Pederson speaks at CAIR fundraiser

Pederson speaks at CAIR fundraiser
DEBRA MORTON GELBART
Contributing Writer
 
Senate Democratic candidate Jim Pederson was a speaker at a recent annual fundraiser for the Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-AZ), an organization whose anti-Israel views are well known. He was the only candidate for public office from either the Republican or Democratic parties who attended the Sept. 9 event.

Pederson told Jewish News that he didn’t realize it was a fundraiser until his staff visited the CAIR-AZ Web site on Oct. 2, where photos and a description of the event are posted.

“We thought this was to be a candidates’ forum,” Pederson said. “I was under the impression that several candidates would be there, including Sen. (Jon) Kyl,” the Republican incumbent whose seat Pederson is seeking.

The invitation that Pederson received in June read in part: “In the eyes of Arizona you are a solid foundation in the Valley of the Sun and your participation and support will help CAIR-AZ prosper for many generations to come. With the commitment and cooperation of Arizona’s community we hope to continue our outreach and development to ensure a better home for our families and loved ones.”

Apparently, however, telephone conversations after the invitation was received created the impression for Pederson’s staff that the event was to be a candidates’ forum.

“There was a miscommunication between us and the Pederson campaign,” said Nure Elatari, communications director for CAIR-AZ. “On the day of the event, (a campaign representative) asked if Pederson could (address the attendees) and say a few words. But he did not stay for the fundraising part of the evening.”

Elatari said that Kyl and U.S. Sen. John McCain were invited to attend the event, as were Gov. Janet Napolitano, Rep. J.D. Hayworth of U.S. District 5 and Hayworth’s challenger, Harry Mitchell. She said all declined to attend.

In his remarks at the beginning of the CAIR event, Pederson said he supports hate-crimes legislation to protect minorities from being targeted because of race or religion. He also said there are significant differences between him and Kyl on issues critical to Muslims.

“Civil liberties and civil rights shouldn’t be sacrificed at the altar of the War on Terror,” Pederson said. “I believe this country is strong enough to beat this challenge and preserve our long tradition of privacy rights.”

He also said, “We must work harder to find opportunities to bring reasonable, like-minded leaders together in the Middle East to chart a better course.”

Pederson told Jewish News on Oct. 3, “We thought we were outreaching to moderates in the Muslim community through that event. I thought CAIR was a group of moderate Muslim business people.”

CAIR-AZ’s agenda concerns many in the Jewish community. “CAIR-Arizona is one of those organizations I have a hard time capsulizing,” said Bill Straus, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in Arizona. “They very often say the right things, but then there’s nothing more than the original words to back up the alleged good intentions.”

“Certainly if I had known CAIR is not considered a moderate organization I would not have attended the event,” Pederson said. “My position on the situation in the Middle East is clear: U.S. support for Israel has to be unequivocal. There can never be any doubt about our commitment to Israel.”

 

“A Party in the Honor of Pederson”

Arizona Islamist Media- (Issue No. 4.0)– Arab Voice Reports on Arab-Muslim Commmunity Fundraiser for Senate Candidate

October 14, 2006

Arab Voice staff

The Arab Voice (Arizona)

[This piece appeared in Arabic in the October 2006 issue of the Arab Voice on page 1]-translation provided by AIFD. AIFD Commentary provided below translated article.

“A Party in the Honor of Pederson”

by the Arab Voice

Mr. Safai Arkawi held a grand dinner party in honor of (Senate Candidate) Jim Pederson. The main reason behind this dinner party was to support and collect money for the election campaign of Pederson.

Many leaders and community members of the Arabic community were invited to the Arkawi home including representatives from — the multicultural business community, the press, al-Mehdi organization, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), the Arizona Islamic Political Action Committee, the Palestine committee, and a number of Arabs who belong to the Democratic party.

Mr. Safai started the dinner party giving a summary about the Arabic community in Arizona and the Democratic Party. He, then, presented Mrs. Janice (sic), the Democratic Party Coordinator in Arizona and who was a former member of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). She is the one who nominated the democratic candidate for the senate from Arizona to run against Jon Kyl who is running for another term.

And we should mention that Kyl is a Republican candidate known to be a big supporter of Israel and the Zionist lobby in Congress. Several meetings had occurred in the past three years between him and the Arabic community where they discussed several issues of interest to the Arabic community on the local and international level. The community tried to build a bridge with Kyl, but it was collapsed lately under the different positions
he took, during the war on Lebanon and Palestine.

Pederson was introduced at the dinner party by Mrs. Janice (sic) and he then discussed how his political philosophy and his background in the business field are going to help him serve the state of Arizona.

After that he was asked several questions-beginning with a question from the Arab Voice asking him to clarify his agenda about health care, immigration, education— and what his opinion was concerning Napolitano’s recent refusal to attend a rally supporting a ceasefire in Lebanon? And what would he have done if he got the same invitation?

Of course, as a typical politician, he avoided answering such a question and gave a vague answer, and blamed it on the Napolitano administration all the while assuring her good will.

Then he was asked another question about what is currently preventing Arabs and Muslims from sending donations to charities and the closing of some of the organizations that are doing such things; and what he would do if he was elected.

Mr. Omar Shahin, the representative for the Muslim Political Action Committee, in the name of his Committee, presented Pederson with its support. This committee is fairly new and was just started only just a few month ago and was started to impact the local elections and in order to meet with Democratic candidates. We should mention that this this committee presented support to candidates who are Democratic up until this time. Other Arabic organizations are also expected to enlighten and educate their representatives about the agenda of the candidates who are running for the local elections and about the proposed changes of Arizona’s constitution (referenda).

——————————————————————-

AIFD COMMENTARY- This ‘news’ report of this political fundraiser (also including photos of attendees with the candidate) by a nameless reporter appears on the front page of the local Arab Voice published by Breek Publishing. The central relevance of this to AIFD’s anti-Islamist, non-partisan mission is that it clearly illustrates the pervasiveness and growing momentum of political Islam (Islamism) in the local Muslim community— regardless of which candidate or party to which the Islamists pander.

A perception or an attempt to create one of a ‘Muslim’ voting bloc is the ultimate ideological weapon of the Islamist minority who wield their influence within the demagogy of political Islam. An empowered Islamist lobby propagates all the core maladies of political Islam which AIFD seeks to counter. The profound ideological danger of this toxic mixture of religion and politics in the Muslim community is the same regardless of party affiliations.

The report is on the front page of this month’s local Arab Voice distributed freely and unopposed to those in the Arabic and Muslim local community. Note this paper sits in or near the prayer areas of almost every local mosque, and is also ubiquitous in ethnic stores, and Islamic organizations locally. It remains astonishing that such a toxically partisan and controversial reporting disseminated under the guise of journalism is distributed without competition or balance in the community or any suggestion that the Arabic or Muslim community may not be as politically monolithic as this paper tries to imply. Most reports put out by this publisher, make a subtle but potent collectivist political assumption, as Islamists are want to do. Not only do they present political islam as the norm but their particular version of it as the only one- both are dangerous.

They conveniently ignore the fact that the paper and the organizations still represent only a minority of local Arabs and Muslims.

The core supposition of Islamists is that individuals who share a spiritual religion (of God and not of this world) would naturally share a political ideology (of this world) for a specific candidate or policy.

Additionally, it should be noted that the newly formed Arizona Muslim Political Action Committee noted in this Arabic report and announced in this publishers previous Muslim Voice was fully represented at this fundraiser by none other than a local imam and also ubiquitous Muslim religious leader- Imam Omar Shahin.

Imam Shahin also is known in the local religious community to be the head of the Valley’s Imam Council, the Islamic teacher at a local Islamic parochial school, and also an imam of a local mosque. Yet, this same individual is reported here in Arabic to be also representing a Muslim PAC. One would be hard pressed to find non-Muslim examples of a single clergy who while having multiple congregations also speaks on behalf of religious PACs. Is there anything which typifies the toxic mixture and penetration of religion and politics more? By the way this imam also emceed the recent CAIR-AZ fundraiser.

This report’s association of a number of religious and civil rights organizations in the Arabic and Muslim community with a political candidate fundraiser should cause concern about the establishment of Islamism in local politics and its endemic mixture of islamism and politics. Note the defining issue (Middle East policy) which this report remarks on regarding this candidate’s opponent. Thus, this lobby hijacks an entire religious community for its own focused policy interests and any other policy discussions are simply pandering.

Certainly, the mosaic of American politics has a number of cultural and faith lobbies. But the local Islamists are decidedly different. The singular nature of this foreign language publication and the political solidarity and unanimity of local Muslim imams and their pulpits are all bolstered by the demagogy of this Arabic publication and demonstrative of the dangers of Islamism. This is much more than a simple faith or cultural lobby. Even if by some miracle ideological political diversity were to work its way into local Islamist circles and we were to see the development of bi-partisan islamists locally, the end game for Islamism remains political penetration of religiously motivated laws and policy. Until this end-game is abandoned any empowerment of Islamists risks legitimizing this cause.

Translations of reports like this distributed to the local Arabic community are a valuable window into the Islamist mindset. Until more Americans, Muslim and non-Muslim, understand the central role of Islamism or political Islam and its subtle but central threat in the global conflict we are in, we will continue to enable, legitimize, and empower an ideology which runs against one of the central ideas of being American- that our elected representatives separate between religion and legislation.

——————————————————————————–

This report and translation is provided as a service to our community. We pray that this Islamism (political Islam) does not represent the majority of Muslims and Arabs in the community. See “Why AIFD provides the ‘Arizona Islamist Media Reports” for our commentary which clearly explains our intentions in providing these reports.

To unsubscribe, send a message to web_list-request@aifdemocracy.org with only “unsubscribe” in the body.

Unthinkable, not inevitable

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Unthinkable, not inevitable




Last week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert convened a special meeting of security chiefs to discuss Israeli strategy toward the Iranian threat, amid concerns that Western responses to it are inadequate. These concerns have grown with the expectation that any sanctions imposed on North Korea after it claimed to have exploded a nuclear weapon will amount to little more than a slap on the wrist.

The prime minister’s meeting reportedly concluded that Israel would continue to support the diplomatic approach toward the Iranian challenge, as led by the United States and Europe. In other words, Israel will continue to attempt to walk the fine line between encouraging the international community to take the lead on this global threat, and insisting that failure is not an option.

It is natural that the current situation would be compared to that which Israel faced in 1981, when it became clear that the world was doing nothing about Iraq’s nuclear bid. Then, Menachem Begin ordered the strike on the Osirak reactor, which did set Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program back about a decade. In 1991, the US discovered and destroyed Saddam’s rebuilt program when it evicted the Iraqi army from Kuwait. When Saddam was removed in 2003, it seems he was further from developing a bomb than he had been decades earlier.

Iran, presumably, has learned from Saddam’s experience and has hidden, hardened, dispersed and defended its nuclear program to a degree that it would stretch Israel’s military capabilities to unilaterally incapacitate it. But Iran, unlike Iraq seemed in 1981, is not just Israel’s problem.

By stepping back, Israel is trying to accentuate the global nature of the Iranian challenge, but Israel can and should be doing more to explain this. As a small country that the Iranian leadership openly says should be destroyed, Israel obviously has the most direct interest in preventing Iran from ever achieving such a capability. But the consequences for other nations of an Iranian nuke seem less obvious and need to be constantly reiterated.

Increasingly, as the world’s feckless response adds to the impression that Iran will succeed in its nuclear quest, claims begin to mount that this is something that the world can live with. Not all Iranian leaders are as crazy as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and he may not control the weapons, we are assured. Besides, why would Iran risk the nuclear retaliation that any use of its weapons would assuredly bring?

As comforting as this line of thinking may be to some, it fails to address several critical aspects of the Iranian challenge. First, it ignores the apocalyptic and martyrdom-lionizing ideology of the Iranian leadership, under which the deaths of millions of Iranians could be justified as ushering in the return of the “hidden imam” and the triumph of Islam.

Second, even if the Iranian leadership is more like the Soviet politburo in its latter days than Adolf Hitler with respect to its belief in its own declared ideology, the dangers of an Iranian nuke are not limited to suicidal scenarios.

Even if the mullahs are intent on preserving their lives and their power, and therefore would never openly initiate a nuclear attack, this logic can hardly guarantee that they would not either transfer such a weapon to a terrorist group, or create a supposedly independent group for that purpose.

Iran specializes in proxy warfare. It is currently backing Hizbullah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and assorted terrorist militias in Iraq. Is it really feasible for Israel or the US to automatically retaliate against Iran for a nuclear explosion of unknown origin? Finally, even if Iran neither explodes nor farms out a nuclear bomb, simply possessing one would greatly increase that regime’s ability to foment “militia mayhem” – in Mideast expert David Makovsky’s phrase – throughout the region and beyond.

The mullahs fervently believe that nuclear weapons will not only protect their regime, but allow them to expand their power and the grip of their own militant brand of Islam throughout the world. Israel cannot accept such a genocidal threat, but neither can other free nations accept such a blatant attempt to hijack the world order. Our government, crucially, should not allow the understandable desire to encourage a global response to be misinterpreted as a sign that even Israel is beginning to treat the unthinkable as inevitable.

Dhimmitude for Dummies

Dhimmitude for Dummies
By Victor Sharpe
Front Page Magazine
Ask one hundred people in the
United States what a dhimmi is and perhaps two or three might know. In
Western Europe the number would be slightly higher because of latent memories of battles fought against invading Moslem armies over hundreds of years.

In 732, Charles Martel led his Frankish forces at Tours to victory against an Islamic invasion of
France, which nearly destroyed Christian Europe. Similarly, Islam was ousted from Spain in 1492 after an occupation of the
Iberian Peninsula by the Moslems for hundreds of years. Sadly, the Spanish Christian monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand, and the Portuguese a few years later, also expelled the Jewish community although the Jews had lived in Spain and
Portugal for many centuries and had never posed a threat to either Moslem or Christian sovereignty.

In
Italy, Islamic power was brought to an end when the heavy Turkish galleys were defeated by Venetian galleasses at the great naval battle of Lepanto in 1571. And the Moslem Ottoman power, which at its height again threatened all of Western Europe, was barely turned back at the gates of
Vienna on 11 September 1683 by a coalition of European armies. Incidentally, could there be a connection between 9.11.1683 and 9.11.2001, or is it just coincidence?

These were four major defeats by Europe of Islamic attempts of conquest and subjugation set against a history of victorious Moslem invasions and conquests that had been the hallmark of Islam since its founding in the seventh century.

But what of the peoples and nations that fell under Islamic occupation? For them the story was one of forced conversions to Islam, slavery, death and the Islamic institution of dhimmitude.

This is the word that describes the parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated, non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second class citizens in order to avoid enslavement or death. These peoples and populations were known as dhimmis, and if such a status was not humiliating enough, a special tax or tribute, called the jizya, was imposed upon them and upon all dhimmis.

Dhimmitude is the direct outcome of jihad, which is the military conquest of non-Islamic territory mandated by Allah as a spiritual obligation for every individual Moslem and Moslem nation.

From its beginnings in the seventh century, Islam spread through violent conquest of non-Moslem lands. In the eighth century, a formal set of rules to govern relationships between Moslems and non-Moslems was created based upon Moslem conquests of non-Moslem peoples.
These rules were based upon jihad, which established how the Moslems would treat the conquered non-Moslems in terms of their submission to Islam.

Jihad can be pursued through force or other means such as propaganda, writing, or subversion against the perceived enemy. The so-called enemies are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law or its spread, mission, or sovereignty over them and their land.

Propaganda and subversion are the very means now being employed against the West and Judeo-Christian civilization, and Islamists have shown themselves to be brilliantly adept at manipulating the gullible and uninformed western media in pursuit of their aims of world domination.

As I have written in previous articles, non-Islamic lands are considered the dar al-harb, the “house of war,” until they submit to Islamic rule and enter the dar al-Islam.
The ‘infidel’ falls into three categories: those who resist Islam with force, those living in a country that has a temporary truce with Islam, and those who have surrendered to Islam by exchanging land for peace.

Since the Oslo Accords, successive Israeli governments have been guilty of the now thoroughly discredited notion of “land for peace” in which
Israel gives away land but never receives peace. Even the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan are cold at best and the lands given away to
Lebanon and the Arab Palestinians has been a calamitous error.
The belief that Moslem Arab powers respond to overtures of peace by ending their aggression is but a mirage in the desert. This is proven time and again to be a delusion and is, in fact, a classic example of the mindset and behavior of the dhimmi.

A non-Moslem community forced to accept dhimmitude is condemned to live in a system that will only protect it from jihad if it is subservient to the Moslem master. In return, it is guaranteed limited rights under a system of discriminations that it must accept, or face forced conversion, slavery, or death.

In the early years of the Islamic conquests, the “tribute” or jizya was paid as a yearly poll tax, which symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Jews and Christians were awarded a different status than other faiths. They were considered to be under protection as “people of the book.” People of non-monotheistic faiths, pagans, or atheists were simply to be exterminated.

According to Mitchell G. Bard, who has written extensively on the subject and produced the excellent rebuttal to Arab and pro-Arab propaganda in his book, Myths and Facts, “… dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman (though a Moslem man could take a non-­Moslem as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices as that might offend the Moslems.

“The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Moslems, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Moslem, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself the dhimmi would have to purchase Moslem witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Moslem.

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example,
Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later.”

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Moslem lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice-Consul in
Mosul, wrote in 1909:

“The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.”

The concept of jihad is not something now discarded by Islam as a quaint belief appropriate to the distant past. On the contrary, it is a cardinal belief in the 21st century for Moslems based upon Koranic injunctions. It is believed in by millions of Moslems around the Third world, as much as by Moslems living in America, Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and
Canada. It is a belief, passionately held, that one day the entire world will become Islamic and accept completely the will of Allah.

It is vital, therefore, that the general public in every non-Moslem country be made aware that Moslems consider themselves in a perpetual state of war with their non-Moslem neighbors. If Islamic armies are unable to defeat what they consider the “infidels,” (that’s you and me), then a period of “truce” exists, which has several conditions. These include allowing Islam to be propagated, and if a non-Moslem nation forbids it or rejects mass proselytizing to Islam, then that nation will be considered as subject to holy jihad.

Sheikh Zayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaida’s second in command, recently invited
America to embrace Islam. The invitation is always given, according to some experts, prior to a major assault upon the “infidel nation,” because any rejection is considered by Moslems as an empirical reason to wage war upon the non-Moslem state; in this case the
United States of America.

It is nearly impossible for sophisticated and secularized Western and European elites to understand or accept such medieval concepts, let alone the idea that a religious war is being waged against them. But their dismissal and amused disregard of what is taking place is as calamitous as that exemplified by the myopic politicians in Britain and
America before the Second World War.

The lone voice in the wilderness at that time, Winston Churchill, appealed in vain to the political leaders who had not the ears to hear or the eyes to see the growing fascist menace during the 1930s posed by Germany and
Italy. He called one such British politician an “epileptic corpse,” and reached back through his prodigious memory to find a poem, which characterized the failure of the
Baldwin government in 1935 to re-arm. The apt poem was, The Clattering Train, which could equally be applied to the later appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax.

“Those in charge of the clattering train, the axles creak and the couplings strain.
The pace is hot and the points are near and sleep has deadened the driver’s air.
The signals flash in the night in vain, for death is in charge of the clattering train.”

Western notions of peaceful co-existence between states, human rights and liberal democracy are all alien to the bin-Ladens and Zawahiris of the Islamic world. Hizbullah, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Al Qaida, ad nauseum, all reject Judeo-Christian civilization as being in theological error. For them, the entire human race must embrace Allah’s pre-eminence and the Moslem believer is the divine instrument to bring about the Umma”  (worldwide Moslem community) in whatever way possible, including warfare and terror.

Jihad
has reappeared as a way of wiping out the humiliation the Arab and Moslem world has felt as Western power became ascendant, especially after the defeat of the Ottoman Turkish Empire at the end of the First World War.

With a fabulous and never ending flow of petrodollars pouring into Arab and Moslem coffers, the belief among Moslems is that the time is now right for Islam to reassert itself in dominating the world and bringing it to Allah through all out war, including nuclear war, if necessary.

The corollary to jihad is dhimmitude. This is what appeasement by non-Moslems to Islamist threats and terror leads to. Winston Churchill would have been shocked but not surprised at the craven appeasement displayed by today’s elitists in the European political echelons.

It is in marked contrast to the manner in which their ancestors confronted an earlier existential Islamic threat when they defeated decisively the Moslems at Tours, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Lepanto and
Vienna.

But without a similarly decisive defeat of present day Islamist aggression and Islamo-fascism we may all be faced, sooner than we think, with the choice of forced conversion to Islam or subservience and wretchedness as dhimmis.

Better, therefore, for us all to be aware of the facts and not also be dummies. 

A Lack of Tolerance That Is Justified — Read this very carefully it’s good

A Lack of Tolerance That Is Justified

BY YOUSSEF IBRAHIM
October 13, 2006
URL:
http://www.nysun.com/article/41527

 This week, the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference decried what it called the “shrinking space” for tolerance toward Muslims in Europe.“Muslims have noted with concern that the values of tolerance are eroding and there is now shrinking space for others’ religious, social and cultural values in the West,” the Saudi-based OIC, the world’s largest Islamic association, said a statement sent to Reuters.This lack of tolerance is absolutely as it should be.If anything, there is still far too much tolerance of European Muslim isolationists and their preachers, whom the OIC and its Saudi patrons train, fund, and influence to promote barricaded communities inside cultural ghettos, waging war against the societies that embrace them.For decades, these interconnected webs of mosques, Islamic schools, and imported OIC imams have used the same freedom of speech they deny others to introduce the favored OIC concept of repressed societies to the heart of liberal Europe.Their quest has not been limited to insulating their communities from a sea of democracy. They also have sought to reverse freedoms for Western citizens who want to publish, write, make films, and read. Witness the hounding of the British author Salman Rushdie and his books, the mayhem over the Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, the upheaval over Pope Benedict’s critical comments on Islam, and the far too numerous attempts to ban creative works on Islam.Until recently, Muslims were close to achieving a separate status for Islam, contravening the very essence of the secular state that is Europe’s foundation.But news reports from the Continent suggest that Europe is finally fighting back.In Rome, London, Paris, Madrid, Copenhagen, and Berlin, the talk is no longer of Muslim-Christian dialogue but of the need for Muslim reforms within Europe.In the past few weeks alone, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister de Villepin of France, and several candidates for higher office on the Continent have gone on the offensive in defense of Europe’s way of life.The budding revolt is underpinned by a political realignment. From France to Scandinavia, conservative, anti-immigrant parties are on the rise, forcing the center to shift rightward and the liberal left to edge toward the middle.Laws are coming into existence to arrest, expel, and keep out those who do not respect personal and communal space — which in every case turns out to be Muslim immigrants or Europeans of Muslim origin. Britain and France have been in the lead in enforcing such measures and have already arrested and expelled several who preached violence or supported it.Long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, many of us in the press were watching, reporting, and documenting the steady descent of political Islam into terrorism: Western hostages kidnapped in Beirut; terror attacks against Christians, tourists, and American workers in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; and the imprisonment of American diplomats for 444 days in Iran. We now feel that depriving militant Islam of oxygen is not only overdue but insufficient.A prime target should be the OIC and its Saudi patrons.OIC member nations should be told in the bluntest terms that no more mosques will be built in Europe until Saudi Arabia and other states reciprocate by allowing the construction of churches in the heart of Riyadh, Jeddah, and other cities and the lifting of restrictions on Christians and Jews living and working there.Eight million expatriates live and work in Saudi Arabia, many of them Philippine Catholics, American and British Christians, and Buddhists. They are not only deprived of houses of worship but at risk for punishments, including whipping, if they hold a private service.By contrast, the Saudi royal family has been allowed to fund the building of hundreds of thousands of mosques and schools in Europe, America, Asia, and Australia, where Muslims are free to worship and be indoctrinated in Wahhabism.It is high time for equality.This is what the pope meant by a “real” dialogue between Muslims and Christians — no polite exchanges over tea, but some serious, adult talk about whose tolerance is in question. 

Almost 20 per cent of Indonesian Muslims support the efforts of Jemaah Islamiah, which is believed to be the Southeast Asia wing of international terrorist network al-Qaeda, an independent survey said on Sunday.

Al-Qaeda Calls For Islamic Sunni State Read this post on The Right Truth blog

Air America Radio, a liberal talk and news radio network, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a network official told the AP. — This is what we need a liberalectomy

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers