soldier is killed the media start pointing fingers and wringing their hands in panic.

One needs only to look at the Tet offensive in Viet-Nam or the situation in Somalia. The Tet offensive was a stunning military victory for the US and was portrayed as a massive defeat. The media served to break the will of the American people to continue to fight, something the Vietcong could never have done on their own. In Somalia, our forces were wining on the ground and making a difference in ending the human suffering until the "Black Hawk Down" incident when we lost 18 brave Americans. The mission was successful, however, the media portrayal led to a shift in public support for the effort with a subsequent withdrawal of forces. Our withdraw then had the unfortunate effect of emboldening a certain Al-Qaeda leader and we all know what the result of that was.

Why should Darfur be any different? The liberals in this country send out cries of "Help the people in Darfur" and they hold rallies, sign petitions, and involve international courts and organizations to condemn and bring charges against the perpetrators, all the while the body count is racking up and there is no real hope insight. They call on our President to get involved and stop the genocide, but the only way to do that is to go in and take out the Janjaweed rebels and the government that is providing support and build a nation based on freedom and liberty.

Sound familiar? It should as it is the exact mission we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and it is all too evident how it is being portrayed in the media. Darfur is doomed because the very people calling for the United States to save the people of that region are the same ones willing to leave the people of Iraq to wither and die on the vine. What will happen if we do commit to stopping the atrocity in Darfur and something goes wrong? Or the whole process takes longer than one season of the hottest new fall TV show, whose head will the media call for? Will we get reports of an unbeatable rebel insurgency? How long until the natives get restless and call for an exit strategy in Darfur?

It is an absolute travesty that a region that truly needs our assistance, as we are the only nation on the face of the planet that can be of true assistance, will have to suffer through half measures and ineffective humanitarian solutions because the US media has so inaccurately portrayed successful events in American military history as losses that no politician will be willing to electively choose to engage in a conflict of that scope.

The conflict in Darfur is abhorrent and tragic; however, that tragedy is compounded by the fact that the United States has lost the will to act in the face of tyrants, dictators, and thugs, not because we are soft as a people, but because the media has so distorted the truth and sided with our enemies it has become almost impossible to win, even if we do.

Free Site Counter