• April 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar    
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 45,546 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 29 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!



  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

Minneapolis building next to mosque explodes – neighborhood “where Islamic terrorists congregate”

Minneapolis High School Locked Down After Somali Muslims & Blacks Brawl (updated with video)


[Editor’s Note: This is from a friend of mine…it is a possibility of ridding America of Islam…at least for the time being. This is showing a few US Codes that are being broken, in actuality, not only against the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups, but also against Pres. Obama for his role in working with the Brotherhood trying to make the US an Islamic country. And, upon looking at it, it also puts the democrats in on the criminal intent on changing America to a socialistic country, as well as aiding Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Holder, Congressman Ellison, Congressman Carson and Clinton. Also, submit the Muslim Brotherhood's Explanatory Memorandum as your evidence.]

By Daniel Greenfield @http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/l0830

Geert Wilders’ recent call at a Palm Beach synagogue to ban Islam has stirred up all sorts of controversy, with more “moderate” blogs speaking out in opposition to it. So let’s take a closer look at the issue of banning Islam.

Banning Islam is more difficult in the United States than in Europe, because of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward formulation barring the legislative branch from taking any action to create a state religion or barring the practice of any religion.

The founders were English citizens and well aware of the way in which religion could stoke political violence. In the late 18th century, Cromwell was not ancient history; neither were the Covenanters or the Gunpowder Plot. While they did not anticipate like the rise of an Islamic insurgency in America, they understood quite well that religion and violence could and would intersect.

That of course was one of the reasons for barring a State Church, to avoid giving the government control over religion, a situation that had resulted in much of the religious violence in England. By giving religion independence, but not political power, the First Amendment sought to avoid a repeat of the same ugliness that had marked centuries of wars in Europe.

That of course is a key point. The separation of church and state was meant to protect the integrity of both, and avoid power struggles between religious groups. There was to be no state religion, the government could not leverage religious authority and religious factions could not begin civil wars in a struggle to gain power or autonomy. For the most part it worked.

Until now the only real acid test for this approach involved the Mormon Church, an ugly history on both sides that has mostly been buried under the weight of time. More recently Scientology flared up as a cult turned church that demanded its own autonomy and did its best to make war on the government and its critics.

And then there is Islam. The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam—is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a State Religion, around the world and in America as well.

Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the UK have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia, such as Noah Feldman, are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.

This would in effect turn Islam into an Established Religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment.

Furthermore Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect Freedom of Speech and the Press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect Islamic rights therefore means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion—- and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.

These are not hypothetical scenarios, the Mohammed cartoon controversy has demonstrated exactly how this will work. So did the persecution of Salman Rushdie. To accept Islam is to reject freedom of speech and religion… in the same way that accepting Communism meant rejecting freedom of speech and religion. Islam and the Constitution of the United States are incompatible in the same way that Communism and the Constitution are incompatible.

The Founders sought to protect religious freedoms; at no point in time did they seek to protect religious terrorism. And Supreme Courts throughout American history have found that the First Amendment does not provide license for significant law-breaking. That is why polygamy is not legal in the United States.

Having to choose between religious freedom and the rights and dignity of women and children—America correctly chose the latter.

In 1785, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote, “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”

Yet Islamic history and recent events in Eurabia demonstrate that Islam does indeed spread by force and violence. Upholding the right of Islam to force its statues and views on Americans, violates Madison’s fundamental and undeniable truth.

In 1802, Jefferson wrote his explanation for the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptist Association;

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, and that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that the legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

There is a key phrase in this statement, which is that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. This statement was used as a legal principle by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs the United States. Reynolds had been charged with bigamy and claimed that his faith required him to engage in polygamy.

The Court found that while Reynolds had the right to believe that polygamy was his duty, he did not have the right to practice it—thus upholding Jefferson’s distinction between action and belief.

As the court put it;

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167]  To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

The outcome then was that we could not have a situation in which crimes could be committed in the name of religion and protected by the First Amendment. Belief could not be criminalized, but practice could be.

But what does that actually mean and how exactly do we distinguish between action and practice? Does it merely mean that it is legal to believe in seizing America in the name of Islam, but not to practice it.

We can begin by pointing out that any number of Islamic practices which violate American law or promote an unhealthy social consequence can be banned, for much the same reason that polygamy was. In Reynolds vs the United States, the Court upheld the right of the Utah legislature to brand the spread of polygamy as a threat to innocent women and children, that had to be arrested through strong measures. The spread of Islam’s practices can be seen in the same way.

France has treated the Hijab in a similar way. The United States can too, if it finds any abuse or violence associated with its enforcement or use. Honor killings over the Hijab demonstrate that this is the case. State Legislatures can then move to ban the Hijab.

Thus while we cannot charge someone with believing in Islam, we can stamp out many Islamic practices that are dangerous or abusive. The First Amendment does not protect religious practices that are illegal or made illegal, it protects only the beliefs themselves.

And we can go much further at an organizational level, based on the Sedition Act of 1918 and the 1954 Communist Control Act , which give us some guidelines for cracking down on Islam.

Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives

This applies to Islam just as much as it applies to Communism. And this preamble was part of a passage demonstrating the fundamental distinction between Communism and legitimate political parties.

The assumption of the Communist Control Act was that the First Amendment did not apply to the Communist party or to Communist controlled parties… because they did not fit the democratic template of the First Amendment. As such the Communist party was not a legitimate party, but an overseas directed conspiracy to overthrow the United States and replace it with a Communist system.

Not only can this same argument also apply to Islamic organizations such as CAIR, but Islam can be distinguished from other religions on similar grounds. The following phrase from the original document represents the key point here;

It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

And that is the core of the problem. While we cannot criminalize individual beliefs alone, we can criminalize organizations dedicated to overthrowing the United States and replacing it with a totalitarian system. An organization is not merely “belief”, it also represents an attempt to put those beliefs into practice.

The Internal Security Act of 1950, along with the 1954 Communist Control Act provides extensive legal grounds for criminalizing organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, as well as membership in such organizations—and even provides for the removal of citizenship from members of such organizations. (So does 18 U.S.C. § 2385, also known as the SMITH ACT of 1940. You might want to think about reading these US Code laws and bringing them to your law enforcement agencies, as well as to your Congressmen/women and Senators. This also includes Pres. Obama in the mix, because he is going against the US Code and Constitution with trying to make America socialistic in the least, Islamic for the most.

While succeeding courts have thrown out many portions of these laws, had the United States truly gotten serious about the War on Terror, it could have passed a real Patriot Act that would have clamped down on Islamist organizations in a similar way.

The bill could have easily retrofitted some of the language of the Communist Control Act as follows;

Sec. 3. Islamic organizations, regardless of their assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated:

Sec. 4. Whoever knowingly and willfully becomes or remains a member of such organizations, or (2) any other organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment, control conduct, seizure, or overthrow of the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of force or violence, with knowledge of the purpose or objective of such organization shall be subject to all the provisions and penalties of the Internal Security Act of 1950

The question then becomes one of defining what exactly an Islamist organization is. If we define Islamist under the same guidelines as Communist, but specifically modified as representing a belief in the overthrow or takeover of the United States or any part of it, thereby placing the United States under Islamic law… we already have a very broad net to work with.

Or to simply quote the Internal Security Act again

Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship

Since Islam represents a totalitarian dictatorship, any organization or individual seeking to establish Islamic Law or Sharia within the United States, can be held liable and charged over its violation. This would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

And the Koran or Quran itself represents a volume whose contents implicitly call for the violent overthrow of the United States.

Consider Chapter 9 of the Koran, which governs the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Particularly Sura 9:29

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

There are numerous other verses in the Koran which similarly call for Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and take power. This parallels the charge against the Communist party and places Muslims who believe in the Koran on the same level as Communists who believed in the overthrow of the United States.

Participation in any Muslim organization therefore becomes the equivalent of participating in a Communist organization—and can be banned.

So back to the original question, can we ban Islam? While we cannot ban an individual from personally believing in Islam, we can ban Islamic practices and organizations—which would effectively ban any practice of Islam in an organized way.

While the First Amendment does not permit a ban on any specific religion, this is limited to religious belief, not religious practice. And the laws enacted against Communism in the 1950’s demonstrate that organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized.

Thus we can ban Islam from the public sphere, ban Muslim organizations as criminal organizations, criminalize Muslim practices and even denaturalize and deport Muslims who are United States citizens. The legal infrastructure is there. Despite the fact that the United States is far more protective of political and religious rights, within a decade every single Muslim organization, from the national to the mosque level, can be shut down… and the majority of professing Muslims can be deported from the United States regardless of whether they are citizens or not.

We can do it. Whether we could or will do it is another matter. It would require rolling back a number of Supreme Court decisions that are a legacy of the corrupted Warren Court. But it was possible post 9/11. It may yet become possible again.

Daniel Greenfield Bio


Daniel Greenfield Most recent


Daniel Greenfield is a New York City

based writer and freelance

commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization.

 Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

posted 4 Apr 12 by http://www.canadafreepress.com

Muslim U.S. Congressman who says American schools should be more like madrassas, foresees Muslim woman president in headbag

Posted: July 6, 2012 | Author: barenakedislam |

This is what happens when you put two radical Muslims into Congress. Hamas-supporter Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Andre Carson (D-IN) are both trying to ease sharia law into our country. Don’t let it happen again. Never vote for another Muslim for anything.

The Blaze  The video below depicts Muslim Congressman Andre Carson, of the 7th District of Indiana, voicing his belief that America’s school system would be improved if schools were modeled after “madrasas.” For those that don’t know, madrasas are Islamic religious schools – schools that, according to at least one State Department report, have been accused of fostering anti-American, terrorist sympathies. Specifically, the report singled out the Pakistani educational system, where madrasas are common:

No need to read the State Department report, see for yourself in this video. In just the first minute, students are physically beaten by teachers at a UK madrassa and filled with hatred for all things non-Islamic.

Now, we have Andre Carson dreaming of the first Muslim woman president of the United States, all decked out in her hijab, or maybe even her burqa.


Rep. Andre Carson and hijab woman


The Blaze Congressman Andre Carson, one of two Muslims serving in congress, encouraged fellow followers of Islam to strive to train up the next generation of Muslim leaders in America. “[Muslims] have to groom the next city councilor, the next governor the future president, the first Muslim president,” he said in May at the ICNA Mosque in Hartford, CT.

Carson went on to proclaim: “It starts with us becoming motivated.  It starts with us being proud to be Muslim.”(But not proud to be American)

Then Congressman Carson went into detail over his “visionary” image of a Muslim President of the United States:

“Now brothers, I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but that may be a sister. … Can you imagine a sister in the White House with Secret Service, with a hijab on? I don‘t know if you’re ready for that, that’s visionary right there.”

See Video of Carson at The Blaze

Posted on 6 Jul 12 by BNI

Interfaith event reveals Islamic dawah to 100,000+ Minnesotan’s

Posted on July 5, 2012 by creeping

In an article about the one-way street called “interfaith” – you know the one where non-Muslims bow down to Muslims who take full advantage of same non-Muslims – this little tidbit was revealed. via Interfaith event to support Muslims in St. Anthony | StarTribune.com.

In the past decade, Muslim advocacy organization Islamic Resource Group (IRG) has given presentations about Islam to nearly 2,700 churches, businesses and other groups throughout Minnesota. There are about 150,000 Muslims in the state, with close to 40 mosques.

Zafar Siddiqui, president of IRG, said the group is also involved in the interfaith event, which he views as a positive step toward building understanding and tolerance.

“IRG in the past 10 years has reached out to over 100,000 Minnesotans in a face-to-face setting, and I can say with absolute confidence that in each of these 3,000-plus interactions, we have come away with a feeling of having built that human connection and friendship.”

And that’s how it goes. Dawah be any means necessary. You must tolerate the intolerant, because as the article also notes:

“We are here to stay, we are part of the society. We are growing…”

Adherents to many faiths around the world likely regret their hospitality to Muslims who have conquered their nations and are now violently persecuting non-Muslims in each of them.

Posted on 5 Jul 12 by Creeping Sharia

[ Editor’s Note: I believe, (this is not from the Act! for America office, just my notes) that the Holy Bible’s anti-Christ (AC) will be Islamic…the Bible points it out. I also feel that one way how the AC gets “his religion” spread across the globe is by Islam becoming an interfaith religion…the biggest thing that will be taken out of Christian faiths is the fact that Jesus Christ (Yeshua) was the Son of God, and that there is a Holy Spirit, a Holy Trinity…Even though satan, I mean allah wants Muslim to think that Christians’ beliefs, Holy Trinity, is polytheistic. It is, in actuality, a monotheistic belief, but off of that rabbit trail. Satan allah tells Muslims Jesus (Isa) was not the Son of God, that allah has no son, but an error in the Qur’an that exists is this…both Jesus’, Isa and Yeshua, were pure men, both were born from a virgin…if a man is born from a virgin, way back 2000 years ago before there was artificial insemination, or any sort of pregnancy surgery, then that means that the Divine Being had to of put the human “seed” in the virgin’s womb, thus making it the Son of whatever God your religion believes in. in the End Times, the AC will be, I feel an interfaith pusher because that would make it easier to spiritually “bind” the “backslidden” believers of any Christian faith, including the AC’s false prophet, which will be another Editor’s Note. So, I feel this is why the Muslims are doing what they can to “push” the interfaith religious interactions out to Christians.]

MILWAUKEE: Two ‘mysterious’ building fires on the same day tied to Muslim family of convicted Hamas terrorism financier

Posted: June 25, 2012 | Author: barenakedislam |

The Muslim owner of the building that burned to the ground last Wednesday morning, served time for activities with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Another building owned by his brother also caught fire at nearly the same time. The family put out a statement claiming that the fires were “accidental” and that the simultaneous timing was “coincidental.” HAH!

WTMJ At the same time Milwaukee firefighters battled a five-alarm blaze Wednesday morning; a much smaller one was starting in Oak Creek. Salah Sarsour believes the simultaneous fires are simply a freak occurrence.

“It’s just coincidence,” Sarsour said. “I mean, I believe this happened coincidentally.” Sarsour spoke to reporters about a block away from the burned-out and crumbled corner building owned by his brother Jamil.

The 120-year-old brick building at the corner of 12th and Vliet caught fire sometime before 9 a.m. Wednesday and was deemed a total loss. Sometime around noon, the Oak Creek home caught fire. That home is owned by another Sarsour brother.

Just a coincidence, Salah Sarsour insists — though a coincidence that is raising eyebrows. In 1998, store owner Jamil Sarsour was convicted in both U.S. and Israeli courts as a terrorist money-man.



CBS  An Israeli police report detailed Sarsour’s confession. ”I occasionally send money to organizations that may be connected to Hamas without me knowing it,” the report quotes Sarsour. For that crime, he served a prison sentence in Israel. American authorities later accepted a guilty plea on an illegal money transfer charge and sentenced Sarsour to probation.

As ABC News reported in 2003: “Although he is not on the list of “specially designated terrorists,” Israeli and U.S. authorities say Jamil Sarsour helped to finance a string of suicide bus bombings in Israel, including one that killed two Americans.”

WTMJ  Jamil Sarsour plead guilty to aiding Hamas, served a multiple year sentence in Israel, and was deported to the United States. He was arrested in the US on a criminal complaint on December 27, 2002 and according to court records entered a plea deal that resulted in probation.

                         SALAH SARSOUR

When questioned about whether anyone would want to target his family, Salah Sarsour again pointed to the fires as a coincidence. ”We have no enemies,” Salah Sarsour said. “Things happened. Things happened the same day.”

In the 1998 Israeli report, Jamil Sarsour mentioned his brother as the source of some of the money passed along to Hamas. ”The checks that my brother Salah gave me were from a bank in Milwaukee,” Jamil told Israeli investigators.  “From the business account.  We didn’t want to use personal checks… so the government shouldn’t trace the checks back to us.”

Salah Sarsour has also been active in anti-Israel causes. A number of videos like this one show Sarsour leading pro-Islamist rallies.

According to Patrick Poole at PJ Media  “A Law enforcement source tell me the FBI is looking into the ties of a longtime convicted Hamas operative and fundraiser Jamil Sarsour to a massive five alarm fire yesterday in Milwaukee. The business fire also appears to be tied to a house fire across town that was set at nearly the same time. But it doesn’t appear that Sarsour is the victim in this case. As my source said, “This is definitely not a hate crime. He looks to be right in the middle of it.”

Posted on 25 Jun 12 by BNI

MINNESOTASTAN Court submits to sharia law, spits on the Constitution

Posted: June 7, 2012 | Author: barenakedislam

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Minnesota, in a ruling June 4, threw out 19 of 20 contempt citations that Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis had levied against Amina Farah Ali, Somali Muslim convicted terrorist funder, because she wouldn’t rise when court was called to order.

Twin Cities  On the first day of her trial on charges of raising money for the terrorist group Al-Shabaab, Ali ignored Davis’ order to rise, telling him she interpreted Islamic teachings to mean she didn’t have to stand for anybody.

                                               Amina Farah Ali

The judge disagreed, saying that rising was a show of respect to the legal process and that court decorum demanded she stand. But the appeals court said Ali’s refusal “was rooted in her sincerely held religious beliefs”, and that Davis was wrong not to consider those before he found her in contempt and sentenced her to 100 days in jail.
The court said Davis’ ultimatum to Ali — violate your religious beliefs or face criminal penalties — “substantially burdens the free exercise of religion.” Davis should have considered Ali’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a three-judge panel of the court said. The panel told Davis to reconsider his actions and “reach a balance between maintaining order and avoiding unnecessary and substantial burdens on sincere religious practices.”
Ali, 35, and co-defendant Hawo Mohamed Hassan, 65, also of Rochester, were convicted last fall of conspiring to raise money for Al-Shabaab, a group fighting Somalia’s U.N.-backed government. They are awaiting sentencing while in a St. Paul halfway house.

                          Hawo Mohamed Hassan and Amina Farah Ali

Hawo Mohamed Hassan and Amina Farah Ali caused a stir on the trial’s first day in October when she refused to stand when the judge entered the courtroom. Three days earlier, after being told that Ali had remained seated at the start of a pre-trial hearing, Davis had issued an order requiring everyone to stand when court was called to order.

The woman told Davis that the Prophet Muhammad once told a group of followers they didn’t have to honor him by standing. She said that if she didn’t have to rise for the founder of her religion, she didn’t have to rise for anybody.

The judge found her in contempt and said he’d do so every time she refused to stand. He also ordered her jailed. After two nights in jail and after talking to Muslim elders, she rose when court was called to order on the trial’s third day.

The appeals court let the first contempt citation stand. It said Ali’s attorney, Dan Scott, should have raised the religious objection before his client violated the judge’s order.

But Scott said he was pleased with the ruling. ”When you get down to it, under the statute the judge has to find … that there’s just no reasonable way that he could have order in the court unless she gives up her religious beliefs,” he said.

He said Davis erred in believing that he wasn’t discriminating against Muslims because everyone was required to stand. (Other Muslims in the courtroom, including Hassan, rose when court was called to order.) 

“The judge was saying that if everybody is equally burdened, regardless of your religion, you all gotta stand up, and if it burdens one religion a little more than another, then that’s too bad,” Scott said. “But that’s not the statute. The statute is accommodation.”

Jason Marisam, an assistant professor of law at Hamline University School of Law who has lectured on the free exercise of religion in constitutional law, said the tension between the secular and religious often winds up in court. 

“It’s understandable that a judge would take offense when a party refuses to stand when the court is called to order. It’s called the rising requirement and it’s supposed to show respect for the court system,” he said. “But some feel that showing respect to a secular institution doesn’t respect their religious beliefs.”

The 1993 law “exempts religious believers from having to comply … unless the government has a compelling reason,” he said. “Here, the question is whether this symbolic showing of respect is a compelling reason. Generally, these symbolic things are not compelling reasons.”

Posted on 7 Jun 12 by BNI

[The Muslim Brotherhood has declared "war" or civilization jihad against America, in 1991 in their General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America (for the English portion of the document, go to page 16). In this document, that was used by the Federal Government in prosecuting the Muslim Brotherhood and Council on American-Islamic Relations, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the Holy Land Foundation trials, it tells all groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, (and, by and large, all mosques/Imams are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, so the document is actually meant for all Muslims in America) to wage non-violent jihad against America...by going to court and using the Constitution against us. And, in case you haven't noticed, Muslims, as well as Muslim groups have taken countless US businesses to court and winning because, not only are they using the Constitution against us, but also using the discrimination "victim" card, and our politically correct tolerance allows them to win. That is why Shari'a Law is quickly spreading across the country. This is all part of the HOLY BIBLE's book of Revelation that talks about the end times...the anti-Christ, or son of satan, will be Islamic, and the anti-Christ will impose a global "religion", some Christian denominations, as well as people, feel that the anti-Christ will be the Pope and the religion will be Catholicism, however, if you look at it, is the Pope trying to take over the world? Does the Pope behead people for blasphemy against God when people say "God da-m it"? That is taking God's name in vain, but no one is beheaded...so a lot of Christians are in error on this belief, it is an Islamic anti-Christ, and America is quickly allowing him to subdue this country...the country that was founded on the belief of Jehovah God. So ask Jehovah God into your heart and ask for forgiveness of your sins, and pray that the US gets rid of the "Son of the West", (Obama) and that we, as a nation, come back to Jehovah God, to keep the Islamic anti-Christ out of here as much as we can.]

MINNESOTASTAN turns its Capitol into a mosque for Muslim Capitol Day

Posted: April 11, 2012 | Author: barenakedislam |

On April 5, 2012, the Minnesota Muslim community participated in the 8th Annual ‘Muslim Day at the Capitol’ that featured speeches about Islamophobia and anti-sharia Islamophobes, as well as prayers for the faster Islamization of America.


Muslims bring their kids to show them the Capitol that one day soon will be turned into a big mosque

Star Tribune  The annual event seeks to promote community engagement in local politics and to discuss issues of interest to the Muslim community with legislators. This year, the topics of interest include Islamophobia, anti-Muslim legislation, photo ID legislation, and gun violence.

Scheduled speakers include Minnesota Muslim community leaders, Governor Mark Dayton, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, and other elected officials. The afternoon will include appointments with the state representatives and senators. Estimates of Muslims in Minnesota range from 100,000 to 150,000.

              Separation of the sexes in the Capitol’s makeshift mosque

According to Lori Saroya, CAIR-MN Executive Director, “As one of the nation’s most educated and integrated religious communities, American Muslims have an important role to play in our society’s social and political fabric. It is important that members of our community engage with state and national lawmakers to share innovative ways to help build a stronger (Islamic) America and a stronger Minnesota.”

Muslim Day at the Capitol is co-sponsored by Muslim American Society of Minnesota, Al-Amal School, Council on Islamic-American Relations-MN, Islamic Center of Minnesota, Islamic Resource Group, Masjid Al-Ihsan Islamic Center, Masjid An-Nur, Masjid At-Taqwa, and Northwest Islamic Community Center.

Posted on 11 Apr 12 by BNI

MINNESOTA Somali Muslim bagheads to stand trial on terrorist financing charges

Posted: October 6, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam

Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama, for flooding Minnesota with tens of thousands of Somali Muslim terrorist supporters.


CBS (H/T Susan K) A Minnesota Muslim woman on trial for allegedly funneling money to a terrorist group in Somalia was found in contempt of court Monday when she refused to stand for the judge and jury, citing religious grounds. Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis found Amina Farah Ali in contempt for failing to stand as court convened and recessed several times during the day, and later sentenced her to 50 days in jail.

He also ordered Ali to be detained for the duration of the trial because of her “behavior in this courtroom.” She had been released pending trial as long as she did not violate any laws, but in a written order on Monday, Davis said Ali violated the law when she failed to rise and he revoked her release.

Ali, 35, and her co-defendant, Hawo Mohamed Hassan, 64, are accused of being part of what prosecutors called a “deadly pipeline” that sent more than $8,600 and fighters from the U.S. to Somalia.


As jury selection was beginning Monday, Ali refused to stand when Davis entered the courtroom. She was arrested, and there was a brief recess before court resumed. Davis also said if Ali continued to refuse to rise for the jury, she would not be allowed in the courtroom during her trial, and would have to watch the proceedings electronically. “I hope that you will rise when the jury appears, but that’s your choice,” Davis told Ali in court.

Her attorney, Dan Scott, objected to Davis’ decision, saying his client believes she has the First Amendment right to practice her religion — and that her beliefs should trump courtroom decorum. Scott said his client also has the Sixth Amendment right to confront her accusers. “The mere failure to stand is not so disruptive that the case could not go forward,” Scott said.

From Aug. 2010 when they were arrested:

Davis said Scott’s interpretation of the law is wrong. In his written order, Davis said that while religious freedom is protected, Ali hasn’t shown that her rights take precedence over the requirement to rise, which is designed to mark the beginning and end of court sessions, show respect for the system and help judges maintain order.

Davis last week issued an order stating all parties must honor the rules of courtroom decorum or risk being sanctioned. He stressed that he was not denying Ali’s religion, but that she must follow the rules, just like everybody else, and noted she was directly disobeyed that order.

“I have said I am doing this for religious reasons,” Ali said through a court interpreter. “I am not going to stand up for anyone except Allah.” (Somebody, shoot this b***h) “I worry about my salvation,” she said later.

It’s not the first time Ali has made her faith an issue in the courtroom. When she was arraigned after her arrest last year, she told the court she thought she was arrested because of her Muslim faith, and that she did not need an attorney because “Allah is my attorney.”


During court Monday, she continued to stand by her principles.”When I came to this country, I was told I’d have freedom of religion,” Ali said through a translator. “If I am not allowed to do so, you can kick me out of this country.” (Great idea. One less Somali welfare queen) Scott said Ali is refusing to stand based on her interpretation of the hadith, the words of the Prophet Muhammad. Scott said his client believes that since Muhammad told people not to stand for him, she should stand for no one but God.


When sentencing Ali on the contempt charge, Davis said he would allow her to speak with some imams, Muslim religious leaders, while in custody to see if their interpretations of Islam might change Ali’s views. If Ali decides to rise for the court, her attorney can ask that the contempt charges be purged, Davis said.

Ali and Hassan, both U.S. citizens of Somali descent, were among 20 people charged in Minnesota’s long-running federal investigations into recruiting and financing for al-Shabab, which the U.S. considers a terror group with ties to al-Qaida. Investigators believe at least 21 men left Minnesota — home to the country’s largest Somali community — to join al-Shabab. Though others have pleaded guilty to related charges, the women are the first to go on trial.

Ali and Hassan maintain their innocence, saying they were collecting money and clothing for refugees. But prosecutors allege the women went door-to-door and held teleconferences to solicit donations for the fighters. In one of those recorded calls, investigators allege, Ali said to “forget about the other charities” and focus on “the jihad.” In others, both women speak with the leader of a militia allied with al-Shabab, and Ali gets updates on the fighting.


While Minnesota Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison spends his energy in Minnesota ensuring missing Somali terrorists’ safe return to US, Muslim gangs are growing in areas where the State department resettled them. Immigration numbers of Muslims from Somalia have increased at a frightening pace, thanks to State department “Diversity” and “religious” visas:

Both women, of Rochester, are charged with conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. Ali also faces 12 counts of providing such support for allegedly sending more than $8,600 to the group from September 2008 through July 2009. Hassan faces three counts of lying to the FBI. Each terrorism count carries a 15-year maximum prison sentence. The trial is expected to last about two to three weeks.

Posted on 6 Oct 11 by BNI

Another CAIR shakedown for sharia at Electrolux

Posted on August 26, 2011 by creeping

via PipeLineNews.org, Electrolux Tells CAIR To Stuff It:

August 22, 2011 – San Francisco, CA – CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, an unindicted coconspirator in the nation’s largest and most successful prosecution of domestic Hamas funding, is once again taking on the Electrolux Corp., based [stateside] in Minnesota.

The company employs approximately 150 Muslim workers, whom CAIR has been taking advantage of in order to foment the type of civilizational/cultural jihad proposed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its numerous front groups. [see, document General Strategic Goal For The Group In North America]

CAIR is alleging that the employer is not making reasonable accommodation for Muslims to observe Ramadan. This despite an already extant EEOC mediated settlement of a similar complaint last year. [see, CAIR Strong Arms Electrolux In Minnesota]

Many of Electrolux’ Muslim workers are “political refugees” who were permitted to immigrate to the United States from Somalia, a key al-Qaeda stronghold, under an ill-considered State Dept. program which has been roundly criticized.

Somali immigrants have in large part not been a model of successful acculturation and have a history of precipitating labor disputes [often represented by Islamist groups such as CAIR] in businesses as diverse as Dell Computer, J.B Swift & Co and the Minneapolis airport.

More ominously at least 3 Somali Americans have travelled back to their native land to become suicide bombers for the al-Qaeda linked group, al-Shabaab. [see, http://www.investigativeproject.org/2934/somali-american-becomes-suicide-bomber Somali American Becomes Suicide Bomber]

To many, the prospect of a pressure group advocating on behalf of its constituency is unremarkable however the above outlined type of dispute reflects something far more insidious. It’s a clear demonstration of the ability of Shari’a proponents to employ the West’s numerous freedoms and rights against itself – a seditious stealth weapon – designed to weaken and eventually overturn constitutional government.

Posted on 26 Aug 11 by Creeping Sharia


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers

%d bloggers like this: