* Check these links and see if any of them have anything to do with Islam:
*Florida: Iranian woman convicted of trying to get thousands of night-vision goggles for Iran’s military
* Moroccan jihadist gets 20 years for his involvement in killing 191 people in Madrid bombings
* Naive kid gets 15 years in Florida jihad terror case
* UK: Al-Qaeda terror director given life in prison
CAIR in GeorgiaÂ Â (Canada Free Press)
Why does CAIR feel that a Muslim woman has the right to curse out a non-Muslim judge in an American courtroom?
Covert war being waged against and within America and the West
Incident in Georgia: One Example of Islamist Agenda
Stealth Jihad Alert: Georgia judge jails Muslim woman for refusing to remove headscarf at security checkpoint
Stealth JihadÂ Update: is it a violation of a Muslim woman’s civil rights to have to remove her hijab at a security checkpoint? Or is it simply an unhappy consequence of the situation that her own coreligionists have forced upon us, and which she should be willing to put up with in the interests of protecting innocent civilians?
The real question is whether American law or Islamic law must give way when the two conflict. Underscoring that as the real issue here is the involvement of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case, and a skillful practitioner of legal intimidation tactics.
“Ga. Judge Jails Muslim Woman Over Head Scarf,” fromÂ AP
“Where does it say in the Quran that you can’t do suicide bombs?”
He said it. If I had, it would have been “Islamophobic.” As it is, he could find justification for the practice, as some Muslims have, in the Qur’an’s promise of Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (Qur’an 9:111).
This is a few weeks old, but as we missed it then, it is well worth noting now. “Dix informant: Men spoke of sniper training,” by Geoff Mulvihill forÂ The Associated Press, December 2 (thanks to Diana West):
CAMDEN, N.J. â€” Jurors in the case of an alleged plot to attack Fort Dix heard recordings Tuesday in which some of the five defendants talked about buying weapons, sniper training and killing soldiers.
One of the men, Eljvir Duka, asked whether a rifle would be a powerful enough weapon.
“Can you shoot an American soldier from a mile away and kill him?” he said.
Duka’s words were captured on recordings secretly made by an FBI informant in February 2007, during a trip he and the defendants made to Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains. The informant, Besnik Bakalli, testified that he hoped the trip would be a vacation but that he believed it was really training for jihad â€” holy war.
Government prosecutors used the recordings and Bakalli’s testimony to support their claims that Duka, his two brothers and two other men were plotting to kill soldiers on the Army’s Fort Dix. Defense lawyers, who have not yet been able to question Bakalli in cross-examination, say the men were not seriously planning anything. […]
The suspects, who were in their 20s when they were arrested, are all foreign-born Muslims who have lived for years in the comfortable Philadelphia suburb of Cherry Hill.
All five men could face life in prison if they are convicted. They face charges of conspiracy to kill military personnel, attempted murder and weapons offenses. […]
During one taped conversation, one of the suspects, Shain Duka, asks a group of men, “Where does it say in the Quran that you can’t do suicide bombs?”
A few moments later, Shain Duka says the suicide bombs deployed in Iraq against U.S. military targets were permissible. “The way they do in Palestine,” he said, referring to Israel, “I’m not for that.”
Don’t link Islam to terror, Islamic chief urges
The world’s top diplomat for Islam called on Friday for an end to what he termed efforts to equate the religion withÂ terrorismÂ and said the ‘demonisation’ of Muslims around the world must be fought.
5 thoughts on “The Courts Are Busy. But we must not equate the Islam with terrorism, sez Ihsanoglu”
I have been commenting on this story all over the interwebs. Remember, the Canadian muslims claim that dear Aqsa Parvez was NOT killed for not wearing hijab….it is not mandatory. Therefore, we cannot claim it as an islamic “thing” (her murder). Now we have this mahammedan piece of work claiming she couldn’t remove it because it IS religiously mandated. So which is it??? Really, I want to hear some moe try to explain this to me. It is NOT mandatory if it leads to murder, but it IS mandatory to show your superiority to infidels???
Islam is a chameleon (shameleon?). Pointless to reason with it, or to make sense of its
many and conflicting claims and denials. The West will, ultimately, be forced to either deal
with it, or be destroyed by it. For now, our leaders have chosen the second path.
It’s called ‘cognitive dissonance’ or in plain language ‘I don’t want to know’.
Yep, the hijab is not mandatory, but not wearing it got Aqsa Parvetz killed. And none of it has anything to do with Islam. Islamo-logic at work. The same with the ‘can’t blame Islam for terrorism’ when all the jihadists follow the Koranic commands to ‘strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers’- which also has nothing to do with Islam.
Serious mental acrobatics at work here…
Whatever muslims do, or not do, or say, or not say, they do not engage in “holy war”,
except as doomed adversaries of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). They serve allah
and Mo at the risk of their lives, and their souls. They are condemned.
Comments are closed.