DVD Talk
Islam and the West II: Burka Boogaloo [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Islam and the West II: Burka Boogaloo


wmansir
07-11-11, 11:44 PM
I was going to post this in the existing thread, but it was locked for length. Anyway...

Here are the facts:

Last year an Aussie policeman pulled over Carnita Matthews at a random DUI checkpoint. He cited her for failure to properly display registration plates and asked her to show her face so he could confirm her identification with her license. She refuses, calling the officer and all police racists. (I believe Matthews is a white Muslim convert.) She eventually complies and is released.

A few days later a complaint is filed against the officer alleging racism and that he physically tried to remove her burka from her face. Based on the dash video recording of the stop, which disproved both claims, Matthews was charged and convicted of giving a false statement to police.

Here's where things get interesting. She appealed the conviction on the grounds that she was not the person who filed the complaint. Nobody looked under the burka of the person who signed the complaint. Last month a judge found the signatures didn't match (Shown here (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/new-twist-in-carnita-matthews-burqa-case/story-e6freuzi-1226085143698), they look very similar to me). The judge found reasonable doubt in both the identity of the complaint filer and that she knew her statements were false. He overturned her 6 month jail sentence. Video of her release:

3OxrbDv3PuA

-------------

Instead of a dozen violent men shouting Allahu Akbar and brawling with police and media it would have been much more effective and entertaining if Ms Matthews had been escorted out of the court by a dozen women in burkas.

Now they are trying to pass a law compelling citizens to reveal their face to police if a crime is suspected, and possibly require a fingerprint on some signed documents. I don't think ms Matthews has commented on the effort, though I imagine she must have mixed feelings. On the one hand she has her religious objections, but on the other hand without these laws someone could try to impersonate her again and look how narrowly she escaped this last time. If that impostor had only learned to copy her signature a little better she might be in jail now.

focker
07-12-11, 03:02 AM
What a bizzarre case. Looking at the signatures, they may not be identical, but the person who filed the complaint would have had to be familiar with her signature to get that close.

Weird question: Was she wearing the burka in the license photo? Otherwise, what good would it do to have her take it off for comparison? If she was willing to take it off for the photo, why not for a traffic stop?

TheGuy
07-12-11, 03:34 PM
Ok a bit off topic but why do they place there cell phones between there ear and burka while talking on the phone? Are they not aloud to use bluetooth? Just askin........

Ky-Fi
07-15-11, 01:01 PM
Palestinian public opinion survey:

6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution, survey finds

By GIL HOFFMAN
07/15/2011 04:26


73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees.
Only one in three Palestinians (34 percent) accepts two states for two peoples as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to an intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip completed this week by American pollster Stanley Greenberg.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, was conducted in partnership with the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project, an international nonprofit organization that provides journalists and leaders with information about the Middle East.

The Israel Project is trying to reach out to the Arab world to promote “people-to-people peace.” The poll appears to indicate that the organization has a difficult task ahead.

Respondents were asked about US President Barack Obama’s statement that “there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.”

Just 34% said they accepted that concept, while 61% rejected it.

Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

Asked about the fate of Jerusalem, 92% said it should be the capital of Palestine, 1% said the capital of Israel, 3% the capital of both, and 4% a neutral international city.

Seventy-two percent backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage, and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.

When given a quote from the Hamas Charter about the need for battalions from the Arab and Islamic world to defeat the Jews, 80% agreed. Seventy-three percent agreed with a quote from the charter (and a hadith, or tradition ascribed to the prophet Muhammad) about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones and trees.

But only 45% said they believed in the charter’s statement that the only solution to the Palestinian problem was jihad.

The survey’s more positive findings included that only 22% supported firing rockets at Israeli cities and citizens and that two-thirds preferred diplomatic engagement over violent “resistance.”

Among Palestinians in general 65% preferred talks and 20% violence. In the West Bank it was 69-28%, and in Gaza, 59- 32%.

Asked whether they backed seeking a Palestinian state unilaterally in the UN, 64% said yes. The number was 57% in the West Bank and 79% in Gaza. Thirty-seven percent said the UN action would bring a Palestinian state closer, 16% said it would set back the establishment of a state, and 44% said it would make no difference.

When asked what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s top priorities should be, 83% said creating jobs. Just 4% said getting the UN to recognize a Palestinian state, and only 2% said peace talks with Israel.

Israel Project president Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi said she was encouraged that the Arab Spring would bring more accuracy to Arab media and by the 59% of Palestinians who are on Facebook. The Israel Project has 80,723 friends for its Arabic site, which has had 9.5 million page views in two months.

“Some of the numbers in the poll are discouraging, but we are trying to change them,” she said at a Jerusalem press conference in which Greenberg presented the findings.

Greenberg said the survey proved that there was a big need for public education and leadership on the Palestinian side.

Greenberg and Laszlo Mizrahi have presented the findings to President Shimon Peres, opposition leader Tzipi Livni, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s senior adviser, Ron Dermer.

Next week, they have meetings scheduled in the White House and the Pentagon.

Israeli leaders told Greenberg and Laszlo Mizrahi they were encouraged by Palestinian support for talks.

“The Palestinians want solutions, not revolutions,” Peres told them according to Laszlo Mizrahi.


http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493

kvrdave
07-15-11, 03:27 PM
This is what hippies do. They find some group they feel is unjustly maligned, become part of that group, then act like asshats so that they are maligned, then lie, cheat, and steal to show that it was unjust. Fortunately for her, the Koran endorses lying for this kind of thing.

eXcentris
07-16-11, 11:38 PM
Also brought to you by The Israel Project, "How to convince Americans that Israel is always right". Some it this stuff is quite funny, it's the kind of "guide" you'd expect a Jehova's Witness going door to door to carry.

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fmedia%2F70%2Ftip_report.pdf&date=2009-08-06

The bit on the settlements was deemed so touchy that The Israel Project later decided that it was better not to talk about the settlements. And if a question was asked about them, simply change the subject and focus on peace initiatives. :lol:

daniel18
07-30-11, 10:40 AM
Looks like no more coup d'etats to check Islamists.

http://news.yahoo.com/turkeys-resignations-sign-military-decline-142534785.html

Ky-Fi
07-30-11, 11:21 AM
Looks like no more coup d'etats to check Islamists.

http://news.yahoo.com/turkeys-resignations-sign-military-decline-142534785.html

Exactly. And here's how the Arab Spring is progressing in Egypt:



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/cairo-protesters-call-for-an-islamic-state-in-egypt/article2113896/?from=sec431

eXcentris
07-30-11, 07:23 PM
The Islamists can rant and rave all they want, they still won't get more than 20% of the vote in the next election.

eXcentris
07-30-11, 11:15 PM
Meanwhile, who would have thought that the Arab Spring would lead to a Jewish Spring.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/more-than-100-000-take-to-streets-across-israel-in-largest-housing-protest-yet-1.376102

Ky-Fi
07-30-11, 11:34 PM
The Islamists can rant and rave all they want, they still won't get more than 20% of the vote in the next election.

Yes, and of course all parties in the country will respect the results of a democratic election, and solemnly yet peacefully accept their defeat should the majority reject them at the ballot box. :lol:

eXcentris
07-31-11, 01:56 AM
Yes, and of course all parties in the country will respect the results of a democratic election, and solemnly yet peacefully accept their defeat should the majority reject them at the ballot box. :lol:

Do you believe that the Egyptian army will magically disappear because of an election? I would think not.

wmansir
07-31-11, 07:56 AM
Meanwhile, who would have thought that the Arab Spring would lead to a Jewish Spring.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/more-than-100-000-take-to-streets-across-israel-in-largest-housing-protest-yet-1.376102

Jews complaining about high prices. How unusual. ;)

This article (http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=231688) has more details, including a Hebrew Darth Vader among the protesters: “The Israeli economy is growing at our expense,” he said. “I’m afraid that I won’t be able to afford healthcare, education and housing.”

Ro’i told the demonstrators to “turn this fear into anger and action.”

Lemdog
08-01-11, 04:32 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/international-outcry-grows-over-syria-violence-response-far-161544901.html
International outcry grows over Syria violence, but response so far constrained

In one of the bloodiest days in the Arab Spring protests against repressive regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, the Syrian military killed as may as 120 people in Hama Sunday. The brutal crackdown came on the eve of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

But even as the United States and European Union issued stinging condemnations of the Bashar al-Assad regime in the wake of the massacre, the international community continues to struggle in putting together a coordinated and effective response to the growing violence in Syria. American and European diplomats face a backlash among some United Nations member states stemming from the inconclusive military intervention in Libya; meanwhile, Western leaders find it hard to exert more direct diplomatic pressure on Assad's regime, thanks to Syria's own complicated geopolitical position in the Muslim world.

Leaders of other Arab states have also been distinctly muted in their response to the Syrian violence--which is estimated to have killed more than 1,600 since March. Their reluctance stems in part from concern the Syrian revolt could further exacerbate sectarian rifts between Sunni and Shia Muslims in neighboring states, including Iraq and Lebanon.

"Everybody recognizes that the Assad regime is in a real bind," said Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an interview with The Envoy Monday. "There are a lot of constraints, though, about actions."

"The Obama administration has a lot of constraints on them, because multilateral pressure is what works in Syria, and it's hard in August to marshal the Europeans--a confederation--plus the Turks, who have leverage there, into a concerted policy," Tabler continued. In addition, he said, the Obama administration "is also cognizant that … this revolution is not about the United States; it doesn't want to play into the regime's hands, which is very understandable."

President Barack Obama interrupted his debt-ceiling negotiations Sunday to condemn the Syrian brutality, describing the reports out of Hama as "horrifying."

"I am appalled by the Syrian government's use of violence and brutality against its own people," Obama said in a statement released by the White House Sunday. "Through his own actions, Bashar al-Assad is ensuring that he and his regime will be left in the past, and that the courageous Syrian people who have demonstrated in the streets will determine its future."

Obama vowed to work "with others around the world" in the coming days to "isolate the Assad government and stand with the Syrian people."

The European Union on Monday announced new sanctions on five members of the Syrian regime implicated in the violence, and called on the UN Security Council to act on Syria. You can watch a Reuters video report on the EU response to the crackdown here:

The UN Security Council scheduled a closed-door meeting for Monday at 5 p.m. to discuss the Syrian violence. But a resolution from the body condemning Assad's brutality has been blocked to date "by the Russians, Chinese and Indians," Tabler said. Turkey, a Syria neighbor with leverage in the region "would rather condemn the attacks like we do, but leave the door open to talk to Assad."

"What we see in Syria is the confluence of two things ... the enormous complexity on the ground that is Syria, and that goes with a very messy, complicated transition," said Mona Yacoubian, a Syria and Lebanon expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace, in an interview with The Envoy. "That coincides with, certainly on the part of the United States, very limited leverage inside the country. This is not Egypt. It is just not. We don't have the [ties to] people in the [Syrian] military, we don't have deep connections to the business elites."

"I think the U.S. position--which is essentially focused on limiting the violence, and also limiting the perception of America's role [there]--is a very smart one," said Scott Lasensky, a Middle East expert at the United States Institute of Peace. That focus "maintains [international] consensus."

It also "allows for the forces of change in Syria to build, because if you can eliminate worst acts of violence and repression and allow the demonstrations to continue, build and grow, that puts the Syrians at the center of the story, and allows the pressure to build against the regime over time," Lasensky added.

Some analysts suggested the United States work with the European Union to pursue energy sanctions on Syria.

Tabler, for one, says he expects movement on energy sanctions this week out of Washington, D.C. "We can target Syrian energy exports and finance mechanisms, and not target refined imports. We want Assad to run down his checking account."

Another factor contributing to the muted international response: the sense that the Syrian revolution is likely to be protracted and violent.

The Syrian opposition has gained some important organizational ground recently, but observers say it is still far from united. And the Assad regime still commands fierce ideological loyalty from key divisions of the Syrian security forces, which numbers 240,000 troops, said Syrian opposition analyst Radwan Ziadeh.

"Always we say that we don't need the Syrian people to pay the price for Libya," said Ziadeh, now based at George Washington University, in an interview with The Envoy last week. Ziadeh noted that several UN Security Council members, including emerging powers South Africa, Brazil and India, have professed reluctance to back such a resolution because an earlier March UN Security Council resolution condemning Libyan violence was used to justify a NATO military intervention against Muammar Gadhafi.

"None of the Syrian opposition is calling for military intervention," Ziadeh said. Even before yesterday's crackdown, Ziadeh observed that the people of Hama "discovered their power to change the regime without [international] intervention."

"By calling for political support, this actually makes more pressure on the regime to make more concessions and will get more generals to defect," Ziadeh said.

I knew quite a few people died, but I didn't think the number was as high as 1,600. I also don't see what the U.N. can do with the Russians and Chinese blocking everything, and the Europeans using all there political capital on Lybia.

eXcentris
08-03-11, 07:43 PM
Interesting poll. As to the last part, maybe Muslims should be taught how to use Twitter and Facebook. :)


Gallup poll reveals common ground for Jewish and Muslim Americans

A substantial majority of Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans support a future in which an independent Palestinian state would coexist alongside Israel.

By Shlomo Shamir

A recent Gallup poll has revealed that not only do Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans have similar views regarding how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict might be resolved, but Muslim Americans are significantly more moderate than often believed.

A substantial majority of Muslim Americans (81%) and Jewish Americans (78%) support a future in which an independent Palestinian state would coexist alongside Israel.

According to the poll, 89% of Muslim Americans say there is never a justification for attacks on civilians, compared to 79% of Mormon Americans, 75% of Jewish Americans, and 71% of Protestant and Catholic Americans. It was also found that the frequency with which Muslim Americans — or any other faith group — attend religious services has no effect on whether they justify violence against civilians.

Despite this surprisingly high Muslim opposition to attacks against civilians, most Americans of other faiths, according to the poll, feel Muslim Americans’ do not speak out often enough against terrorism. Of the Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Mormon Americans surveyed, no more than about one-third and as few as one-quarter believe U.S. Muslims are sufficiently vocal in condemning terrorism.

This statistic is in blatant contradiction with the statistic showing that 72% of Muslim Americans believe that they are, in fact, outspoken in their condemnation of terror.

This mismatch may suggest that U.S. Muslims simply have not found the appropriate outlets to make themselves heard. These statistics also reflect the frustration Muslim Americans often express that their repeated condemnations of terrorism seem to go unheard or unnoticed.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, founder and president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, said Tuesday that “the findings of this up-to-date Gallup poll prove that the projects that we have been running for the past several years throughout the U.S. geared toward bringing Jews and Muslims together were successful and achieved their goal.”

Mabuse
08-04-11, 07:57 PM
Those vast majorities who say there is NEVER a justification for attacks on civilians are very naive. When a nation decides it MUST win at ALL costs everything is on the table, even bombings with "collateral damage". We won WWII by bombing the shit out of civilians.

Ky-Fi
08-04-11, 08:46 PM
"These statistics also reflect the frustration Muslim Americans often express that their repeated condemnations of terrorism seem to go unheard or unnoticed."

Umm....yeah. Unheard and unnoticed by their fellow Muslims. That's kind of why it's continually an issue.

Conscientous objector -ohbfrank-


'Moderate' Muslim Plots Jihad Mass Murder at Fort Hood

by Robert Spencer

Posted 08/02/2011 ET


Yet another jihad mass murder at Fort Hood in Texas was narrowly averted last week, and its perpetrator, a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Army named Naser Abdo, was defiant. Accused of plotting to construct bombs and detonate them in a crowded restaurant full of soldiers from Fort Hood, Abdo admitted his guilt in court last Friday and cried out “Iraq 2006” and “Nidal Hasan Fort Hood 2009”—name-dropping the Islamic jihadist who murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood in November of that year. The most significant aspect of Abdo’s attempt to emulate Hasan’s jihad murders was the one (not surprisingly) most overlooked by the mainstream media: Abdo was a well-known self-described moderate Muslim.

Abdo, a Private First Class, shot to fame in June 2010 when he applied for conscientious objector status, saying that as a Muslim he could not fight against other Muslims in Afghanistan. And indeed, that is forbidden in Islamic law, although obviously that is a law often honored in the breach. Abdo was stationed at Fort Campbell in Kentucky at that time, and his superiors denied his application for objector status, but in a decision fraught with unexamined implications for Muslims in the U.S. military, the assistant deputy secretary of the Army’s review board quickly overturned that ruling.

The implications of the granting of conscientious objector status to Abdo were enormous. Was the Army saying that a Muslim soldier could not be understood as owing his primary allegiance to the United States, and would be expected to side with America’s enemies if those enemies were Muslim? Such questions were left unexplored of course, and during the controversy, Abdo sounded all the right moderate Muslim notes, saying: “Only when the military and America can disassociate Muslims from terror can we move onto a brighter future of religious collaboration and dialogue that defines America and makes me proud to be an American.”

Once he gained his conscientious objector status, Abdo vowed to dedicate his time to furthering the cause of Islamic moderation and to fighting that omnipresent phantom bogey, “Islamophobia.” He declared: “I want to use my experience to show Muslims how we can lead our lives, and to try and put a good positive spin out there that Islam is a good, peaceful religion. We’re not all terrorists, you know?”

Indeed not, but Abdo was. The contrast between his words in 2010 and his deeds in 2011 couldn’t be starker, and it raises legitimate questions about the intentions of self-proclaimed moderate Muslims in the U.S. Obviously not all of them are secret jihadist sympathizers and would-be terrorists like Abdo, but what are law enforcement and government authorities to think when a leading putatively moderate group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), publicizes a poster exhorting Muslims not to talk to the FBI?

With his soothing words about promoting Islam as a “peaceful religion,” Abdo was clearly following his prophet Muhammad’s dictum, “War is deceit.” But all too often, U.S. officials don’t need anyone to deceive them, as they do such a fine job of it all by themselves. Usually any Muslim who condemns an undefined “terrorism” and declares himself to be “moderate” is assumed at the highest levels of government to accept principles that are denied by Islamic law, such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. This is dangerously naïve, as a Muslim could still be committed to the goal of advancing acceptance of Islamic law in the West without resorting to terrorist means to do so, or even supporting those who do resort to such means.

The Muslim Brotherhood, after all, is dedicated in America, in its own words, to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.” The deceptive Pfc. Abdo has one way of achieving this goal. The many Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States, which include most mainstream Muslim organizations, have another. Both hope to assert and ultimately to establish the principle that Americans must always change their laws, customs and practices in order to accommodate Islamic law, and that Muslims by right should enjoy privileges and rights that non-Muslims do not enjoy.

That was the goal of Osama bin Laden and Naser Abdo. It is the goal also of numerous Muslims who would never commit a terrorist act. U.S. officials ignore or deny that fact at their own risk, and ours.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45244

kvrdave
08-04-11, 10:09 PM
Interesting poll. As to the last part, maybe Muslims should be taught how to use Twitter and Facebook. :)

These are tricky things with Islam. The Qu'ran is pretty open and obvious in that it permits (encourages?) or at least is okay with lying when it furthers the cause of Islam. Even putting Allah as a master of deceit. Not sure how to put that in with things like this, quite honestly. I hope it is a face value type of thing.

dork
08-05-11, 04:27 PM
y83z552NJaw

Poor, benighted Chris Christie displaying fatal blindness to the threat Sharia poses to our nation. :sad:

eXcentris
08-05-11, 10:24 PM
Good news about Muslims = what?, immediately countered with bad news about Muslims. :lol:

JasonF
08-05-11, 10:41 PM
y83z552NJaw

Poor, benighted Chris Christie displaying fatal blindness to the threat Sharia poses to our nation. :sad:

I generally am not a fan of Governor Christie, but I will give him credit for taking a strong stand against prejudice.

focker
08-06-11, 04:04 AM
y83z552NJaw

Poor, benighted Chris Christie displaying fatal blindness to the threat Sharia poses to our nation. :sad:

That was awesome. Good for him.

Ky-Fi
08-06-11, 09:08 AM
Ahh yes, Sharia courts are just a silly concern. "Why, the very idea that a group of people might not bow down to our Western liberal culture as superior is just....unthinkable!!" :lol:


Probe into secretive Sharia law courts scrapped as Muslim leaders close ranks

By Steve Doughty and Neil Sears

Last updated at 10:46 PM on 29th July 2011


Ministers have abandoned an inquiry into the rise of secretive Sharia councils that deal in Islamic justice – because the Muslim courts refused to help.

The failure of the Ministry of Justice probe has generated new fears among politicians and pressure groups about the increasing influence of Sharia courts.

They are worried the courts' decisions may run against the law of the land, particularly in divorce settlements for women.

The scrapping of the inquiry comes in a week when Islamic extremists have launched a campaign to declare 'Sharia-controlled zones' across Britain.
Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, which has so far seen posters put on lampposts in several London boroughs declaring that within the 'zones' there should be 'no gambling', 'no music or concerts', 'no porn or prostitution', 'no drugs or smoking' and 'no alcohol'.
The Daily Mail has previously published photographs of Choudary in his student days breaking all but one of the zone laws – holding a cannabis joint, downing a pint of cider, playing cards and leering at porn.

But the abandonment of the Government's Sharia inquiry has fuelled fears that such radicals will be able to continue their intimidating activities unchecked.

The Ministry of Justice had launched an inquiry into the operation of Sharia courts in Britain because of rising fears that the secretive system has undue influence.
The number of Sharia courts here is unknown, although an estimate of 85 made by the Civitas think-tank in 2009 is widely accepted.

The failure of the Government's investigation was disclosed to MPs by Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly.

He told Tory backbencher Kris Hopkins that before last year's general election his department acted to 'commission an exploratory study of Sharia councils in England with respect to family law'.

Mr Djanogly said: 'This identified a number of challenges to undertaking robust research in this area. The study was therefore limited and adds little to the evidence base.

'The findings cannot be regarded as a representative assessment of the operation of Sharia councils. Following expert peer review of the draft report, the Ministry of Justice decided not to publish the findings.'

A further statement to the Mail made it clear the 'challenges' researchers experienced boiled down to the Sharia courts failing to co-operate.

The Ministry of Justice said: 'The report was essentially an exploratory study which identified a number of challenges to undertaking more robust research.

'The challenges to undertaking more robust research were that the councils are generally run on a volunteer basis, were short staffed and very busy, so there were practical difficulties in speaking with respondents.

'There was also reluctance to discuss the private work of the councils and respondents were wary of the stereotypical ways in which their organisations were represented in the media.'

Sharia law is also under scrutiny in the Lords, where the independent peer Baroness Cox has tabled a Bill seeking to make it a crime for anyone to take over the rights of the state's criminal or family courts.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020391/Probe-secretive-Sharia-law-courts-scrapped-Muslim-leaders-close-ranks.html#ixzz1UFmzG83h

Ky-Fi
08-06-11, 09:20 AM
Yes, and Chris Christie is certainly experienced in recognizing and opposing radical Islamic activity:


Homeland Security Appeals Qatanani Ruling

by IPT News • Jan 7, 2009 at 11:57 am

The Department of Homeland Security has appealed a judge's order granting permanent residency to a New Jersey imam with ties to Hamas. Mohammad Qatanani's failure to report a 1993 arrest and detention by Israeli officials when he applied for his green card is at the heart of the government appeal, the Hackensack Record reports.

Qatanani denies having Hamas links and said that, while he was detained by Israel, he did not include the information on his application because he was not convicted of a crime. A federal judge sided with him last September.

Qatanani had widespread support in New Jersey, despite a record of condemning Christians to eternal hellfire and his attendance at numerous radical conferences in the United States. For example, Qatanani spoke at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) conference in Chicago. The IAP served as a Hamas propaganda arm in the United States and was part of a secret Muslim Brotherhood committee assembled to help Hamas politically and financially.

The appeal is before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1192/homeland-security-appeals-qatanani-ruling


****************





Cleared in court, imam praises Jewish supporter
Immigration judge rejects government’s call for deportation

[.....]

Throughout the trial, Qatanani earned the support of religious and municipal leaders and law enforcement officials, who praised his community outreach following the 9/11 attacks.

U.S. attorney Christopher Christie, speaking at an annual Ramadan break-fast dinner at ICPC the night before Riefkohl announced his decision, praised the cleric.

“My view is he’s always had a very good relationship with us, and he’s a man of great goodwill,” said Christie, before embracing Qatanani and wishing him well.

Qatanani told NJJN he also had a warm exchange with Gov. Jon Corzine when he visited the official residence in Princeton on Sept. 6 for a Ramadan Iftar observance. “The governor congratulated me and said he was happy with result of the trial,” said Qatanani, who, according to his spokesman, Aref Assaf, met privately with the governor, together with several of the imam’s supporters, before the main event.

[............]

A ‘disgrace’?

Anti-terrorism researcher Steven Emerson, who has written articles denouncing Qatanani for alleged ties to Hamas and has called for his deportation, was highly critical of the judge’s decision.

“I think it’s a disgrace and an act of pure political corruption,” he said, that Corzine, Christie, Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-Dist. 8), and the FBI special agent in charge “intervened to help Qatanani during the legal process of the deportation proceedings.

“I know for certain that Christie and the FBI SAC had access to information about Qatanani’s background, involvement with and support of Hamas,” said Emerson.

Emerson charged that statements and actions by Christie, Corzine, and Pascrell in the Qatanani case “betrayed U.S. national security interests, and I call upon Congress to hold hearings immediately.”

In an interview with NJJN, Christie acknowledged the “paradox” of his offering praise for Qatanani while another branch of the U.S. government involved in law enforcement was doing its best to have the cleric deported.

“Yes, there is an apparent paradox, but these are two different branches of the U.S. government,” said Christie. “My office is not involved in the immigration dispute.”

Christie said his comments at the annual Ramadan dinner, delivered before the judge’s decision, “were in no way a commentary on the dispute between the imam and DHS.”

Rather, he said, “they were a reflection of my office’s experience with the imam over the past seven years. After I came in, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we were looking to have a dialogue with the Muslim community, and we found Imam Qatanani to be a constructive force in attempting to strengthen our relations with that community.”


http://njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/njImamPraisesJewish.html

Mabuse
08-08-11, 01:24 PM
Ki-Fi regarding your Sharia Court article. This part: The scrapping of the inquiry comes in a week when Islamic extremists have launched a campaign to declare 'Sharia-controlled zones' across Britain.
Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, which has so far seen posters put on lampposts in several London boroughs declaring that within the 'zones' there should be 'no gambling', 'no music or concerts', 'no porn or prostitution', 'no drugs or smoking' and 'no alcohol'.

This reminds me of similar measures that have been taken by black muslims in America. I haven't heard about it happening recently, but in the '70s and '80s when a mayor or police force wouldn't or couldn't clean up a neighborhood the clergy or a neighborhood group could appeal to the Nation of Islam and a bunch of bow tied enforcers would show up and shut down all dealing, gambling, pimping, EVERYTHING literally overnight. Making a deal with the Nation of Islam came with its own problems but in some cases the ends justified the means.

The article you posted doesn't go into much detail. Are these Sharia zones being enforced mostly to drive criminals out of certain neighborhoods rather than enforce Sharia over the law abiding local muslim population? Are the criminals who are being driven out white chavs, blacks, fellow muslims, what?

If the Sharia "enforcers" are just running all the shit out of town and the law abiding citizens of the neighborhood still have the option of going to regular police if they have a problem then maybe these Sharia zones serve a purpose. Ultimately they have to be corralled and controlled by the government to ensure they don't grow too overreaching and corrupt, but I'm open minded enough to realize that a little vigilante justice can be a good thing sometimes.

Ky-Fi
08-08-11, 03:26 PM
Ki-Fi regarding your Sharia Court article....

The article you posted doesn't go into much detail. Are these Sharia zones being enforced mostly to drive criminals out of certain neighborhoods rather than enforce Sharia over the law abiding local muslim population? Are the criminals who are being driven out white chavs, blacks, fellow muslims, what?

If the Sharia "enforcers" are just running all the shit out of town and the law abiding citizens of the neighborhood still have the option of going to regular police if they have a problem then maybe these Sharia zones serve a purpose. Ultimately they have to be corralled and controlled by the government to ensure they don't grow too overreaching and corrupt, but I'm open minded enough to realize that a little vigilante justice can be a good thing sometimes.


From what I understand, with Chaudary and others putting up those "Shariah Zone" posters:

http://ztruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00e00986be4d88330154340c1d4f970c-800wi

...it's really more of a publicity stunt by a few radicals---they don't actually have the resources to enforce all the prohibitions in those posters on a regular basis, or over a wide range of territory. I think the 85 courts ruling on domestic issues is a more serious problem at this point.

I think vigilante justice is rarely if ever a good idea---but when the vigilante's idea of "crime" is listening to music and drinking a beer, I don't see much of an upside to it at all.

Mabuse
08-08-11, 03:36 PM
but when the vigilante's idea of "crime" is listening to music and drinking a beer, I don't see much of an upside to it at all.When it's directed at the population at large I agree with you, but when it's just being used to run the pieces of shit out of town I don't care. Like when they use noise ordinances to shut down party houses. Or (like I said before) when the Nation of Islam shuts down every pimp and drug dealer in a 1 mile radius.

Groucho
08-08-11, 04:13 PM
http://ztruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00e00986be4d88330154340c1d4f970c-800wiHoly shit! We don't have many Muslims here, or the posters, but I'm pretty sure I'm living in a Shariah Zone! :eek:

Red Dog
08-08-11, 04:19 PM
:lol:

I was going to say -- drugs and prostitution are already illegal. Most places have open container bans. Are these sharia police busting down bars? If so, then prosecute them.

Unless you got a casino in your neighborhood, with the exception of places that sell lottery tickets, I'd say public forms of gambling are already illegal. So unless they are busting down 7-11s, who cares.

And there are permit requirements for concerts.

wishbone
08-08-11, 04:28 PM
Unless you got a casino in your neighborhood, with the exception of places that sell lottery tickets, I'd say public forms of gambling are already illegal.http://i56.tinypic.com/o7u7p1.jpg

Ky-Fi
08-08-11, 05:48 PM
Are these sharia police busting down bars? If so, then prosecute them.


Was that a verbatim quote from the Shah in early 1979, or were you just paraphrasing him? ;)

Here's a link to a related story that gives a bit more background:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386558/Tower-Hamlets-Taliban-Death-threats-women-gays-attacked-streets.html

Mabuse
08-08-11, 06:06 PM
:lol:

I was going to say -- drugs and prostitution are already illegal. Most places have open container bans. Are these sharia police busting down bars? If so, then prosecute them.

Unless you got a casino in your neighborhood, with the exception of places that sell lottery tickets, I'd say public forms of gambling are already illegal. So unless they are busting down 7-11s, who cares.

And there are permit requirements for concerts.Are you that naive? For better or worse these Sharia enforcers are atempting to "clean up the town". Drunks, junkies, prostitutes, backroom gambling, etc. Are there already laws against these vices? Of course. Do police turn a blind eye and allow such things to proliferate in certain urban areas? Yes.

DeputyDave
08-08-11, 06:40 PM
Ah yes, let’s have vigilante justice be considered OK. Sounds like a great idea.

Trout
08-08-11, 06:50 PM
Are you that naive? For better or worse these Sharia enforcers are attempting to "clean up the town". Drunks, junkies, prostitutes, backroom gambling, etc. Are there already laws against these vices? Of course. Do police turn a blind eye and allow such things to proliferate in certain urban areas? Yes.

So you are OK with not being allowed to buy 1 single beer, or going to see a music concert? Seriously?

Mabuse
08-08-11, 07:39 PM
I said "for better or for worse".

The bottom line is that the article is very unclear about what exactly this is all about. Ki-Fi says it's really just a publicity stunt and the people posting it have no ability to enforce anything, nor are they. They're just grabbing some attention with their flyers.

I made the connection with the Nation of Islam here in the USA because it struck a cord of similarity, I don't know what the fuck this group in England is doing, it sounds like they're doing nothing.

But yes, I'll turn a blind eye to a little vigilantism. A ban on drinking one single beer? Fuck that. But a group rounding up all the drunks passed out on park benches and booting them one county over, a group telling all the junkies to ship out or face the "consequences", a group telling all the pimps and dealers to move to some other neighborhood, I'm all for it. I don't care who takes out my trash, just so long at the cans are empty when I get home from work.

Josh-da-man
08-08-11, 09:50 PM
Ah yes, let’s have vigilante justice be considered OK. Sounds like a great idea.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/64/PUNMAX031COV_colREV.jpg/250px-PUNMAX031COV_colREV.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Dexter_Morgan.jpg

Red Dog
08-09-11, 08:59 AM
Are you that naive? For better or worse these Sharia enforcers are atempting to "clean up the town". Drunks, junkies, prostitutes, backroom gambling, etc. Are there already laws against these vices? Of course. Do police turn a blind eye and allow such things to proliferate in certain urban areas? Yes.

Naive about what? I was simply commenting that we (and presumably the UK does too - I didn't realize that's where it was) already have rules and laws on this stuff (most of which I disagree with) and I really don't see the big deal about this. Now if 'cleaning up' means resorting to violence and intimidation to enforce their guidelines, then that's a serious problem. If it's simply posting these flyers, then why give a shit.

Red Dog
08-09-11, 10:43 AM
Just watched that Gov. Christie video. That was great. :thumbsup: If he ever runs for national office, his reluctance to fear-monger will probably cost him votes in his party, unfortunately.

Mabuse
08-09-11, 01:08 PM
Naive about what? I was simply commenting that we (and presumably the UK does too - I didn't realize that's where it was) already have rules and laws on this stuff (most of which I disagree with) and I really don't see the big deal about this. Now if 'cleaning up' means resorting to violence and intimidation to enforce their guidelines, then that's a serious problem. If it's simply posting these flyers, then why give a shit.

Just because there is a law doesn't mean it's being enforced. It's illegal to be drunk in public but most cities let homeless bums pass out in the park all day. If a group takes it upon themselves to boot the bums out of their park that's great.

It's illegal to sell drugs but many cities have parks and street corners where drug dealers hang out all day every day. If a community unites to say "you're not welcome here" that's great.

Ky-Fi
08-18-11, 09:19 AM
Excellent summary of the situation here (hyperlinks are in the original article) :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardlandes/100101297/liberal-intellectuals-are-frightened-of-confronting-islams-honour-shame-culture/

Liberal intellectuals are frightened of confronting Islam's honour-shame culture


By Richard Landes Religion Last updated: August 17th, 2011

793 Comments Comment on this article


Politeness is not saying certain things lest there be violence; civility is being able to say those certain things and there won’t be violence.

A recent series of polls indicate that European public opinion is substantially concerned by the increasingly aggressive Islam that their substantial immigrant populations have taken to expressing. To quote Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group:

The findings – which come as Europeans are waking up to the consequences of decades of mass immigration from Muslim countries – point to a growing disconnect between European voters and their political masters regarding multicultural policies that encourage Muslim immigrants to remain segregated rather than become integrated into their host nations.

The survey results mirror the findings of dozens of other recent polls. Taken together, they provide ample empirical evidence that scepticism about Muslim immigration is not limited to a “right-wing” political fringe, as proponents of multiculturalism often assert. Mainstream voters across the entire political spectrum are now expressing concerns about the role of Islam in Europe.

The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.)

Honour-shame and Islamism:

In an honour culture, it is legitimate, expected, even required to shed blood for the sake of honour, to save face, to redeem the dishonoured face. Public criticism is an assault on the very “face” of the person criticised. Thus, people in such cultures are careful to be “polite”; and a genuinely free press is impossible, no matter what the laws proclaim.

Modernity, however, is based on a free public discussion, on civility rather than politeness, but the benefits of this public self-criticism – sharp learning curves, advances in science and technology, economic development, democracy – make that pain worthwhile.

But such a system represents a crucible of humiliation for alpha males, especially those who believe that the social order depends on the honour of ruling elite, like the anti-Dreyfusards around 1900, ready to sacrifice a single man for the honour of Army and Church.

This is particularly true for Islamic religious culture. In Dar al Islam, a Muslim’s contradiction/criticism of Islam was punishable by death, a fortiori did this hold true for infidels. Modernity has been a Nakba (psychological catastrophe) for Islam, and Islam in all its variegated currents has yet to successfully negotiate these demands of modernity.

On the contrary, the loudest voices in contemporary Islam reject vehemently the kind of self-criticism modernity requires. Criticism constitutes an unbearable assault on the manhood of Muslims.

Indeed, global Jihad and the apocalyptic prophets who nourish it with genocidal rhetoric, represent a particularly virulent form of abreactive modernity, in which the powers of modern society (especially technology) are turned to the task of destroying a modern culture of public, free debate about what is fair.

Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, that they not use force (the state) to impose their beliefs on others. Religious communities have to give up their need to be visibly superior as a sign of being right/true. This involves high levels of both self-confidence and tolerance for public contradiction.

For Islam this is a particularly difficult challenge. For Islam’s formative period, it dominated. Dhimma laws spelled out the principles: infidels were “protected” from violence and death at the hands of Muslims as long as they accepted a visibly humiliating, inferiority. And among the key demands made on dhimmis, was that they not challenge, criticise, or in any way “insult” Islam or Muslims.

Contemporary manifestations of Islamic revival tend to handle the infidel “other” poorly. The peril to contemporary Christians and Jews in Muslim majority nations is mirrored in the behavior of Muslims in the expanding European enclaves, those zones urbaines sensibles, or Sharia zones, where the state’s writ no longer runs.

Thus, Islam’s – Muslims – relationship with the “other” (kufr, infidel, lit. one who covers [the truth]), is the great problem to resolve in this coming generation, and at the heart of that problem lies the ability of Muslims to tolerate criticism from outsiders.

We in the modern (and post-modern) West, who first forged these remarkable rules of self-restraint and created so rich, so variegated, so tolerant a culture, have a right to demand that Islam adopt these rules, certainly those who live in and benefit from the civil polities we have created. Indeed, if we treasure these values of tolerance, and freedom, and generosity towards the “other,” we owe it to ourselves and to the Muslims in our midst, to make this demand. Anything else, including the fantasy that this is not a problem, is cultural suicide.

And yet, so far, we are doing very badly, mostly because we avoid dealing with the problem. The “thin skin” of Muslims is proverbial, and much public, diplomatic, and even academic discourse tacitly acknowledges and placates that cultural reality. When Western positive-sum principles (we do everything we can to “get to yes,” win-win) meets Arab zero-sum principles (they can only win, if we lose), we most often lose (Oslo “Peace” Process).

In the last decade this has gotten much worse. The behaviour of the self-identified “progressive” “left” – traditionally the bastion of stinging public criticism of abuse of power, misogyny and belligerence – has been overwhelmingly placatory towards touchy Muslims. Repeatedly, as in the case of Pope Benedict, they step in to prevent anyone (fellow infidels), whom they smear as Islamophobes, from saying something that might bruise Muslims feelings. Indeed, they seem more worried about “us” provoking Muslim violence than about exploring the sources of Muslim violence. And often they attack those defending democratic principles with a shrill and contemptuous tone that they would never dream of using with Muslims.

Which brings us back to the “disconnect.” Our journalist and academic talking heads are subject to a different kind of Islamophobia: an inordinate fear of criticising Islam. And as a result they betray their own real constituencies, those of us committed to the rules civil polities. We cannot defend modern, tolerant, liberal political culture with such fearful people dominating the public sphere.

JasonF
08-30-11, 03:57 PM
Pew has a new study on Muslims in America. It's long, so I'm just going to shamelessly steal Prof. Volokh's summary of the report:

Non-Extremist American Muslims Worried About Extremism Among American Muslims
Eugene Volokh • August 30, 2011 2:32 pm

The Pew Center has an interesting new report on Muslim Americans. Some items from it:

1. The report estimates the Muslim population of the U.S., at 2.75 million, rather below the 5-to-7 million estimates that some have given and consistent with the “high-side estimates” from the 2001 National Opinion Research Center survey.

2. The overwhelming majority of American Muslims rejects political violence against civilians (81% say “Suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is [never] justified to defend Islam from its enemies,” compared to only 19% in the Palestinian territories, 38% in Egypt, and 60% in Turkey), and have very unfavorable views of al Qaeda (70%).

3. The rejection of al Qaeda actually seems to be considerably higher among foreign-born Muslims than among black native-born Muslims, who I assume have very little connection to the Middle East. (I take it the great bulk of black native-born Muslims come from families who have been in America for a long time, though a few might be the children of African immigrants, from instance from Nigeria or Somalia.)

Among the foreign-born, 75% have very unfavorable views of al Qaeda (9% have somewhat unfavorable, 3% have favorable, and 14% say “don’t know” or refuse to answer). Among black native-born Muslims, only 56% have very unfavorable views of al Qaeda (21% have somewhat unfavorable, 11% have favorable, and 12% say “don’t know”). The difference seems statistically significant at the 95% level, despite the high margins of error for these subgroups. Non-black native-born Muslims are in-between, at 62% very unfavorable (15% somewhat unfavorable, 10% favorable, 13% “don’t know”), though I don’t think that those differences are statistically significant.

4. The overwhelming majority of American Muslims also supports women’s participation in business life and political life. When asked whether they agree with “women should be able to work outside the home,” 72% completely agreed and 18% mostly agreed (for the American public at large, the numbers are 81% and 16%, and for Muslims in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan, the numbers are generally much lower). When asked “who do you think make better political leaders?” — men or women — 68% said there’s no difference, 4% said women, and 27% said men; the numbers for the American public at large were 72%, 12%, and 13%, and the numbers in other Muslim countries were much less supportive of women on this question.

5. And most American Muslims view Israel’s existence as compatible with what they see as the rights of Palestinians: When asked which comes closest to their opinion, 62% said that “A way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinian people are taken care of,” and 20% said “The rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists.” By comparison, the numbers for the general American public were 67% and 12%, and the numbers in the Muslim countries listed in the report were far more anti-Israel (the least anti-Israel were Lebanon, with 40% and 59%, and Indonesia, with 37% and 43%; for Pakistan, for instance, the numbers were 13% and 47%).

6. All this having been said, American Muslims are worried about extremism among American Muslims, doubtless because even a modest percentage of extremists can reflect a high number of extremists. Among all Muslims, 60% are “very” or “somewhat” concerned “about possible rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S.” (the percentages are 78% for black native-born Muslims, and 52–53% for foreign-born Muslims).

7. Likewise, 21% believe there is “a fair amount” (15%) or “a great deal” (6%) of “support for extremism ... among Muslims living in the U.S.,” only 34% believe there is “none at all”; 30% say “not too much,” and 15% say “don’t know” or refuse to answer.

8. And 48% of American Muslims say that “Muslim leaders in the U.S. ... have ... not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists”; 34% say that the leaders have “done as much as they should” (1% volunteered the answer “done too much,” and 17% said they didn’t know, or refused to answer).

So it seems to me that this survey suggests that extremists make up only a small percentage of American Muslims, but still make up a sufficient number that other American Muslims are worried about them. (Indeed, the worry of most American Muslims likely reflects both most American Muslims’ not being extremists — presumably, extremists generally aren’t worried about extremism — and their recognition that some are extremists.) I express no opinion in this post about what is to be done about that (e.g., to what extent this justifies surveillance of mosques and the like); but it struck me as worth noting.

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

Volokh summary is here:
http://volokh.com/2011/08/30/non-extremist-american-muslims-worried-about-extremism-among-american-muslims/

Report is here:
http://people-press.org/files/2011/08/muslim-american-report.pdf

Ky-Fi
08-30-11, 04:07 PM
"Among all Muslims, 60% are “very” or “somewhat” concerned “about possible rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S.”

60% of US Muslims are ignorant, hysterical Islamophobes?

Interesting.

JasonF
09-25-11, 01:09 PM
Saudi Arabia is adopting .... women's suffrage! I'm not sure what that's worth in a monarchy, but according to the article I read, they have elected municipal government, so I guess that's where it comes into play.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/saudi-king-women-given-right-to-vote-for-first-time-in-2015-nationwide-local-elections/2011/09/25/gIQAt4wwvK_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

Psi
09-25-11, 01:34 PM
"Among all Muslims, 60% are “very” or “somewhat” concerned “about possible rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S.”

60% of US Muslims are ignorant, hysterical Islamophobes?

I don't know how you equate being concerned about a possible rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S. to being an ignorant, hysterical Islamophobe.

Ky-Fi
09-25-11, 01:48 PM
I don't know how you equate being concerned about a possible rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S. to being an ignorant, hysterical Islamophobe.

I was being sarcastic, but there is certainly a sizeable ideological block that does equate the two.

Red Dog
09-26-11, 10:07 AM
Saudi Arabia is adopting .... women's suffrage! I'm not sure what that's worth in a monarchy, but according to the article I read, they have elected municipal government, so I guess that's where it comes into play.


Iran beat them to it. ;)

crazyronin
09-26-11, 12:39 PM
Saudi Arabia is adopting .... women's suffrage! I'm not sure what that's worth in a monarchy, but according to the article I read, they have elected municipal government, so I guess that's where it comes into play.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/saudi-king-women-given-right-to-vote-for-first-time-in-2015-nationwide-local-elections/2011/09/25/gIQAt4wwvK_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

I'm sure that the pleasure of being able to vote will alleviate the pain of the muttaween beating them for appearing in public without their husbands or close male relatives.

JasonF
09-26-11, 01:01 PM
I'm sure that the pleasure of being able to vote will alleviate the pain of the muttaween beating them for appearing in public without their husbands or close male relatives.

I'm sure it won't, but at least they're taking a step in the right direction even if they've still got a long road to travel.

crazyronin
09-26-11, 07:32 PM
I'm sure it won't, but at least they're taking a step in the right direction even if they've still got a long road to travel.

The first step should have been the disbanding of the CPVPV. This is just a meaningless sop.

eXcentris
09-26-11, 07:46 PM
This is how it starts, you watch, next they'll want to come out of the kitchen :grunt:

crazyronin
09-26-11, 07:56 PM
Femme, me trouver un sammich!

man, my Froggy sucks. Merde!

eXcentris
09-26-11, 08:02 PM
You get an 'A' for effort :lol:

Josh-da-man
09-28-11, 07:11 AM
Saudi Arabia is adopting .... women's suffrage! [/url]

Unfortunately for the Saudis, "suffrage" doesn't mean what they think it does.

Mabuse
09-30-11, 02:48 PM
Did anyone see Frontline this week? There was a whole update on the Ground Zero mosque and Sharif El-Gamal the real estate developer behind it. He comes off REAL BAD. Like a skeevy fucking crook. But it also helps put the controversy behind us. Imam Rauf (the religious face of the project) has completely turned his back on the guy and wants nothing to do with it anymore. The segment ends with Sharif El-Gamal and two un-paid interns brainstorming on how they're going to raise $100 million dollars. :lol: He's nuts.

It's also fascinating to see how un-prepared he was once the media and opponents grabbed a hold of the story. The whole thing was doomed to failure and I always said there was virtually no chance of this ever happening. It was vaporware. Vapor-mosque.

Here's a clip, I can't find the whole program: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/religion/man-behind-mosque/film-excerpt-meet-sharif-el-gamal/

Ky-Fi
10-26-11, 10:45 AM
And here we go, the full-on embracing of political correctness by the Obama administration. Now we have the Justice Department aggressively, forcefully and proudly declaring that they won't investigate, and refuse to even consider, the ideological and religious motivations of terrorists. The fact that an Islamic terrorist spent his whole youth in Islamic schools, is religiously devout, extremely knowledgable and able to quote the Quran verbatim, and shouts "Allahu Akbar" when shooting at US soldiers or detonating his explosive vest can only mean one thing: that this Muslim doesn't understand Islam as well as Western non-Muslims like Eric Holder.

DOJ Official: Holder ‘Firmly Committed’ To Eliminating Anti-Muslim Training

Ryan J. Reilly October 19, 2011, 2:50 PM 162037

Attorney General Eric Holder is “firmly committed” to nixing anti-Muslim material from law enforcement training, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, Dwight C. Holton said Wednesday.

Holton, who was U.S. Attorney when the FBI arrested the so-called Christmas tree bomber, said that he spoke specifically with Holder about the “egregiously false” training that took place at the FBI’s training headquarters at Quantico and at a U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania, which was first reported on by Wired.


“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for,” Holton said. “They will not be tolerated.”

The training materials, Holton said, “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam.”

Holton said that he spoke about the issue with Holder directly when he was out in Oregon.

“He is firmly committed to making sure that this is over,” Holton said. “Now the reality is it is going to take a bit to go back and figure out what trainings have happened in the past that we need to go back and fix — we’re a big organization, we’ve got lots going on with lots of people and lots of contractors — but Attorney General Holder is firmly committed to it, and we’re going to fix it.”

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez also condemned the anti-Muslim training material in his subsequent speech during a conference on anti-Muslim discrimination, saying that Muslims have “every right to be upset about the issue of the trainings.”

“The Attorney General is equally upset, the Deputy Attorney General is upset, the FBI Director is upset, and we’re upset because we have accomplished so much,” Perez said.

“I recognize the words of my mother, that it only takes one or two incidents to make all that great work seem a part of the past,” Perez said. “So we have to make sure that we have the quality control across the board.”

Holton struck a similar theme, recalling how he talked to his local FBI special agent in charge (SAC) the day after the Quantico revelations came out.

“The SAC said to me — Greg Fowler, who used to be in New York, he’s now in Oregon — said ‘You know, they tell you on your first day as an agent at the FBI that one person can make a difference. What they forget to tell you is that it can be a good difference or a bad difference.’ So we’re working hard to get that right,” Holton said.

Progress has been made on engagement with Muslim communities, including in the way that criminal complaints refer to Islam, said Holton.

“Before this effort, a lot of us didn’t understand that when we make an arrest in a high-profile terrorism case that involves someone who claims they follow Islam, it creates a mini-backlash against people in communities,” Holton said.

“In the 37-page complaint that laid out the allegations against Mohamed Mohamud, he is never once identified as a Muslim. We were very careful about that. It’s not relevant from our perspective, what’s relevant is the violence,” Holton said.

“Every time I opened my mouth about that case, I said maybe two or three main points and one of them is ‘violence knows no country, no religion, no boundaries’,” Holton said.

He added that not referring to him as a Muslim made him the target of Islamophobic bloggers.

“Of all the hateful things that have been said about me as U.S. Attorney, it’s part of the job, right, having to deal with the bloggers comments — and believe me the medical marijuana crowd does not love me — but of all the hateful things that have been said about me was in response to me saying that,” Holton said. “There are people who don’t get it.”

Holton called the outreach he did with the Muslim community over the course of his tour as U.S. Attorney for Oregon the most important work of his career, joking that he put on “10 pounds in lamb weight” and recalling having 15 to 20 imams over at his house for a halal meal that went until 2 a.m.

“My wife jokes that our social life has been taken over by Muslim engagement,” said Holton.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/doj_official_holder_firmly_committed_to_eliminating_anti-muslim_training.php

JasonF
10-26-11, 12:44 PM
You forgot to bold this part: ;)

He added that not referring to him as a Muslim made him the target of Islamophobic bloggers.

Mabuse
10-26-11, 01:34 PM
Pathetic story. Is the DOJ in charge of enforcing the law or are they the "hurt feelings police"? Waa, Waa baby.

"Mini backlashes"? Yeah every time there's an arrest I can barely walk down the street because of the corpses of all the lynched muslims scattered about. Truely we must be careful of the devestating mini-backlashes. Booga-booga.

I was at the video store one time and a white christian male told an Iranian girl to stand up for herself and "take that thing off your head". Could this have been a mini-backlash? Oh the horror. The horror. How was that girl able to go on with her life? Poor thing.

JasonF
10-26-11, 02:08 PM
Pathetic story. Is the DOJ in charge of enforcing the law or are they the "hurt feelings police"? Waa, Waa baby.
Yeah, diplomacy is totally for pussies. There's only a billion or so Muslims -- what could be the harm of constantly sending the message that we have nothing but contempt for them?

Ky-Fi
10-26-11, 02:19 PM
Yeah, diplomacy is totally for pussies. There's only a billion or so Muslims -- what could be the harm of constantly sending the message that we have nothing but contempt for them?


So let's be perfectly clear, then. If Fred Phelps guns down five people at a military funeral, while shouting "Praise Jesus!!", you would advocate that there should be no investigation into the ideology of the Westboro Baptist Church, and indeed Eric Holder should carefully filter any Justice Department reports to specifically censor any mention of the Westboro Baptist Church, that he was a Christian preacher, etc.? This would be reasonable and prudent to you, so as not to offend a billion Christians? And doing otherwise would send the message that the government has nothing but contempt for Christians?

JasonF
10-26-11, 04:02 PM
So let's be perfectly clear, then. If Fred Phelps guns down five people at a military funeral, while shouting "Praise Jesus!!", you would advocate that there should be no investigation into the ideology of the Westboro Baptist Church, and indeed Eric Holder should carefully filter any Justice Department reports to specifically censor any mention of the Westboro Baptist Church, that he was a Christian preacher, etc.? This would be reasonable and prudent to you, so as not to offend a billion Christians? And doing otherwise would send the message that the government has nothing but contempt for Christians?

Yes, let's be clear. Are you suggesting that Phelps is indicative of Christianity, or that there's value in broadly framing his behavior in the context of some larger Christian ideology?

eXcentris
10-26-11, 04:41 PM
I was at the video store one time and a white christian male told an Iranian girl to stand up for herself and "take that thing off your head". Could this have been a mini-backlash? Oh the horror. The horror. How was that girl able to go on with her life? Poor thing.

She should have kicked him in the nuts. But then the "bloggers" would have reported this as "Violent Muslim extremist assaults defenseless white man in video store".

Ky-Fi
10-26-11, 05:36 PM
Yes, let's be clear. Are you suggesting that Phelps is indicative of Christianity, or that there's value in broadly framing his behavior in the context of some larger Christian ideology?

I'm saying that if Fred Phelps guns down five people while shouting "praise Jesus", then it should be reported that "an extremist Christian, the minister of the Westboro Baptist church, murdered five people. He claimed he was motivated by Christian teachings."

I honestly don't understand why you think that's so inflammatory and unacceptable that it needs to be censored. Why do you have so much sympathy for violent religious extremists that you actually support obfuscating honest reporting? This is what political correctness does--it turns people like Holder and Holton, who should be objectively investigating the facts, into emasculated liars.

And of course it's a legitimate academic and intellectual field of study to examine the role of Christian teachings historically in inciting violence and oppression----people studying this field might occasionally be wrong, and could then be proven so in open debate--but it doesn't make them "intolerant, hateful Christianophobes."

Ky-Fi
10-26-11, 05:48 PM
She should have kicked him in the nuts. But then the "bloggers" would have reported this as "Violent Muslim extremist assaults defenseless white man in video store".

I love having eXcentris post here, because he's better than my caricatures of modern multiculturalists. He relates a scenario of a Muslim being on the receiving end of a rude but harmless comment, and he not only feels that because her religious sensibilities have been offended, she's perfectly justified by immediately responding with physical violence--- but that if it's subsequently reported, it's discrimination and intolerance on the part of the people reporting it. :lol:

JasonF
10-26-11, 06:12 PM
I'm saying that if Fred Phelps guns down five people while shouting "praise Jesus", then it should be reported that "an extremist Christian, the minister of the Westboro Baptist church, murdered five people. He claimed he was motivated by Christian teachings."

I honestly don't have any objection to that, though I do wonder how relevant it is that Phelps claims to be motivated by Christian teachings.

What I do have an objection to is when your hypothetical quote above is followed by statements about how Christianity is inherently a religion of violence, and that Christianity is fundamentally incompatable with Western civilization. Which would be a pretty silly thing to read in a piece about Fred Phelps (or Eric Rudolph or Scott Roeder), but is something we routinely read in pieces about Osama bin Laden or Umar Abdul Mutallab.

Ky-Fi
10-26-11, 06:27 PM
I honestly don't have any objection to that,

Fine, but that puts you directly at odds with the Obama administration's position:

In the 37-page complaint that laid out the allegations against Mohamed Mohamud, he is never once identified as a Muslim. We were very careful about that.


..though I do wonder how relevant it is that Phelps claims to be motivated by Christian teachings.

So given that radical Islamist groups are, by the Obama administration's own reckoning, our greatest security threat, you honestly don't see how it's relevant to investigate their motivating ideology and worldview? Really? You think that's a reasonable approach to national security?


What I do have an objection to is when your hypothetical quote above is followed by statements about how Christianity is inherently a religion of violence, and that Christianity is fundamentally incompatable with Western civilization. Which would be a pretty silly thing to read in a piece about Fred Phelps (or Eric Rudolph or Scott Roeder), but is something we routinely read in pieces about Osama bin Laden or Umar Abdul Mutallab.


First of all, I have to deal with statements that Christianity is inherently a religion of violence daily here from CRM114 and others, so you're not going to get much sympathy from me on that one. :)

There have been many millions of non-violent supporters of fascism and communism. Because of that, are you uncomfortable with saying fascism and communism are not compatible with Western liberal democracy---or is it a case that you just immediately turn off your critical faculties when the worldview and ideology in question stems from a supernatural being?

eXcentris
10-27-11, 01:23 AM
I love having eXcentris post here, because he's better than my caricatures of modern multiculturalists. He relates a scenario of a Muslim being on the receiving end of a rude but harmless comment, and he not only feels that because her religious sensibilities have been offended, she's perfectly justified by immediately responding with physical violence--- but that if it's subsequently reported, it's discrimination and intolerance on the part of the people reporting it. :lol:


What's even funnier is your predictable response to what was obviously sarcasm and how, in a similar but reversed situation (agreeing that a violent reaction is not acceptable), you expect us to believe that you would have no problem with said event being reported as "Violent white Christian extremist assaults Arab woman in video store". :lol:

DVD Polizei
10-30-11, 01:23 PM
In Oregon, we don't call them Terrorists. We simply call them Misled Protestors.

Like right now downtown. These aren't protestors who are blocking those who actually want to work for a living. These people are simply Misled Saturday Market Consumers.

Ky-Fi
02-23-12, 12:21 PM
I think someone really needs to correct this judge on his Islamophobic world view---imagine him stating that making fun of Muhammad is illegal in Muslim countries and might very well get you killed. Hmmm...whose side to take--a Muslim judge or an atheist? This one is going to split many on the left more than Hillary vs. Obama. :lol:


(hyperlinks are in original article)

Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case

Submitted by American Atheists on Feb 22, 2012
By Al Stefanelli

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.

This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.

Here is a link to the video that includes the audio of the Judge during the trial:

Here’s coverage of the incident from the local ABC affiliate

Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.

This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.

I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not by a long shot.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/muslim-admits-attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case

JasonF
02-23-12, 01:05 PM
Absolutely deplorable. If that account is anything close to accurate, the judge ought to be impeached and removed from the bench. Assault is assault. If a Muslim is offended by depictions of Mohammed, that's his right, but once someone turns his offense into a crime, he has to pay the price for the crime same as anyone else.

Ky-Fi
02-23-12, 01:09 PM
If that account is anything close to accurate, ...

Well, it is coming from me, so that's not a given. -other-

JasonF
02-23-12, 01:32 PM
It's not you, it's opposingviews.com, which is a site I've never heard of with a name that makes it sound like it has an agenda. Now, even if they have an agenda, they may be telling the truth, but often, some of these agenda driven-sites take a kernel of truth and spin it out on a parade of assumptions until "George Bush eats a hamburger" turns into "George Bush forces animals to be slaughtered!!!1!!"

Mabuse
02-23-12, 01:41 PM
Mark Martin is also a Muslim-eek- What!!! He must be the waspy-est Muslim ever.

the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet Reminds me of the guys that used to make their sons and daughters watch them lynch blacks. Courts used to acquite those guys too.

Ky-Fi
02-23-12, 01:44 PM
It's not you, it's opposingviews.com, which is a site I've never heard of with a name that makes it sound like it has an agenda. Now, even if they have an agenda, they may be telling the truth, but often, some of these agenda driven-sites take a kernel of truth and spin it out on a parade of assumptions until "George Bush eats a hamburger" turns into "George Bush forces animals to be slaughtered!!!1!!"

Fair enough. Here's a local newscast (can't seem to embed the video)

http://www.abc27.com/story/16986440/midstate-judge-rules-against-attack-on-atheist-in-costume

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. (WHTM) -

It almost sounds like the makings of a joke: an atheist, a Muslim and the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. But non-believers aren't laughing about an attack and insist what's really frightening is the way a district judge ruled on it.


The Atheists of Central Pennsylvania decided to walk in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. There was a zombie Pope and a zombie Muhammed. On YouTube, you can catch a scary moment. It's dark and distorted, but a Muslim man comes off the curb extremely offended at Muhammed being depicted in this way.

"He grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck," said Ernie Perce, who donned the costume.

The Muslim man and Perce both called police to report a crime. Both kept walking, and a few blocks down found Sgt. Brian Curtis. He talked to both and came to this conclusion.


"Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in confronting him," he said.

Talaag Elbayomy was charged with harassment, but District Judge Mark Martin threw it out after criticizing Perce, the victim, and even calling him a "doofus." The audio is also on YouTube.

Martin, who has done several tours of duty in the Middle East, said Perce would be put to death in those societies for his crime, but Perce wonders why that's relevant in this country.

"He let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free from an attack," Perce said.

R. Mark Thomas represented Elbayomy and applauds the judge.

"I think this was a good dressing down by the judge," he said. "The so-called victim was the antagonist and we introduced evidence that clearly showed his attitude toward Muslims. The judge didn't do anything I wouldn't have done if I was in that position."

Although Elbayomy denied touching Perce at trial, Curtis said he admitted grabbing Perce's sign and beard the night of the incident.

Talaag Elbayomy said he was at the parade with his wife and two kids and felt he just had to do something. In fact, he too called police because he thought it was a crime for someone to depict Muhammed in such a way. He has since learned otherwise.

JasonF
02-23-12, 01:56 PM
Fair enough. Here's a local newscast (can't seem to embed the video)

:up: Thanks. It sure sounds like Martin should not be on the bench. Since this is probably a Pennsylvania state judge, I don't know if it's a judicial disciplinary committee or the state legislature or what, but whoever is in charge of getting this guy out of office ought to be starting that process.

Mabuse
02-23-12, 02:17 PM
His whole arguement about "ugly Americans" is completely false as well. First of all it isn't even legally relevent, but beside that, the concept doesn't apply to what we do at home in our town Halloween parade.

Josh-da-man
02-23-12, 08:59 PM
Aside from being a religious asshole who doesn't understand the separation of church and state and the Constitutional right to free speech, he sounds like a rambling moron. He's not fit to be anywhere near a bench unless its covered in pigeon shit.

And Muhammed (pbuh) can suck my dick.

JasonF
02-25-12, 08:16 PM
This is purportedly a response from the judge:

This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).

I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).

He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).

He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.

When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;

In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.

A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.

http://volokh.com/2012/02/25/zombie-mohammed-judge-responds/

I don't think it materially changes anything, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Ky-Fi
02-25-12, 08:51 PM
I still think it's a poor judgement, but I concede that it's quite a glaring error in the article I posted for them to state that the judge was a Muslim.

I think that probably came from this clip, where it's kind of muffled at about 4:59 and it sounds like he's saying "I'm a Muslim, I'm offended", and I think he actually said "If I'm a Muslim, I'm offended.".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE&feature=youtu.be

wmansir
02-26-12, 03:07 AM
The audio isn't so muddled in this version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs) (31:30), but even so he garbled the line.

I hear it as "They find it very, very offensive. I'm not Muslim, I find it offensive."

I don't think it makes any difference to the content of the ruling, other than to dampen some of the "Sharia law is here!" responses.

Sean O'Hara
02-26-12, 10:35 AM
I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).

That seems disingenuous -- I think most people would interpret, "I'll charge you with contempt," as a threat to throw them in jail. Also, how does releasing a recording of a court proceeding qualify as contempt?

General Zod
02-26-12, 11:19 AM
In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.

Why did he not view the video evidence?

JasonF
02-26-12, 02:15 PM
Why did he not view the video evidence?

Most likely because it was hearsay. There are hearsay exceptions that might apply, but hearsay is tricky, and it's entirely possible to believe that either the prosecutor screwed up making his ardent as to why an exception applied, the judge screwed up analyzing the argument, or they both got it right and no exception applied.

I'm more troubled by the reports that a police officer testified in support of the victim's version of events. If that's true, I'm not sure how a judge finds reasonable doubt based on those facts.

grundle
02-26-12, 03:55 PM
Let's say that a Muslim man rapes a Muslim woman, and then a bunch of Muslim men stone the woman to death. The men are arrested and charged with first degree murder. Would this judge rule that the men were justified in killing the woman, and that the woman was a "doofus" for getting raped?

brayzie
02-26-12, 05:48 PM
There was video evidence supposedly and a police officer vouched for the victim's account.

It would have been better if he explained those the circumstances of why those weren't taken into account.

Ky-Fi
03-21-12, 08:27 AM
French police have apparently surrounded the motorcycle gunman who murdered 3 French paratroopers, and 3 children and a Rabbi at a Jewish school:

Raid on Toulouse shooting suspect


Police hunting a gunman suspected of killing seven people in southern France are laying siege to a flat in Toulouse.

The man, named as Mohammed Merah, 24, a Frenchman of Algerian origin, has said he belongs to al-Qaeda and acted to "avenge Palestinian children".

Police are negotiating with the man, who is still said to be armed but says he may give himself up this afternoon.

French Interior Minister Claude Gueant said the man had been tracked by French intelligence for "several years".

The brother of the suspect has been arrested in another part of Toulouse, with several other relatives also reported detained.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made a televised address, paying tribute to the security forces who are carrying out the operation and saying that terrorism "will never be able to fracture our national community".

Scooter clues

Mr Gueant, who is at the siege scene, says the suspect has a Kalashnikov, a mini-Uzi 9mm machine pistol and several handguns. He earlier threw one gun, a Colt 45, from a window in exchange for a phone. A .45 calibre pistol was used at all three murder scenes. More weapons were found in a car near the flat.

Mr Gueant said the suspect had no particular demands and that, after initially talking to the authorities, Merah broke off discussions. Negotiations have now resumed, Agence France-Presse reports.

Surrounding buildings have been evacuated.

6 March: A Yamaha T-MAX scooter like the one above was stolen and used by the suspect in the targeted killings. The suspect later asked a garage how to re-spray the machine and how to switch off its tracker device. 11 March: French paratrooper, Imad Ibn-Ziaten, was lured to a meeting with the suspect after advertising his own scooter for sale. The suspect sent an email to arrange a meeting at which he killed the soldier. 21 March: The email address led to this apartment block in Toulouse. Two policemen were lightly wounded when they knocked on the door of an apartment. The heavily armed gunman is surrounded by police.
The suspect's mother, who is Algerian, had been brought to the scene, but Mr Gueant said she had refused to become involved as "she had little influence on him".

The man shot at the door after police arrived, Mr Gueant said, injuring one officer in the knee and "lightly injuring" another.

The minister said: "Our main concern is to catch him and to catch him under such conditions that he can be brought to justice."

The flat in Toulouse is in a five-storey building and Merah is on the ground or first floor, correspondents say.

Police wearing helmets and flak jackets have cordoned off the area. Prosecutors say other operations are under way to track down possible accomplices.

Mr Gueant said the suspect had made one visit to Afghanistan and one to Pakistan.

"He claims to be a mujahideen and to belong to al-Qaeda," Mr Gueant said.

"He wanted revenge for the Palestinian children and he also wanted to take revenge on the French army because of its foreign interventions."

French media have linked Merah to a group called Forsane Alizza (Knights of Pride) that was banned by Mr Gueant in January.

The prison director in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, Gulam Farooq, told the BBC that Merah was arrested in 2007 and jailed for three years for planting bombs, before escaping in a mass Taliban-led break-out in 2008.

The BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris says investigators report that Merah was identified because of an email message sent to his first victim about buying a scooter.

The message, sent from the suspect's brother's account, set up an appointment at which the soldier was killed, sources told AFP.

The man had also sought out a garage in Toulouse to have his Yamaha scooter repainted after the first two attacks. A scooter was used in all the attacks.

An editor of the France 24 network said a man had called it overnight saying he was responsible for the shootings and that he wanted to published on the internet films he had made of all of the killings.

Although there is no confirmation it was Merah, France 24 said he had made the same comments as later reported by Mr Gueant, gave the same age and recounted very specific details of the killings.

Merah's lawyer said his client was in court two weeks ago for driving without a licence and was "courteous and civilised".

A huge manhunt had been launched after Monday's shooting at a Jewish school that left four people dead, and the killing of three soldiers in two incidents last week.

Memorial services

The funerals of the rabbi and three children killed on Monday have been held in Jerusalem.

At least 2,000 mourners gathered at the Givat Shaul cemetery on the western outskirts of Jerusalem.

Advertisement
The funerals of the three French children and a teacher who were shot outside a Jewish school have taken place in Jerusalem

The attacker gunned down Jonathan Sandler, a 30-year-old rabbi and teacher of religion, his two young sons Arieh and Gabriel and then - at point blank range - the head teacher's daughter, seven-year-old Myriam Monsonego, in Monday's attack at the Jewish school.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe has accompanied the relatives of the dead to the funerals in Jerusalem.

In his eulogy to clearly distraught relatives at the service, Israeli speaker of parliament Reuben Rivlin said: "The entire house of Israel weeps over these murders."

In his televised address, Mr Sarkozy said that he had had a meeting with Jewish and Muslim leaders.

"I told them and I tell the nation that we should be united. We cannot give in to discrimination or vengeance. We owe this to the victims who have been killed in cold blood and to our country."

Mr Sarkozy will later attend a memorial service for the three soldiers killed in the two attacks last week.

All three were of North African descent. Another soldier from the French overseas region of Guadeloupe was left critically ill.

Socialist presidential candidate Francois Hollande and Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right Front National, will attend the memorial service in Montauban.

After Wednesday's raid took place, Ms Le Pen said the "fundamentalist threat has been underestimated" in France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17446999

wmansir
03-22-12, 07:33 PM
They guy was killed in a shoot out with commandos. Apparently the French authorities had been monitoring him because of his travel and activities to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In reading the story I thought of a book I started recently but haven't finished. It's called "The Lion's Game" and it's about a Libyan terrorist who comes to the US seeking revenge for the '86 bombing of Libya. I won't spoil the plot but as part of his back story he recalls killing a couple of servicemen in the UK related to the bombing operation and shooting three American children in front of their mother in Belgium for children lost in Libya. It was published less than a year before 9/11 and talks about the WTC bombing, has an unusual airline hijacking/mass murder, etc. Even though it was pulpy action/crime fiction it was interesting reading.

eXcentris
03-24-12, 04:40 PM
Looks like that guy wasn't a member of Al Quaeda and was not a member of any well known terrorist group.

DVD Polizei
03-24-12, 04:42 PM
He wasn't until now. The US can place this new group as the new THREAT TO AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE! :eek:

Trout
03-24-12, 04:49 PM
Looks like that guy wasn't a member of Al Quaeda and was not a member of any well known terrorist group.

Unless you consider religion a terrorist group.

Screwadu
03-24-12, 06:44 PM
Unless you consider religion a terrorist group.

Yeah cause them Buddhists be crazy, mang.

Dr Mabuse
03-24-12, 07:17 PM
Fresh wave of desecration and vandalism of Jewish graves and cemeteries going on lately around France. It happens all the time in that country and around Europe where antisemitism is considered normal and liberally 'enlightened', but apparently it's more than usual lately in France.

JasonF
04-02-12, 12:57 AM
New Tunisian constitution won't be based on Shariah law

TUNIS, Tunisia (AP) – Islamic law will not be enshrined in Tunisia's new constitution, preserving the secular basis of the North African nation, Tunisia's ruling Islamist Ennahda Party said Monday.

Ziad Doulatli, a party leader, said the first article of the new constitution would remain the same as in the 1959 version and it will not call for Shariah, Islamic law, to be the source of all legislation, as many conservatives had wanted.

The decision marks a break between the moderate Islamist Ennahda and an increasingly vocal minority of ultraconservative Muslims known as Salafis who have been demanding Islamic law in a country long known for its progressive traditions.

The decision is "aimed at strengthening the national consensus and helping the democratic transition to succeed by uniting a large majority of the political forces to confront the country's challenges," Doulatli told the Associated Press.

"The Tunisian experience can serve as a model for other countries going through similar transformations," he added.

In Egypt, as well as many other Muslim countries, Shariah is enshrined in the constitution as the source of all legislation.

Under more than 50 years of secular dictatorship, Tunisia stood out in the Arab world for its progressive laws, especially regarding the status of women. Many leftists and liberals feared this would be rolled back with the victory of an Islamist party at the polls.

Ennahda, however, has always pledged to maintain the character of the state and formed a coalition government with two secular parties.

The decision, however, is bound to provoke a backlash from the Salafis — some 10,000 of whom demonstrated Sunday in Tunis, the capital, calling for Islamic law.

Despite their numerous demonstrations, the degree of support that the Salafis have from the broader Tunisian society is not clear. Ennahda's decision to spurn their demands suggests they do not have widespread appeal.

The first article of Tunisia's constitution states that "Tunisia is a free, sovereign and independent state, whose religion is Islam, language is Arabic and has a republican regime."

Tunisians overthrew their dictatorship in a popular uprising last year that inspired pro-democracy movements across North African and the Middle East.

In October, they elected a new assembly to govern as well as write the country's new constitution. Secular and Islamist groups have been holding demonstrations to influence the new document.

According to Fadhel Moussa of the leftist Democratic Modernist Axis, the agreement on the first article settles a long debate in the assembly and opens the way to creating the rest of the new constitution.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-03-26/tunisia-islamic-law/53784408/1

Go Tunisia!

classicman2
04-02-12, 09:26 AM
Ziad Doulatli, a party leader, said the first article of the new constitution would remain the same as in the 1959 version and it will not call for Shariah, Islamic law, to be the source of all legislation, as many conservatives had wanted.

It will only be a source for 99.8% of the legislation! ;)

Ky-Fi
04-12-12, 01:27 PM
Hmmm...maybe I've been a bit too critical of Islamic jurisprudence:


Breastfeeding fatwa causes stir

One of Sunni Islam's most prestigious institutions is to discipline a cleric after he issued a decree allowing women to breastfeed their male colleagues.
Dr Izzat Atiya of Egypt's al-Azhar University said it offered a way around segregation of the sexes at work.

His fatwa stated the act would make the man symbolically related to the woman and preclude any sexual relations.

The president of al-Azhar denounced the fatwa, which Dr Atiya has since retracted, as defamatory to Islam.

According to Islamic tradition, or Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.

'Family bond'

In his fatwa, Dr Atiya, the head of al-Azhar's Department of Hadith, said such teachings could equally apply to adults.

He said that if a woman fed a male colleague "directly from her breast" at least five times they would establish a family bond and thus be allowed to be alone together at work.

"Breast feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage," he ruled.

"A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breastfed."

The legal ruling sparked outrage throughout Egypt and the Arab world.

On Sunday, Dr Atiya retracted it, saying it had been the result of a "bad interpretation of a particular case" during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

Egypt's minister of religious affairs, Mahmoud Zaqzouq, has called for future fatwas to "be compatible with logic and human nature".





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6681511.stm