Mark discussed, “Our Fear of Islam,” analyzing the different psychological mechanisms the West is now engaged in its surrender to a totalitarian ideology, which includes the “Tend and Befriend” response. The dialogue also involved a focus on Islamic female genital mutilation and the world’s denial about its Muslim theological foundations:
Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:
First Bill de Blasio provided special privileges to Muslims by adding Muslim, but not Hindu or Buddhist holidays, to the school calendar. During the Democratic primaries, he promised Muslims that he would bring Halal meals to city schools.
Now the Muslims are making their demands known. In a city with the largest Jewish population in the country, Kosher meals are not served in city schools. But as usual, Muslims are special and their sense of entitlement knows no bounds.
Marge Feinberg, another spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Education, added that the schools’ menus include vegetarian dishes. “Our kitchens and our kitchen staff are not equipped for specialty meat requirements,” she said. “We have a variety of non-meat options for children.”
But for labor leader Maf Misbha Uddin, the District Council 37 treasurer and founding president of Alliance of South Asian Association of Labor (ASAAL), halal food is not an issue of demand or will, but of religious freedom.
“I feel that serving halal food in school is our constitutional right since the constitution has ensured equal rights for all religious groups and ensured the observance of religion without any obstacle,” said Uddin, whose five children grew up in the city and never ate school lunches because halal menu choices were unavailable.
To no one’s surprise, Mustafa has no idea how Freedom of Religion works. It means freedom from government compulsion in areas of religion, a concept Muslims who push for theocracy everywhere they live simply refuse to understand.
It doesn’t mean a government entitlement to religious practice. That’s not freedom of religion, it’s theocracy.
All the stories about Muslim kids “going hungry” in school are nonsense. There are plenty of non-meat options for them. I went through school without having meat served. Having meat served is a luxury.
More problematically, many Halal certifying organizations are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or other terrorist and hate groups.
New Yorkers should not be forced to subsidize Muslim terrorism by Islamist pressure groups using their kids as human shields. Those kids aren’t starving in a corner somewhere as their lying parents would have you believe, they’re stuffing their faces with pizza and french fries.
The discussion of the American flag case reminded me of a much less noticed decision from a few weeks ago, Agema v. City of Allegan (W.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2014).
David Agema (a Michigan state representative) and some other people organized a Jan. 26, 2012 event that included as a speaker Kamal Saleem. Saleem runs Koome Ministries, which aims to teach about what it sees as “radical Islam’s true agenda.” Plaintiffs say Saleem “has a unique perspective on the internal threat to America posed by Sharia law and radical Muslims as he was once a Muslim involved in terrorist activities who has since transformed himself and converted to Christianity.”
Shortly before the event was to take place, a woman approached the police officers at Allegan High School and “stated that Kamal Saleem had a $25 million dollar bounty on his head.” An Allegan police officer talked with Jones, Saleem’s bodyguard, who did not deny that a bounty existed. “Jones further stated that there had been death threats directed toward Kamal Saleem from Islamic extremists in the past.”
While the event was still in progress, Chief Hoyer ordered Plaintiffs to shut down the event. Other events were occurring simultaneously in other locations within the Allegan High School building while Saleem was speaking.
Plaintiffs argued that “comply[ing] with the demands of hecklers based on the viewpoint of the speaker and the content of the speech” unconstitutionally allows “the heckler’s veto” to trump the “Constitutional freedoms of Plaintiffs.” (“Hecklers” is used here broadly to refer not just to the person in the audience who shouts out immediate threats, but to anyone who threatens to attack a speaker.)
But the court concluded that the stopping of the event was constitutional. The high school classroom, the court concluded, wasn’t a “traditional public forum,” such as a street or a sidewalk, or a place that “the government has intentionally designated a place … as a public forum.” Rather, it was a “nonpublic forum” — government property that hasn’t been deliberately opened for speech:
Here, there are no allegations that the school was open for use by the general public; rather, permission to rent the school was secured from the building principal, and there is no allegation that permission was granted as a matter of course to all who sought it. “This type of selective access does not transform government property into a public forum.”
The First Amendment rule in nonpublic forums is that speech restrictions are constitutional if they are “reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” And, the court said, this restriction was reasonable:
Plaintiffs allege in their First Amended Complaint that the January 26, 2012 event was stopped due to “death threats” from “Islamic extremists” while other events were occurring at the high school …. [Whether or not] public officials mistakenly assessed the credibility of the risk or the imminence of danger, Plaintiffs’ allegations, taken together, do not support the conclusion that the decision to stop the event was nonetheless unreasonable. “[T]he government does not need to wait ‘until havoc is wreaked to restrict access to a nonpublic forum.’”
Now I sympathize with the high school principal, who is trying to prevent harm to the people visiting his school. And while the Supreme Court has held that the government generally may not suppress speech on sidewalks or parks in order to prevent attacks on the speaker, it’s possible that these cases don’t apply when it comes to speech in a “nonpublic forum,” such as a government building. (But see Robb v. Hungerbeeler (8th Cir. 2004) and Chicago Acorn v. Metropolitan Pier and Exposition (7th Cir. 1998), which suggest that the cases do indeed apply even to nonpublic forums.)
Nonetheless, consider what incentives this sort of decision creates. If you don’t like a speaker, make death threats against him. Then, if you can somehow let American government officials know about those threats, the officials will kick the speaker out of the places that it rented to him for his speech. (Nor is the principle in the case limited to high school buildings — school wasn’t in session, and the government could raise a similar security objection for any government building where other people are present, or perhaps even a building whether this is the only event taking place.)
Twenty-five years ago today, Ayatollah Khomeini brought his edict down on Salman Rushdie. Iran’s revolutionary leader objected to the author’s magical-realist novel The Satanic Verses because of its insults to the Muslim prophet Muhammad and responded by calling for the execution of Rushdie and “all those involved in the publication who were aware of its contents.”
|Salman Rushdie in 1989.|
That Rushdie was born in India, lived in Britain, and had no significant connections to Iran made this an unprecedented act of aggression, one that resounded widely at the time and has subsequently had an enduring impact. Indeed, one could argue that the era of “creeping Shari’a” or “stealth jihad” or “lawful Islamism” began on February 14, 1989, with the issuance of that short edict.
If Rushdie, 66, is alive and well (if not exactly flourishing; his writings deteriorated after The Satanic Verses), many others lost their lives in the disturbances revolving around his book. Worse, the long-term impact of the edict has been to constrain the ability of Westerners freely to discuss Islam and topics related to it, what has come to be known as the Rushdie Rules. Long observation of this topic (including a book written in 1989), leads me to conclude that two processes are underway:
First, that the right of Westerners to discuss, criticize, and even ridicule Islam and Muslims has eroded over the years.
Second, that free speech is a minor part of the problem; at stake is something much deeper – indeed, a defining question of our time: will Westerners maintain their own historic civilization in the face of assault by Islamists, or will they cede to Islamic culture and law and submit to a form of second-class citizenship?
Most analyses of the Rushdie Rules focus exclusively on the growth of Islamism. But two other factors are even more important: Multiculturalism as practiced undercuts the will to sustain Western civilization against Islamist depredations while the Left’s making common political cause with Islamists gives the latter an entrée. In other words, the core of the problem lies not in Islam but in the West. (February 14, 2014)
- In the shadow of the fatwa (kenanmalik.wordpress.com)
It was reported Monday that “almost 10 per cent of children under five years old in England and Wales come from a Muslim family, according to 2011 UK Government census information.”
The report continued, “Of the 3.5 million children aged less than five, 320,000 were listed as Muslim. By comparison, Christians make up 43 per cent of those aged under five.”
What is the problem with that? The enemedia would tell you that anyone who thinks this is something to be concerned about is a racist. But this is not really a question of race at all; it’s a question of assimilation. Hindus, Buddhists, South Asians, Africans–all kinds of people have come to the U.K. and the U.S. and had little trouble adapting to their new country. But Muslims are the first group to come as immigrants to the West determined to replace Western government and social structures with Islamic ones. Millions of Muslims come to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government (sharia) which they believe to be superior to what we have here, and they work to institute it.
What happens to a country when its imports a colonizer force or hostile invader? In Dr. Peter Hammond’s book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, he explains that as Muslim populations grow, so do demands for special accommodation to Sharia. When Muslims number less than two percent of the population, as they do in the U.S. now, they’re generally peaceful and tolerant. As the Muslim population grows, however, so do the demands (as we’re seeing now): for halal meat, Sharia courts, and more.
As the Muslim population grows, so does violent intimidation and lawlessness–an example being the Sharia-ruled areas all over Europe, where the governing authorities have essentially lost control. After Muslim populations reach 20%, we see rioting, jihad militias, church burnings, and worse–and once it reaches 40%, there are massacres and frequent jihad terror attacks, as we have seen in recent years in Bosnia, Chad, and Lebanon.
Read more at Breitbart
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of Atlas Shrugs and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here.
by Soeren Kern:
“Who has the right to say that France in thirty or forty years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?” — Marwan Muhammed, spokesman, Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), Paris.
Interior Minister Manuel Valls said he was “shocked” by an RTL Radio report which estimated that more than 40,000 cars are burned in France every year.
The Muslim population of France reached an estimated 6.5 million in 2013. Although France is prohibited by law from collecting official statistics about the race or religion of its citizens, this estimate is based on the average of several recent studies that attempt to calculate the number of people in France whose origins are from Muslim majority countries.
This estimate would imply that the Muslim population of France is now approximately 10% of the country’s total population of around 66 million. In real terms, France has the largest Muslim population in the European Union.
Not surprisingly, Islam and the question of Muslim immigration were an ever-present topic in newspaper headlines during 2013. In practical terms, the debate over Islam in France centered mainly on questions about French identity, secularism and security-related issues.
What follows is a chronological review of some of the main stories about the rise of Islam in France during 2013:
On January 1, 2013, Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced that a total of 1,193 cars and trucks were torched across France on New Year’s Eve. He also said he was “shocked” by an RTL Radio report which estimated that more than 40,000 cars are burned in France every year.
Valls broke with recent tradition by publicly announcing the number of car burnings because “the French people should know the truth.” His predecessor, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux, decided in 2010 to stop making public the number of car burnings because doing so had the effect of encouraging competition between rival gangs of Muslim youths, determined to see which of them could cause the most destruction.
Car burnings are increasingly commonplace in all French cities and are often attributed to shiftless young Muslims who reside in suburban slums known as banlieues. French authorities are especially eager to avoid a repetition of the riots in 2005, when the deaths of two Muslim teenagers in the banlieue of Clichy-sous-Bois near Paris sparked weeks of looting and car-burning, and led to the imposition of a state of emergency.
Meanwhile, jihadists in France and elsewhere debated how to respond to a comic book biography of the Prophet Mohammed published on January 2 by the French satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo.
According to the inestimable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which translated the Arabic twitter posts of several jihadists, the suggestions included: “killing France’s ambassadors, just as the ‘manly’ Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi; carrying out operations similar to 9/11, London’s July 7, 2005 bombings, and Madrid’s March 11, 2004 bombings, because only attacks of this kind would deter and defeat the ‘crusaders’; carrying out assassinations; conducting suicide bombings outside the French Information Ministry building; and holding demonstrations outside French embassies, especially in Egypt, because it has [allegedly] been proven that the Egyptian public can sway the entire Arab public.”
It was also suggested that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) kill the hostages it is holding, and that anyone who can kill a French national do so without hesitation.
The Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo were destroyed in an arson attack in November 2011 after the magazine featured a cartoon of Mohammed on its cover. The attack marked a serious escalation of a long-running Islamic war on free speech and expression in Europe.
Read more at Gatestone Institute
- French City with 40% Muslim Population is the Most Dangerous City in Europe (frontpagemag.com)
Front Page, January 2, 2014, By Andrew Harrod:
“Muslims love to take advantage of” free speech, Danish-Palestinian poet Yahya Hassan says, “and as soon as there is someone else saying something critical against them, they want to restrict it.” In an action previously indicated by this writer, Hassan is now personally facing this double standard in Danish “hate speech” charges for his anti-Islam comments.
Following Danish-Iranian artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan’s conviction under Danish Penal Code Section 266b (in Danish here) for condemning Islam as misogynist, a local Muslim Aarhus politician demanded a similar prosecution of Hassan. His poetry “says that everybody in the ghettos like Vollsmose and Gellerup steal, don’t pay taxes and cheat themselves to pensions,” the Somali-Dane Mohamed Suleban stated after reporting Hassan to the police on November 27. “Those are highly generalizing statements and they offend me and many other people.” Authorities are currently considering Section 266b charges for, according to one English translation, any public “communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.”
The 18-year-old Hassan’s eponymous debut book contains about 150 poems, “many of which are severely critical of the religious environment he grew up in” according to Wall Street Journal reporters Clemens Bomsdorf and Ellen Emmerentze Jervell. Written in all capital letters, Hassan’s poems treat “issues like the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, child abuse, and the interplay between violence and religion” with “[p]rofanity and vivid analogies.” Yahya Hassan has sold 80,000 copies following an October 17 release in the comparatively small Danish market and is expected to exceed 100,000 copies by Christmas. Hassan’s publisher Gyldendal reports that Danish poetry books are fortunate to sell 500 copies. A recent book forum honored Hassan as the debut author of the year and an English translation of his poetry is underway.
Hassan first became prominent with an October 5 Danish newspaper interview entitled “I F**king Hate My Parents’ Generation.” In it he blamed poor Muslim parenting for the juvenile delinquency and social maladjustment experienced by many Danish Muslim youth such as Hassan himself. With more than 85,000 social media shares, the interview became the most shared Politiken article of the year.
Days thereafter Hassan recited from his “LANGDIGT” or “LONG POEM” before his book’s release on the Danish news program Deadline. Extract: “between the Friday prayers and the Ramadans/you want to carry a knife in your pocket/you want to go and ask people if they have a problem/although the only problem is you.” Such verses brought Hassan more death threats than any other previous Deadline guest. Hassan has subsequently reported 27 Facebook threats against him, of which the police investigated six as serious and pressed charges in one case of a 15-year old boy. A subsequent assault against Hassan occurred on November 18 in Copenhagen Central Station by a 24-year old Palestinian-Danish Muslim who had previously received a seven-year terrorism sentence.
Hassan now wears a bulletproof vest and receives protection from Denmark’s domestic intelligence agency PET at speaking engagements. A November 26 reading by Hassan from his book in a school in the Danish town of Odense, moreover, required an estimated one million kroner in security costs, more than the amount spent on a high-risk soccer game. Several hundred policemen had observed the school for two days before the event occurred with road checkpoints, a bomb sweep, and a five kilometer no-fly zone around the school.
Police safety concerns had forced the cancellation of an earlier, sold-out reading at a public library in Odense’s troubled district of Vollsmose. Along with Hassan, Culture Minister Marianne Jelved and several other Danish politicians criticized the Vollmose cancellation as “completely unacceptable.” Jelved demanded that police in Vollmose “make the necessary precautions” in order “to hold on to what democracy is, or otherwise we reduce it day by day.”
Yet Suleban’s charges might succeed in silencing Hassan where violence has failed. Jacob Mchangama, legal affairs director at Denmark’s liberal think-tank Cepos, sees a “strong case” against Hassan, particularly given a “range of similar preceding cases” like Bazrafkan’s. Hassan’s media attention and public popularity, though, might make conviction difficult, as “his poems are important social commentary.” Hassan’s acquittal “for making statements similar to what other people have been convicted for,” Mchangama nonetheless observed, “will expose a random legislation where no-one can be sure of what is legal to say.”
Calling for Section 266b’s abolition, Mchangama further questions the law’s “arbitrary limits.” What “is sufficiently degrading” and why should, for example, homosexuals receive protection, but not disabled people. Mchangama also sees no “good science” correlating speech laws with “less hate crimes.” Other commentators, moreover, have argued that speech trials simply bring more attention to the offending statements.
Hassan’s case presents speech codes functioning not just as a de facto blasphemy, but also as a de facto apostasy law protecting Islam. How, after all, can an atheist like Hassan, who says that there is “something wrong with Islam,” decide upon his religious views without rigorous testing of all faiths? For that matter, how could anyone answer Hassan’s call for a “reformation” in an Islam that “refuses to renew itself” without similar scrutiny? Such questions aside, Hassan remains committed to his criticisms, stating that he does not “care about getting convicted of racism.” Muslims threatening violence can likewise “all come and get me if they want. I don’t give a s**t about these morons.” “I know these people,” Hassan adds, “They can’t handle criticism…they’re not interested in dialogue.”
Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. You may follow Harrod on twitter at @AEHarrod.
Recently, the president of San Francisco State’s General Union of Palestine Students, Mohammad G. Hammad, posted a picture of himself with a knife, writing: “I seriously cannot get over how much I love this blade. It is the sharpest thing I own and cuts through everything like butter and just holding it makes me want to stab an Israeli soldier.”
By Joseph Klein:
Anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses is growing at an alarming rate. It has escalated to the point that Jewish students on campuses have been physically attacked or threatened for peacefully demonstrating their support of Israel. Events demonizing Jews and even glorifying the murderers of Jews, in the guise of anti-Israel rhetoric, are tolerated by campus administrators despite the hostile environment such events create for Jewish students who are open about their beliefs in support of the Jewish state.
Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964 prohibits various forms of discrimination at federally funded programs, including higher educational institutions, but the Obama administration’s Department of Education has so far refused to enforce it against federally funded universities and colleges that have allowed anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students to go on with relative impunity. For example, in a letter rejecting a complaint that had accused a California state university of allowing a hostile environment for Jewish students to exist on campus, the education department’s Office for Civil Rights wrote: “In the university environment, exposure to such robust and discordant expressions, even when personally offensive and hurtful, is a circumstance that a reasonable student in higher education may experience. In this context, the events that the complainants described do not constitute actionable harassment.”
The same administration that decries even the slightest hint of so-called Islamophobia has treated hate speech and threats against Jewish students, which create a hostile environment for them, as the legitimate exercise of free speech. This double standard is only encouraging more hate and threats directed at Jewish students.
A study of Religious Tolerance on Campus published by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research in December of 2011, entitled “ALONE ON THE QUAD: Understanding Jewish Student Isolation on Campus,” surveyed over 1,400 students in the United States. The Institute, which claims its survey to be one of the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, found that “Over 40% of students confirm Anti-Semitism on their campus.”
“Ample anecdotal evidence suggests that, over the last decade, Jewish college students have faced rising levels of anti-Semitism on campuses across the United States,” the Institute’s report concluded. “[Anti-Israel] divestment campaigns, protests, rallies, guerrilla theater and inflammatory speakers have featured anti-Jewish rhetoric. With insufficient response from administrators, these events have developed into hostile environments, where Jewish students and others have been maligned and threatened.”
Read more at Front Page
Few dare to criticize the “religion of peace” for fear of a violent retaliation. Ironic? Not really, considering the fact that violence pervades the very essence of this “peaceful” religion. Case in point, the recent case in France of Abdelhakim Dekhar, who stands accused of four recent attacks, one being a shooting at a Paris newspaper office where he shot an assistant photographer. As usual, the mainstream media ignores the Muslim name and suggests the motive is “hazy.” However, Dekhar had written a letter complaining of “media manipulation,” that “evil” capitalism, and was angry about Syria among other things. These are all typical Muslim grievances.
The Islamic response to criticism is death. When there is no self-defense, and armed with no logical explanation in order to combat the critics, the only way out is violence. That’s why whenever there are “peaceful” protests, the placards Muslims proudly hold high call for our beheadings. If you’ve never witnessed this firsthand, there are countless photos to prove it. Men, women and children all parade around with signs calling for our savage murders. Why? Because we dared to criticize.
Yet criticism brings about change, which is how we progress as a society. Sometimes we progress a little too far and make excessive changes, but certainly some reform is a good thing. For example, some critics of Judaism will say that the punishment of stoning exists in the Torah. Gary T. Panell of Bible Christian discusses capital punishment in the Bible and offers his interpretation regarding the use of rocks to administer it: “As harsh as it may seem, using stones to kill someone, there was a practical side to it. Wherever you were, there would always be plenty of rocks.”
Guess there are a lot of rocks in the Muslim world.
No matter how you want to interpret those verses, the fact remains, Jews no longer “stone” people, which makes such criticism positively senseless. Furthermore, different denominations of the religion have come about as civilization has progressed, and people disagree over the meaning of this or that as well as the application of it in our lives today.
The same is true of Christianity. Martin Luther brought about the Protestant Reformation, and even the Catholic Church itself has made tremendous changes throughout the years and is not the same as it once was. There will always be critics of those changes. Sometimes the modifications may be a step in the wrong direction, but overall the Judaism and Christianity of today cannot be compared to the barbaric stonings and beheadings which not only exist in Islam today but are an intrinsic part of it.
Read more at Cherson and Molschky
by Timon Dias:
When European history teachers omit the Holocaust from their curriculum, they do not do this because they hate their Jewish students more than their Muslim students. They omit it because they are afraid of their Muslim students. They might also believe they do it to be “nice,” but then how come this same “niceness” is not afforded to the Jews?
In the “Stockholm Syndrome,” now seen, ironically, in Sweden, victims start bonding with their abusers in the wish that if they share the same values as their abusers, their abusers might stop abusing them. “We must be open and tolerant toward Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so toward us.” — Jens Orback, former Swedish government minister.
The European Union [EU] is singling out Israel for sanctions. Not only are the officials at the EU failing to boycott other regions that legally count as occupied territories, but they are actively aiding at least one clearly occupying power, Turkey, in the Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus: in 2006, the EU approved a $259 million aid package for the Turkish Cypriot community there. In addition to that double-standard, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, has revealed noticeable prejudice on multiple occasions, the latest example being when she felt compelled to compare the Toulouse massacre to “what’s happening in Gaza,” any similarities to which would objectively be hard to come by.
Is there, then, an EU tendency to be anti-Semitic? As Thomas Friedman once wrote “Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”
Jens Orback (center), a former Swedish government minister, famously said: “We must be open and tolerant toward Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so toward us.” (Image source: Swedish Social Democratic Party/Anders Löwdin)
Recently, a shocking development was reported on in Belgium by Peter Martino, in which elementary schools are using government approved anti-Semitic textbooks for their history classes. That report recalled a Belgian girl in 2008, who wore a small star of David around her neck, and told the author she had just been refused entry to a bus in Belgium by a bus driver who said that, as a Muslim, he could not allow her to enter the bus. In the 21st century, in Western Europe, a girl was turned away from a public bus because she was a Jew.
What still stings me is that I did not take her seriously; what she said, however, has proven anything but far fetched. A 2011 study by Mark Elchardus, relates that one out of every two Muslim students in Brussels — half — are anti-Semitic. A recent study roughly replicated the same results for the Belgian cities of Ghent and Antwerp. Conversely, Belgium is also the country that is allowing Abou Jahjah, founder of the Arab-European League, a known anti-Semite and Hezbollah affiliate, accused of instigating riots and forming a private militia, to return to Belgium after having left it for Lebanon in 2006 to “fight off the foreign invasion” alongside Hezbollah. A country in which officials teach schoolchildren that the Holocaust was similar to “what’s happening in Gaza”; that accepts the return of a man who was part of a foreign hostile fighting force and says he “felt a sense of victory” on 9/11, is indeed likely to become a country where a girl is refused entry on a bus because she is Jewish.
How is this dynamic to be explained? Besides the latent or active anti-Semitism that might drive EU leaders in their unequally-applied conduct toward Israel — as opposed to other nations such as Turkey that are committing the same alleged offense — another explanation is worth exploring.
The author Ali Salim recently began a popular article with: “We Muslims make the mistake of thinking Europeans really care about us, especially the Palestinians. We are wrong. Europeans simply hate the Jews more than they hate and fear us.”
Although possible, it might also be worth to consider, an alternative explanation: that many Europeans fear Muslims more than they fear Jews, and therefore give in to anti-Semitic tendencies. When European history teachers, for example, omit the Holocaust from their curriculum in order not to offend Muslim students, they do not do that because they hate their Jewish students more than they hate their Muslim students. They do it because they are terrified of their Muslim students.
Read more at Gatestone Institute
By Rachel Molschky:
Everyone wants their awareness month these days, and Islam is no exception. As of 2012, Britain has declared November Islamophobia Awareness Month. This comes on the heels of Canada’s Islamic History Month in October. Studying the history of Islam’s conquests, rapes, mass murders, terrorism in general and other violence is actually quite a good idea. If only that were the focus, rather than a “celebration” of the most violent religion on earth.
According to the Muslim Council of Britain, “Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred is reaching worrying heights in Britain, across Europe and globally.” This statement is unsubstantiated. Muslim immigration to the UK is on an astronomical scale, Islam hasmade its way into the public school system, not to mention the existence of government-sponsored Muslim schools, halal food being forced upon non-Muslim British citizens, the increase in the construction of mosques and conversion of churches into mosques, the generous welfare benefits provided to Muslims, which are often abused and are draining the British economy, and the gradual removal of all things religious (such as Christmas decorations) in order to avoid offending Muslims. (The exception is any Muslim religious attire or symbols which are allowed, as Muslims belong to the only religion permitted to be openly observed, even prayers in the streets.) Where pray tell, is the hatred? British society is catering to Islam, not acting out against it.
He’s against the freedom of expression, yet there he is freely expressing himself. Photo Source
Any anti-Islamic sentiment is based on the government’s insistence of forcing Islam upon its people, displacing the native population with an economically unsustainable amount of immigrants who refuse to assimilate to any degree whatsoever, are largely out of work and living off the government, thereby providing absolutely no benefit to the nation whatsoever, and who follow a religion which teaches them to hate the very nation which has generously opened its borders and government programs to help them. In fact, the gratitude is so nonexistent, these immigrants parade around the streets demanding the law of the land to be replaced with their own laws, screaming for their rights, attempting to force their religion upon others and calling for anyone who insults them to be decapitated. Yet the police protect them, the government gives them handouts and punishes their native population for being upset about being supplanted by a group of people who are now becoming second, third and fourth generation immigrants (rather than first, second or third generation Brits because with the lack of assimilation, they remain more loyal to their ancestors’ homeland than they do to Britain or any other country in the West where they arrive), a people who follow a religion with a set of values drastically clashing with the traditional Judeo-Christian values that are the moral foundation of the native population.
Read more at Cherson and Molschky
By Andrew Harrod:
“To mark No Go Areas, that is to say law-free areas with high danger potential, is nothing unusual,” Rüdiger Franz of Bonn, Germany’s General Anzeiger (GA) newspaper wrote, as travel guide entries for cities such as Detroit, Istanbul, Johannesburg, or Mogadishu show. Considerable controversy, however, ensued after a language school posted an Internet No Go Area map of Bonn and environs, drawing ongoing, often unwelcome attention to the problems Germany’s once serene former capital faces from newly arrived Muslim immigrants.
The No Go map at the website of the Steinke Institut (SI) language school’s Bonn branch first drew significant public interest at the conservative German website Politically Incorrect (PI) with a July 18, 2013, entry. Attention only grew in the following weeks with an “unexpectedly large echo” of about 50 Bonn residents contacting SI with approval, queries, and criticism, as an SI Internet statement at the beginning of September noted.
SI explained therein the school’s emphasis on teaching German as a foreign language to students “from the entire world.” The No Go map resulted “exclusively” from some 250 such students reporting in the last six years “extremely negative experiences” in various Bonn neighborhoods, with over 80% of the reports agreeing upon the map’s red-marked problem zones. SI elaborated that these “negative experiences” entailed harassment of women, theft, robbery, break-ins, assaults, and insults.
In contrast to the suspicions of “some concerned callers” at SI, these experiences had no “Neo-Nazi context.” Rather, “above all” East Asian and East European students “had made pertinent experiences with adolescents, who almost exclusively seem to have an immigration background.” A landlord from Bonn’s Bad Godesberg (BadGo) suburb confirmed in an October 23, 2013, GA article that many of her young renters suffered harassment from immigrants, particularly women, for “supposedly too short skirts and the wearing of shorts.” SI teaching personnel, many of whom “themselves live in these same city areas and are very often themselves connected with a partner with an immigrant background,” likewise agreed with the students, SI noted. On the other hand, the “overwhelming majority of the language students had a thoroughly positive impression of the German and/or as German perceived citizens of Bonn and confirm therefore the image of Bonn as a tolerant and cosmopolitan city.”
For each red zone on SI’s map, SI sought confirmation in the media and linked many of these articles to the statement. A subsequent PI entry criticized that SI “did not trust itself to name clearly what special kind of immigrants are responsible” for a “negative Germany image” among “peaceful and diligent foreign German learners.” Yet the linked “gruesome news reports” allowed an “unbiased observer” to surmise that the criticisms “all somehow had something to do with the I-word,” namely Islam.
Read more at Front Page
By Bruce Bawer:
Late one night two years ago, only days before Christmas, two burglars wearing ski masks climbed through an open window into the Oslo home of Arild Opheim and Elin Ruhlin Gjuvsland. The noise they made woke Elin first. She saw a shadow through the bedroom door. Next thing she knew, the two intruders were on top of her and Arild, holding them down on the mattress and saying, in English, “Don’t look. Sleep. If look, we kill.”
The thugs tied up the couple – both of whom have worked for years as journalists and program hosts for NRK, the state TV and radio broadcasting system – and gathered up various items, including computers and telephones. Arild and Elin also handed over their bank cards and pin codes. The men were “very aggressive” – one of them struck Elin in the head with a blunt metal object. But they also attempted, as the couple explained last Friday on the TV talk show Skavlan and in a Dagbladet op-ed, to “win sympathy by telling their story.”
In a mixture of Spanish, Arabic, and broken English, they maintained that they “weren’t evil people” but were “in a desperate situation. They wanted to be able to reside and work and lead a normal life in Norway. But their asylum application had been rejected. Now they had no other choice than to rob us and to get money to return home.” In order to get back home “see their families,” they “needed 20,000 kroner” – about $4000. “They’d had a tough life, while Norwegians had it good.” Arild and Elin, said one of the crooks, deserved what they were getting.
(In fact, no rejected asylum seeker in Norway needs to rob anybody to get home. The Norwegian government pays all the expenses for such repatriation. And then some.)
Soon after the traumatic episode was over, both of the perpetrators were nabbed by cops. One of them, an 18-year-old Algerian who’d lived in Spain for several years, was sentenced to a year and seven months in jail and ordered to pay 60,169 kroner to Elin and 26,847 kroner to Arild. His confederate was arrested in Denmark and placed in a “youth prison,” from which he escaped; he’s now on the lam. As for Arild and Elin, the whole nightmarish experience made them, in their own words, “skittish and careful.” It caused them to think “ugly thoughts about immigrants.” Elin “couldn’t even stand hearing small children speaking Arabic.” Eventually they decided to write a book.
It’s now out, entitled Uninvited Guests. On Skavlan, they said that writing it was their salvation. For after that terrible night, you see, they were in peril – in peril of something far worse than just losing their lives. They were in peril, quite simply, of viewing themselves, and being viewed by others, as racists.
Read more at Front Page
A student from Florida was brutally beaten by a Muslim gang in London. The gang was part of a self-appointed street patrol enforcing sharia (Islamic) law in London. The “crime” of the student, an American citizen who was in England to advance his studies, was drinking a beer.
The patrols, who began appearing on London’s streets in 2011, are followers of radical Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary, whose goal is to enforce sharia law even in non-Muslim countries.
The Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro discussed this case and the larger phenomenon of the Muslim patrols with Fox news’s Megan Kelly on “The Kelly File.” On the show, Mauro also discussed the radical Islamic group Jamaat ul-Fuqra which has large communes all around the U.S. where member are trained in guerrilla warfare. A video of women receiving such training at the group’s “Islamberg” headquarters in New York is shown below.
- American Student Slashed In London, Police Eye “Muslims Patrols” (dailybeast.com)
- Coming soon: America’s own Islamic ‘no-go’ zones (counterjihadreport.com)
- Jihadist Camps in America: A Ticking Time Bomb (frontpagemag.com)
- Islamville: Recent Recordings of Gunfire at Radical Enclave (clarionproject.org)
- ‘The Muslims of America’ are suing ‘Christian Action Network’ for exposing their terrorist training camps around the United States (barenakedislam.com)
- New Book Twilight in America Exposes Islamic Camps Where Americans Train for JIHAD (counterjihadreport.com)
by ALAN KORNMAN:
On October 1, 2013 The Council On American Islamic Relation’s Samantha Bowden drove 85 miles from her home in the Tampa, FL area to the University of Central Florida. Ms Bowden’s objective was to stalk Professor Jonathan Matusitz during one of his classes.
Upon being interviewed the next day, Samantha Bowden admitted to have intruded Dr. Matusitz’s classroom. Ms. Bowden is currently under police investigation.
A police report was filed against Ms. Bowden because Section 228.091, FL. Statute., enacted by Ch. 68-3 addresses specific violations on non-university persons accessing instructional areas of State Institutions without proper permissions.
The University of Central Florida regulations mirrors the relevant Florida Statutes,
(5) Only students registered for a class may be in attendance in instructional areas unless permission of the instructor is given. The instructor as the designee of the Vice President for Administration and Finance is authorized to warn non-students that they are trespassing and must leave the area of instruction or be arrested for trespass. Any such incident will be reported to the University Police. Non-university persons are not allowed in classroom buildings unless present on authorized university business.
To follow is Dr. Matusitz’s account of the CAIR stalking incident on 10/1/2013.
“On October 1st, 2013, in my 12:00 p.m.-1:15 p.m. class (Communication Building, room 111). As I started teaching my class, I noticed that a female stranger was sitting at the back of the classroom. That person never asked me if she could enter my class and sit in the back of the classroom.
When I approached her, that person introduced herself as Samantha. Because Samantha is not one of my students, I asked her to leave. In the beginning, she was insisting to stay in my class. I had to ask her a few times before she finally left.
A few minutes after she left, I recognized that “Samantha.” Her full name is Samantha Bowden, Communication and Outreach Director of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (see website below). She is based in Tampa. She is not a UCF student and never was a UCF student.
Now, a question looms large: Why is a high-profile CAIR representative stalking me in one of my classes? Indeed, Samantha Bowden entered my class without asking me and without obtaining any authorization.
Samantha’s presence and observation of my class on October 1st, 2013 were violations of Florida Statutes. I felt threatened by her actions. So, I filed a report with the UCF Police Department.”
If Samantha Bowden should stalk Dr. Matusitz again on the UCF campus, she will be arrested “without further warning pursuant to law.“
Samantha Bowden and Hassan Shibly Should Be Fired
The Council On American Islamic Relations bills itself as a tax exempt 501(c)(3) civil rights organization. CAIR-FL Director Hassan Shibly must have known his employee Samantha Bowden would be targeting and violating the civil rights of Dr. Matusitz at his place of employment by entering restricted areas violating Florida Statutes and UCF Regulations. If Hassan Shibly did not know Ms. Bowden would be stalking Dr. Matusitz ,he has an obligation to fire Samantha Bowden immediately for her actionable behaviors.
Shibly and Bowden have been conducting a five-month-long smear campaign against Dr. Matusitz which has been embarrassingly unsuccessful. Frustrated by their repeated failures, CAIR-FL could possibly have concluded its only option left was to illegally enter Dr. Matusitz’s private classroom for purposes only known to them.
Watch this VIDEO where Samantha Bowden is asked specifically about stalking Professor Matusitz. This VIDEO footage was filmed at a UCF Muslim Student Association (MSA) rally targeting Professor Matusitz one day after Ms. Bowden was caught stalking the Professor.
Read more: Family Security Matters