Saudi Sheikh Rejects Equality Between Muslims and Infidels, Men and Women

Saudi Sheikh Rejects Equality Between
Muslims and Infidels, Men and Women

‘Abd-al-Rahman bin Nasir al-Barrak is clearly a Misunderstander of Islam.
Surely Honest Ibe Hooper or Boy Reza Aslan would be happy to travel to Saudi Arabia to
straighten him out.
“Saudi Sheikh Rejects Equality Between Muslims and Infidels, Men and Women,”
from Translating Jihad, January 12:

Saudi Sheikh, ‘Abd-al-Rahman bin Nasir al-Barrak explains that there
is no equality in Islam, or at least not in the way the West and the Human
Rights Charter defines it. (See original Arabic here.)

Fatwa title: What is the ruling on the saying uttered by some
people: “Islam is a religion of equality”?
Fatwa no. 38610, 7 Oct 2010
Answer: Praise be to God. Many people have spoken the
phrase, “Islam is a religion of equality.” They should know that this statement
is heinous and false
. Some Muslims may say it out of good intentions,
seeking to praise and glorify Islam. Perhaps they don’t know the real truth
behind this phrase. This phrase is spoken by some whimsical people, who thereby
reach out for purposes that are contrary to the law of
Islam, such as the equality of rights between Muslims and infidels, and between
men and women
. They do this for the infidels, running behind their ways
and their calls. But God hath differentiated between
men and women in terms of rights, duties, and judgments. He hath also
differentiated between Muslims and infidels in terms of judgments and
. The universal, legitimate, and penal Sunnah of God
recognizes the differences–this is common sense. The Qur’an is frank in
rejecting equality among things that are different. The Most High said: “Not
equal are the blind and the seeing, nor the darknesses and the light, nor the
shade and the heat, and not equal are the living and the dead…” [Qur’an
35:19-22]. He also said, “Are those who know equal to those who do not know?
Only they will remember who are people of understanding” [Qur’an 39:9]. […]
The Almighty also said, “The woman is not like the man.” He also said regarding
the inheritance of sons and brothers, “The man receives the fortune of two
women.” […]
There are two issues here which are defined and
called for by the UN, and which it requires every member nation to apply,
specifically targeting Muslims. The first issue is regarding the difference between Muslims and infidels. It is known that
this contradicts the shari’a of Islam, in terms of retribution, inheritance,
marriage, brotherhood, and loyalty. […] The call for equality between Muslims
and infidels has been made in conferences and seminars under the banner of
humanitarianism and the like. Branching out from this is the call for coexistence, religious dialogue, and world
peace, by which they deceive the Muslims into giving
up the law of jihad in the path of God, and God’s requirement of disloyalty to
the unbelievers.

The second issue: the call for equality between men and women. The UN issued
this in a document entitled, “Preventing Discrimination Against Women,”
God hath differentiated between men and women in
the shari’a
of Islam, required by their natures and legacy. [He
hath differentiated] among them in inheritance and testimony, in the cordiality
of a man toward a woman, in rights in marriage, in clothing, in comings and
goings, in travel, in mandate, and in responsibilities.

Posted by Robert on January 12,


Sheriff Dupnik Must Resign

Sheriff Dupnik Must Resign

By E.W. Jackson


Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, an elected leader entrusted with preserving the
rights of the innocent regardless of party affiliation, has made it clear he is
unable to carry out his duties in an unbiased manner.  Nor is this the first
time he has shown himself unable to set politics aside in the performance of his
duty.  When Arizona passed the bill dealing with illegal immigration, he refused
to enforce the law.
Now he has claimed that the vitriol of political discourse from
conservatives on radio and television and from the Tea Party led to nineteen
people being shot and six of them murdered.  He called his own home state of
Arizona a “Mecca of bigotry and hatred.”  Other Democrats are echoing the
slander, claiming that the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,
and all conservatives are responsible for the deaths of our fellow Americans in
Dupnik should apologize and resign for his incendiary and biased comments.
Given the spotlight, he could not bring himself to behave like a professional
law enforcement officer and stick with the facts.  He used his fifteen minutes
of fame to lash out at political opponents by calling them bigots, racists, and
inciters of violence, lumping in the entire state of Arizona.  He failed to
acknowledge that the only violence at a Tea Party event was perpetrated by
Democrat Teamster thugs against a black Tea Party activist.  As a black
American, I think those who throw around the labels of “bigot,” “racist,” and
“hater” are guilty of the very thing of which they accuse others, and they do
our country a great disservice.
Dupnik and those on the left have used this as an opportunity to smear
law-abiding citizens across the country while overlooking the calling cards of a
disturbed man.  It is clear that Jared Loughner, in his demented condition,
rejected God and all moral absolutes.  There was the discovery of his backyard
shrine — containing a skull with burnt oranges — and reports that his favorite
books included The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.  This
is all anti-Christian behavior.  Should we blame liberals and the ACLU for
creating an atmosphere of hostility to Christianity, Judeo-Christian, values and
the God of the Bible?
If there is a lesson to be learned from this mass murder, it is that we
must stop romanticizing and minimizing the risks of mental illness.  We need to
get help for people who are a danger to themselves and others, not shut down
vigorous political discourse in our country.  Liberals can make the process of
debate much less bitter by sticking to the issues rather than calling people
names.  A good start would be for Democrats to ask Sheriff Dupnik to resign and
go home to take a long look in the mirror.  Then maybe his Democrat colleagues
will do the same.
My prayers go out to the families and friends of Federal Judge John Roll,
Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and all those involved in the senseless
shooting at her event.  There is no place in our society for violent attacks of
any kind, especially against those who selflessly choose to serve in public
office.  Our nation prides itself on civility.  May God bring strength to them
and their families, and to our entire nation.
God bless the heroic Americans who intervened in this tragic event.  No one
stopped to ask, “Are you conservative, liberal, heterosexual, homosexual, black,
or white?”  Americans stepped in and helped each other.  That is who we are.
The actions of one deranged individual should not be exploited to advance the
liberals’ political obsession with silencing their opponents.
We should view the aftermath of this horrific event as another
demonstration of the greatness of our country.  Real Americans do not ask how a
crisis can be used for political gain.  We act in unity and common concern for
each other without regard to race, gender, or politics.  We respond to crisis by
rising to the occasion, not lowering ourselves to using innocent victims as
pawns in a political game.  The attack on conservatives and the Tea Party, or
the attempt to associate this unbalanced individual with them, is irresponsible
and beneath contempt.
The double standard of the left is despicable and intolerable.  While the
entertainment industry makes billions selling violent movies, lyrics, and video
games, liberals consistently argue that these expressions are not to blame for
any crimes or self-destructive behavior.  “Leave these ‘artists’ alone,” they
cry.  However, because they think they can further their political agenda, they
enthusiastically claim that an act by one deranged individual was caused by the
“tone” of conservative rhetoric heard in the media.  No reasonable person would
conclude that free speech should be illegal because some deranged person might
be incited to violence.
E.W. Jackson is
President of STAND
Staying True to America’s National Destiny — a national organization dedicated
to restoring America’s Judeo-Christian history and values and bringing people
together across racial and cultural lines as one nation under

Page Printed from:
January 14, 2011 – 12:49:21 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Tucson Overreaction: Putting Wimpiness In The Crosshairs

Tucson Overreaction: Putting Wimpiness In The

January 14th, 2011

Danny Tyree,

What a party that must have been! I’m speaking of the time that Lee Harvey
Oswald, John Wilkes Booth and James Earl Ray hopped into their Hot Tub Time
Machine and journeyed to 2011 to listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and get
brainwashed into entering the assassination game.
That scenario is not so far-fetched for those who are rushing to declare the
recent Tucson shooting rampage the fault of (take your pick) the Tea Party,
conservative talk radio, FOX News, or negative campaign ads. Suddenly “civility”
groupies are bemoaning “vitriolic rhetoric,” “hate,” “anger,” “bitterness,”
“rancor,” “extreme ideologies” and “verbal savagery.”
I agree that politicians, commentators and voters should be ashamed of
rumor-mongering, deliberate distortions of the truth, and knee-jerk auto-pilot
opposition to everything the other party proposes – but beyond that, we do a
disservice to our forefathers if we insist on playing the child-pacifying game
“Tiptoe, Tiptoe, Quiet As A Mouse” around so-called hot button issues.
Is political discourse in 2011 something unique in history? Returning Vietnam
War veterans were taunted as “baby killers.” An infamous 1964 campaign
commercial strongly implied that challenger Barry Goldwater would plunge us into
nuclear war. The Copperheads thought Abe Lincoln a despicable tyrant. One of
Thomas Jefferson’s supporters branded John Adams “a hideously hermaphroditic
Since 1776 this republic has….

Loughner history with Law Enforcement /Mental Health system is becoming muddled

The Cholla Jumps

by James Kelley

Loughner history with Law Enforcement/Mental Health system is becoming muddled

with 24 comments

Since my last post concerning Jared Loughner and his past encounters with law enforcement, it appears  that many people want and demand that my source for the information I posted be disclosed.

First and foremost, I struggled with ever writing the post I wrote. I had to source the puzzle pieces and vet the information with people who assured me they had first hand information regarding Jared Loughner. I wanted documentation. Unfortunately the mere possesion of the documentation would be a violation of HIPPA laws and the track back would be detrimental to the livelyhoods and lives of the people involved.

Anyone in Law Enforcement or Mental Health in Pima County that ever had contact with Mr. Loughner is now in bunker mode. Everyone is afraid of lawsuits down the road. They are evaluating their behavior and checking to make sure they followed all rules governing the care of Jared Loughner.

Lawfully some of the people that had knowledge of Mr Loughner could never come forward without subpoena by a lawful authority. Others are just too afraid.

It is my sincere hope that transparency in the investigation will prevail. We are dealing with very big issues that will affect the prosecution and defense of Loughner.

That is the only thing that should be of concern to law enforcement at the moment.

Obama, Democrats Want the Constitution Out of Congress

Obama, Democrats Want the Constitution Out of

January 14th, 2011

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson

Opening the 112th Congress by having a succession of
representatives read the Constitution aloud on the floor of the House was a
worthwhile exercise, despite heated criticism to the contrary.
If nothing else, it showed how little respect many members of Congress have
for the supreme law of our republic. Fewer than half the members even bothered
to be present during the reading.
Some members groused about what a waste of time it was, sniffing that it was
cheap grandstanding. Perhaps it was. We won’t know until we’ve had time to see
whether Republicans actually uphold the Constitution with their votes.
Nonetheless, the most bizarre criticism was that of Rep. Jerrold Nadler,
D-NY, who denounced the reading of the Constitution as “propaganda.”
The most comical (tragi-comical?) protest came from Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA),
who tried to delay the reading on the grounds that Congress hadn’t had 72 hours to review the
document in question
. Seriously. This was hypocritical,
since Democrats routinely ignored the 72-hour provision during the last two
years (e.g., the non-stimulus and Obamacare). It was also ludicrous, since one
would have assumed that all members of Congress are familiar with the
Constitution, since they have solemnly sworn to uphold it.
The resistance by Nadler and Inslee to reading the Constitution was not an
aberration, but indicative of the deeply entrenched disdain that many
progressives have for it, even as they publicly proclaim their admiration.
President Obama has long