Obama’s ring: ‘There is no god but Allah’

He’s worn band on wedding-ring finger since before he met Michelle

[ Editor’s Note: This again does not reflect the views of the local Act chapters or the National Act office, but my views…this is not intended to be a political blog, it is only to show reality about the president that is very much unlike Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in that he is very dishonest…dishonesty is a commandment from allah in the Qur’an (Qur’an (40:28) – {this isn’t the verse, it’s the meaning of the verse in context, the verse is long and this is already a long blog} A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers…Qur’an (66:2) – {this is the verse}”Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths“…Qur’an (3:54) – {this is the verse} “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” {this is the contextual meaning of the verse}The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same), as well as the Hadiths (Bukhari (49:857) – {this is the hadith verse} “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” {this is the contextual meaning of the hadith} Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means. Bukhari (84:64-65) – {hadith verse} “Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy””.) And ultimately, their law, Shari’a Law (Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – {this is the law} “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…) With all the evidence that Obama is Muslim, and the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood vowed to plant a Trojan horse into the White House, and Louis Farrakhan has stated during Obama’s 2008 campaign that he is the messiah, and he fulfills the Islamic prophecy of being the “Sun rising in the West”, Obama working on shredding the U.S. Constitution (like the Muslim Brotherhood), and Obama torquing the facts about what he has done that was so great, and claims to have not veered off what he said he would do…this, as everyone already knows, makes him a liar, and with evidence that he is a Muslim (still practicing, but allowed to lie to us and make us think he is a Christian), his catering to the Muslim Brotherhood, his paying the Muslim countries with money we don’t have…the list goes on what he is doing, which is congruent to what the Brotherhood wants to help America become very weak and vulnerable to accept Islam.
Once again, this is not intended to be a political blog, you vote for who you want to vote for…this blog is only to give you Islamic facts that fit the president wholeheartedly. I give you the facts, you decide what you want to do with it.

Barack Obama’s gold band

NEW YORK – As a student at Harvard Law School, then-bachelor Barack Obama’s practice of wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger puzzled his colleagues. Now, newly published photographs of Obama from the 1980s show that the ring Obama wore on his wedding-ring finger as an unmarried student is the same ring Michelle Robinson put on his finger at the couple’s wedding ceremony in 1992. Moreover, according to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no god except Allah.”

Inscription on Obama’s ring

The Shahada is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam, expressing the two fundamental beliefs that make a person a Muslim: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.

Sincere recitation of the Shahada is the sole requirement for becoming a Muslim, as it expresses a person’s rejection of all other gods.

Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., examined photographs of Obama’s ring at WND’s request and concluded that the first half of the Shahada is inscribed on it.

“There can be no doubt that someone wearing the inscription ‘There is no god except Allah’ has a very close connection to Islamic beliefs, the Islamic religion and Islamic society to which this statement is so strongly attached,” Gabriel told WND.

Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” carefully documents the story the establishment media still refuses to tell

“Dreams from My Real Father” producer Joel Gilbert, an Arabic speaker and an expert on the Middle East, was the first to conclude that Obama’s ring, reportedly from Indonesia, bore an Islamic inscription.

Photographs published last week by the New Yorker from Obama’s time at Occidental College, taken by fellows students, indicate that the ring Obama wore three decades ago is the one he is wearing in the White House.

Barack Obama

As WND reported in July, previously published photos have shown Obama wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger continuously from 1981 at Occidental, through graduation at Columbia in 1983, in a visit to Africa in 1988 and during his time at Harvard from 1988 to 1991. But none, until now, have displayed the ring with enough detail to identify it as the one he currently is wearing.

WND reported a satirical edition of the Harvard Law Review published by students in 1990 contains a mock Dewers Scotch profile advertisement poking fun at Obama. Among a list of Obama’s “Latest Accomplishments” is: “Deflecting Persistent Questioning About Ring On Left Hand.”

The comment suggests the ring was a subject of student curiosity at the time and that Obama was not forthcoming with an explanation.

He still has not explained why he wore the band on his wedding-ring finger before he married Michelle.

Declaration

Gabriel, born to Muslim parents in Upper Egypt, grew up immersed in Islamic culture. He memorized the Quran at age of 12 and graduated in 1990 with a Masters degree from the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the pre-eminent Sunni Muslim institution of learning.

He explained that on Obama’s ring, the declaration “There is no god except Allah” (La Ilaha Illallah) is inscribed in two sections, one above the other.

On the upper section, “There is no god” is written in Arabic letters, from right to left: Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Ha.

On the lower section is “except god,” written in Arabic letters from right to left: Alif, Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Lam, Ha.

In the lower section, the word “Allah” is written partially on top of the word “except,” noted Gabriel, the author of “Islam and Terrorism” and “Journey Inside the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.”

It is common in Islamic art and Arabic calligraphy, especially when expressing Qur’anic messages on jewelry, to artfully place letters on top of each other to fit them into the allotted space.

The exhibit below shows how the Arabic inscription fits over the two parts of the Obama ring.

“There is no God except Allah” overlaid on Obama ring

‘First-rate accent’

In an interview during the 2008 presidential campaign, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof questioned Obama about his Islamic education in Indonesia, where he lived from 1967 to 1971.

After acknowledging that he once got in trouble for making faces during Quran study classes in his elementary school, Obama recited for Kristof the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, the Adhan.

The prayer incorporates the Shahada, the expression of Islamic faith, with each line repeated twice:

Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet

Kristof noted Obama recited the prayer in Arabic “with a first-rate accent.”

“In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,’” Kristoff wrote.

Gabriel told WND that a person wearing a ring with “There is no god except Allah” demonstrates the significance of Islam in his life.

“Christians never use the statement,” he pointed out. “By wearing the Shahada on jewelry, a person communicates that Allah is in control of all circumstances. Allah controls you; Allah is the one and only one.”

Obama, who attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for two decades, has repeatedly insisted he is a Christian.

Obama’s hand in a White House photo

‘Blessed statement in Islam’

Gabriel emphasized the importance of the Shahada in the profession of faith in Islam.

“Muslims recite the Shahada when they wake up in the morning and before they go to sleep at night,” he said. “It is repeated five times every day in the call to prayer in every mosque. A single honest recitation of the Shahada in Arabic is all that is required for a person to convert to Islam.”

Gabriel believes it would be impossible for Obama not to be aware of what is written on the ring, calling it a “blessed statement in Islam.”

“By wearing this religious statement on one’s hand, it connects the person to Islam,” he said. “It is worn in hopes that Allah’s protections would be with the person, in hopes of gaining favor with Allah.”

He affirmed that Muslim men do wear gold rings, despite prohibitions in Islamic law.

“Though Islamic law prohibits the wearing of gold jewelry by men, it is a widely accepted custom, even in strictly Muslim countries,” he said. “The wearing of gold rings is even more acceptable when it contains a religious message, such as ‘There is no god except Allah.’”

He noted there is also widespread acceptance of men wearing gold jewelry in non-Arab Islamic societies such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, where Muslims generally understand that Muslims are subject to strong influences of local non-Arab cultures.

“Therefore, even though technically prohibited, a Muslim man wearing a gold ring is not looked down upon, especially if the jewelry reflects a love of Islam and a connection to Islamic society,” he said. “An even greater level of acceptance is for businessmen who deal with infidels, because such a person would be regarded as a person of influence.”

Obama signing legislation (White House photo)

 ‘I have known Islam on three continents’

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, an expert on Islamic history, noted Obama wore the ring during his high-profile speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, in the first months of his presidency.

“Now we have a new context for what Obama meant when he told the Islamic audience in Cairo that he has ‘known Islam on three continents,” Gilbert said. “He also told the Cairo audience that he considered it part of his responsibility as president of the United States ‘to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ All religious Muslims are by definition required to defend Islam.”

Gilbert’s most recent documentary films on the Middle East are “Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam” and “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat”

Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009

Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009, close-up

The Occidental ring

The photographs published last week by New Yorker magazine indicate Obama was wearing the ring at Occidental College.

One photo shows Obama sitting alongside Occidental roommate Hasan Chandoo in 1981, apparently waiting for a meal to be served.

Barack Obama and roommate Hasan Chandoo at Occidental College in 1981

Obama’s extended left hand clearly shows the ring, as seen below.

The second of the recently released photos shows Obama reaching for a book from an Occidental College library shelf.

Barack Obama in Occidental College library in 1981

A close-up of the library photo can be seen below.

Detail of Barack Obama ring in Occidental College library in 1981

In the above photo, the ring’s design can be seen, including a series of parallel bars that distinguish its outer circumference.

The Obama wedding ring

The ring was mentioned in a New York Times article in 2009 recounting the Obamas’ wedding.

In the story, Jodi Kantor described its “intricate gold design,” noting it came from Barack Obama’s boyhood home of Indonesia and was not traditional, like Michelle’s.

Kantor wrote:

Just before the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. pronounced Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson man and wife on the evening of Oct. 3, 1992, he held their wedding rings – signifying their new, enduring bonds – before the guests at Trinity United Church of Christ. Michelle’s was traditional, but Barack’s was an intricate gold design from Indonesia, where he had lived as a boy.

There was no mention in the article that Obama already had been wearing the ring for more than a decade.

The photos of the ring from the 1980s can be compared with more recent photos, such as the ones published by the Huffington Post in 2010 in an article by Anya Strzemien, “Obama’s ‘Intricate’ Indonesian Wedding Band: A CLOSE-UP,” seen here.

Obama wedding ring, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010

Obama wedding ring, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010

Posted on 10 Oct 12 by WND.com

Just another side note…a true Christian would not wear a ring that says “There is no God but allah”, a Jew would not wear that, an atheist would not wear it, nor a Buddhist, nor a Hindu…ONLY MUSLIMS WOULD…come on America, do the math and see the real picture concerning our president!!!

Center for Security Policy — Community Awareness Alert

ICNA’s Campaign for Shariah Law in America Hides Extremist Beliefs and Associations

This Community Awareness Alert informs local media, community leaders and law enforcement about the known extremist beliefs and actions of leaders of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).  ICNA has announced a “$3 million dollar” campaign promoting Shariah law in America, featuring billboards in at least 15 U.S. cities, “Shariah seminars” on 20 college campuses, and town hall-style forums and interfaith events in 25 cities.  For more information, go to www.shariahthethreat.org/icna.

When you know the facts, you can help educate and prepare your community.  Don’t get scammed by ICNA. 

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) was founded in 1971 by leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami[1], an anti-American[2] fundamentalist, Taliban-supporting organization also known as the Pakistani branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Jamaat’s primary goal is the establishment of Islamic states worldwide, governed by the tyrannical, oppressive system of Shariah law. [3]

1. ICNA reveres Ayatollah Khomeini: After 9/11, ICNA’s PR campaign for the “Great Leaders of the last 100 Years” featured Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the anti-American, violent Shi’ite revolution and totalitarian regime in Iran.  The campaign stayed up at the website for years before ICNA scrubbed it, prior to mounting the current PR campaign promoting Shariah law in America.[4]
2. ICNA reveres Qutb and Mawdudi, the inspiration for al Qaeda: ICNA’s “Great Leaders of the last 100 Years” PR campaign also included the two great ideological leaders of modern jihadist terrorism: Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, both primary influences on al Qaeda. [5]
3. ICNA’s role models advocate jihad to achieve political goals: ICNA’s identified “Great Movements of the Last 100 Years” included Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood), and Pakistani Islamist groups Jama’at-e-Islami and Tablighi Jama’at.[6]
4. ICNA’s Past President was also a leader of Hamas-funder KindHearts as recently as 2005: ICNA’s Past President Zulfiqar Ali Shah was also President of the KindHearts “Charity” South Asia Division in 2005, whose assets were frozen in 2006 by the U.S. Treasury for funneling funds to Hamas[7].  KindHearts is still legally contesting the U.S. Treasury’s previous designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization. [8] Hamas is a designated terrorist organization responsible for thousands of murders.
5. ICNA’s Past Secretary General is under investigation for civilian executions: ICNA’s past Secretary General and Vice President Ashrafuz Zaman Khan, also a past President of the ICNA NY Chapter, is reportedly about to be indicted for war crimes by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal for the systematic execution of civilians during the civil war.  Bangladeshi groups claim Khan was a chief executioner for the al-Badr force, personally killing seven Dhaka University teachers in the city of Mirpur.[9]
6. ICNA has supported convicted cop-killer H. Rap Brown: A December 2001 ICNA South East region convention had a special program honoring convicted murderer Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (aka H. Rap Brown) who is serving a life sentence for killing a sheriff’s deputy.[10]
7. ICNA featured Muslim Brotherhood extremist leader Sheik Al-Qaradawi (banned from entry into the U.S. since 1999) stating that democracy is permitted only when it complies with Shariah law:  Writing in the ICNA magazine “The Message,” Qaradawi states “What we seek is that legislations and codes be within the limits of the flawless texts and the overall objectives of the Shari’ah and the Islamic Message.”[11]
8. ICNA promotes hatred of Jews and Christians: The curricula for ICNA’s women’s organization promotes jihad, Shariah rule, hatred of Jews and Christians, and warns of the “dangers of secular Western thoughts and ideas.”[12]
9. ICNA, ICNA Relief and ICNA Helping Hand funded the Al-Khidmat Welfare Society and Al-Khidmat Foundation, which then gave Hamas – a designated terrorist organization –  $99,000 in 2006[13].

You’ve seen the facts.  Be prepared.  Don’t get scammed by ICNA.

[DOWNLOAD 1-PAGE PDF FLYER]

---

[1] http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Beyond_Malcolm.html

[2] http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Go_America_Go.html

[3] http://www.americansagainsthate.org/articles/The_Muslim_Brotherhood_Comes_to_America.php

[4] http://web.archive.org/web/20021004011654/http:/www.messageonline.org/greatleaders/cover.htm [PDF BACKUP]

[5] http://web.archive.org/web/20021004011654/http:/www.messageonline.org/greatleaders/cover.htm [PDF BACKUP]

[6] http://web.archive.org/web/20000817194402/http:/www.icna.org/tm/ [PDF BACKUP]

[7] http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Zulfiqar_Ali_Shah.html

[8]http://www.investigativeproject.org/3374/kindhearts-dissolves

[9] http://www.investigativeproject.org/3499/report-claims-icna-imam-facing-indictment

[10] http://web.archive.org/web/20020206042720/http:/icna.org/living_islam_in_america__ICNASE_Conv.htm [PDF BACKUP]

[11] http://web.archive.org/web/20021003094724/http:/www.messageonline.org/2002aprilmay/cover1.htm [PDF BACKUP]

[12] http://www.investigativeproject.org/3155/icna-still-promotes-radical-texts

[13] http://www.americansagainsthate.org/HamasDonorICNA.htm

Posted on 2 Apr 12 through email link from Center of Security Policy

[my note…too bad CAIR and it’s fellow terrorist front groups can raise a stink and sue organizations/people that try and dissuade sharia law from being pushed on us, by the anti-sharia groups trying to post anti-sharia billboards or bus advertising, but the Muslim terrorist backing front groups get away with it without a problem…America, we are being, in general, a reactive and not a proactive country…and the Muslim Brotherhood and it’s terrorist backing front groups are pushing their grand jihad onto us, and we’re not fighting it]

Pa. Judge’s Ruling Proof of Sharia Law in U.S. Courts?

CBNNews.com

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

 

A Pennsylvania state judge recently dismissed an assault case involving a Muslim man who attacked an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

The judge’s decision has outraged freedom of speech proponents and some legal experts, who say it is in clear violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Some legal experts are also wondering if this case demonstrates how Islamic sharia law is slowly creeping into the U.S. legal system.

The incident occurred last year in Mechanicsburg, Pa., when an atheist came dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” for a Halloween parade.

Forty-six-year-old Talaag Elbayomy was accused of attacking Ernest Perce V, with the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania, during the Oct. 11 parade.

Perce claimed Elbayomy tried to take his “Muhammad of Islam” sign and choked him. The incident was caught on video.

Elbayomy, who attended the parade event with his family, said he felt compelled to do something in face of the insult to his religion.

He was arrested and charged with harassment after Perce reported the incident to a nearby police officer after he left the parade. The officer did not see the alleged assault.

Elbayomy later filed his own complaint with police accusing Perce of instigating the incident and claiming he never laid a hand on him. He admitted to arguing with Perce about his costume.

Judge Mark Martin, who presided over the Perce’s case, said there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of harrassment, the Harrisburg Patriot-News reported.

The grainy video of the incident was ruled inadmissible, making the case one man’s word against another’s, the judge said.

While rendering his decision in which he went on to explain his personal feelings about the case, Martin told Perce that he was a “doofus” and “way outside the bounds of his First Amendment rights.”

He also said Elbayomy was simply defending his “culture.”

Perce, later said he was angry that the judge “railed on me for six minutes about how bad I was offending Islam,” according to the London Daily Mail.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, questioned whether the judge was letting his personal views get in the way of the U.S. legal process.

“I can understand the judge’s claims of conflicting testimony on the crime. However, I view this as an extremely troubling case that raises serious questions of judicial temperament, if not misconduct,” he wrote on his blog.

“There are legitimate uses of the culture defense. However, when it comes to free speech, that is not just our controlling constitutional right but the touchstone of our culture,” Turley wrote.

The American Atheists have also criticized the judge’s decision as “completely and unequivocally unacceptable.”

“That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation,” the organization posted on its site.

It is not clear if Judge Martin is really a Muslim. On the purported tape of the court’s proceedings posted to Youtube, a man identified as the judge says he is a Muslim. However, the Gulf War veteran has denied that claim.

Posted on 28 Feb 12 by CBNNews.com

Offended Muslim chokes atheist, and then …

You won’t believe craziness caused by ‘Zombie Muhammad’

by Chelsea SchillingEmail | Archive

A Muslim judge in Pennsylvania – who scolded a local atheist for offending Islam, called him a doofus and accused him of “using the First Amendment” to madden Muslims – dismissed harassment charges against the Muslim defendant who purportedly choked the atheist during a Halloween parade.

District Judge Mark Martin brought a Quran to court and told the alleged victim, American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Ernest Perce V, “I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus.”

The judge added, “I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.”

Perce had worn a “zombie Muhammad” costume and proclaimed that he was the Prophet Muhammad risen from the dead at the Oct, 11, 2011, event in Mechanicsburg, Pa. A “zombie pope” was also featured in the parade that night.

Now the Scranton Atheism Examiner reports that Perce could be arrested for posting audio of the judge scolding him for mocking Muhammad. According to report, the Muslim judge has threatened to hold him in contempt of court for releasing the recording. Perce has claimed he was given permission to post the audio.

The Examiner reports that Perce said he posted the audio because the judge treated him unfairly and showed preferential treatment for the Muslim defendant.

According to reports, the atheists were marching when Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, stormed out of the crowd and assaulted Perce, grabbing a sign around his neck and pulling until the strings choked him.

The men caught the attention of a nearby police officer.

Mechanicsburg Police Officer Bryan Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.”

He added, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”

Elbayomy – who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad – was charged with harassment. He denied touching Perce at trial, but Officer Curtis said Elbayomy admitted grabbing Perce’s sign and beard the night of the incident.

The following is a dark and distorted video posted of the alleged attack:

 

However, Judge Martin dismissed the charges and purportedly belittled the atheist victim.

The audio of the judge lecturing Curtis for insulting Muhammad (starts at 28:30) is available here:

The following is an excerpt of the Muslim judge’s lecture in which he scolded Perce for offending Islam:

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in predominantly Muslim countries, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Qur’an here, and I would challenge you, Sir, to show me where it says in the Qur’an that Muhammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted a couple of things. So before you start mocking somebody else’s religion, you might want to find out a little more about it. It kind of makes you look like a doofus. …

In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to p— off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’

Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. (Editor’s note: Reverse of sign said, “Only Muhammad can rape America!) But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights. …

I’ve spent about seven years living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ‘ugly Americans.’ This is why we hear it referred to as ‘ugly Americans,’ because we’re so concerned about our own rights, we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

The judge later added, “Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge.”

Carl Silverman of the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania told WHTM-TV, “We understand that Muslims are extremely sensitive. But this is America, and you need to get over the sensitivity and take out your opposition in peaceful ways – not by attacking people physically.

Posted on 23 Feb 12 by WND

Colorado public school student quits choir over song worshipping Allah

Posted on February 16, 2012 by creeping

Good for him. h/t Atlas Shrugs

James Harper, a Grand Junction High School [Colorado] senior and Christian active in his local church, was part of the all-volunteer high school choir until his instructor Marcial Wieland made plans to sing “Zikr” which has lyrics that translate from the original Urdu to, “There is no truth except Allah” and “Allah is the only eternal and immortal,” according to Fox News. The student choir sings the song in the original Urdu.

Harper told KREX in Grand Junction:

I don’t want to come across as a bigot or a racist, but I really don’t feel it is appropriate for students in a public high school to be singing an Islamic worship song. This is worshiping another God, and even worshiping another prophet – I think there would be a lot of outrage if we made a Muslim choir say Jesus Christ is the only truth.

Yeah, outrage in the form of protests, threats, and lawsuits from Hamas-linked CAIR and the ACLU. Followed by sensitivity training/dawah.

However, district officials defended the teacher’s song choice. Wieland, who understood there could be objections to the song was open with the parents and students when making the selection telling them  that students do not have to  participate in the voluntary choir if they object, according to CBS4. Wieland also passed around an English translation of the lyrics and encouraged them to view the YouTube video below which features the music, written by Muslim composer A.R. Rahman.

Sound like the dawah has already begun.

Posted on 16 Feb 12 by Creeping Sharia

South Park Plea Exposes Network of Homegrown Radicals

IPT News
February 9, 2012

Many homegrown Islamist terrorists labeled as “lone wolves” may not have been so lone after all, court papers filed Thursday in Virginia show.

Jesse Morton, a founder of the radical website Revolution Muslim, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and two counts related to communicating threats. The charges stem from threats posted on Revolution Muslim against producers of the animated comedy “South Park” after an April 2010 episode featured a character that was supposed to be the prophet Mohammed fully concealed in a bear suit.

The reference was meant to lampoon the violent reaction some Muslims have to images of the prophet.

A statement of facts filed with the plea shows that Morton had contact with several “lone wolf” terrorists, and that others were subscribers to the site. CNN, citing an unnamed senior counter-terrorism official, reported that “Investigations had revealed that Revolution Muslim was the ‘top catalyst for radicalization for violence in the United States’ over the last several years.”

For example, after one reader reached out to him last April, Morton advised him to be wary that someone helping “start a jihad group to kill U.S. Army veterans in the United States” may be working for the FBI. Jose Pimentel may not have heeded Morton’s advice. He was arrested by New York police six months later as he assembled a pipe bomb in his home that he intended to use to kill soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Morton also endorsed Rezwan Ferdaus’s desire to wage jihad. Ferdaus reached out to Morton early in 2010, asking if martyrdom operations were acceptable in Islam. It depends on the motivation, Morton wrote back. “[E]very act is judged by intention and so we reserve an opinion on this matter. We can however say that these operations have apparent detractions, but also enormous benfits (sic) in a war of attrition.”

Ferdaus was arrested in Massachusetts last September in connection with a plot to use remote-controlled planes to fly bombs into the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. He also made switches to detonate explosive devices that he intended to supply to al-Qaida terrorists targeting American troops.

The statement of facts in Morton’s plea ties him and the Revolution Muslim website to:

• Colleen LaRose, also known as “Jihad Jane,” who admits to plotting to kill a Swedish cartoonist who drew images of the prophet Muhammad, and to recruiting people to wage terrorist attacks.
• Antonio Martinez, who pleaded guilty to plotting to blow up a Maryland military recruiting center.
• Carlos Almonte and Mohamed Alessa, who entered guilty pleas last March to conspiring to join the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab to kill civilians “whose beliefs and practices did not align with their extremist ideology.”

“We may never know all of those who were inspired to engage in terrorism because of Revolution Muslim,” said U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride, “but the string of recent terrorism cases with ties to Morton’s organization demonstrates the threat it posed to our national security.”

In addition, the statement of facts shows that Morton communicated with Samir Khan, an American al-Qaida propagandist credited with publishing the group’s English-language magazine, Inspire. Khan is believed to have been killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen that also killed American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Morton and Chesser also let radical British cleric Bilal Ahmad post directly to the Revolution Muslim site.

In November 2010, Ahmad posted on the Revolution Muslim website praise for Roshanara Choudhry after she tried to kill Member of Parliament Stephen Timms for supporting the Iraq war. Ahmad then posted the names of all members of Parliament who supported the war, with a prayer that her actions “inspire Muslims to raise the knife of jihad against those who voted for the countless rapes, murders, pillages, and torture of Muslim civilians as a direct consequence of their vote.”

Morton and his colleague Zachary Chesser followed the teachings of Awlaki and Abdullah Faisal, a radical Jamaican sheikh who preached the need to kill non-believers. Faisal’s sermons calling for Muslims to kill the “enemies of Islam,” including Jews, Americans and Hindus, led to his 2003 conviction in the United Kingdom for soliciting to murder.

Their postings on Revolution Muslim often sounded similar themes, the statement of facts said, and they republished Inspire, which contained calls to violence and instructions on carrying it out.

Chesser is serving a 25-year sentence after pleading guilty to related charges.

In the “South Park” case, Morton told investigators in October that the decision to post the threats was made without seeing the program. It turned out that the show never depicted the prophet, just someone in a bear suit who other characters called “Mohammed.”

“He said that he would have pulled the South Park post made by Chesser in April 2010 if he had known that the episode really didn’t depict the Muhammad as he thought it was going to.”

When the show aired, Chesser told Morton that Iran’s fatwa calling for author Salman Rushdie’s murder following his publication of The Satanic Verses inspired radical European Muslims. Threats against “South Park’s” Trey Stone and Matt Parker could have the same galvanizing effect in America.

Morton also posted a threat against a Washington woman who advocated having an “everyone Draw Muhammad Day” in response to the “South Park” threats.

“Morton asserted that Islam’s position is that those that insult the Prophet may be killed under Shariah law just as if they were fighting with a weapon,” the statement of facts said. “Morton exhorted his listeners to fight the ‘disbelievers near you.'”

Morton, 33, could be imprisoned for up to five years for each of the three counts in his plea when he is sentenced in May.

Related Topics: Homegrown Terror, Prosecutions

Posted on 9 Feb 12 by IPT News

MUSLIMS ON A MISSION to convince us that Sharia (Islamic) law is just like American law

Posted: February 4, 2012 | Author: barenakedislam |

Abed Awad of Awad & Khoury, LLP says “Negative connotations surrounding Sharia must be dispelled.”

JURIST  Abed Awad, a Partner at Awad & Khoury, LLP says that while US courts routinely encounter cases where implementing certain principles of Sharia is required, the hysteria surrounding the “intrusive” role of Sharia in US courts is extremely misguided…

[ALL VIDEOS BELOW ARE SHARIA-COMPLIANT. Tell me if you see anything other than ‘negative connotations’ in them.]

INDONESIAN MUSLIMS KILLING AHMADIYYA MUSLIMS FOR NOT BEING MUSLIM ENOUGH

In November 2010, Oklahoma voters approved an constitution expressly prohibiting Oklahoma state judges from considering international law or Sharia in their decisions. Munir Awad filed a complaint against the Oklahoma State Board of Elections challenging this, alleging that the anti-Sharia amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution, if certified, would violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. More specifically, Awad alleged that the amendment targets his religion for negative treatment and creates excessive state entanglement with religion. Stigmatizing him and other Muslims, Awad proffered, the amendment would inhibit the practice of his religion and would prevent a court from probating his Sharia-compliant last will and testament. The US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma agreed with Awad, issuing a preliminary injunction against the certification of the amendment pending the litigant’s claims were adjudicated on the merits.

IRAQI KURDISH GIRL STONED TO DEATH FOR FALLING IN LOVE

Last month, in Awad v. Ziriax, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction but utilized a different constitutional scrutiny standard. The district court below evaluated the plaintiff’s claims under the Lemon v. Kurtzman guidelines. Lemon provides that the scrutinized legislation must have a secular purpose that primarily does not inhibit or advance religion and does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion but evaluated the plaintiff’s claims under the more stringent standard enunciated in Larson v. Valente.

Larson held that the three prong test from Lemon was appropriate in cases where religion benefited at the expense of non-religious citizens. However, when one religion is preferred over another, a strict scrutiny evaluation is required (i.e., a legislation that discriminates among religions is valid on only if it is “closely fitted to the furtherance of any compelling interest”).

The Tenth Circuit held that Oklahoma’s “one sentence” stating that “Oklahoma certainly has a compelling interest in determining what law is applied in Oklahoma courts” failed to “identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve.” Without “any concrete problem, any harm Appellants seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.”

HANGING HOMOSEXUALS IN IRAN

Without a compelling interest, the Tenth Circuit concluded it was not necessary to proceed to the “closely fitted” prong of the strict scrutiny test. The Oklahoma amendment was deemed unconstitutional. Be that as it may, the Tenth Circuit made several interesting observations about the closely fitted prong. “Even if the state could identify and support a reason to single out and restrict Sharia law,” the Tenth Circuit hypothecated, the amendment is not “closely fitted” as its “complete ban of Sharia law is hardly an exercise of narrow tailoring.”

The anti-Sharia movement seeking to legislate its political agenda is directly at odds with a basic principle laid out by the Supreme Court in Larson: “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause” that mandates “governmental neutrality between religion and religion … The State may not adopt programs or practices … which aid or oppose any religion … This prohibition is absolute.”

So, what is Sharia after all? After briefly describing Sharia, I will use several examples to illustrate the role of Sharia or any religious and/or foreign law for that matter, in a US court.

AFGHAN TALIBAN STONE YOUNG COUPLE TO DEATH

Sharia is more than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense, it is also the methodology through which a jurist engages the foundational religious texts (Qur’an and Sunna) to search for divine will. As a jurist-made law, the outcome of this process of ascertaining divine will is called fiqh (positive law), which is the moral and legal anchor of a Muslim’s total existence. Everything from the way Muslims eat, to how they treat animals and protect the environment, to the way they conduct commercial trade, to the way they solemnize their marriage and to the way their estate must be distributed at death is governed by Sharia, for Sharia dictates every aspect of an observant Muslim’s moral life. Therefore, Sharia is extremely personal to the majority of Muslims regardless of their level of religiosity.

LIMB AMPUTATIONS AS PUNISHMENT

Could not get the video clip to function properly, so try here if you would like to see the video clip (very graphic) click here

Of course, this type of relationship with religion applies to most devout Christian, Jews, Hindus and others, for religious principles and laws are very personal to all religious Americans. Whether it is Jews submitting to the jurisdiction of Rabbinic courts, Christians submitting to Christian Conciliation tribunals or US political activists advocating a religious position on abortion, capital punishment, sex education, same-sex marriage and many other issues, religion and religious law has been alive and thriving in the US since its founding. Of course, the role of religious law or religious principles in the US court system continues to be subject to public policy and constitutional constraints. In the end, however, the US Constitution is the law of the land.

The modern manifestations of Sharia are either a source of legislation or actual nation-state law in the majority of Muslim countries. Sharia is the supreme law of the land in Saudi Arabia. Islamic law is a primary source of the family law codes of Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and many other Muslim countries, and Sharia is the gap filler in almost all of the civil codes of Muslim countries.

SUDAN WOMAN BEATEN FOR WEARING PANTS IN PUBLIC

The globalization of domiciles, marriages, divorces, corporations and commercial transactions requires US courts to regularly interpret and apply foreign law — including Islamic law — to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees, the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments or the damages elements in a commercial dispute or negligence matters.

Sharia is relevant in a US court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute. As an attorney, consultant or expert witness I have handled more than 100 matters involving a component of Sharia or the laws of the Middle East. I will use several examples to explain the actual role Sharia or the laws of the Middle East play in litigation in the US.

A, a New York resident, married B, a UK resident, in a European country. Their marriage was solemnized by a Muslim clergy. The parties live in both countries. They have one child together. B filed for divorce in England. A countered, alleging that their marriage was not legal. Which jurisdiction governs the validity of the marriage and the place of the marriage, UK law or New York law? If New York law governs, the marriage would be valid as long as the marriage was valid under Sharia.

IRAQI BEHEADING

I could not get this video clip to post correctly, but go here and see the Nick Berg video (very graphic, but proves what Islam does) click here

A, an employee of a US corporation negligently caused the death of B in a country utilizing Sharia. The estate of B institutes an action against A in the US. Based on US conflicts of law, the law where the tort occurred would govern the dispute. The court would require expert testimony regarding the tort law of the country using Sharia, which would include issues relating to Sharia.

A, a Saudi company, enters into a joint venture agreement with B, a US company. Their joint venture agreement provides that Saudi law would govern any disputes. A sues B in state court. State court applies Saudi law to the dispute. Saudi law is based on Sharia law. The primary issue of the dispute is then whether Sharia law provides for consequential damages.

A and B are married. They have lived in New York for the past twenty years. A and B are originally from Jordan. While A and B are visiting Jordan, A divorces B. Upon return, A seeks to enforce the Jordanian divorce. The court must determine whether the Jordanian divorce should be recognized. In this circumstance, the state judge must determine whether the Jordanian divorce violated American public policy. Where the wife was not a resident of Jordan, did not participate in the Jordanian proceeding and where the majority of the marital assets are in New York, the court is more than likely to hold that the Jordanian divorce violates New York public policy.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN SHARIA STYLE

The above examples illustrate Sharia as a foreign law. Sharia, then, is extremely relevant for US judges adjudicating matters within the strictures of our law. Of course, the US judge is applying US conflicts of law to determine the applicable law. In other words, even though the judge is applying a foreign law to the dispute, it is US law that dictates that he apply the foreign law.

Here are two examples of how Sharia is relevant to a US judge not as a foreign law but as a source of information to understand the surrounding circumstances to an agreement or dispute or to clarify an ambiguity or correct a mistake.

ALGHAN TALIBAN BEATING WOMAN IN PUBLIC

A, a New Jersey resident, married B, also a New Jersey resident. Both are Muslim. They had a Muslim Imam solemnize their marriage, which included execution of a Muslim marriage contract. The Muslim marriage contract has a provision called Mahr, which directs the husband to pay the wife the sum of $20,000 in the event of divorce. The wife, A, filed for divorce in the New Jersey Superior Court, seeking the enforcement of the $20,000. The court heard testimony about Muslim marriages, marriage contracts, the meaning of Mahr and related information surrounding the execution of the marriage contract. The judge then considers this information to better understand the expectations of the parties at the time of the marriage and applies New Jersey contract law. The judge enforces the Muslim marriage contract finding it satisfied all of the elements of New Jersey contract law.

BEHEADING OF INDONESIAN MAID IN SAUDI ARABIA

Same facts as above, but B, the groom, at the wedding ceremony, for the first time, is asked to sign the marriage contract for $20,000. Embarrassed and pressured before 300 guests, the groom signed the document. In addition, the document was in Arabic, and he does not read or write Arabic. Several years later, the wife filed for divorce and asks for the $20,000. The New Jersey judge finds that there was no meeting of the minds because of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the document. In other words, the marriage contract between these parties did not satisfy all of the elements of a valid contract under New Jersey law.

In sum, most legal experts would agree with the Tenth Circuit’s conclusions. Why then is there paranoia around the country? Why are warnings that Sharia threatens the constitutional system still raging and picking up steam? Almost every Republican presidential candidate has affirmed his opposition to the imaginary threat of Sharia. For attorneys and legal experts, the above examples are very simple and first-year law student material. These nuances, unique facts and legal subtleties are absent from the discussion about Sharia in America. Their absence is not an innocent coincidence. It is intentional in order to fuel the misinformation and distortion about Islam and Muslims.

MUSLIM PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS

As attorneys, we have an obligation to correct the truth about the role of any foreign law in our system. It is always subject to the limits of the Constitution. That is the law of the land. The politicization of this issue is undermining the integrity of our judicial system and constitutional protections. US judges are equipped with the necessary legal tools to evaluate the legal and factual issues before them without the requirement of bright line rules, especially those that originate out of misinformation, distortion and outright discrimination.

Posted on 4 Feb 12 by BNI

Terrorist supporters at CAIR are cheering the Army’s submission to Islam

Posted: December 27, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam |

But the American public is angry that the Obama Regime forced the Army to cave to Muslim pressure group CAIR’s demands that Muslim students be allowed to wear their headbags when in JROTC uniform, which essentially spits on the concept of ‘uniform.’

Women soldiers in Afghanistan already are forced to wear headbags when they come in contact with Muslim men, putting them in unnecessary danger

Jed Babbin, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, noted that the point of a uniform is uniformity. “Look at the word: ‘uni’-’form’ — everybody wears the same thing,” Babbin said. “The military is by its own nature diverse and creates a culture in which everyone, regardless of their race or creed, is blended into one force for a common purpose. This [uniform exemption] divides it, balkanizes it on religious grounds… the point of JROTC is to get you ready for ROTC in college which is preparing you to go on active duty. So if you are going to allow it for ROTC? Why don’t you allow it on active duty?” (Give them time, that’s CAIR’s next move. But the real question should be why are we allowing Muslims into our military in the first place?)

Posted on 27 Dec 11 by BNI

Judge OKs ‘flag of Islam on American soil’ Decision approves government funding for Shariah indoctrination

Posted: January 19, 2011

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Attorneys for a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War say they have filed a petition to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a federal district judge ruled it is OK for the U.S. government to fund commercial enterprises that promote the indoctrination of Islamic law, or Shariah, in the United States.

The decision came from Judge Lawrence Zatkoff, who changed his perspective on the issue and said just last week that he would dismiss a constitutional challenge brought by Kevin Murray against the U.S. government’s bailout of AIG, the insurance giant.

AIG used more than “$100 million in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Shariah-compliant financing. … SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law,” said the Thomas More Law Center, or TMLC.

TMLC is representing Murray in his challenge to the use of federal tax money to promote Islam in the U.S.

The non-profit legal advocacy group’s president, Richard Thompson, warned of the precedent.

“Judge Zatkoff’s ruling allows for oil-rich Muslim countries to plant the flag of Islam on American soil,” he said. “His ruling ignored the uncontested opinions of several Shariah experts and AIG’s own website, which trumpeted Shariah-compliant financing as promoting the law of the prophet Mohammed and as an ethical product and a new way of life.”

TMLC and co-counsel David Yerushalmi immediately filed a notice of appeal to the 6th Circuit.

“[Zatkoff’s] ruling ignored AIG’s use of a foreign Islamic advisory board to control investing in accordance with Islamic law,” Thompson continued. “This astonishing decision allows the federal government as well as AIG and other Wall Street bankers to explicitly promote Shariah law – the 1,200-year-old body of Islamic canon law based on the Quran, which demands the destruction of Western civilization and the United States.”

Thompson warned it is the same law “championed by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; it is the same law that prompted the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks; and it is the same law that is responsible for the murder of thousands of Christians throughout the world. The law center will do everything it can to stop Shariah law from rearing its ugly head in America.”

The lawsuit, Murray v. Geithner et al., was brought because Murray, as a taxpayer, alleges he is being forced to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Islamic law, which he says is hostile to his Christian religion.

Among those who submitted statements in the case were two noted experts in Islamic law and terrorism, Stephen C. Coughlin and Robert Spencer.

Coughlin, a lawyer and decorated Army Reserve officer, is a leading Pentagon expert on the link between Islamic law and jihad. He explained that by engaging in Shariah-compliant financing, AIG and the federal government – which owns 79.9 percent of AIG – are engaging in the religious practice of Islam.

Islam teaches hostility and discrimination against Jews, Christians and anyone who doesn’t accept the Quran as the “word of Allah,” he said, explaining that the indoctrination stems from the same law that motivated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

As WND reported, Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, has studied Islamic theology and history for 30 years. He is author of “Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs,” “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” and eight other books on Islam. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Command and General Staff College, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the U.S. intelligence community.

Spencer explained that by offering Shariah-compliant financing, AIG is promoting religious behavior that teaches hatred and discrimination against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims.

TMLC said it is challenging the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that allows $70 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which is considered the market leader in SCF.

The company uses its assets to subject certain financial activities to the dictates of Islam.

“In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Shariah-compliant financing,” TMLC explained.

“Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. At least two of AIG’s subsidiary companies practice Shariah-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. … Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled ‘Islamic Finance 101.’

“These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise plaintiff’s claim beyond the speculative level,” TMLC said.

During the discovery portion of the case, TMLC said it obtained “thousands” of documents supporting its claim.

“The circumstances of this case are historic, and the pressure upon the government to navigate this financial crisis is unfathomable. Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution,” the organization said.
posted 9 Jan 11 by WND.com

Soros helping Islam ‘look less radical’

Posted on October 18, 2011 by creeping

The Prophet said, “War is deceit.” ~ Hadith 4:269

via Soros helping Islam ‘look less radical’ (OneNewsNow.com).

A conservative media watchdog organization says left-wing billionaire George Soros is funding a course that teaches journalists how to downplay the negative aspects of Islam.

The three-hour online course called “Covering Islam in America” is a project of The Poynter Institute, which claims the program is designed to “give a broad explanation of the religious, social, political, and geographical facts about Islam today.” That organization has partnered with the Social Science Research Council and Washington State University to strengthen “accurate” reporting and to enhance “the ability of the media to fairly report on a range of pressing issues.”

Dan Gainor (Culture and Media Institute)But Dan Gainor, vice president for business and culture at the Culture and Media Institute (CMI) of the Media Research Center, contends the course is nothing more than a guide on how to spin Islam in a positive light.

“It teaches [journalists] to downplay Jihad, quite literally to put the deaths of the 3,000-plus people that died on 9/11 in context so that you compare it to the initiative on HIV and AIDS, or you compare it against how many Americans are killed in murder,” he explains. “So, instead of actually just telling the truth on this, they actually are teaching in a journalism program how to spin and make Islam look less radical.”

Gainor points out that murder victims are generally killed in separate incidents, whereas victims of Islamic terrorism are usually killed in larger-scale attacks. He also points out that murder victims are not typically killed in the name of an ideological war against a country.

More: Course Instructs Journalists to Take Note That Jihad ‘Not a Leading Cause of Death’

Gainor’s group released a report Thursday morning on the course.

The online course, which is broken into several sections, also discusses “right-wing activists” bent on linking American Muslims to terrorism. The section includes the good-journalism tip that reporters should check to see if experts they’re interviewing “have a bias or a stake in the story you are covering.” But then it only cites examples of anti-Muslim groups.

The course also addresses Shariah law without including information of instances where the law is interpreted with harsh consequences.

It’s the leading cause of death in the name of Allah, isn’t it?

Posted on 18 Oct 11 by Creeping Sharia