"London Taliban" Imposing Sharia

LONDON--Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.

Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.

Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.

Posters for H&M which feature women in bikinis and a racy poster for a Bollywood film have been defaced.

It is believed Muslim extremists are behind a spate of attacks being investigated by police, according to the Sunday Times.

An Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted.

When she went to the media to talk about the abuse she suffered, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: 'If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you'.

The 31-year-old, who is not a practising Muslim, said she has since been told to take holiday by the pharmacy owners and now fears she may lose her job.

She said: 'Why should I wear a hijab (headscarf) or burqa? I haven't done anything wrong.'

Other incidents reported include the placing of stickers across the white-minority borough which state it is a 'gay-free zone' and the daubing of paint on posters for clothing shop H&M featuring women in bikinis.

Ghaffar Hussain, of the anti-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation, told The Sunday Times that the intimidation was the work of 'Talibanesque thugs'.

He added: 'This minority thinks they have the right to impose their fringe interpretation of Islam on others.' (Read more.)

Islamophobophobia: Politically Correct Persecution

ISLAMOPHOBOPHOBIA (noun)--an irrational fear of an irrational fear of Islam.

Zaineb Chaudhary Still Missing After Fleeing Forced Marriage

Missing 16-Year-Old Zaineb Chaudhary May Be in Danger: MyFoxCHICAGO.com

Italian Activist Vittorio Arrigoni Kidnapped and Beaten by Muslims

***UPDATE*** Vittorio Arrigoni has been murdered by Salafis.

An Italian pro-Palestinian activist has been found dead in the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip hours after being abducted.

Vittorio Arrigoni, 36, was seized on Thursday by a radical group that has been in conflict with Hamas and is seeking the release of its leader.

Police said he was found hanged in a Gaza City house after receiving a tip-off. Two people have been arrested.

Italy denounced the "barbaric murder", calling it an "act of vile and senseless violence".

Mr Arrigoni was the first foreigner kidnapped in Gaza since BBC journalist Alan Johnston was abducted in 2007.

Friends of the activist gathered outside the hospital where his body had been taken on Friday morning.

"He came from across the world, left his country and family and his entire life and came here to break the siege, and we kill him? Why?" asked one of his friends.

Vittorio Arrigoni was seized by Salafist radicals, an Islamist movement itself that considers Hamas as too moderate, BBC Gaza correspondent Jon Donnison says.

The Salafists had threatened to execute Mr Arrigoni by 1400 GMT on Friday unless several prisoners, including their leader, Sheikh Abu Walid al-Maqdasi, were released. Sheikh Maqdasi was arrested by Hamas police last month in Gaza City.

In a video posted on YouTube, Mr Arrigoni appeared to have been beaten and his eyes were covered with thick black tape.

A caption on the video read: "The Italian hostage entered our land only to spread corruption." The video called Italy "the infidel state".

It is not clear why Mr Arrigoni was killed before the given deadline, but the Hamas interior ministry said he had died soon after being abducted.

Ministry spokesman Ehab al-Ghussein said he was killed "in an awful way". (Read more.)

***ORIGINAL POST***

This story is a strange illustration of the division in the Muslim world. Vittorio Arrigoni is an Italian activist campaigning for a Palestinian state. Thus, he is loved by many Muslims. Yet a group of Salafis kidnapped and beat Vittorio, and are now holding him hostage. They released a video earlier today:



Some Muslims and other pro-Palestinian groups are so shocked at Vittorio's kidnapping, they're accusing Israel of framing Muslims for the kidnapping.

(SALEM / GAZA) - Possibly the strongest voice in the years-long struggle to free Palestine, 36-year old Vittorio Arrigoni, a journalist and activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was kidnapped in Gaza.

From what we understand, a Salafi Group in Gaza claims responsibility for the kidnapping. Later in the day, a youtube video surfaced showing Vittotio blind folded and beaten up.

Salafi Jehadis say they are asking Hamas government in Gaza to release Abu Al Waleed Al Maqdisi in 30 hours starting from 11:00 a.m. today or else they would kill him.

One person who knows the steadfast dedication of Vittorio 'Vic' Arrigoni is our writer Ken O'Keefe, also in Gaza, who stated the bottom line on this sad day.

"Who benefits? This is the question we must ask first when something like Vic Arrigoni being kidnapped happens. The answer is, Israel; nobody benefits more than Israel."

"So whether they are false-Muslims or agents of Israel, those that have Vic are serving Israel." (Read more.)

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

The Qur'an: A Book Full of Conjecture and Doubt

"Jesus ressurecting [sic] and dying on the cross is a mere legend. The people who 'saw' him THOUGHT they saw him, but it was someone who looked similar to him, . There;s [sic] no evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (as), and the Quran refutes that, and the Quran has plenty of evidence on its side." - Muslim Kangaroo (See here)

No doubt Kangaroo has the following passage of the Qur’an in mind here:

And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. S. 4:157 Shakir

As will be shown, only in a kangaroo court would the verdict come down against the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in favor of the Qur’anic account of what happened. (For a good example of just such a court, see here.)

What Muslims "see" in the Quran and THINK is a refutation is actually just a bad argument substituted for and made to appear like a good one. Actually, it doesn't really bear much of a resemblance to a good argument; at best all we can say about it is that it is an apparently good enough counterfeit for many people to be convinced (read: deceived) by it. In fact, this passage doesn’t even represent an argument at all; it is simply a claim that contradicts what the Bible and history say about these matters. So calling it a refutation isn’t even accurate.

It has been said on this blog before (see here), but it bears repeating, especially in the context of a discussion of Surah 4:157, every time that we think of the "refutation" supposedly given in the Qur'an the one thing we should be struck with above all else is how many errors the author(s) of the Qur'an were able to make in such a short space, and Muslims really should be encouraged to add this to the list of evidences of the supernatural authorship of the Qur’an, for surely no one person could make so many mistakes AND yet still manage to dupe so many people. A supernatural being is clearly involved with both the composition and reception of the Qur’an; unfortunately, that being is most certainly not God, but is merely a being that masquerades like Him or an angel that pretends to have been sent by Him. This being made it appear to the author(s) of the Qur’an (and those who follow him/her/them) that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are mere legends, but they are really only following a satanically inspired conjecture. This point will be made in a myriad of ways over the course of several posts, beginning with the following:

1. This verse represents the Jews as boasting: "We killed the Messiah…."

Contrariwise, the speech attributed to the Jews here is a clear error. The Jewish leaders wanted Jesus crucified precisely because they rejected His claim to be the Messiah, for no Jew would boast of killing the Messiah.

All the author(s) of the Qur'an would have had to do here to accurately reflect what the Jews would or could have said along these lines given their actual beliefs is either drop the word “Messiah”, as the following (mis)translations of the Qur’an, likely out of a recognition of the problem that exists in the Arabic text, do:

and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus. S. 4:157 Muhammad Sarwar

They [proudly] spread a rumor that: “We killed Jesus, son of Mary.” For sure they did neither kill Jesus nor crucify him. Their wishful thinking has created so much confusion in account of the lack of [historical] proof for their saying. Know for sure that they did not kill him. S. 4:157 Bijan Moeinian

Or, add words to the effect that they killed Jesus for His CLAIM to be the Messiah. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing the Jews did do in opposition to the sign made by the Romans which called Jesus "the King of the Jews". In protest, the Jews clamored for the sign to be changed so it would read that He SAID He was/is the King of the Jews.

Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" So they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified. They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between. Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS." Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews'; but that He said, 'I am King of the Jews.'" Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written." (John 19:13-22)

In fact, this is just what some other Muslim translations do, unwittingly showing that they see (part of) the problem with how this passage was worded by the author(s) of the Qur’an:

And because of their (falsely) claiming, `We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the (false) Messenger of Allah,' whereas they killed him not, nor did they cause his death by crucifixion, but he was made to them to resemble (one crucified to death). Verily, those who differ therein are certainly in (a state of) confusion about it. They have no definite knowledge of the matter but are only following a conjecture. They did not kill him, this much is certain (and thus could not prove the Christ as accursed). S. 4:157 Amatul Rahman Omar

and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him: S. 4:157 Farook Malik

and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him: S. 4:157 Muhammad Asad

The worst part is that the added words of the translators are not part of (nor are they implied by) the Arabic text, which means the Qur’an is in error at this point. Nevertheless, it is still worth mentioning, particularly because it shows just how much the Qur’an reduces its devotees to conjecture and doubt about the clarity and actual wording of the Qur’an, that the above translations, for all the effort of the translators, are still in error. The translation of Muhammad Sarwar says that the Jews called Jesus “the Messiah”, but it still, if we follow the natural reading of this translation, ends up saying that the Jews called Jesus “the Messenger of Allah”. The translations of Muhammad Asad and Farook Malik parenthetically add the words “who claimed to be” to reflect that the Jews rejected Jesus’ claim to be an apostle of God, but they fail to add such parenthetical remarks to the earlier part of the verse, and, therefore, still end up representing the Jews identifying Jesus as the Messiah whom they have slain. The translation of Amatul Rahman Omar parenthetically adds “falsely” to the text in two places, but puts the first instance of the word “falsely” too early in the verse for it to even correct or modify the statement that the Jews called Jesus “the Messiah” and so ends up saying that what was false is their claim to have killed one who is in fact the Messiah.

In response to this, Muslims typically reply that the Jews were being sarcastic when they said that Jesus is the Messiah. But the claim that they were being sarcastic is hardly clear from the Arabic text; hence, the reason Muslim translators have to add such words to clarify that this was their (assumed) meaning. And the fact that the Qur’an is unclear on this point leads to two further problems:

1) This strikes at the heart of the recurrent claim that the Qur’an is a clear and fully detailed book, which in turn also undermines the foremost argument of the Qur’an that it is inimitably eloquent, such that it cannot be imitated and couldn’t have been produced by other than Allah:

O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah; S. 5:15 Sher Ali

And the day We shall raise up from every nation a witness against them from amongst them, and We shall bring thee as a witness against those. And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear EVERYTHING, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender. S. 16:89 Arberry

And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'an) is a clear Arabic tongue. S. 16:103 Hilali-Khan

He sets forth for you a parable from your ownselves, - Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e. your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you? Whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs IN DETAIL to a people who have sense. S. 30:28 Hilali-Khan

A Book, whereof the verses are explained IN DETAIL; - a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand; - S. 41:3 Y. Ali

2) It also leads to a devastating incongruity, for Surah 4:157 claims that those who do not follow the revelation of the Qur’an are following nothing but conjecture and doubt, but the different ways Muslims attempt to supplement the lack of sufficient detail in the Qur’an to make what it says clear shows that Muslims themselves are full of conjecture and doubt on the matter. Notice, for example, that Sarwar’s translation, in dropping the words “the Messiah” from the verse to make it accurate, is directly contradicting the view that the Jews were calling Jesus the Messiah but only in jest. This is rank confusion. It is interesting to observe in this regard that non-Muslim translations do not recognize that this idea is embedded or in any way evident in the text. Neither do they show the temerity (or apologetically driven zeal on full display in Muslim translations) to add to the text words that are not there in order to alter the clear meaning of the passage so as to make it jive with well known historical contingencies:

and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' -- yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty -- no indeed; S. 4:157 Arthur John Arberry

and for their saying, 'Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God'.... but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about him are in doubt concerning him; they have no knowledge concerning him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill him, for sure! S. 4:157 Edward Henry Palmer

And for their saying, "Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God." Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, S. 4:157 John Meadows Rodwell

and have said, verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness; and verily they who disagreed concerning him, were in a doubt as to this matter, and had no sure knowledge thereof, but followed only an uncertain opinion. They did not really kill him; S. 4:157 George Sale

If the Arabic text that the above non-Muslim translators were working from, without recourse to tafsirs or other Muslim sources that try to explain this verse, actually is clear that the Jews were saying this in jest, then why did none of them recognize this or in any way reflect this in their translations? Furthermore, it is not only not clear from the text that the Jews were being sarcastic when they called Jesus “the Messiah”, but this explanation, to all appearances, actually goes against the text. The full statement attributed to the Jews is: “We killed the Messiah, Isa the Son of Marium, the Messenger of Allah”. Since the Jews knew Jesus was the son of Mary, it is evident that this statement is not saying that the Jews called him “the Messiah, Isa the son of Marium, the messenger of Allah” in mockery. If Muslims want to say that the mockery applies only to the first part of the statement attributed to the Jews but not to the rest of it, then they are reduced to arbitrariness in order to defend the Qur’an, for there is no textual justification for using this excuse to explain the first part of the Jews’ statement and then stopping short of saying the whole statement was one of mockery. If Muslims can apply the “mockery” explanation to explain one part of the verse, it may just as arbitrarily be extended to the whole of the verse. And, of course, since it is not clearly said in the passage that the Jews were mocking in the first place, then both explanations may be dismissed as, well, arbitrary.

This is the first of many evidences from this passage that the Qur’an is not the word of God, that the author(s) of the Qur’an were only following conjecture (just like their followers at the present time), and that this passage cannot credibly be considered a refutation of anything, much less a refutation of the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ who lives and reigns as Lord at the right hand of the Father. Many more evidences will follow.

Another Maid Complains of Sexual Abuse by Saudi Employer

The treatment of foreign maids in Saudi Arabia is appalling. Consider the plight of this woman hospitalized last year:



Sexual abuse is also common. Some employers are even sending their maids out as prostitutes:

RIYADH--The husband of a Sri Lankan housemaid working in Riyadh says that his wife has been a victim of sexual assault by at least one male member of the family she has been working for in the Kingdom.

He also claims she was being pimped “house to house” as a prostitute and her proceeds were taken from her.

The 30-year-old woman from Panadura district near Colombo came to the Kingdom on Aug. 29, 2009 to work in a Saudi household. The husband of the woman, Kamal, claims he went to the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE) about three months after his wife began working in Saudi Arabia to complain that she was being sexually assaulted by a son in the family.

“Since then no one has taken action to bring her home,” he said. “My wife has been molested by her employer’s son and has been subjected to various forms of torture.”

The Sri Lankan Embassy in Riyadh claims that it is unaware of this case, but that it would investigate.

A senior official from the SLBFE said the bureau receives several complaints daily from the next-of-kin of the domestic aides who are working abroad.

“We cannot come to direct conclusion without consulting both parties,” he said, indicating that he would request the Sri Lankan mission in Riyadh to inquire into this matter.

The most common form of abuse of maids is wage theft and false imprisonment (prohibiting maids from leaving the premises or preventing them from leaving when they express a desire to leave), but incidences of physical and sexual abuse are regularly reported.

The problem of runaway maids is big enough that the missions of labor-remitting countries run shelters for these women.

There are some 500,000 Sri Lankan workers in the Kingdom and more than half of them are housemaids, and the embassy official said most of these maids are treated in a satisfactory manner. (Source)

Ann Barnhardt Responds to Critics of Qur'an Burning

The world is changing, my friends. People are studying Islam, and they're not liking Muhammad's teachings. Islam spreads quite well when people know nothing about it, for ignorance allows Muslim apologists to adapt Muhammad's teachings to suit the values of a population. "You believe in women's rights? So did Muhammad! You like science? The Qur'an is a scientific masterpiece! You value tolerance? Muhammad was the most tolerant person in history!" Absurd claims like these cannot spread among informed citizens.

I still find burning the Qur'an offensive, not because I give some privileged status to the Qur'an (the most violent and oppressive book ever composed), but because I'm no fan of book burning. For me, burning books conjures images like this:



Nevertheless, burning the Qur'an (to me, at least) isn't nearly as offensive as trampling on the United States Constitution. The Qur'an calls for the subjugation or death of American citizens; the Constitution demands our protection, even from our own government. The Qur'an severely limits the rights of women, Christians, Jews, etc.; the Constitution enshrines equal rights for all citizens. The Qur'an has been a constant retrograde force calling people back to the ideals and attitudes of seventh-century Arabia; the Constitution has brought progress both to the United States, and to nations who have imitated us. Strangely, many U.S. politicians (not to mention judges) now find it more prudent to honor the Qur'an than to honor the Constitution.

And here's what's happening. If Muslims weren't murdering so many people in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Somalia, and Nigeria, and Sudan, and Europe, and . . . well, you get the picture; and if Western governments weren't behaving in such a cowardly fashion, the world would never have heard of Pastor Terry Jones or Ann Barnhardt. People like Jones and Barnhardt are standing up to condemn Islam's violent teachings because they're sick of Western leaders bowing to Islam. So the next time you're wondering why there's so much "Islamophobia" (where "Islamophobia" simply means "Constitutionally protected criticism of Islam's most horrendous teachings"), look no further than people like Senator Lindsey Graham.

(BTW, regardless of objections you may have to the delivery, this video is a brilliant refutation of the idiotic and delusional nonsense being spouted by U.S. politicians who are unwittingly working to establish Sharia in America.)





Barnhardt is absolutely correct when she points out that, contrary to the claims of Senator Graham, it was perfectly acceptable to ridicule the Germans, Italians, and Japanese who were at war with the United States and its allies. Consider the following racist, Germanophobic video typical of the early 1940s:



For commentary on Barnhardt's video, see the following:

• Andrew G. Bostom: "Ann Barnhardt Fights Totalitarian Islam and Its Useful Idiots"
• Diana West: "Ann Barnhardt: Vox Populi? Let's Hope"
• Roger Kimball: "Ann Barnhardt, Culture Hero"

Political Correctness Leads U.K. Police To Cover Up Sexual Abuse of 60 British Schoolgirls by Muslims

Be sure to read this until the end.

DAILY MAIL--At least 60 schoolgirls were groomed for sex by workers at seedy takeaways linked to the murder of a 14-year-old girl.

Children as young as 11 were targeted by mainly Asian staff at fast food outlets in Blackpool. They were offered food, alcohol and cigarettes in return for sexual favours.

An unpublicised police report produced after 14-year-old Charlene Downes vanished in 2003 found the girls, most if not all white, had been victims of the ‘honey pot’ premises. There were claims last night that the report was suppressed for reasons of political correctness.

Four years later another girl, 15-year-old Paige Chivers, also went missing. Detectives believe she was killed like Charlene, whose body has never been found.

Two Middle Eastern restaurant owners were acquitted over Charlene’s murder in 2007 and the crime remains unsolved.

The pair still run a kebab shop in Blackpool which was also linked to Paige, and she too was identified as a victim of sexual exploitation. Last year police reported that the takeaway was attracting young girls who were being supplied with alcohol and cocaine.

The revelations about the scale of grooming centred around the downmarket cafes comes amid growing concern at disturbing cases involving mainly Asian gangs exploiting young white girls for sex in the Midlands and North of England.

The girls, often from vulnerable homes or in the care system, were befriended by men who showered them with gifts and affection before using them for sex.

Former Home Secretary Jack Straw has said the girls were seen as ‘easy meat’, while David Cameron called on police to follow criminal acts ‘without fear or favour’ wherever the evidence leads.

The Home Office commissioned a nationwide investigation into the problem, which has long been considered taboo by police officers fearful of being branded racist.

Indeed, a former senior detective at Lancashire Police yesterday blamed political correctness for its failure to highlight its 2003 findings in Blackpool.

But the force denied this, saying the report had been available online since 2007 but had never been intended for publication.

Senior officers insisted an intensive programme to break the cycle of exploitation had been a success and that in the last six months 50 of 54 grooming suspects were white.

Shocking claims made in court over Charlene’s murder revealed fears that her body had been put through a mincing machine, with takeaway staff said to have joked that her remains had ‘gone into the kebabs’.

A jury failed to reach a verdict on charges that Jordanian immigrant Iyad Albattikhi had murdered her while his Iranian landlord Mohammed Reveshi had disposed of her body.

A retrial collapsed in 2008 amid failings in the police investigation and the men were paid almost £250,000 each in compensation.

The kebab shop run by Mr Albattikhi and Mr Reveshi has changed its name from Funny Boyz to Mr Beanz. It was refused a hot food licence last year amid fears about ‘sexual activity’ linked to the premises, but the pair blame a ‘police vendetta’ and have appealed.

Following Charlene’s disappearance in 2003, police found more than 60 girls were being groomed for sex by non-white men centred around 11 Blackpool takeaways.

They were mainly aged between 13 and 15, but some were as young as 11. Yesterday former Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell warned that research into the problem was being hampered by ‘political correctness and concerns about upsetting community cohesion’.

But Lancashire police denied a cover-up. Assistant Chief Constable Andy Rhodes said his officers were making significant progress in tackling child sex exploitation across Lancashire, regardless of the background of the culprits.

He added: ‘We recognise that in some areas the number of Asian offenders is disproportionate to the population and far from ignoring this, have been tackling the issue head on by working with the local communities, giving presentations to community forums and visiting mosques to raise awareness.’

It was reported yesterday that while most British sex offenders are lone white men, details of court cases in 13 towns showed that out of 56 men convicted of multiple offences of grooming girls for sex, 50 were Muslim, mostly of Pakistani heritage.

Malaysian Politician Ibrahim Ali Blames Adultery on Neglectful Wives

According to Islam, wives are the sexual property of their husbands:

Qur’an 2:223—Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn on 2:223—Your women are a tillage for you, that is, the place where you sow [the seeds of] your children; so come to your tillage, that is, the specified place, the front part, in whichever way you wish, whether standing up, sitting down, lying down, from the front or the back.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3237—Narrated Abu Hurairah: Allah’s Messenger said, “If a husband calls his wife to bed (i.e., to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 1853—The Messenger of Allah said: “If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad! No woman can fulfill her duty towards Allah until she fulfills her duty towards her husband. If he asks her (for intimacy) even if she is on her camel saddle, she should not refuse.”

With such a low view of women, it shouldn't be surprising that a Muslim politician would blame adultery on the victims, rather than on their husbands.

MALAYSIA—Malaysian men have extramarital sex because of “wives who neglect their responsibilities” to their husbands, a Malaysian lawmaker told Parliament on Thursday, outraging women’s groups.

“Husbands driving home after work see things that are sexually arousing and go to their wives to ease their urges,” said independent lawmaker Ibrahim Ali, according to online portal Malaysiakini.

“But when they come home to their wives, they will say, ‘wait, I’m cooking,’ or ‘wait, I’m getting ready to visit relatives’,” Ibrahim said.

“In Islam, wives are supposed to stop everything to fulfill their husband’s demands.”

Ali heads Perkasa, a right-wing Malay nationalist group seeking to protect ethnic Malay dominance in politics.

His strident comments came as he asked about plans by the government’s religious development department to educate wives on their responsibilities.

Wives failing in their duties pushed men to go to “private places to satisfy their urges”, he said.

An aide to the lawmaker confirmed the remarks but declined further comment.

His comments prompted fury among women’s groups in a nation with a growing sex industry and a problem with human trafficking.

Women’s Aid Organisation chief Ivy Josiah said Ibrahim’s comments were unacceptable for a parliamentarian.

“I am appalled as he equates women to being a sex toy and what is worse is that he uses religion to try and justify his position,” she told AFP.

“The comments not only show that Ibrahim Ali is a Malay supremacist but a male supremacist as well.”

Rights group Tenaganita, who monitor issues of human trafficking and abuse, said such sentiments were one of the causes of human trafficking in the country.

“Because people like Ibrahim Ali believe it is their right to get sex anytime from their wives, or otherwise seek it from elsewhere, that’s why you have a growing sex industry and we see such human trafficking cases,” senior coordinator Aegile fernandez told AFP. (Read more)

Muslim Activist Amran Hussain Defends Israel at the United Nations

It's difficult to take cries of "Islamophobia!" seriously when so many Muslims call for the obliteration of Israel. Given Islam's condemnation of the Jews, we can only regard Islam's prohibition against criticism as further evidence of Islamic supremacism (i.e. "It's okay for us to criticize and condemn everyone else, but no one is allowed to criticize Islam").

It's nice to see a Muslim calling for consistency.

Rape Victim Eman al-Obeidy Interviewed by CNN's Nic Robertson in Libya

Christian Evangelist Mussie Eyob Faces Death Penalty in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia--An Eritrean Christian is facing the death penalty in Saudi Arabia after being arrested for sharing his faith with Muslims.

Mussie Eyob was detained by the authorities at a mosque in Saudi's second largest city, Jeddah, on 12 February. He had gone there to meet and talk with local Muslims after speaking about Christianity at the Eritrean Embassy for three days. Eyob was arrested for preaching to Muslims, an offence that carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia.

Eyob, who was initially assumed to have mental health problems, was examined by doctors, who confirmed that he is fit for trial and sentencing. He was then transferred to the notorious high-security Briman Prison. His family are very concerned for his welfare there.

They visited Eyob on 20 March and found that he had lost weight, though he was in relatively good spirits. He said that he is ready to die for his faith in Christ.

Eyob, who committed to follow Christ just over two years ago, felt compelled to share his faith with local Muslims, despite the danger.

Saudi Arabia is a strictly Islamic country that follows an extreme and puritanical version of Islam, Wahhabism. The country claims that the Quran is its constitution and that all its laws and regulations are promulgated in line with sharia, which prescribes the death penalty for converts from Islam. Consequently most converts keep their faith secret.

All forms of public religious activities other than those consistent with the government's own interpretation of Sunni Islam are banned. The government has stated that expatriate Christians, of whom there are many in Saudi Arabia, are free to worship in private. But the religious police (mutawaah) sometimes raid private worship services.

The country has one of the highest rates of executions in the world. In late 2009, Amnesty International denounced the presence of at least 141 people on death row in Saudi Arabia, including 104 foreign nationals. (Source)

Convert to Islam Rich Dart (aka "Salahuddin") Calls for Sharia While U.K. Picks Up the Bill

United Kingdom--A middle-class security guard who converted to Islam to preach hate towards Britain lives in a £1,000 tax-payer-funded luxury flat, it emerged today.

Rich Dart, 28, worked for the BBC before he became a Muslim and changed his name to Salahuddin to brand British troops 'murderers' and peddle Muslim extremism.

But he has been branded a 'hypocrite' after it emerged that he takes benefits off the same state he claims to despise.

The fanatic was pictured hanging out the washing on the balcony of a £300,000 two-bedroom apartment next to a picturesque canal in Bow, East London.

He claims £1,000 in housing benefit and receives £64-a-week in Jobseekers Allowance to maintain his lifestyle, according to the Sun.

The total figure amounts to £1,256-a-month but the borough is one of the most deprived in Britain, with soaring rates of child poverty.

The plush, open-plan flat is said to include a designer kitchen and glass-fronted sliding doors that open onto a balcony.

A £500,000 roof garden is included in the complex which gives panoramic views across London.

Neighbours are believed to include TV presenter Kelly Adams. Owners paid up to £425,000 for the properties.

But the religions convert is currently unemployed, choosing instead to spend his time preaching against the West.

He has even complained about his upmarket flat.

'It's quite luxurious compared with other ones, but you're crammed in like sardines and I can hear my neighbour coming and going. I don't enjoy living among non-Muslims,' he told the Sun.

'Under Islam things would be much better. You could have a detached bungalow for each wife, maybe four bungalows if you had four wives. I have to live here - and it's very hard to have four wives.'

He said that if he was offered a job with salary of £50,000 he would accept it if there 'wasn't loud music and naked women everywhere'.

But 'Rich', who once dreamed of becoming a builder, said that he was 'caught in a poverty trap' as the rent on the flat is so expensive that getting a job would not be 'financially viable'.

But he was pictured earlier this week at an extremist rally in Barking, Greater London.

'When the Taliban defeat the allies we will establish Sharia law and take the fight to the enemy,' he blurted through a loudspeaker. (Read more.)

Bearing the Load of Others

It is important to keep restating the truth. For this reason I wish to post about the Muslim objection to Jesus bearing the sins of others on the cross. Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz have written on this but it needs to be restated and I have a few new references from the Hadith to add.

Christians teach that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and that his sacrifice is the only way to receive eternal forgiveness and life. Muslim leaders reject this idea. They say that even if Jesus did die on the cross it is not possible for him to bear our sin because the Qur'an says,

Every soul earns only to its own account; no soul laden bears the load of another.
(Qur'an, 6:164, 17:15, 53:38, Arberry)

However, it seems that Islamic leaders only show some of what the Qur'an and Hadith actually say about this subject. The Qur'an actually has verses which say that one person can bear the sins of another.

That they may bear their loads complete on the Day of Resurrection, and some of the loads of those that they lead astray without any knowledge. O evil the load they bear! (Qur'an 16:25, Arberry)

They shall certainly carry their loads, and other loads along with their loads, and upon the Day of Resurrection they shall surely be questioned concerning that they were forging. (Qur'an 29:13, Arberry)

Also in the Hadith we see that a person can bear someone else's load.

Narrated Ibn Abbas: A man came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! My mother died and she ought to have fasted one month (for her missed Ramadan). Shall I fast on her behalf?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative and said, "Allah's debts have more right to be paid." ... (Sahih al-Bukhuri: vol. 3, bk. 31, no. 174, Khan)

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: A woman from the tribe of Juhaina came to the Prophet and said, "My mother had vowed to perform Hajj but she died before performing it. May I perform Hajj on my mother's behalf?" The Prophet replied, "Perform Hajj on her behalf. Had there been a debt on your mother, would you have paid it or not? So, pay Allah's debt as He has more right to be paid." (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 3, bk. 29, no. 77, Khan)

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The mother of Sad bin 'Ubada died in his absence. He said, "O Allah's Apostle! My mother died in my absence; will it be of any benefit for her if I give Sadaqa on her behalf?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Sad said, "I make you a witness that I gave my garden called Al Makhraf in charity on her behalf."
(Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 4, bk. 51, no. 19, Khan)

When we consider the whole picture of what the Qur'an and Hadith say we see that bearing the load of another is a part of their teaching. I am not saying it is exactly the same as Christianity but the idea is there.

The next time a Muslim says to you, "each can only bear his own load", rather than go straight to the Bible for your answer, first show them that there is a bit more to what the Qur'an and Hadith actually say, then go to the Bible.

Sharia Judge Michael J. Callahan Nullifies the Fourth Amendment Rights of Christians in Michigan

Michigan's war against the Constitutional rights of Christians has reached its peak.

In every state in this country, with one exception, a police officer cannot seize a person or her property without probable cause (a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime).

Today, Judge Michael J. Callahan ruled that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to Christians in the state of Michigan. If a Christian visits Michigan, she may be detained, seized, arrested, and thrown in jail based on no evidence whatsoever.

At last year's Arab Festival in Dearborn, Corporal Brian Kapanowski approached Negeen Mayel and ordered her to turn off her video camera. Since Negeen hadn't been accused of committing any crime, she was under no legal obligation to obey his order (and, let's face it, he was only ordering her to stop filming so she wouldn't catch our unlawful arrests on tape). When Negeen didn't immediately turn off her camera, and instead asked why she was being questioned, Corporal Kapanowski grabbed her, seized her camera (which police then kept for more than three weeks), dragged her out of the tent, arrested her, threw her in jail, and charged her with two crimes.

Obviously, in any court that honors the Constitutional rights of citizens, Kapanowski would be in trouble. It turns out, however, that Dearborn courts have as much contempt for the Constitution as Dearborn police. Before the trial even began, Dearborn Judge Mark Somers ruled that Corporal Kapanowski had probable cause to arrest Negeen, even though she hadn't been accused of any criminal activity.

Do not miss the implications of this ruling. According to Judge Somers, in the City of Dearborn, police have probable cause to arrest Christians, even if the Christians haven't been accused of a crime. This means that any Dearborn police officer may arrest any Christian, simply because he feels like it.

Since we realized we weren't going to get justice in Dearborn, we were hopeful that the appeals court would have more respect for our fundamental rights as American citizens. Our hopes were dashed today when Judge Callahan ruled that police may indeed arrest a Christian who hasn't been accused of a crime.

Amazingly, people act like we're crazy when we say that Dearborn is being influenced by Sharia. But the facts speak for themselves. Christians are rapidly becoming second-class citizens in Michigan, and anyone who speaks up is quickly labeled an "Islamophobe." The saddest part of this is that non-Muslims are the ones who are doing the difficult work of destroying the Constitution. Mayor John O'Reilly, City Prosecutors William "Sharia Bill" DeBiasi and Debra Walling, Corporal Kapanowski, Sergeant Mrowka, Chief Haddad, Judge Somers, and now Judge Callahan are all trying desperately to undermine the U.S. Constitution.

And practically no one seems to care.

Many Dearborn residents are offended when people say that Sharia is taking hold in their city. But until the City of Dearborn starts showing some degree of respect for the rights of non-Muslims, until Christians are free to discuss their faith without being arrested, until the Fourth Amendment actually protects teenage girls from illegal search and seizure, the accusations are going to continue.

For a complete summary of the events in Dearborn, with video footage, click here.

(NOTE: I have referred to the "Constitutional rights of Christians." Since certain readers love to misrepresent and distort what I say, let me go ahead and state clearly that I do not believe, never have believed, and never will believe that only Christians should have Constitutional rights. All U.S. citizens, regardless of race or religion, are protected by the Constitution. Indeed, I would be just as opposed to police violating the civil rights of a Muslim or an atheist as I would a Christian. But in this case, it's the rights of Christians that are being violated, so that's the topic of the post.)

Another Anti-Muslim Hate Crime Fizzles

Due to the thousands of terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam over the past decade, Westerners are becoming more and more interested in looking into Islam, to see whether these attacks have something to do with the teachings of Muhammad.

Muslims are desperately resisting any open discussion of Islamic teachings (almost makes you wonder if they're worried about what we'll find in the Qur'an and Hadith). The safest strategy for Muslims to date is to play the victim card: "Criticism of Islam is leading to a spree of anti-Muslim hate crimes! So don't question our beliefs!" Of course, the data proves that this mantra is false. The vast majority of religiously based hate crimes are directed against Jews. How are Muslims going to get around the facts? Simple: They need to invent more hate crimes against Muslims.

CALIFORNIA--An anti-Muslim "hate crime" at a Newport Beach cigar store? Could there be a story more in my wheelhouse?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has called for the feds to open a hate-crime investigation after a Muslim cab driver said a cigar store owner in concert with three other men assaulted him in front of the store, promising they were "going to f—you up like we f— up your country" as they pummeled him.

When I read news accounts Wednesday morning that one of the accused haters owned the cigar shop on Palm Street on the Balboa Peninsula, I knew the story was suspect. I've known Edgar Uria for several years, and that's just not him. Before I could call Uria, he called me.

Wednesday afternoon found me at his shop puffing on a fine Partagas Serie D, along with Uria's attorney, Victor Cueto. Uria did almost all the talking, telling a story that makes more sense than the one told by the beating victim to CAIR and the police. It goes:

Late on March 19, two women who had been in Uria's cigar lounge called for a cab. One arrived outside, steps away from the front door. Unbeknownst to them, it was not from the cab company they'd called. But they got into it anyway and were about to leave when the cab they did call pulled up.

The second cabbie, a middle-aged Arabic man, hopped out and started yelling at the first cabbie, a Hispanic man, for taking his fare. Uria heard the commotion and stepped outside. He heard the Arabic cabbie call the Hispanic cabbie a "f—ing wetback." The Hispanic cabbie drove away.

At that very moment, three men who had apparently come from a bar around the corner, ran up looking for a cab. One of the three, a Hispanic man, had heard the Arabic cabbie's slur, and said to him, 'What the f—did you say?" The cabbie and Hispanic man started cursing at each other. As the cabbie tried to leave, he brushed his arm against the Hispanic man, who punched him in the face.

As Uria yelled to his patrons inside to call the cops, the two men with the Hispanic man joined in and started beating the cabbie. Uria and one of his patrons, Greg Parker, jumped into the melee and pulled off the attackers, who fled. The cops arrived moments later.

As the cabbie and Uria were talking to separate officers, Uria heard the cabbie say, "That's him!" pointing at Uria.

"My jaw dropped," Uria says. "I was like, 'You have got to be kidding me.' I helped the guy out! I rendered aid!"

Uria also heard the cabbie ask the cop if he wasn't arresting Uria because he was "white." (Uria is Cuban.)

"He was pulling the ethnic card right off," Uria says. "The only derogatory slur was from the cabbie, who said the (other cabbie) was a wetback!" (Read more.)

Mohamed Hassan Hersi Arrested at Toronto Airport on Terrorism-Related Charges

According to Muhammad, there is no greater deed than fighting the unbelievers in the name of Allah:

Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2810—Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them is in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e., Allah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism) be superior, is in Allah’s Cause.”

Not surprisingly, when some Muslims learn that there is a Jihad going on in Somalia, they jump on the first plane to Africa.

TORONTO (Reuters) - A man was arrested for "terrorism-related offenses" at Toronto's international airport just before he was about to board an airplane bound for North Africa, Canadian police said on Wednesday.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) said 25-year-old Canadian citizen Mohamed Hassan Hersi was headed to Somalia to join al Shabaab, which police said is a hard-line Islamist group that has ties to al Qaeda.

"Al Shabaab is a listed terrorist entity," said RCMP Inspector Keith Finn at a press conference. "Any participation in that group would constitute an offense."

Hersi was arrested Tuesday evening at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, moments before he was to board a one-way flight to Cairo via London, the RCMP said. They said Hersi planned to travel to Somalia from Cairo.

Somalia has replaced Iraq as the state most at risk from terrorist attack, according to a ranking by global analysts Maplecroft. (Read more.)

Dearborn Lawyers William DeBiasi and Debra Walling Continue Persecution of Christian Convert Negeen Mayel

The Bill of Rights was written to protect United States citizens from the government. The Fourth Amendment guarantees protection against unlawful search and seizure:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

According to the Fourth Amendment, police cannot search or seize a U.S. citizen "but upon probable cause," i.e. a reasonable suspicion, based on evidence, that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

While Negeen was filming the following video, Dearborn police officers Brian Kapanowski and Justin Smith, along with several other people, approached her from behind and ordered her to stop filming. Since Negeen had committed no crime and wasn't even accused of committing a crime, Dearborn Police had no lawful authority to order her to stop engaging in Constitutionally protected activity. (That's the First Amendment.)



When Negeen, startled at being approached by no less than six people, didn't immediately comply with Corporal Kapanowski's unlawful order, he grabbed her (an unlawful seizure). When she told him to stop illegally touching her, he snatched her camera from her (another unlawful seizure). He then dragged her out of the tent (another illegal seizure). A little later, Corporal Kapanowski had Negeen thrown into the Dearborn City Jail, and he charged her with two crimes: "Breach of Peace" and "Failure to Obey the Lawful Order of a Police Officer."

Before Negeen's trial even began, her lawyer, Robert Muise, filed a motion showing that Negeen's Constitutional rights had been violated, that she had committed no crime, and that the charges against her must therefore be dismissed. Any respectable prosecutor, in any city that honors the U.S. Constitution, would have immediately thrown out the charges.

Welcome to Dearborn, where City prosecutor William "Sharia Bill" DeBiasi went after Negeen like a man possessed.

Of course, Sharia Bill's war against the U.S. Constitution would have been in vain, had it not been for the Constitution-undermining efforts of Dearborn Judge Mark Somers. Judge Somers declared, before the trial even began, that Corporal Kapanowski had probable cause to arrest Negeen, since Roger Williams had complained about Negeen filming him from a distance while we were talking to him! Judge Somers, who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, apparently believes a person can be arrested and thrown in jail for filming her friends at a public festival!

Shockingly, at the trial, Corporal Kapanowski admitted, under oath, that filming at a public festival is not a crime, and that Negeen hadn't been accused of doing anything illegal. However, Judge Somers refused to reverse his decision that Corporal Kapanowski had probable cause to arrest Negeen. This means that, according to Judge Somers, a U.S. citizen can be arrested for doing absolutely nothing! Quite a low view of the Constitution, I would say.

Obviously, we weren't going to get a fair trial in the City of Dearborn. Judge Somers wouldn't even allow Negeen's lawyer to present evidence to the jury that Corporal Kapanowski's orders were unlawful. Based on this egregious blunder of Judge Somers, and the deceptive tactics of "Sharia Bill" DeBiasi, Negeen was found guilty of "Failure to Obey the Lawful Order of a Police Officer." She now has a criminal record.

Seems like an obvious victory on appeal, right? In a sane world, where lawyers who agree to uphold the Constitution actually take their oaths seriously, Negeen's appeal wouldn't even be challenged.

Welcome to Dearborn, where the Constitution apparently isn't worth the paper it's written on. After Negeen's appeal was filed, Dearborn attorneys William DeBiasi and Debra Walling filed a massive 69-page attack against Negeen (and America), claiming that it was perfectly acceptable for Corporal Kapowski to manhandle and arrest her. Of course, if the atrocious behavior of Kapanowski and Smith had been directed at a Muslim, Dearborn's "Sharia Lawyers" wouldn't dare defend police. But Negeen is an apostate from Islam, and a convert to Christianity, which means that she's fair game in Dearborn.

Some people wonder why we're making such a fuss over this, or why we're so concerned about Dearborn. Think about it. In 2009, three of us were physically attacked by several Muslim security guards for asking a question at a booth that invited us to ask questions. Did Dearborn prosecutors charge any of these Muslims with a crime? Not at all. In 2010, Negeen was thrown in jail for thinking that she was protected by the U.S. Constitution, and three more of us were thrown in jail for peacefully discussing Christianity with a group of Muslims who approached us. In order to justify the arrests, Dearborn police officers had to make numerous false statements in their police reports. When Dearborn prosecutors saw the video footage, and recognized that police had filed false reports, did they prosecute the police? Not at all. Did Dearborn prosecutors charge Roger Williams for falsely accusing us? No. Instead, prosecutors went after us even more forcefully!

It seems, then, that people who attack Christians, by any means necessary, are completely immune from prosecution in Dearborn. Based on what I've seen, there is corruption at every level of government--in the police department, in the prosecutor's office, in the courts, and especially in the Mayor's office. Strangely enough, despite the evidence, there isn't much concern over what's going on in Dearborn.

On April 1st, Negeen's appeal will be argued in front of a judge at the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Thomas More Law Center's Robert Muise will argue that the Constitution of the United States is applicable in the City of Dearborn. William DeBiasi will continue the City of Dearborn's attack on American values and the Bill of Rights. Please pray for wisdom for the judge, and for justice to be served.

For a complete summary of the events in Dearborn, click here.