Sadly, they get support from ADL Kapo Abu Foxman,Â who has a long history of carrying water for the enemy.Â In anÂ IconoclastÂ postÂ last November with the tag line,Â “the staggering delusion of the ADL in supportingÂ Mosque Initiatives,” we exposed the incredulous, nay, invincible ignorance of Foxman and his minions. Could it be some of the Saudi money has found it’s way into Abu’s long pockets?
Â “Growing numbers of people in Europe and the United States subscribe to this belief system; in some instances it borders on hysteria. (They) believe that leaders and governments in the Western world are consciously or unconsciously collaborating to allow Islam to “infiltrate” and eventually conquer democratic societies. Â Adherents of this ideological Islamophobia view Islam as an existential threat to the world, especially to the “West.” Â (Abraham Foxman)
Well, I’m proud to be one of them. The facts are undeniable. The soldiers of Allah prove it every day. Andrew Bostom is another one who is mighty irked by Foxman and rips him a new one Â over at the American Thinker:
Abraham Foxman’s latest uninformed rant, “Shout down the Sharia myth makers,” re-affirms his nonpareil status as the most blindly agenda-driven organizational Jewish “leader.” The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)’s FoxmanÂ sprays defamatory chargesÂ — rooted in willful ignorance — against all those legitimately concerned with the ceaseless efforts of mainstream institutional American Islam to insinuate Sharia mores and jurisdiction into US society. Â (Read the rest of this informative essay here)
“The fact is there is no Shariah takeover in America,” – shriek the Muslims in unison.
The reality is quite different, the pattern repeats itself:
“Opposing Sharia is Appalling”
Victor Begg, a prominent Republican and co-founder of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, called the bill “appalling”.
Â The Center for Security policy has released a 633 page study that shows that out of 50 cases reviewed taken from American Appellate courts that 23 of those verdicts either favored Sharia Law or used Sharia for the sole bases of the case outcome.Â It has been reported that only one or two prime cases have been in the news about the use of Sharia law in American Courts.Â This document all though it is lengthy is riveting and damning in its findings.Â Sharia in American courtsÂ (Barenaked)
Â Resisting Sharia is an Attack on Islam
Â Detroitâ€” A state lawmaker wants Michigan to join the trend of states banning “foreign laws,” but Muslim activists say the effort is a thinly veiled attack on Islam. Â MuslimsÂ say the bills are unnecessary and pander to anti-Muslim paranoia.
“Agema … is a reflection of a segment of the GOP that is openly xenophobic and Islamophobic,” said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Michigan chapter.
Agema called the criticism “hogwash.”
“If anybody has a problem with this that means they don’t agree with U.S. laws,” he said. “If they don’t want it passed then they have an ulterior agenda. It shows the people accusing me of that (bigotry) are guilty of it themselves.” (source)
Allegedly written byÂ YerushalmiÂ in 2006:
– It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.
– The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.
– The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.
– No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.
Now I would underwrite that in a flash. Let me know if you see a problem with that and I’ll tell you who you are!Â
It’s a Saul Alinsky tactic fromÂ Rules for Radicals: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” In other words, zero in on an enemy, isolate him, demonize him, marginalize him, and silence him. The hard-Left mainstream media and its Islamic supremacist allies are using this tactic with increasing frequency. They’ve used this tactic with fanatical, frenzied hostility against Pamela Geller; they’ve used it on me, and now they’re going after the ace lawyer David Yerushalmi, who has represented us in our free speech SIOA lawsuits and has been instrumental in developing the anti-Sharia legislation now being considered all over the country.
For that transgression, as far as the New York Times is concerned, he must be eliminated. But now, in “NYT Searches for the Leader of the Anti-Shariah Movement, Finds Me Instead” in theÂ American Thinker, August 11, he hits back:
I was featured, complete with pictures (and onlineÂ video), in a 2,000+ word New York Times article about the anti-sharia movement in this country, written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Andrea Elliot, which appeared in the Times’ July 31stÂ Sunday edition, front page, above the fold.Â Impressive, no? Unfortunately, Ms. Elliot exposed herself as biased and in denial, and has since givenÂ an interview to NPRÂ in which she more openly evidences journalistic condescension, in addition to the bias one normally expects from the mainstream media. The story was quite explicitly intended to link a national movement to a single individual, me, and then to suggest that this individual — again, me — was manipulative, hidden, and controversial. This is evident from the title of the article: “The Man Behind the Anti-Sharia Movement.”The truth remains at a distance, and this analysis will suggest only a more objective telling of the facts I say “suggest” because I am the subject of the Times “profile,” and as such I cannot realistically claim objectivity. I will allow others more at a distance to weigh in. One writer, Ben Shapiro, whom I don’t know, has already done that, and I must note my appreciation (see “In Defense of David Yerushalmi“).
We begin at the beginning. Ms. Elliot and I have traded emails on sharia and related matters for about 3 or 4 years. We first “met” when she did a long profile of Dhaba (Debbie) Almontaser, the spearhead and one-time principal of New York City’s failed Arabic-centric public school called the Khalil Gibran International Academy. (While KGIA’s doors remain open, everyone both within and without the school’s community of present and past teachers, administrators, students, parents, and early supporters admitÂ it has failedÂ as both an educational center and as a “multi-cultural” outreach.)
Ms. Elliot contacted me several months before the “anti-sharia movement” article was to run saying she wanted only background on the movement since she knew I was involved. I conditioned my agreement to provide background on an explicit commitment from her that the article was not about me. She agreed. When we finally sat down for a three-hour lunch, it was evident at the end of the “background” discussion that Ms. Elliot was focusing too much on personalities, me especially, and not enough on the substantive arguments against sharia. Every time I pressed her, though, she assured me that the story was “not about you.”
Well, that little bit of journalistic dishonesty we all know is part of the tradecraft. Journalists will often deceive their subjects about the focus of an interview to get them to open up. My colleagues and I understood this and discussed the risks of any interview with Ms. Elliot and the New York Times. But we concluded those risks versus a major story by an acclaimed journalist, even a card-carrying member of the elite Manhattan progressive club like Ms. Elliot, were worth taking. Why? Because public policy work is as much about creating a serious discussion and framing it in some non-PC context as it is about suggesting actual legislation or new policies. […]
Moving beyond Ms. Elliot’s purposeful deception that she was not writing about me, we come to her writing style (we’ll deal with substance as a final matter). Ms. Elliot treats her targets — me and the “anti-sharia movement” — more broadly in similar fashion. She begins by describing the “movement” as a kind of simplified ignorance. She accomplishes this by implicitly ridiculing a politician in Tennessee who, rather than dealing with the serious matters of the state’s unemployment, home foreclosures, and the like, is dealing with the problem of sharia as a threat to the U.S. and to Tennessee.
Everyone will of course recall, but not because Ms. Elliot mentions it, that Carlos Bledsoe was an African-American Christian livingÂ in Tennessee, where he was converted and “radicalized” sufficiently to attack an army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, leaving one soldier dead and one injured. And, many will recall, again not because Ms. Elliot mentions it, that it is the Obama administration’s attorney general, Eric Holder, whoÂ informs usÂ that homegrown jihad terrorism inspired by the likes of Yemen-based Awlaki is “one of the things that keeps me up at night” because “[t]he threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.”
While Ms. Elliot will no doubt plead that her reporting was a “fair” and “objective” narration of facts, a “fair” and “objective” assessment belies this claim. Beyond her not-so-veiled ridicule of the anti-sharia movement, she allows herself this bit of rather subjective “analysis” of the merits of the anti-sharia movement: “Yet, for all its fervor, the movement is arguably directed at a problem more imagined than real.” Of course any assertion of fact to support a policy can be “arguably” something else. In this day and age, you can find “authoritative” voices to argue about anything (battling “experts” in courtrooms across the country demonstrate this point).
But, Ms. Elliot positioned the “arguably” irrational anti-sharia movement as fighting phantoms without bothering to actually articulate what the threat from sharia is, or “arguably” is. That is, she set up a straw man. Thus, she turns the sharia threat into a caricature of a Tennessee politician ignoring “real” problems for “imagined” ones and then attaches a “fervor” to all of us who understand sharia as the enemy’s common threat doctrine. The word “fervor” of course is to lend a sense of faith-based, that is, not real, religiosity to the “anti-sharia movement.”
There is much more.Â Read it all.
Frank GaffneyÂ has a Washington Times op-ed casting Foxman as an unwitting agent of the stealth jihad.
Fitzgeralds prayer, one more time:
Stop, for god’s sake stop, importing troubleâ€”and Muslim immigrants,Â as a whole, necessarily mean trouble,Â in all lands where the political and legal institutions, and social arrangements, are flatly contradicted by the Shari’a.Â Muslims are obligated to change or tear down those institutions, in order to remove all “obstacles to Islam.” It is not special or individual malice that prompts that attitude.Â That is their duty, a central duty.Â Why not come to fully and soberly understand that duty, and out of a minimal sense of self-preservation, cease to import those into our lands (America, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and every other place that has so generously admitted, under a twisted definitiion of “refugees,” people who do not, and can not, wish our ways or institutions or constitutions well.