ENGAGE takes up the latest exercise in anti-halal propaganda in the Daily Mail.
See also “Daily Mail whips up ‘no halal at Westminster’ non-controversy”, Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion, 3 January 2012
ENGAGE takes up the latest exercise in anti-halal propaganda in the Daily Mail.
See also “Daily Mail whips up ‘no halal at Westminster’ non-controversy”, Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion, 3 January 2012
Despite threats, courtroom allegations and even legislation aimed at their faith, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro still had reason to celebrate in 2011. The congregation launched construction in late September on building the first 12,000 square feet of their new mosque and community center on Veals Road, southeast of Murfreesboro. S&A Constructors of Nashville estimates the work to be done in 10 months.
Getting to the historic moment almost didn’t happen. The congregation had to defend itself in Rutherford County Chancery Court against more than a dozen plaintiffs who challenged the county’s approval of its site plan in 2010 and questioned the real intent, as well as the very religion, behind the new worship center. It took a ruling by Rutherford County Chancellor Robert Corlew III to settle the latter issue.
“Those who are adherents to Islam are entitled to pursue their worship in the United States just as are those who are adherents to more universally established faiths (in our community),” Corlew wrote. “We are all very familiar with the legal principle that in the United States, all citizens enjoy the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
“We have a duty equally to treat those whose religious beliefs are similar to the majority beliefs and to those whose beliefs are very different from the majority,” Corlew added in his ruling.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced today that an anti-Muslim Internet hate site that contained a number of threats of violence targeting mosques, including the comment “I want [Muslim] blood on my hands,” has been taken down by its hosting company.
CAIR said visitors to “Bare Naked Islam,” hosted by WordPress.com, now see the message: “barenakedislam.wordpress.com is no longer available. This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.”
Over at Little Green Footballs Charles Johnson takes apart Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer:
The so-called “counter-jihad” bloggers are covering themselves in glory again, slobbering and ranting and trying to take advantage of a terrible crime to advance their un-American agenda….
This time they’ve seized on a story about a man in Texas who killed six members of his own family on Christmas morning while dressed in a Santa suit, then committed suicide. The man’s wife had left him, his home had been foreclosed upon, his business was failing, and he had filed for bankruptcy; with anyone else, these things would be considered strong motives for committing this massacre.
But because the man’s name was Aziz Yazdanpanah, and he was apparently unhappy about who his daughter was dating, these bloggers have decided it had to be an “Islamic honor killing.”
“Anti-mosque protests, anti-Shariah laws, and anti-Muslim hate crimes could easily fill any list of ‘top five’ religion stories in 2011”, Charles C. Haynes of the Religious Freedom Education Project writes:
A group of prominent Muslim figures in New York City have said they will boycott an annual meeting on Friday with Mayor Michael Bloomberg in order to protest against police surveillance of their communities.
Bloomberg is scheduled to hold a multi-faith “Bagels with Bloomberg” breakfast with religious leaders from across the city on Friday morning, but the group has written to the mayor’s office outlining their reasons for refusing to attend.
In particular, the group says it is outraged at details that emerged earlier this year of a concerted effort by the New York police department to monitor activities of Muslims in New York. A series of reports by the Associated Press detailed the activities of a unit within the NYPD, called the Demographics Unit, that monitored daily life in Muslim communities, including eavesdropping in businesses and infiltrating mosques.
“Right-wing movements previously associated with anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi ideologies are increasingly opting for a surprising tactic to garner legitimacy within mainstream politics: Forging alliances with extremist Jewish organisations under the banner of fighting ‘Islamisation’.”
Nour Samaha of Al Jazeera examines links between the Jewish Defense League and far-right organisations in Europe and North America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7BKYKok9d5g
Former “Saturday Night Live” actress Victoria Jackson, working on confidential information she as a web talk show host has special clearance to obtain, has claimed that the United States is being overtaken by radical Muslims bent on bringing the nation under Sharia law.
Earlier this year we dealt with the lies spread by “comedian” Pat Condell with regard to rapes in Oslo, which he claimed were carried out exclusively by “Muslim immigrants using rape as a weapon of cultural terrorism”.
LoonWatch has a piece by Farha Khaled (also posted on her blog) that exposes the way in which the same baseless claim has been used by many on the Islamophobic right, including the Israeli website Arutz Sheva. She wrote to the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police, and received the following reply:
The Montreal Gazette has an editorial supporting the Quebec government’s decision to allow Muslim women prison staff to wear the headscarf:
Hijab rule: what took so long?
When the Quebec government announced it will reasonably accommodate female prison guards who choose to wear hijabs – the traditional Muslim head scarf – the Parti Québécois called the decision crazy.
What is crazy about this matter – apart from the fact that it became an issue in the first place – is that it took four years to be resolved after a discrimination complaint was filed with the Quebec human-rights commission by a prison-guard trainee who had been forbidden to wear a hijab.
Considering that there was never any restriction on inmates wearing hijabs, maintaining a ban on the garment for guards would have meant the prisoners had more rights than the jailers.
Now that would indeed have been crazy.