 "Outside court, about a dozen people held up signs reading 'Islam is against terrorism' and 'Not in the name of Islam.'" -- Reuters, January 8 "About 20 Muslims from nearby Dearborn appeared outside the courthouse to denounce Mr. Abdulmutallab. They carried large American flags and colorful signs that read 'NOT in the name of Islam' and 'Islam is against terrorism.'" -- New York Times, January 8, first version "Dozens of Muslims from nearby Dearborn gathered outside the courthouse carrying large American flags and colorful signs that read 'NOT in the name of Islam' and 'Islam is against terrorism.'" -- New York Times, January 8, second version "About 50 Detroit-area Muslims chanted 'We are Americans' as they marched behind metal barricades outside the courthouse. Many carried U.S. flags or signs with messages such as 'Not in the name of Islam.'" -- Associated Press, January 8 "An estimated 150 people attended a peaceful demonstration, carrying large American flags and signs that read, 'Not in the Name of Islam' and 'Not in Our Name.'" -- Detroit News, January 9 Many people over the last few years have asked why Muslims have demonstrated against Muhammad cartoons, and against the Pope's remarks in Regensberg in 2006, and against a teddy bear in Sudan, but have not demonstrated against jihad violence even as they profess to condemn it.
In response to this, one of the chief talking points of disingenuous Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. has been that Muslims have been speaking out against terrorism, but that the "Islamophobic" media ignore them. In reality, however, the mainstream media is avid to find and highlight moderate Muslims who speak out against terrorism, and as you can see from above, will even inflate the numbers of those who do so if reality is too embarrassing. And it's also interesting to note that Pamela Geller and I had 200 people at the Rally for Rifqa in November, and got virtually no press coverage -- while the media wants to spotlight Muslim moderates, it has little or no interest in giving any coverage to those oppressed by Islamic supremacism. In any case, are these demonstrators sincerely going to challenge the mainstream understanding of the Islamic texts and teachings that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism? We shall see. But I won't be holding my breath. With thanks to JihadWatch 
 By Pamela Geller "The Europe as you know it from visiting, from your parents or friends is on the verge of collapsing," Geert Wilders said in a speech in the United States last year. The leader of the Netherlands' populist Party for Freedom added: "We are now witnessing profound changes that will forever alter Europe's destiny and might send the Continent in what Ronald Reagan called 'a thousand years of darkness.' " And not just Europe, but America as well. Been to Europe lately? Thought it was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet. The passage of the Lisbon Treaty, hailed by President Obama, nailed the coffin shut on national sovereignty in Europe. The people of Europe fought it, but were overwhelmed by their political elites and the lack of American leadership in this age of our rather Marxist, collectivist U.S. president. Come Jan. 1, 2010, a disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Europe/Mediterranean) goes into effect with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media. Why should Americans care about this? Americans have to care because this global gobbledygook is coming to our shores, thanks to our globalist president. The European human rights group called Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE) has been working tirelessly to expose the mass Muslim immigration plan of the Euro-Med Partnership. A statement on the SIOE Web site criticizes the secrecy of the process: "It was shocking to hear about the plans and at the same time knowing that Danish politicians and a [cowardly] Danish press - who is otherwise proud to be critical - has told nothing to the Danish people about this project which begins in January. This also showed clearly at the conference. Only very few politicians showed up and no media. Those politicians who showed up had obviously never heard about the Euro-Mediterranean project. The goal of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is to create a new Greater European Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea. The goal is to establish a "comprehensive political partnership," including a "free trade area and economic integration"; "considerably more money for the partners" (that is, more European money flowing into North Africa); and "cultural partnership" - that is, importation of Islamic culture into post-Christian Europe. According to the SIOE, in the Euro-Med plan "Europe is to be islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. Fifty million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU." Skeptical? It's already happening. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported in October 2008 on "a controversial taxpayer-funded 'job centre' " that opened in Mali at that time as "just the first step towards promoting 'free movement of people in Africa and the EU.' Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will 'need' 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the 'demographic decline' due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe." To offset this decline, a "blue card" system is to be created that will allow card holders to travel freely within the European Union and have full rights to work - as well as the full right to collect welfare benefits. A Muslim population from Africa moving freely into Europe threatens America. On Christmas Day, a Nigerian Muslim flew from Amsterdam to Detroit and tried to explode a bomb on the plane - after he was allowed to board the plane without a passport.
The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership will make jihad attacks like this one all the easier. And once in Europe, Muslims have already begun demanding special privileges and accommodations. IslamOnline reported on Dec. 21 that "Muslims activists from 26 European countries have come together to launch the first rights council to enlighten European Muslims about their rights, monitor rising Islamophobia and defend Muslim rights in European courts of law." Ali Abu Shwaima, a Muslim leader in Italy, explained: "We think European human rights groups are not doing enough to defend the rights of Muslims. Therefore we thought that we need this new council, especially that all laws and constitutions in Europe respect freedom of religion and oppose all forms of discrimination and racism." "Islamophobia," "discrimination" and "racism" are all terms Muslims in Europe and America use to confuse people into thinking that the perpetrators of Islamic terrorism are the real victims. And it is working: Mr. Wilders is going on trial in the Netherlands, instead of all the Islamic hate sponsors he is fighting against. It has to be this way, to increase harmony among the Muslim and non-Muslim member states of the Euro-Med Partnership. This internationalism is already destroying what has made Europe free and great. And now Mr. Obama seems to want to do the same to America. Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs Web site. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book "The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America" (Simon and Schuster, July 2010). Washington Times H/T: Atlas
 Unsurprisingly, the new European Muslim Human Rights group announced on the IslamOnline site, is the brainchild of the FIOE (Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe), the umbrella group for the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. The FIOE say they invited many experts in law and Muslim activists, but only 26 showed up. European media didn't pay much attention either.
From the FIOE site:
Muslims of Europe Organize the Inauguration Conference of the European Authority for the Defense of Muslim Rights in Brussels
On the initiative of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe the Inauguration Conference for the European Authority for the Defense of Muslims Rights was held in Brussels on December 19th 2009.
Many experts in law and many Muslim activists were invited to join this event from all European regions.
This initiative comes in response to the rising wave of Islamophobia, which has become a challenge to the Islamic presence in Europe and a dangerous threat to the rights of Muslims in the region. This step was expedited by the murder of Dr.Marwa El Sherbiny, on the grounds of her being a Muslim, which was made clear by the villain in court, and the recent referendum results in Switzerland. What is despicable in both cases is that the European standpoint did not blanch at wasting a human life or subjecting a civil right to the voting process, which indicates a dangerous decline in the level of Muslim rights in Europe and beyond.
In a telephone conversation with the Federation of Islamic Organizations, Dr.Fouad Elawy the Head of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in France mentioned that the aim of this initiative is to take the responsibility of defending the rights of Muslims from the level of public organizations to the level of a specialized organization run by lawyers capable of protecting these rights, and to warn European communities of the danger of ignoring the rights of minorities.
It is expected that the conference will attract European and international media presence, due to the importance of the topic, and its relation to the Islamic status in Europe, and the interest taken by Europe and the world in the hardships facing the Muslims of Europe with regards to their rights.
For other FIOE initiatives see:
* Muslims to sign 'historic code of conduct'
* Federation of Islamic Organisation in Europe - Assembly of Imams With thanks to Islam in Europe
 By Grace Latent Islamophobia in Europe may not be the only reason Muslims are flocking to Britain. Muslim convert Francesca Walker lives in a 2.6 million mansion and is neighbour to Elle Macpherson, David Cameron and Hugh Grant, courtesy of the British taxpayer. There’s no place like home. "There are a lot of people who defraud the system and abuse it – it’s not difficult to take advantage of it." Francesca Walker. Britain’s tolerance to Islam results in more than 1m Muslims setting up home here. From The Telegraph U.K. More than a million Muslims have migrated to Britain because it is more sympathetic towards Islam than other European countries, a study has found. Latent Islamophobia in Europe means that many of those who move to the continent eventually end up in Britain, because it is seen as more tolerant. There are now some 1.1million Muslim immigrants in the UK, according to the report by IPPR, the Blairite think tank. It means around 46 per cent of Britain’s 2.4million-strong Muslim population were not born in this country. Migration: There are now 1.1m Muslim immigrants in the UK, which means about 46 per cent of Britain’s Islamic population were not born in this country. Meanwhile another study has found that Muslims in this country are the most patriotic in Europe: with more than three-quarters identifying themselves as British. The report, funded by billionaire George Soros, found that just 49 per cent of French Muslims and 23 per cent of Germans identified with their home country. However, the IPPR report concludes that the influx of different religions is having a massive affect on faith in Britain. Some 4.5million of the UK’s foreign-born population claim to have a religious affiliation. Of these, around a quarter are Muslim while more than half are Christian – with Polish Catholics and African Pentecostals among the fastest-growing groups. While traditional churchgoing is on the decline in the UK over the past decade, the latest immigrants mean Christianity is becoming more charismatic and fundamentalist. The figures are based on interviews carried out for the annual Labour Force Survey by the Office for National Statistics. The IPPR report found that over the past decade, there has been an increase of 275,000 in the number of British residents born in Pakistan or Bangladesh – twice the population of Oxford. The number of Somali-born residents has also shot up, from fewer than 40,000 in 1999 to 106,700 this year. The report says that many of the new immigrants are migrating here after first settling in other European countries, where they are subject to ‘latent homophobia’. ‘Migration has caused an increase in the proportions of the population affiliated to non-Christian faiths,’ the report concludes. Catholicism has also seen a resurgence, thanks to the arrival of almost 600,000 from Poland, Lithuania and Slovakia; while there has also been a rise in evangelical churches which tend to have less liberal views on issues like homosexuality. ‘Perhaps the most significant change has been the growth of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity within migrant populations, particularly those from Africa and Latin America,’ the report found. ‘In Lewisham, there are 65 Pentecostal churches serving the Nigerian community, and others serving the Congolese, Ghanaian and Ivorian communities.’ Professor Mike Kenny of IPPR said: ‘The research shows that recent waves of inward migration have given a boost to some of the UK’s established faith communities at a time when Britain’s society and culture are generally more secular, and smaller numbers of the indigenous population are regularly attending churches. ‘Recent migration trends are altering the faith map of the UK. Their biggest impact is being felt in some of our largest cities: London above all, where a rich mosaic of different faith communities has come into being.’ Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘The rapid rise in the Muslim population is just one way in which mass immigration promoted, even encouraged, by this Government has affected the whole nature of society.’ George Soros’s report found that, while British Muslims are the most patriotic in Europe, more than a quarter in some parts of the country still do not feel British. Levels of patriotism are higher among second-generation Muslims. In Leicester, 94 per cent of UK-born Muslims felt British, compared to 72 per cent of those born abroad. Patriotic pride The percentage of Muslims in each European city who identify with their country of residence: Leicester – 82.4% London - 72.0 % Amsterdam – 59.0 % Marseilles – 58.0% Antwerp – 55.1% Paris - 41.0% Stockholm - 41.0% Copenhagen – 39.6% Berlin – 25.0% Hamburg - 22.0% With thanks to Vlad Tepes
 Nearly three quarters of Germans fear the spread of Islam, according to a survey released on Friday.
A poll by Infratest dimap for public broadcaster ARD showed a third [36%] of those asked expressed great concern that Islam was growing too quickly in Germany.
Thirty-nine percent were still worried about Islam’s impact on society, but to a lesser degree. Only 22 percent said they had no problem with the religion.
A separate survey for daily Berliner Morgenpost and broadcaster RBB showed, however, that a majority in the German capital did not support banning the construction of mosques with minarets as Switzerland did following a recent referendum on the issue.
(more)
Sources: The Local (English), Welt (German) With thanks to Islam in Europe
 Blood will flow. One of the 'facts' about which we are assured by those wise rulers who seek to censor our freedom of speech about the darkest aspects of Islam as it is actually practised in much of the world is this: if we should so much as point out that, for example: Islamist Muslims really are taught to despise the rest of humanity; or to indicate that Koran, Sira, and Hadith contain numerous examples of hostile and downright lethal injunctions to Muslims to wage undending warfare on the rest of Mankind with the intent to subjugate us; or that the present violent acts of Islamist Muslims are motivated by those parts of Islam about which we are not to discuss, then brutal, bloody, and unreasoning vengeance will generally break out as mobs of unbelievers; inflamed by our mentioning these truths, seek to punish any and all Muslims, irrespective of their beliefs, morality, motives or general law-abiding behaviur. Geert Wilders was excluded from Britain in case his discussion of Islamism in the Netherlands should lead to outbreaks of Islamophobic vigilantism in the UK. Mark Steyn was taken to the kangaroo court of the Ontario Human Rights Commission for articles critical of some aspects of Islam and was witch-hunted and found guilt y in advance, whilst being the first ever defendant not to be formally condemned by that insane body and was variously defended by others and maligned by its officials thus: "There was no hearing, no evidence presented and no opportunity to offer a defence — just a pronouncement of wrongdoing." The OHRC defended its right to comment by stating, "Like racial profiling and other types of discrimination, ascribing the behaviour of individuals to a group damages everyone in that group. We have always spoken out on such issues. Maclean’s and its writers are free to express their opinions. The OHRC is mandated to express what it sees as unfair and harmful comment or conduct that may lead to discrimination." Today's demonstration by the English branch of Stop The Islamification of Europe has attracted similar 'fears' of knuckle-dragging racists as 'anti-fascist' UAF and Islamists misrepresent its members as being. Last time, the anti-Islamification protest was called off by the organizers for fear of harm to the police, but the violence went on anyway, which only left one source of rioting and bigotry. Now, despite all those dire warnings of massive and vicious persecution of innocent Muslims by individuals inflamed by the very mention of Islam's scriptural cruelties and historical and present oppressiveness, what hasn't happend is widescale or even small-scale mosque burnings; hangings; or beatings of Muslims in the West (except perhaps by their enraged male relatives) as a result of this talk. Nor as a result of the gloating pronouncements of Islamists about our foreign policy. Nor for harrassment against Western troops. Nor for calling for the murders of Britain's colourful artistic temperament community. Nor for attempted terrorism. Nor for successful terrorism. There have been some beatings, it seems; but we may never know what motivated that attack, but not the holocaust we're always promised every time someone quotes the murky passages of the Koran or from Islamists' own words and deeds or publish pictures or writing about Islam and Muslims. Hey guys, are we Islamophobic hate-mongers not trying hard enough or what? You know what? This is all so insulting. Insulting to the Muslims who find scriptural reasons to question the violent and brutal aspects of Islam and oppose its practices. Insulting to the Muslims who ignore the dark stuff and peacefully get on with their lives regardless of it. Insulting to the rest of us who are quite capable of discriminating between the killer crazies and the Muslims who work in our hospitals and colleges and supermarkets and schools and restaurants and shops and who just want to take whatever comfort and salvation they can from their faith. The 'Don't mention the Jihad' argument has more holes in it than a, well, you know. And if talking about it is bad enough, what bloodthirsty massacres will follow the Swiss'vote refusing to allow any more minarets to be built in their country. Let's just wait here for the claret to rain down over the Alps at the hands of us killer infidels, yeah? Just sitting here. Waiting. Any time now. It's going to be scary, you betcha.
 Partying like it's 1984. Of course, many of these terms are euphemisms employed in the first place to dodge the heart of the matter, Islamic jihad. But euphemisms themselves eventually begin to take on too much of the connotation of the words they replaced, and it's soon time to roll out a fresh batch of non-offensive terminology. Eventually, this list will also require revision and supplementation... at taxpayer expense. But maybe, just maybe, it will keep some Misunderstander of Islam from becoming "radicalized." No, scratch that. Apparently you can't say "radicalize" now, either. "Don't call extremists 'extremists'," by Graeme Wilson for The Sun, December 4: MINISTERS have been BANNED from using words like Islamist and fundamentalist - in case they offend Muslims. An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives. They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism. As opposed to violent moderation? Or non-violent extremism? Is the latter ok, then? Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an "explicit link" between Muslims and terror. Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead.
Radicalization must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it "splits the community". Islamophobia is also out as it is received as "a slur that singles out Muslims". It's hard to make heads or tails of that one; the use of passive voice doesn't help. The guide, produced by the secretive Research, Information and Communications Unit in the Home Office, tell ministers to "avoid implying that specific communities are to blame" for terrorism. It says more than 2,000 people are engaged in terror plots. The guidance was branded "daft" last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.
Paul Richards said: "Unless you can describe what you're up against, you're never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can't do that if they have one hand tied behind their back." The Home Office said: "This is about using appropriate language to have counter-terrorism impact. It would be foolish to do anything else." The secret weapon, the fruits of the Manhattan Project of the 21st century: "appropriate language." With thanks to JihadWatch
 After all, no one's actually tried to stop them yet. As elementary psychology observes, behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. "Iran authorizes 10 new nuke plants, state media say," from CNN, November 29: (CNN) -- Iran's Cabinet has authorized the construction of another 10 uranium enrichment plants, its state news agency announced Sunday, further defying international calls to halt its production of nuclear fuel. The Iranian Cabinet approved existing plans for five more facilities similar to its current plant at Natanz and ordered planning for five more to begin, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported. The dispatch quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that the new plants will be used to produce fuel for civilian nuclear power stations. The move comes two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, passed a resolution demanding that Iran stop construction on a previously secret nuclear facility at Qom. The proximity to Qom is significant on more than one level: first, it reflects Ahmadinejad's obsession with the return of the Mahdi according to the Shi'ite tradition. But also, if Western powers were to attack the nuclear site, any collateral damage would be trumpeted as an act of brazen "Islamophobia" and used to drum up outrage and calls for revenge from Iran and the broader Islamic world. The IAEA also repeated calls for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program. The agency said it would not comment on Sunday's announcement. Iran has said its uranium enrichment program is aimed at producing fuel for civilian power plants. But the United States and other countries have accused Tehran of working toward a nuclear bomb, and the IAEA's Friday resolution stated that Iran's refusal to comply with international demands "does not contribute to the building of confidence." Nor does the IAEA's track record of minimal, largely symbolic action. Thanks to JihadWatch
 As many analysts have noted, political correctness has insinuated itself into the analysis of the murders at Fort Hood, Texas. Far better to rationalize the atrocity by referring to the assailant, Major Nidal Hasan, as a deranged individual, rather than a radical Muslim intent on bloodshed. It is self evident that not all Muslims are intent on violence, but as the history of the past few decades indicates, much of the premeditated violence can be attributed to radical Muslims. Common sense tells us avoidance of this reality will lead inexorably to additional deaths since the power of politically correct assertions trumps all other considerations. Why should this be the case? In the Korematsu v. United States decision that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Justice Jackson wrote “ the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution do not constitute a suicide pact.” Applied to the present, this observance of common sense suggests that the Constitution, in this case the First Amendment, cannot be employed to excuse violence. Jihadism, in its oral form as well as its manifest reality, cannot be tolerated, even if proponents claim it is protected by the freedom of religion. Islam may be a religion embraced by as many as 3 million Americans, but when there are calls for violence against apostates and non-believers, intolerance must be exercised. George Santanna argued that the overarching responsibility for the tolerant man is to be intolerant of intolerance. Unfortunately this is a position many Americans have forgotten. Had someone in authority at Fort Hood raised concerns about the Muslim psychiatrist, he would have been brought up on charges and opportunity for promotion would have been thwarted. Islamophobia is a demerit that is not overcome easily. During the Cold War, President Reagan was excoriated for calling the Soviet Union “an evil empire.” The myrmidons of political correctness said this claim was undiplomatic, likely to offend, oafish, and worse. Reagan defied his detractors, realizing that the truth is a powerful antidote to political correctness. But these are different times. Students have been proselytized by left-wing instructors with the belief that tolerance for designated groups must prevail despite the implicit danger in doing so. Courage is often defined as standing by these political shibboleths. But there are times when this adherence to correctness runs smack into common sense. More at NewsMax
 "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke
As the story of Nidal Hassan unfolds, it becomes painfully clear that the Jihadi Shrink who opened fire on US troops at Fort Hood did everything but spray paint, "I Am Going To Kill You All" on the wall, before he actually carried out his attack. Not only did Hassan put a Jihadist abbreviation on his business cards, he delivered repeated lectures justifying Jihad, accused the soldiers he was supposed to treat of War Crimes and was already being investigated for contacts with Al Queda and for defending suicide bombing online. At a time when snow globes are banned at airports and detectors are positioned in every Federal building, in the heart of the United States Army, a Jihadist like Nidal Hassan could openly and freely express his sympathies and affinity for terrorism. But the thing that Nidal Hassan had going for him, that the snow globes and baby bottles filled with breast milk didn't, is that Hassan was a Muslim, and ever since 9/11, Americans have been repeatedly warned against criticizing Islam. Told over and over again that Islam is the Religion of Peace, and that just because all our foreign terrorists happen to be Muslims acting in the name of Islam does not actually matter. Just as all those Japanese planes flying toward Pearl Harbor and the German factories producing tanks meant nothing in the 1930's. Hassan's superiors were well aware of what he was, but none of them wanted to risk a charge of Islamophobia. And so they remained silent and soldiers died. That is not a chant you will hear from anti-war activists at the gates of the White House, but that is exactly what happened. And Hassan's case is far from unique. There is no telling how many terrorists have flown under the radar because officials were afraid to be accused of profiling or charged with racism. We may never know what reports were never paid attention to because it has become more acceptable to lose American lives, than detain a Muslim. In the face of Islamic terror, there are endless desks staffed by good men who do nothing and say nothing. Because they have been told that it is more important to be silent, than to take action, when it comes to the Islamic Jihad against all non-Muslims. It is more important to search everyone, than to profile Muslim terrorists. It is better to have lax security, than to have good security that may make some of our friends from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel upset. That is how we did it before 9/11. And that is how we are doing it today, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gets his lawyers and the media does the hard work of manufacturing Nidal Hassan's PTSD by Proxy defense for him out of thin air, and the radical Imams whom Nidal Hassan came into contact with are whitewashed with the usual thin paste of the Religion of Peace. But silence on Islam kills. It kills when we remain silent about the Nidal Hassans in our midst. It kills when people look away as honor killings among Muslim families continues to grow. It kills as Muslim gangs like the Muslim Boys in the UK form and it kills as Muslim riots claim the lives of innocent people, as they repeatedly do in Europe. But when it comes to Muslims, there is a code of silence that falls over even the most committed officials. A directive that warns them to look away, to make excuses and to blame anything and everything but Islam. To deny the truth and cover up the crime. While Hassan is one example of the cost of silence, honor killings are another. The willingness of American and European social workers to ignore abuse in Muslim families as "part of their culture" or worse yet to recruit Muslim police officers who often take the victim right back to the abuser, is part of the same Culture of Silence on Islam.
 A man who stabbed a pregnant Egyptian woman to death in a German courtroom in front of her husband and three-year-old son has been sentenced to the maximum penalty of life in jail. Alex Wiens, 28, stabbed Marwa al-Sherbini, who was wearing a hijab, at least 16 times on July 1, in the same courthouse in the eastern city of Dresden where the trial took place. The case of Wiens, who has admitted holding anti-Islamic and xenophobic views, shocked Germany and incensed the Muslim world, sparking protests from Egypt to Iran. Prosecutors said the attack was motivated by "a pronounced hatred of non-Europeans and Muslims". Elwy Ali Okaz, al-Sherbini's husband, who was stabbed as he tried to protect his wife during the attack, was then shot in the leg by police who apparently took him for the attacker. Egyptian media quickly dubbed al-Sherbini a martyr and there were huge protests against the murder in several Muslim countries. Nadim Baba, Al Jazeera's correspondent reporting from Dresden, said the perception of Islamaphobia in Germany was unlikely to go away despite the stiff sentence. "We've heard calls from people in Egypt for the death penalty, and to be fair to the Egyptian authorities ... they've been at pains to explain to their public that the death penalty doesn't exist in Europe and that what was handed down today was in fact the harshest sentence possible under German law," he said. "The judges went out of their way to stress that because this was an exceptionally brutal case, after 15 years the killer will be reassessed before there's any chance of him being let out, which is an exceptional measure." Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy, the Egyptian ambassador to Germany, welcomed the verdict, saying:"Justice has been honoured." "Getting the maximum possible sentence, I think that itself says a lot," he said.
In his closing arguments on Monday, prosecutor Frank Heinrich said there was no doubt of Wiens' reasons. "It's clear that his motive was hatred for Muslims," Heinrich told the panel of judges. "Like a maniacal, cold-blooded killer, he started stabbing the woman and her husband, who was trying to protect her." Al-Sherbini and the defendant met in August 2008, when she asked him to clear a playground swing where he sat smoking a cigarette so Mustafa, her son, could use it. He refused, calling al-Sherbini an "Islamist", a "terrorist" and a "whore". She pressed charges for defamation and he was fined $1,170. An appeal against the conviction brought them together again in July. The defendant allegedly plunged an 18cm kitchen knife into the chest, back and arm of al-Sherbini, 31, three months pregnant at the time with her second child. Wiens, who arrived in Germany from Perm in the Urals in 2003, reportedly struggled with bouts of depression. Germany has the second-largest Muslim population in western Europe after France and some groups criticised the German government for taking several days to condemn the murder. Source: Al Jazeera (English)
 Good news, in an update on this story. "Dutch MP overturns UK entry ban," from BBC News, October 13 Far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders has won an appeal against a Home Office decision barring his entry to the UK. "Far-right": Media-speak for "frightens children, barks at other people's dogs, and makes Cratchit work on Christmas." The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruling overturns a government decision that led to Mr Wilder being turned back at Heathrow in February. The Freedom Party leader - who has been accused of Islamophobia - was due at a House of Lords' screening of his film linking the Koran to terrorism. Then the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia are chock-full of Islamophobes. The Home Office said it was disappointed at the new ruling. Ridiculous mischaracterization and moral equivalence in 3... 2... A spokesman said: "We are disappointed by the court's decision. The government opposes extremism in all its forms. "The decision to refuse Wilders admission was taken on the basis that his presence could have inflamed tensions between our communities and have led to inter-faith violence. We still maintain this view." Mr Wilders faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred. In February, he had been invited to the House of Lords to show his controversial film Fitna, which caused outrage across the Muslim world when it was posted on the internet last year. When he was refused entry, Mr Wilders told the BBC it was a "very sad day" for UK democracy. "I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm not protesting or running through the streets of London," he said. "Democracy means differences and debate. It's a very sad day when the UK bans an elected parliamentarian."...
by Grace Four years ago on September 30, 2005, Jyllands-Posten published twelve drawings of Islam’s prophet Muhammed. To demonstrate that prohibition of any depiction of the prophet, as stipulated by sharia law would not trump Denmark’s freedom of the press, twelve cartoonists had their entries published. Here they are: 
Muslims around the world rioted in response. At least one hundred deaths were reported. The Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran were torched. European buildings were stormed and the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, and German flags were desecrated in Gaza City.
Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas issued death threats. Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic and racist, arguing they were blasphemous to Muslims and a manifestation of western imperialism. In 2008, slightly after two years of the initial publication, the cartoons were re-published. More riots ensued, complete with shouts of ” death to the cartoonist!”. Meanwhile, thousands of illustrations of Muhammed have appeared in books by and for Muslims. 
Persian or central Asian illustration showing Muhammed teaching.
| | | | Fourteenth-century Persian miniature
showing the Angel Gabriel speaking
to Muhammed.
| Muhammed at Medina, from an
Arab or central Asian medieval-era
manuscript. | The Prophet Muhammed in a Mosque. Turkish, 16th Century, painting on paper. The artist depicted Muhammed in very long sleeves so as to avoid showing his hands, though his neck and hints of his features are visible. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Newly born Muhammad in his mother’s arms being shown to his grandfather and citizens of Mecca. From Turkish book painting (date unknown). University of California, San Diego.
James Cohen, vice president of the Canadian desk, IFPS writes thoughtfully and succinctly on the declaration of September 30 as International Free Press Day: “To further advance the cause of freedom of the press, the International Free Press Society takes the occasion of this first International Free Press Day to salute Kurt Westergaard, and to call, once again, for the repeal all blasphemy and hate speech laws that currently inhibit and restrict vital exchange and debate”. Source: Vlad Tepes H/T: Gramfan
Melanie Phillips | 7th April Thirteen days to go, and the draft declaration for ‘Durban 2’ – the vicious anti-Israel hate-fest being held under the auspices of the satirically named UN Human Rights Council on April 20, which I wrote about here, here, here, here, and here – still ‘reaffirms’ the 2001 Durban Declaration which singles out Israel alone for libellous vilification as a racist state – thus attacking it for the very crime of which it is not only wholly innocent but is actually the victim. This was one of the supposed sticking points which the EU, America and other so-called civilised nations said would be enough to stop them participating in Durban 2. But it’s still there and guess what – the EU, according to Anne Bayefsky, isn’t objecting and the US still hasn’t decided whether or not it will go to Geneva after all. The very fact that any decent country or organisation has had anything to do with this wholly disreputable meeting is itself disgraceful. Supposedly going along with it in order to sanitise the language ‘otherwise we will withdraw’, all they have achieved is some minor cosmetic adjustments – and yet they haven’t walked out. Here’s the disgusting game that’s being played: The OIC countries are locked in a struggle with EU states over the ability to stifle free speech (such as ‘defaming’ Islam) in the name of protecting religion. The Russian move helps the OIC nations by letting them use the antisemitism clause as a bargaining chip, to be played in exchange for the EU’s allowing free-speech restrictions. In a related issue, the Danish are unhappy with the mention of something the U.N. invented called ‘anti-Arabism.’ That phrase has been inserted in the paragraph about discrimination in the form of Islamophobia, Christianophobia and anti-semitism. But the rest of the EU has told the Danes to get lost, on the grounds that if the EU proposes deleting anti-Arabism, the OIC will insist on deleting antisemitism. As EU officials explain to observers, ‘We want to show restraint.’ Otherwise known as agreeing to an equivalence between truth and lies, the post-moral EU’s stock -in-trade. But the draft declaration remains what it was always going to be – a means of reactivating the Durban Declaration, and with it the smearing and delegitimisation of Israel: the Jew of the world which is being lined up for slaughter, with the west acting as mute accomplice. Source: The Spectator
Paul Sheehan | March 30 I've been considering a request from a post-graduate student who wants to do a thesis on Islamophobia in Australia. She writes: "I am researching the topic Islamophobia, and I am trying to prove whether Islamophobia is based on religion fear or cultural fear of Islam." What about proving that Islamophobia exists at all? That would be the logical, ethical and scholarly starting point. But it appears the outcome has already been decided. This would fit the prevailing orthodoxy in academia that the default position for Muslims in Australia is victim. The jargon, "Islamophobia" is part of this ideological construct. Literally, it means fear of Muslims. I reflected on all this while on holiday in Malaysia and the Maldives last week. This was my twelfth visit to Muslim societies because I do not "fear" Muslims and do not "fear" Islam. Yes, there is ample evidence that Australians have become uneasy about Muslims in general and hostile in specific cases, but this is about cause and effect. Consider the series of blows to the image of Muslims in just the past three weeks, where the everyday decency of the majority have been collaterally damaged by the antics of the few. On March 8, the night of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, police say a group of about 100 young Muslim men, allegedly members of a loose gang called MBM - Muslim Brotherhood Movement - moved through the centre of the city intimidating, harassing and beating bystanders. On March 15, Abdul Darwiche was murdered, shot to death in a shopping centre in the latest hyper-violence involving two warring Lebanese Muslim clans. Police later arrested Darwiche's brother, Michael, for driving around with a loaded pistol. A third brother, Adnan, appeared in the NSW Supreme Court three years ago to be sentenced for a double murder. He and his fellow accused, Nasaem El-Zeyat and Ramzi Aouad, laughed and joked, going out of their way to express their contempt for Australian law. After the three men were all given life sentences they shouted "God is great!" This was the same Adnan Darwiche who purchased rocket launchers stolen from the Australian Army, which have never been recovered. Hundreds of mourners attended Abdul Darwiche's funeral at the Lakemba Mosque, where, within days, Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly was involved in yet another controversy. Channel Nine obtained a copy of a video surveillance tape which shows the former mufti of Australia kicking in a door, then returning soon after in the company of police. Apparently he called police over vandalism which he committed, blaming others who are engaged in a power struggle at the mosque. Sheik Hilaly has been embroiled repeatedly in controversy and provocation, making numerous inflammatory remarks about Australia and Australians. A few days later, yet another rape sentence was handed down to one of the K brothers, three of whom, during their various trials for gang rape, claimed they were victims of an anti-Muslim conspiracy. Between them, four K brothers have been convicted of gang-raping five girls. This sentencing followed closely on the conviction of seven Sydney schoolboys for the aggravated sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in a toilet block in Yagoona in 2007. According to police, the ring-leader was on his phone speaking in Arabic during the assaults and most or all of the boys are of Muslim background. If this is so, these latest convictions produce a morbid tally of more than 30 young Muslim men involved in serious proven sexual assaults of non-Muslim girls in Sydney, involving the Skaf brothers, the K brothers, the E-M cousins, the Yagoona schoolboys and various others. Because sexual assault is the least reported crime (about 15 per cent of incidents are reported to police) this particular phenomenon was certainly much broader. Finally, there has been fatal violence between bikie gangs, accompanied by news that there has been an infusion of young Muslim men into the bikie culture. There is now warring between new gangs and traditional Anglo criminal gangs for control of the drug and protection markets. Gang leaders named Mahmoud and Hassan and Ismail have been prominent. Gangs like MBM, Notorious and Asesinoz have flaunted their ethnicity. Overtly racist videos have been posted on YouTube, such as the message that "Asesinoz is now targeting Aussies", with an image of a vandalised Australian flag. The events of the past week have been a variation on a theme police have been dealing with for years. It erupted spectacularly in 2005 when a self-styled "intifada" by armed Muslim men, travelling in convoys, staged numerous co-ordinated assaults across the eastern beach suburbs of Sydney. The attacks were in response to the most notorious case of anti-Muslim feeling in Australia, the Cronulla riot in December, 2005. The roots of this demonstration was the failure of the police, who for years had preferred to pretend the problem did not exist. Given the abundant evidence of violent cause and fearful effect, involving a small percentage of antagonists, the general charge of Islamophobia is an ideological fabrication. As for the criminal gangs, for more than 10 years I have argued that Australia needed anti-gang laws similar to the RICO laws (racketeering influenced corrupt organisations) used in the United States, which smashed the code of silence and solidarity by criminal gangs. Finally, the state Labor Government has begun to stir on this issue. Source: Sydney Morning Herald
She says her (hilarious) bumper sticker, "Islam means peace" was the reason the cops pulled her over, not the fact that she was swerving into other lanes. And yes, CAIR is already involved.By Nathan Gonzalez The bumper sticker on Lisa Gopalan's car reads "Islam means peace." But the Muslim woman and former schoolteacher believes her religion gained her the unwanted attention of Gilbert police, who arrested her for DUI when she failed a field sobriety test. "I was so humiliated," said Gopalan, who along with her husband was recently laid off. "I do feel I was racially profiled to an extent. The whole thing was so upsetting. I'm no criminal." While the Chandler resident awaits a possible misdemeanor charge of DUI for being impaired to the slightest degree, police opened an investigation into her claims that she was racially profiled. "The Gilbert Police Department doesn't make traffic stops or contact based on racial descriptors," said Sgt. Mark Marino, a police spokesman. Read more ... Source: AZ CentralH/T: Weasel Zippers
The Finnish Islamic Council, or SINE, has come out with an article on its website, that takes up the subject of the " Meshugga prophet", the fear of his ideology and of his followers that follow the Islamic creed to the letter. Here is a portion of the text:
The Prophet Mohammed and Islamophobia
In various Internet forums and elsewhere, allegations have appeared that have been offensive to Muslims about the prophet Muhammed, which meet the criteria of Islamophobia. In today's world, it's not irrelevant what is said on a public channel about a people, because at worst, Islamophobia foments people against both ethnic groups and Muslims In addition, we've put together a brief compilation of the Prophet's life.
What do you mean by Islamophobes?
Wikipedia defines Islamophobia as a new word, which refers to hatred or prejudice of Muslims or Islam. Islamophobia is also anti-Arab racism, even though the Arabs are a Muslim minority.
Islamophobia is a form of racism, in which Islam, its culture and history is considered less worthy than the Western culture. The American journalist Stephen Schwartz has defined Islamophobia as condemning Islam and its history as fanatical, denying that a moderate Muslim majority exists, viewing Islam as the problem for the world, conflicts, in which Muslims are involved, are seen as their own fault, that Muslims change their religion, and incitement to war against Islam as a whole.
Briefly about the prophet Muhammad
The Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him, as Muslims will increase when we talk about him - is beloved to Muslims as an example of the lifestyle within the Koran. The Prophet's humility, goodness, and other values will guide the Muslims ethics. The Prophet, namely, as he taught the Muslims: to curb anger, to be forgiving, generous, compassionate, patient, honest, fair, humble, tolerant and courageous.
Insults of the Prophet offends Muslims. Muslims can be criticized, but anything considered sacred should never be insulted. What is holy to Muslims are God, His word the Qur'an and the mediator of His word, the Prophet Muhammed. The other prophets are holy as well. Insulting the sacred is intolerance incivility at its worst. On what can a humane culture be built, if the sacred is not left free from insult?
Prophet's marriage - Islam's early marriage to
[...]
Then he was married to Aisha. Aisha was the Prophet's friend, Abu Bakri's daughter. They were married when Aisha was nine, but Aisha remained at home, with her parents for three years of the marriage, and was consumated when Aisha was 12-year-old. Then she moved to the Prophet's house. Also the most important reason for their union was love.
[...]
We can not assess the past, only the current standards. At that time, it was normal to marry at the age which is now underage-or teen-age. Even Christians and Jews acted in the same way. Up until the beginning of the 1900's Finland, a woman's marital age was 15 years. The age for maturity to wed is according to the environment, geography, the individual and times.
Prophet Muhammad's example can be found in both mononamous marriage with Khadija - and polygamy. At that time there were a lot of wars and in wars in more men died than women. The Prophet showed an example by marrying the surviving spouse and the divorced and taking care of her children. Many women did not have at that time no other choice than the marriage itself and caring for children. The Prophet, married for reason of statutes and alliances, and one of his wives was an old widow.
It's not Islamophobia when they are trying to Islamize you or kill you.
Commenting only on the blue highlighted portions will be enough to debunk the entire line of thinking offered by this Finnish Islamic organization. For anyone reading the above without a clue as to what the SINE is talking about, it appears as a rather organized plea against supposed unjust claims and accusations, as well as a justification for their present day practices.
1.) Islamophobia is a word concocted by apologists for Islam who seek to protect their ideology from criticism or ridicule, under the guise of being a distinct ethnic or national group. Islam is neither. The reason people are connecting Islam with violence, is due purely to the actions of the followers of Islam themselves. What's also noteworthy is the dreadful lack of sincere concern by this Finnish Islamic organization, for the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who deem Mohamed the perfect man, and follow his 7th century code of conduct, which means child brides, polygamy and wife beating in the present modern age.
2.) Insulting religion insults its followers. So what? What these religionists are actually saying, is that they are free to insult, condemn, imprison all those who they disagree with, but their own sensibilities are off limits. In other words, non-Muslims must suck it up when it's the followers of Mo calling them infidels, Kafirs, whores and apostates etc., but suffer the poor Muslim lest his or her feelings get hurt, let alone Mo's. 3.) Aisha was nine. This happens to be potentially one of the more damaging human qualities of Islam's prophet, hence the need for the SINE organization to lie outright, that Aisha was twelve years old when she finally had sexual relations with Mohamed. In fact, she was nine years old when he forced himself upon her. The claim that the main reason was for love between the two is as disgusting of a claim, as it is a very sick and lame joke. 4.) The Prophet of Islam's character. What's not important, at least anymore, is what Mohamed did back in the 7th century, what's done is done. But what is relevant in this day and age, is the fact that Muslims deem his character and deeds and lifestyle as the supreme example for human character, and to be imitated. What the editors of this website do not want the Finnish public to know, is the fact that pre-pubescent girls are being forced against their will to be married to adult males, with a few having made the international news in the past few years, for either wanting a divorce or refuge from an abusive 'spouse'. Read all here: http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
"Outside court, about a dozen people held up signs reading 'Islam is against terrorism' and 'Not in the name of Islam.'" -- Reuters, January 8
Posts
