UChicago increases sharia compliant dining for Muslims not happy with infidel pizza, fries

See on Scoop.it – Truth Revealed

After years of collaboration with the Muslim Students Association, UChicago Dining Services has created permanent halal stations in two dining halls and expanded food options for students with dietary restrictions.

Beginning this quarter, both Bartlett and Cathey Dining Commons now permanently offer daily halal offerings for students. Until last year, halal options rotated between dining halls each week. Last fall, dining halls began dedicating an entire station to halal food for the first time during the week, but had no halal offerings on weekends.

The expansion of the halal program has largely grown out of a collaboration between UChicago Dining and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) over the last five years.

Fourth-year Saalika Mela, one of several MSA students who helped UChicago Dining gauge the dietary needs of Muslim students on campus, said that students wanted more variety in halal offerings.

“We wanted healthy food options for Muslims, such that we could have grilled chicken and greens and not always have to resort to fries or cheese pizza,” she said.

Halal food must be prepared according to tenets of Islamic law, including specific guidelines for slaughter. Halal meat also cannot come into contact with other foods restricted by the Qur’an, such as pork.

According to Richard Mason, executive director of UChicago Dining, figuring out how to provide halal foods in the dining halls was mainly a case of finding places to procure halal meat and ensuring that it did not come into contact with foods that would contaminate it according to the halal laws. Since the dining halls already adhere to kosher, vegetarian, and vegan dietary requirements, which are also concerned with contamination, offering halal food was not an entirely new concept, Mason said.
The collaboration between dining officials and MSA that produced more halal offerings began around Ramadan five years ago. Mason said that at the time, the dining halls offered no halal options.

“During the course of that work, it became clear that there were additional needs that they had for halal offerings. At that particular time, we didn’t have any halal program, so we worked with the MSA to figure out what we could do and what they were looking for,” Mason said.

According to a University statement announcing the improvements last week, Mason also took UChicago Dining chefs to different neighborhoods to sample different recipes to increase the diversity of halal offerings.

As halal offerings increased, Mela and other MSA students served as an intermediary between Muslim students and dining administrators.

“The MSA spearheaded the initiative on campus,” Mela said. “We conducted surveys on Muslim students’ satisfaction with dining hall foods and their needs, and we met with the Dining committee frequently and made certain proposals.”

Mason said that working with the students was an “enlightening and rewarding experience.”

“The students have been educators and great to cooperate with. They have kept feedback very frequent and let us know when we are going in the right direction. They’ve given us recipes and been real problem-solvers,” he said.

Too bad they can’t solve the problem of jihad. Oh, right. That’s because jihad is not a problem for Muslims, it is obligatory. Courtesy of the Muslim Student Association’s own website quoting the Koran:

002.216
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
PICKTHAL: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
SHAKIR: Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

This puff piece on sharia concludes with:
“I think the addition of halal foods to the dining halls has greatly contributed to an easier and more comfortable experience,” Kodaimati said through e-mail. “It represents a considerable amount of accommodation for Muslim students on campus as well as a phenomenal job done by dining.”

And that sums up how sharia is so rapidly infiltrating all areas of American life: It represents a considerable amount of accommodation [read submission] for Muslims – at the expense of non-Muslims.

MY COMMENTS:

Obummer’s stolen election now requires more Sharia compliance. Obummer will never be MY President and shame on all those who just flushed the USA down the toilet. Anyone who doesn’t have a job or loses their home in the next year better look in the mirror and say “its my own fault for voting for Obummer”. You will NOT get sympathy from me. As a Good Christian, I will help you, but the coming disaster of the loss of the America I know and love IS your fault. And that makes me angry! You personally ruined MY country.

See on creepingsharia.wordpress.com

Shariah in American Courts

See on Scoop.it – Islam Revealed

Shariah the Threat to America, The Team B II Report.

See on shariahinamericancourts.com

 

| Pundit Press | Federal Judge Enforces Sharia-Compliance in Ohio Prisons

See on Scoop.it – Islam Revealed

In 2011, death row inmate Abdul Awkal sued an Ohio prison because he was receiving non-halal food while in prison. As a consequence, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction banned all pork products in prison.
This year, prisoner James Rivers filed a lawsuit arguing that pork should not be outright banned. He reasoned that, should Muslims not want to eat pork, they had the right to, but that it was discriminatory to ban pork for everyone. Additionally, the prison did offer meals without pork products in them before the ban. continue reading

Fatwa On Islam

See on www.punditpress.com

Related articles

• | Pundit Press | Federal Judge Enforces Sharia-Compliance in Ohio Prisons (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
• Judge: Forcing all inmates to eat same (halal) diet not discrimination (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
• Ohio Muslim Death Row Inmate Settles Halal Meal Lawsuit (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)

64 COMPANIES TO PULL ADS FROM ALL-AMERICAN MUSLIM

Repost from a true American Patriot:  Pamela Gellar

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

64 COMPANIES TO PULL ADS FROM ‘ALL-AMERICAN MUSLIM’

Every company is to free to choose where they put their ad dollars. 64 companies have now pulled their ads. And rightly so. It’s is not thatthe show about Muslims. It is that the show was predicated on a lie and the relentless propaganda of Islamic supremacists. Or perhaps advertisers don’t wish to advertise on a show whose ratings are in the toilet.

The fact is that the show specifically situates itself as a response to “Islamophobia” — this was clear from the opening moments of the first show. But it is severely misleading, because it doesn’t deal with the kind of Muslims who would ever have caused anyone any concern in the first place. And I have been saying that since the show premiered.

On page 75 of my book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance, I explain the sinister orgins of the thought-crushing device, “Islamophobia”:

The very word “Islamophobia” is a fictional construct, as journalist Claire Berlinski explains, “The neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia….Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. ‘This loathsome term,’ he writes, ‘is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.’”⁸⁵

Discover the Networks reports, “Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, ‘Islamophobia’ did not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11.“

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” Adolf Hitler said that. Der fuhrer would be impressed.

We cannot expect advertisers to fund this “islamophobic” propaganda. And we can’t expect advertisers to insert themselves in political controversies.

Where is the television show, “All American Sikh,” “All American Hindu,” “All American Buddhist”? How about a reality show documenting the fight of counter jihadists in light of the over 18,000 Islamic attacks across the world since 911?

Support Lowes. They are taking heat for making the right call. Contact them and buy Lowes gift certificates, hang them on your tree.CONTACT Lowe’s at 1-800-445-6937, E-Mail: karen.s.cobb@lowes.com, Robert.A.Niblock@lowes.com, Thomas.J.Lamb@lowes.com, execustservice@lowes.com

Group Says Lowe’s Is One of 64 Companies to Pull Ads From ‘All-American Muslim’ Color Lines

The conservative Christian group that’s claiming responsibility for home improvement chain Lowe’s pulling their ads from the reality show “All American Muslim” says there are 64 other companies that have cancelled their ad buys for the show as a result of their e-mail campaign.

McDonalds, Amazon and Bank of America are among the companies the Florida Family Association (FFA) says they’ve targeted to get their commercials off the reality tv show “All American Muslim.” Lowe’s was the first to make headlines because they’re the only company to confirm they canceled ad buys as a result of the the conservative group’s campaign.

“While we continue to advertise on various cable networks, including TLC, there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention. Lowe’s will no longer be advertising on that program” a representative for Lowe’s wrote in a statement.

“The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish,” read one of FFA’s emails to it’s members that urged them to contact dozens of companies and ask them to “discontinue advertising on this show.”

According to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, FFA’s campaign against “All-American Muslim” stems from the work of two “infamous Islamophobes” writers Robert Spencer, author of “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran,” and Pamela Geller, author of “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

“The main danger of All-American Muslim is that it’s misleading,” wrote Geller in an article reprinted by FFA. “The Muslims portrayed in the show are free to choose their path. That is the beauty of living in a free society. But so many aren’t. … Who speaks for Jessica Mokdad, who lived not far from where this show is taping, in Dearborn, Michigan? Mokdad was honor murdered by her stepfather, Rahim Alfetlawi, for ‘not following Islam.’”

There are, however, some sane voices jumping into this mind-boggling debate.

“Lowe’s should be ashamed for succumbing to this type of bigotry,” said Deana Nassar, Muslim Public Affairs Council’s Hollywood Liaison on the group’s website. “The show is an important effort to portray the everyday lives of a group of normal, mainstream Muslim Americans. Caving into the fear campaign initiated by thinly veiled hate groups sends the wrong message at the wrong time.”

Mia Farrow and Russell Simmons have called for a boycott of Lowe’s on Twitter, with Simmons promising to “sic every civil rights agency on (Lowe’s) until they straighten this out.” A representative for Simmons also confirmed to the Hollywood Reporter that he will buy any remaining ad space on the show to promote the RushCard, a prepaid Visa credit card.

Brooklyn: ANOTHER Mosque Blasts Call To Prayer For ALL To Hear

Brooklyn: ANOTHER Mosque Blasts Call To Prayer For ALL To Hear!

In Defense of Glenn Beck

I’m sure everyone has heard the famous and WILDLY incorrect quote: “The only thing to fear is fear itself”.

The reality most people choose not to acknowledge is there is much to fear in the world, unspeakable evils, but to fight these evils, one needs to know they are there.

Glenn Beck may dramatize these things (after all, that IS why he gets paid to tell us what is going on), but he hits the nail on the head with the reality most choose to ignore. How he hasn’t been silenced for revealing the numerous truths is still a mystery .

Best explaination of UnConstitutional Restriction on Free Speech in Dearborn Michigan

The end of Free Speech and Assembly because the law is what they say it is

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BACK IN MARCH, before Pastor Jones decided to demonstrate in Dearborn, Michigan, yet the contents apply directly to the complete trampling of his Constitutional Rights of Free Speech and Free Assembly. He only said he was going to exercise these rights and he was arrested, went to court and ultimately put into jail WITHOUT EVER HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME! And the whole system KNEW he had committed no crime! This is the USA, not Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, any Islamic Government country. Here, we are SUPPOSE to be guaranteed the GOD GIVEN rights of Freedom. There is no footnote that says, “Except in Dearborn, Michigan”.

In one of the more memorable passages in Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith contemplates the inevitable doom that will follow from the first entry which he is preparing to make in his diary. The act was not illegal, he reflected — there were no laws in Oceania — but its discovery would nevertheless result in ten years in a forced labor camp.

If your tastes tend more to the lowbrow, there’s that great line from National Lampoon’s “Vacation”: “It ain’t illegal. Hell, I oughta know — I’m the sheriff!”

We see an increasing number of instances in the United States and the “Free World” in which citizens can be punished without any specific legal pretext.

To take one example which has been around for a while, there is no written law against carrying large amounts of cash on one’s person, nor any specific statutory definition of the threshold at which the amount of money one carries becomes a criminal offense. Nevertheless, anyone stopped by a police officer and found to be carrying thousands of dollars in cash will be presumed a drug trafficker of some sort, and their money seized according to the usual procedure of “civil forfeiture.”

When ballot measures to decriminalize or liberalize marijuana laws clear all the hurdles and are voted into law, as often or not the cops just quietly ignore them. For example, last October Los Angeles County, California Sheriff Lee Baca baldly stated that he would continue to arrest pot users even if Proposition 19 (which would have legalized it) passed. Baca’s “argument” was that it is still criminalized by federal statute, and that federal law supersedes state law.

Even as explained by the state’s own pet jurists, of course, this was utter nonsense. The functionaries of a state are not bound to enforce federal law. The practical effect of a measure legalizing pot, had it passed, would simply have been to tell the feds to enforce their own law. It would have withdrawn California’s state and local cops from the enforcement effort and dismantled the whole apparatus of interjurisdictional drug task forces. But none of that matters. Because if a cop wants to enforce a “law” badly enough, he’ll make one up.

Just about every week, Radley Balko reports on someone being arrested for filming cops, on the pretext that they’re “hindering apprehension,” “interfering with police business,” or “violating the wiretap laws,” or some such bull-hockey. Never mind that there’s no actual law criminalizing the act of recording public functionaries performing public duties in a public place, or that there’s even a law on the books specifically exempting such activity from the wiretap statutes.

If you’re willing to fight it out before judges or police commissioners, for weeks or months, you may or may not get a decision overruling the cop’s actions. But in the meantime you’ve had your camera (and maybe your nose) smashed, spent time in a holding cell, had your name dragged through the dirt, and maybe lost your job. And meanwhile, the cops just keep on doing it anyway. I mean, seriously, they can kill innocent people and wind up on paid administrative leave pending a wrist-slap, so how worried do you think they are about breaking a camera and roughing up some dirty effing hippie?

As I write, functionaries within the US national security apparatus are busily looking for any pretext on which Julian Assange — an Australian citizen — can be extradited from the United Kingdom. All three are ostensibly countries which share the common law tradition’s procedural protections of the accused, and which pay a great deal of lip service to the “rule of law.”

Yet nobody can state, in anything resembling clear terms, a plausible explanation of just what law Assange is supposed to have violated. Treason? He’s not a U.S. citizen. Espionage? If publishing classified documents leaked by someone else is a crime, please explain the difference between Wikileaks’ publication of the leaked diplomatic cables and the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers. So far they’ve failed to torture Bradley Manning into testifying that Assange suborned the leaked documents from him.

But if one expedient doesn’t work, they’ll try something else. The law doesn’t really matter. If the spooks, cops and prosecutors want to get somebody bad enough, they’ll come up with a bespoke “law” tailored to their needs. The custom manufacture of pretexts is a cottage industry for them.

In practice, the law is whatever they say it is.

Response to Dearborn Mayors Open Letter

Mr Mayor, reading your open letter was painful in the obvious errors in thinking it expressed.


1. All of the United States of America is a FREE SPEECH ZONE that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Permit Free Zones? That is clearly Un-American and has no basis from the Constitution. The only reason a permit is needed for Free Speech Demonstrations is to notify the local government of the Demonstration so that it may adequately prepare any necessary security and area clean-up as needed.


2. You are mistaken regarding no illegal behavior occurring in the mosques of Deerborn. Failure to investigate or to prosecute jihadist behavior, support, or illegal activity does NOT mean it isn’t occurring. And behaviors that are not illegal, but against the interests of the United States of America are still Un-American behavior and Un-welcomed.


3. “It appears your choice of the Islamic Center of America is not because it has any relationship to the stated object of your free speech, but because it symbolizes the Islamic faith in general. If so, that is not truly in line with the Constitution you say you are defending.” – This is purely your opinion and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Anyone has a right of free speech regardless of the subject matter. The Supreme Court has repeated affirmed this right is guaranteed in the Constitution, even if the content of the free speech is abhorrent to must people.


4. Your defense of smut outlets and the use of them, a sausage factory and The Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village as “proof” that Sharia Law isn’t being implemented in Deerborn is ludicrous. None of these three paragraphs has anything to do with the Constitution, the Dhimmi support of the Deerborn Muslim community, or the objections to the planned demonstration or Pastor Jones exercise of his free speech rights.

Mayor O’Reilly: An Open Letter to Pastor Jones

April 20, 2011

“Dear Pastor Jones:

I watched you on television speaking about the Constitution and Dearborn, and it appears you need more information about both before you come to our city. I can provide insight on the Constitution, and expertise on Dearborn.

First of all, Dearborn supports the Constitution as well as any city in America. Our commitment to the Constitution is unwavering, not merely convenient, which makes your hyperbole about Sharia Law being practiced in the courts or civil law of Dearborn nonsensical. So, you are coming to protest against an imaginary threat that doesn’t exist in our community. Not in our courts, not at our City Hall, not on our streets and not in any of our places of worship.

Still, because we do understand the Constitution here, we are not preventing you from expressing your free speech. In fact, in Dearborn, we’ve even gone one step farther than most communities in support of free speech. We established, by ordinance, “Permit Free Zones” intended for demonstrations and free speech.

One of those zones is at City Hall, where from my office I have heard many rallies being conducted in response to international, national or regional issues. This is a high-visibility spot, seen by thousands of motorists but safe from traffic, with plenty of public space for protestors, supporters and the media. It is where we are asking you to conduct your demonstration. The steps of City Hall can even make an impressive platform for speeches.

And, if you are unhappy with what you think is going on in Dearborn, then what better place to protest than with City Hall as the back drop?

Instead you insist on protesting in an area that has no public property to accommodate crowds, spectators, parking or the media. There is just a small public road with limited access which can’t be blocked and an adjacent grassy area for drainage. It is parallel to a major state road, but the small shoulder can accommodate people only when they have auto emergencies.

And, this property you are focusing on, in front of the Islamic Center of America, is also adjacent to four Christian churches, all of which will be hosting Good Friday services, adding to the traffic flow and congestion. It is ironic that the road that you want to protest near is called Altar Road, so named because it was first constructed to provide access to a row of churches constructed in the 1950s reflecting Dearborn’s diverse faith communities.

But I can understand if you don’t know the details of the site, or the particulars about Dearborn. But you should know about the Constitution that you claim to be defending.

The Constitution says that your rights must be balanced with the rights of others under the same document. Your free speech rights do not allow you to trespass on the private property of others or prevent them from the Constitutional right to freely practice their religion. I am not just talking about Muslims, but members of all faiths.

The members of the Christian churches on Altar Road asked me last week if they should cancel their Good Friday services because of your planned visit. I assured them that they should not because the Constitution does not allow you to violate their rights. I don’t know why you selected Good Friday, but it wasn’t very considerate of the significant Christian services being held at that time. I assure you that you will not make them forfeit their services.

You claim that you are coming to protest the radicalism of Islam. Like all of America, we are concerned about the radicalization of any religion that would rationalize extreme actions. However we have not let this concern turn into a twisted paranoia that promotes fear-mongering and misleading generalizations. You state that you are coming to the Islamic Center of America because it is the largest mosque in America. What does that have to do with the radicalism of Islam? While size may matter to you, we prefer to focus on actual behavior. And according to our Police Department and the anti-terrorism agencies they work with, there has never been evidence of any wrongdoing in any of Dearborn’s mosques.

It appears your choice of the Islamic Center of America is not because it has any relationship to the stated object of your free speech, but because it symbolizes the Islamic faith in general. If so, that is not truly in line with the Constitution you say you are defending.

There is no Sharia Law in Dearborn, only Constitutional Law. Sharia Law is church- or faith-based law that is applicable only to the followers of that faith. For me it is Cannon Law of Catholicism, in Judaism it is Torah Law, and for Muslims it is Sharia Law. The actual originator of the event you plan to hold in Dearborn, Frank Fiorello of the Fraternal Order of the Dragon, accepted my invitation to learn more about Dearborn, and after seeing the truth, he canceled his protest.

But, if you don’t believe that Dearborn follows the Constitution, here are some realistic facts for you. Businesses in Dearborn lawfully meet the diverse needs of our Greater Detroit area, but if Dearborn practiced Sharia Law, would we have three adult entertainment bars and more alcohol licensed bars and restaurants per capita than most other cities? None of that should be allowed under Sharia Law.

How about this? A business we boast about, the nationally known Dearborn Sausage, opened more than 60 years ago across the street from the first mosque in Dearborn and is famous for its sausages and spiral-sliced hams. It is one of many meatpacking operations in our City and no one has ever objected.

Dearborn is also famous for The Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, where more than 1.5 million visitors come each year from across the country and the world to learn about the foundations of our American way of life.

Dearborn is a diverse, safe and unified city that is addressing its future in a proactive manner. We cherish the American Dream that brought so many people here during the last century to earn a decent wage and enjoy a high quality of life thanks to Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company. And for Dearborn, our success and our identity is tied to welcoming people of all backgrounds who have chosen to make America, and our community, their home. We are proud to have welcomed them.

As we work hard to balance your rights with the rights of others in Dearborn, you will be extended every courtesy during your visit–as long as you follow the law based on the Constitution’s protection of everyone’s rights. That should be a familiar statement to you.

You have said over and over that “Muslims are welcome as long as they follow the Constitution.” Surely, then, you wouldn’t ask less of yourself.”

Buy your mattress at ‘MATTRESS FIRM,’ they don’t sell to Muslim bagheads

Buy your mattress at ‘MATTRESS FIRM,’ they don’t sell to Muslim bagheads.

Why are Muslims Afraid of the Congressional Radicalization Hearings

Why are Muslims Afraid of the Congressional Radicalization Hearings?

Having read the article below, I am at a loss as to why Muslims are in such opposition to these hearings. My only thought is they are in opposition because the TRUTH regarding their religion’s tenets, the true nature of Islam’s founder, will be revealed. In that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, that it is in fact a religion of hate, violence, subjegation, oppression, and death is most likely what they are afraid to be revealed. They may lie to America, which Islam’s founder taught them to do to deceive the infidels (all non-Muslims), but the truth is out there and it is coming to the light.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

The one true God and His Son Jesus Christ, not the false god of Islam.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A number of activities taking place next week are setting the stage for a confrontation between the Muslim American community and those who have reservations about its presence in the U.S. Congressman Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has scheduled a congressional hearing on the “radicalization” of Muslim Americans on March 10. In response, Muslims and Arab Americans in New York and Washington D.C. will be demonstrating about what they see as an attack on their civil rights. Meanwhile, opponents of Park51 are rolling out a “documentary” nationwide about the proposed project to build an Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan.

From the outset, many Muslims and Arab Americans have opposed Rep. King’s plan to hold hearings on, “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.” Over 80 people of different faiths from his district on Long Island, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and interfaith leaders sent a letter to King urging him to cancel the hearings.

“These diverse faith leaders believe the singling out of the Muslim community undermines fundamental American values and is counterproductive to improving national security,” the letter said.

After Rep. King turned rebuffed their calls, Muslim and Arab American communities decided to raise their voices on the streets of New York, Washington D.C. and other cities across the country.

On Sunday March 6, a broad coalition of over 75 interfaith, nonprofit, governmental, and civil liberties groups are scheduled to rally “in support of equitable civil rights for all Americans” in New York’s Times Square.

The Muslim Peace Coalition has also announced a rally and march scheduled for April 9 at Union Square in New York. The slogan of this demonstration will be “Standing Up Against Islamophobia, War and Terrorism.”

According to the House Homeland Security Committee’s chairman the hearing is needed to explore terror threats posed by radical American Muslims.

“[Due to] The measures taken after 9/11, al Qaeda has realized the difficulty it faces in launching attacks against our homeland from overseas. Thus it has adjusted its tactics and is now attempting to radicalize and recruit from within our country. In the last two years alone more than 50 Americans have been charged with terror related crimes,” Rep. King said in a letter responding to Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Minority Member of the committee on Homeland Security.

In its email to members of the Muslim American community, the Muslim Peace Coalition wrote, “Democracy is not a spectator sport and Muslims are not a football to be thrown around. We are people with rights and responsibility to speak up.”

Regarding homegrown terrorism, the Muslim Peace Coalition asked Rep. King to hold a hearing on the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. They also suggested he ask the FBI for statistics on the profiles of the two million first time gun owners in the USA. “Who are these people and why are they buying guns. What is their faith?”

“The hearings will send the wrong message and alienate American Muslims instead of partnering with them, potentially putting their lives at risk by inciting fear and enmity against them,” the coalition stated in its statement about the Times Square rally. “Organizers of this rally believe one can be a loyal Muslim as well as a loyal American without conflict, and a great number of our fellow Americans support this view.”

Amidst the background of a growing controversy between the Muslim American community and the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, a new documentary produced by the leading opponents of the Park51 Islamic Cultural Center, often dubbed the “Ground Zero Mosque,” is being shown around the country. At a recent screening in a church near the proposed site in downtown Manhattan, Pamela Geller, one of the producers of the documentary, vowed to continue her efforts to stop the project.

Islam By Their Law Shall We Know Them

The ideology of Islam fully implemented under Sharia Law, consistent with the koran, sira and hadith, condemns freedom (speech, conscience, religion association, press, petition of government), forbids equality (between men and women, muslims and non-muslims) and denies traditional sovereignty (national boundaries, secular law, native culture). Any form of sharia, implicit (in mosques and ‘at home’) or explicit (as practiced in UK civil courts, as promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations), denies human rights to women, children and non-muslims. Therefore, allowing sharia in this Constitutional Republic or any non-islamic nation violates our basic laws of freedom, including freedom of choice. The tenets of islam as codified in sharia are supremacist, discriminatory and misogynist; they invite or encourage deception toward non-muslims and mandate perpetual hostility to that which is not islamic. Sharia must be banned as being unConstitutional and its promotion labeled seditious, as it calls for the replacement of man-made law with “divine” sharia.

Whatever in islam that may be spiritual and promote the salvation of the soul is of little interest to me, unless and until it affects non-muslims, at which point it becomes political doctrine. And if this political doctrine calls for harm, subjugation, taxation, terrorizing and death, it is a free-people’s right and obligation to resist.

Speak about islam and sharia in this way. Challenge your listeners not to believe anything about islam that is not consistent with the foundational texts of islam and its body of law, for to do so is to be deceived and ignorant.

ORIGINAL POSTING Website:

Mohammed Rapist

PYEM Ministry Inc.

Muhammad allowed his men to rape the women captured in raids. However, after capturing the women, Muslims faced a dilemma. They wanted to have sex with them but also wanted to return them for ransom and therefore did not want to make them …pregnant. Some of these women were already married. Their husbands had managed to escape when taken by surprise and were still alive. The raiders considered the possibility of coitus interruptus (withdrawing from intercourse prior to ejaculation). Unsure of the best course of action, they went to Muhammad for counsel.

Bukhari reports:

Abu Saeed said: “We went out with Allâh’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allâh’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”

Notice that Muhammad does not forbid raping women captured in war. Instead, he indicates that when Allâh intends to create anything, nothing can prevent it. In other words, not even the absence of semen can prevent it. So Muhammad is telling his men that coitus interruptus would be futile and ill-advised because it would be an attempt to thwart the irresistible will of Allâh. Muhammad does not say a word against the forced insemination of these captive females. In fact, by criticizing coitus interruptus, in effect he supported forced insemination.

In the Qur’an, Muhammad’s god made it legal to have intercourse with slave women, the so-called “right hand possessions,” even if they were married before their capture.

Ibn Aun has narrated:

“I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. T…heir fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army.” Bukhari 3.46.717 (see also Muslim 019. 4292)

Muhammad sent one of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq and after assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack. Muslims came out of Madina on 2nd Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina.

Juwairiya was one of the captives during the raid of Banu Mustaliq. When all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers, Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of Haris, the leader of the clan.

The Islamic site muslims.ws writes: “She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him “0′ Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation”. The Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet paid the amount of ransom and married her.”

First he raids a population without warning because they were easy targets and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. The narrator says, “According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.” Prevailing practice? Didn’t Muhammad come to show people the right way? Why should he follow the evil prevailing practices of a people whom he called ignorant? By doing so, he set the example and those evil practices became standard practices of the Muslims for ever.

The narrator says that upon seeing Juwairiyah the Prophet was “moved”. Methinks that movement must have happened in his male organ because his heart seems to have remained cold and unmoved. Although Muslims call this marriage, I call it rape.

Safiyah was a beautiful 17 years old Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops raided Kheibar. She was the daughter or Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir, a Jewish tribe of Medina , whom Muhammad had beheaded two year…s earlier along with the men of Banu Quriaza. The tribe of Banu Nadir had been already banished from Medina and their properties were confiscated.

Safiyah had married to her cousin Kinana, who was a young Jewish leader of Kheibar. When Muhammad raided that fortress, he killed its unarmed men and captured the rest. A Jewish traitor, (reminds me of Noam Chomsky) to gain Muhammad’s favor and be spared from death, told him that Kinana was the treasurer of the town and that he used to hide the money in some ruins. Muhammad ordered Kinana to be tortured to reveal the whereabouts of the treasures and killed him.

Then he asked the prettiest woman from amongst that captives to be brought to him. Ibn Ishaq writes: “The apostle occupied the Jewish forts one after the other, taking prisoners as he went. Among these were Safiya, the wife of Kinana, the Khaibar chief, and two female cousins: [sisters of Kinana] the apostle chose Safiya for himself. The other prisoners were distributed among the Muslims. Bilal brought Safiya to the apostle, and they passed the bodies of several Jews on the way. Safiya’s female companions lamented and strewed dust on their heads. When the apostle of Allâh observed this scene, he said, ‘Remove these she devils from me.’ But he ordered Safiya to remain, and threw his reda [cloak] over her. So the Muslims knew he had reserved her for his own. The apostle reprimanded Bilal, saying, ‘Hast thou lost all feelings of mercy, to make women pass by the corpses of their husbands?’”

Safiyah was taken to Muhammad’s tent. Muhammad wanted to have sex with her on that very night, only hours after torturing to death her husband. She resisted his advances. That night Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of Muhammad. When, in the early dawn, Muhammad saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: “I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, I was really afraid for you on her account”. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 766)

The next day Muhammad covered Safiyah with his mantle, an act signifying that she is now his. Safiyah was groomed and made-up for Muhammad by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik and was taken to Muhammad who married her in a mock marriage ceremony and raped her that night. Muslims call this marriage. I call that rape. I am certain not many young women would like to jump into bed with an old man who happens to be the murderer of their father and husband and many other relatives. That poor woman had no choice; therefore that marriage was nothing but a mockery of this sacred institution. At that time Muhammad was close to sixty years old.

Another victim of Muhammad was Rayhana, a 15 year old girl from the tribe of Banu Quraiza. Muhammad massacred all the men of that tribe. Then women were brought to him to pick and he chose Rayhana. Rayhana never married Muhammad and unlike Juwairiyah and Safiyah never feigned being a Muslim to have an easier life. She preferred to remain a sex slave rather the wife of the murderer of her father, brothers and uncles. .

‎[1] Bukhari, Volume 5, Book59, Number 459. Many other canonical hadiths recount how Muhammad approved intercourse with slave women, but said coitus interruptus was unnecessary because if Allâh willed someone to be born, that soul would be… born regardless of coitus interruptus.

See the following:

Bukhari 3.34.432: “Narrated Abu Saeed Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allâh’s Apostle he said, “O Allâh’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allâh has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

Sahih Muslim is another source considered factual and accurate by virtually all Muslims. Here is Sahih Muslim 8.3381: “Allâh’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, (coitus interruptus) whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allâh intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).”

Muslims also consider Abu Dawood highly accurate and factual. Here is Abu Dawood, 29.29.32.100: “Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, ‘Tell them.’ She was embarrassed. He said, ‘It is alright, and I do it myself.’ Malik said, ‘A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practicing coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else’s slave-girl as a wife does not practice coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission.’”

See also Bukhari 3.46.718, 5.59.459, 7.62.135, 7.62.136, 7.62.137, 8.77.600, 9.93.506 Sahih Muslim 8.3383, 8.3388, 8.3376, 8.3377, and several more.

[2] Qur’an, 4:24: “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allâh ordained (Prohibitions) against you.”
Qur’an, 33:50): “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allâh has assigned to thee.”
Qur’an, 4:3: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.”

Moderate Islam Flag Burning

Moderate Muslims Burn US Flag

And these are supposedly the moderate Muslims. Imagine for a moment how much more dangerous if they weren’t supposedly moderate. There is no moderate Islam or Radical Islam. There is only Islam and non-practicing Islam. This is a photo of Islam.

Middle East Christians Under Attack

A few years ago I was in the West Bank with a Christian missionary who worked among Jews and Muslims. The Jewish converts came to his home for Sunday services that were held in both English and Hebrew. But to gather with Arab converts he had to meet them secretly on the outskirts of their town lest his mere presence put their lives in jeopardy.

“My brother became a Christian at the same time as I did,” one Palestinian told me. “But neither of us knew of the other’s conversion for many years. It would have been too dangerous, until the missionary was certain of our conviction.”

We were sitting in a clearing in the brush that was one of the converts’ meeting places. I imagined that Jesus and his disciples must have prayed in places like this, maybe even here. An Israeli Defense Forces patrol passing on the nearby road stopped to see what was going on. The missionary explained to the officer in charge, who nodded and went on his way.

“My brother and I converted because we knew we needed love in our lives,” the Palestinian continued. “I think that Jesus is going to bless the Palestinian people by spreading his gospel of love here.”

Perhaps someday, but for now the Christians of the Middle East are facing danger. Both recent converts and ancient congregations—the Assyrians in Iraq, the Copts in Egypt, Lebanon’s Maronite Catholics, and more, long antedating Islam—are under fire. The land where Christianity began is being cleansed of Jesus’ followers. It is possible that we will soon see an event without precedent: the end of a living Christian witness in this region after more than 2,000 years.

So why now? And how did Christians manage to thrive here in the past?

“We survived, but not the way we wanted to,” says Habib Efram, president of the Syriac League of Lebanon, which represents some 60,000 Syriac Christians. Efram often visits the much larger Syriac Christian community in Iraq, which is under siege. “Some were forced to leave the country, and there have been massacres,” Efram tells me on the phone from Beirut.

“The Christians have always been under attack,” explains Lebanese political analyst Elie Fawaz. “Our numbers used to be much higher throughout the Middle East. We were here centuries before the Muslims, so there used to be many more Christians, until the raids and conversions to Islam.”

In Mt. Lebanon, the country’s Christian heartland, there’s a valley called Wadi Qadisha where the Maronites held off the Mamluk sultans in the 13th century. It was partly geography that ensured the survival of Lebanon’s Christian community. The Mediterranean coast provided access to European powers—the Vatican and France—that have long seen themselves as the protectors of Lebanon’s Christians; and the high mountain passes afforded a vantage point that turned hostile incursions into suicide missions as the Christians picked off intruders one by one. It is no coincidence that Hezbollah has bought and expropriated property in Lebanon’s mountains. There the party can survey not only its Israeli enemy, but its local Christian foes as well, whom Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies have targeted in a series of assassinations over the last six years.

“The Maronites are politicized,” says Fawaz. “You cannot compare them to Iraqi Christians.” That is, Lebanon’s Christians are under attack from rivals who wish to take their power, while Iraq’s and Egypt’s besieged Christian sects are powerless to defend themselves against superior numbers, and no one is willing or able to protect them.

Even rhetorical defenses of the Christians are cautious. Pope Benedict, like popes before him, chooses his words carefully when addressing the situation of Middle Eastern Christians, lest they be made to pay for perceived slights. Arab nationalists and Sunni Islamists assume that any discussion of regional minorities—whether Christians, Jews, or even Shia—by outsiders is coded language for a project to colonize the Middle East on behalf of the great powers. To be sure, the French did come to the aid of the Maronites in Lebanon in 1860 to end the war between them, the Druze, and their Ottoman overlords. And after the First World War, France held the mandate for Lebanon and rewarded what was then a Christian majority with a constitution that gave most of the power to the Maronites.

Lebanon’s civil war from 1975 to 1990 was largely a product of shifting demographics and a changing political culture. While the Christian community fought to preserve the state’s territorial integrity and avoid war with Israel, the country’s increasingly numerous Sunnis wanted to attach themselves to the great Arab cause—Palestine—and open the border with Israel to the Palestinian resistance. After the war, the Taif Agreement of 1989 gave more political say to the Sunnis and Shia. It made official what everyone knew: Lebanon’s Christians had lost.

“We don’t want foreign support,” says Habib Efram, by which he means a Western military adventure on behalf of the Christians. “We don’t want the West thinking of Christians as puppets of the West, using us for their agenda. We are from the Middle East and belong here.”

What they want, he says, is something like a Marshall Plan for Middle East Christians—“Some money to build schools and other programs.” “The United States,” he continues, “can also ensure that Christian minorities are fairly represented in their parliaments. The Copts make up 10 percent of Egypt’s population, and yet there are only 2 or 3 elected Coptic representatives and another few named by the government. The Copts should have at least 40 seats out of the 500-seat parliament. In Iraq, even with only 3 percent of the population the Christians should have 14 members of parliament.” Instead, they have only 2.

It is a fantasy of U.S. omnipotence familiar in the region. It would take U.S. troops, of course, to ensure the safety of U.S.-backed programs; nor could a more robust representation of Christians in weak Arab assemblies—even if the United States had a way of bringing it about—prevent the murder of Christians by mobs or terrorists. Efram’s hazy plan seems the wishful thinking of a minority under fire with nowhere to turn.

Efram attributes the rise in anti-Christian violence to the virulent strain of radical Islam that began with the Muslim Brotherhood and now comes in both Sunni and Shia variants. Arab security services fight Islamist groups when it suits regime interests—and it is dangerous for regimes to be perceived as siding with Christians against the Muslim majority. Thus, every day brings a fresh outrage against Egypt’s Copts, while the Cairo government’s notoriously active, and vicious, security services sit idly by. In Iraq, some Christians even long for the reign of Saddam Hussein and his Christian deputy, Tariq Aziz, who protected them.

That notion of “protection” has a particular history. Since the Arab conquests beginning in the mid-seventh century, Christians and Jews under Muslim rule were recognized as “people of the book.” In theory, they were protected minorities, or dhimmi. But they could not enjoy equality with the Muslim, typically Sunni, majority, and the lot of dhimmis varied with the disposition of the rulers. That Saddam, for instance, “protected” Christians to some degree did not ensure that his sons would have done the same.

And as for the glory days of Middle Eastern coexistence that supposedly preceded the rise of the present extremists, the Ottomans’ slaughter of the Armenians and other Christians belies it. As long as believers are without legal rights guaranteed by governments willing and able to enforce them, the Christian presence in the region will be in peril.

Lee Smith is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

Original Article Here: