Hysteria over sharia in Florida

Conservatives are freaking out over a Florida judge’s decision to use Islamic law to arbitrate a lawsuit over a local mosque. Erick Stakelbeck at CBN cried that this was “the latest example of how it is slowly and stealthily creeping into our judicial system.” The judge, however, isn’t invoking Islamic law because he simply felt like it; he’s doing so because this is essentially a contract dispute in which the agreement was drawn up according to Sharia.

Adam Serwer at The American Prospect, 23 March 2011

See also Mother Jones, 23 March 2011

Franklin Graham’s new Obama-Muslim conspiracy theory

Franklin-GrahamYes, there’s a new Obama-Muslim conspiracy theory on the right: The evangelical son of one of America’s most famous evangelists says that President Barack Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to become part of the US government and influence administration decisions.

In an interview last week with Newsmax.com, a conservative website (that pushes the Obama-was-born-in-Kenya conspiracy theory), Franklin Graham, an evangelist like his father, Billy Graham, claimed that the fundamentalist Islamic political group has burrowed into the Obama administration and is shaping US foreign policy. Sounding a bit like Glenn Beck, Graham explained:

The Muslim Brotherhood is very strong and active in our country. It’s infiltrated every level of our government. Right now we have many of these people that are advising the US military and State Department on how to respond in the Middle East, and it’s like asking a fox, like a farmer asking a fox, “How do I protect my henhouse from foxes?” We’ve brought in Muslims to tell us how to make policy toward Muslim countries. And many of these people we’ve brought in, I’m afraid, are under the Muslim Brotherhood.

Infiltrated every level of our government – that’s quite a claim. Yet Graham did not name a single Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator or cite a specific Obama administration decision that has been manipulated by these crafty behind-the-scenes Islamists.

Mother Jones, 22 March 2011

Pastor Terry Jones oversees Qur’an burning in Florida church

Terry Jones and Wayne SappA controversial US evangelical preacher oversaw the burning of a copy of the Koran in a small Florida church after finding the Muslim holy book “guilty” of crimes. The burning was carried out by pastor Wayne Sapp under the supervision of Terry Jones, who last September drew sweeping condemnation over his plan to ignite a pile of Korans on the anniversary of September 11, 2001 attacks.

Sunday’s event was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found “guilty” and “executed.” The jury deliberated for about eight minutes. The book, which had been soaking for an hour in kerosene, was put in a metal tray in the center of the church, and Sapp started the fire with a barbecue lighter. The book burned for around 10 minutes while some onlookers posed for photos.

Jones had drawn trenchant condemnation from many people, including US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, over his plan to burn the Muslim holy book in September. He did not carry out his plan then and vowed he never would, saying he had made his point.

But this time, he said he had been “trying to give the Muslim world an opportunity to defend their book,” but did not receive any answer. He said he felt that he couldn’t have a real trial without a real punishment.

The event was open to the public, but fewer than 30 people attended. Life in the normally quiet city of Gainesville is centered around the University of Florida. And while there were public protests against Jones’ 9/11 activities, this event was largely ignored.

Jadwiga Schatz, who came to show support for Jones, expressed concern that Islam was growing in Europe. “These people, for me, are like monsters,” she said. “I hate these people.”

Jones said he considered this event a success. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime experience,” he said.

AFP, 21 March 2011

US presidential hopeful claims Islam has ‘an objective to convert all infidels or kill them’

Herman Cain

Republican presidential contender Herman Cain said in an interview Monday that he “resent[s]” Muslims who try to convert Americans to Islam, and that the religion has “an objective to convert all infidels or kill them”.

“The role of Muslims in America is not to convert the rest of us to the Muslim religion. That I resent,” Cain said in an interview with Christianity Today. “I push back and reject them trying to convert the rest of us. And based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them.”

Cain qualified his comments by saying that there were “some peaceful Muslims” but that Americans “can’t sit back and tolerate the radical ones simply because we know that there are some of them who don’t believe in that aspect of the Muslim religion”.

Cain, who is a former businessman and an ordained minister, was the first potential Republican candidate to announce he was launching an exploratory committee to run for president against Barack Obama in 2012.

In an interview with TheDC, Cain’s spokesman said that his comments about converting Americans to Islam were referring to what Cain sees as the threat of Muslims spreading Sharia, or Islamic law, in America.

“What he was referring to was Sharia law,” Cain’s Communication Director Ellen Carmichael told TheDC. “I think the statement speaks for itself. I would take it for what it is.”

On Cain’s comments about Islam offering a choice between converting or killing unbelievers, Carmichael said: “I’m pretty sure that’s a common understanding.”

Daily Caller, 21 March 2011

Aussie TV documentary provides EDL’s Stephen Lennon with platform for anti-Muslim raving

Great Divide

The EDL were eagerly anticipating the broadcast of an Australian TV documentary on multiculturalism (entitled The Great Divide) in which their leader Stephen Lennon (“Tommy Robinson”) was given a starring role. Overall, they must be pleased with the results. At any rate, they’ve posted the documentary on their website.

True, the EDL is described as “a far-right organisation” in the film (perhaps this was what prompted yesterday’s laughable EDL press release) and we are told that “Robinson has been condemned by many as a racist and a thug”. But that is the limit of the documentary’s criticisms of this gang of racists and their leader. Otherwise Lennon is allowed to perform his usual act – of indulging in foam-flecked right-wing rants about Islam while maintaining the pretence of being a normal working-class bloke – without the slightest challenge.

The voiceover announces: “Tommy dares to shout what others fear to say out loud – that multiculturalism has provided the perfect cover for Islamic extremists to infiltrate Britain and plot their deadly attacks against democracy.” And “Tommy” assures viewers: “We’re telling you what’s happening to our country. We’re living side by side with terrorists, Islamists, people who want to completely obliterate our way of life and our culture and convert this country into an Islamic state. They’re here.”

Accompanying the Australian film crew on a drive round a Muslim neighbourhood (or “Islamic ghetto”, as he describes it) in his home town of Luton, Lennon tells them: “This is a terrorist area. This is the hotbed, this is the heart of militant Islam. This is where the 7/7 bombers, they boarded a train in Luton.” And this entirely irrelevant point is repeated in the commentary. The reality of course is that not one of the 7/7 bombers came from Luton, and the town’s railway station simply provided a geographically convenient place for them to meet and park their cars before completing the final stage of their journey to London by train.

Prompted to express his opinion on “extreme Islam”, Lennon replies: “It is a cancer and it is embedded in every single Islamic community in this country. Every one of them, no matter what one you go to, there’s a percentage of that community who wish for sharia law, who are homophobic, who are anti-democratic, who are causing mayhem. All across the country.”

And who did the Australian film makers find to illustrate Lennon’s fantasy about “extreme Islam” sweeping the UK? Yes, you guessed it, the man they chose to interview was rent-a-moron Anjem Choudary. The disproportionate attention given elsewhere in the documentary to another unrepresentative nutter, one Ibrahim Siddiq Conlon of Islam4Australia, is at least counterbalanced by an interview with a more typical Australian Muslim who repudiates his views. But the sole British Muslim the documentary makers bothered to talk to was Choudary.

The Choudary interview is immediately followed by a characteristically paranoid declaration from the EDL leader – “it is a ticking time bomb” – and in response to a leading question from the Aussie TV reporter a pop-eyed Lennon claims: “There’s going to be a hundred thousand Anjem Choudarys.” Yeah right. This is the same Anjem Choudary who has difficulty mobilising more than a few dozen supporters to attend his stupid and provocative protests. Needless to say, the Australian documentary makers don’t think it relevant to mention that fact.

Just in case you might be inclined to dismiss Lennon’s views as the ravings of an ignorant and uneducated racist, the documentary introduces a “journalist and columnist who has long criticised British multicultural policy which allows half a million immigrants into the country every year”. Step forward Leo McKinstry of the Daily Express, who announces: “There’s been an evaporation of our national identity, social cohesion has broken down and there’s parts of Britain that just don’t feel like England any more.” (That would presumably include Scotland and Wales.)

If McKinstry had been used to illustrate how a hardline right-wing section of the British press feeds the EDL their line, that would be fair enough. But his role in this documentary is in fact to provide the EDL’s anti-Muslim racism with the appearance of legitimacy by showing that their views are not restricted to the far right.

So McKinstry’s attack on multiculturalism – “we can’t go on with this policy of saying you can come and live here but you can cling completely to your own culture and the world you came from, you can treat women badly, you can have sharia law” – is followed by Lennon warning that “if nothing changes, you’re probably five years away from English lads wanting to blow themselves up, because people are so angry about what’s going on – so angry and so feel under threat and complete oppression to do with Islam”.

The documentary further assists the EDL’s efforts at legitimisation by joining a select group of their members at a pub in central London, where Lennon announces that “we need middle England to listen, to hear our voices, to help us”.

While the voiceover intones “we discover that they’re not just ranting football hooligans – the country’s comfortable middle class are signing up”, a picture of EDL joint leader and BNP candidate manqué Kevin Carroll appears on the screen. Another individual introduced as a representative of middle England is Roberta Moore, who was only recently brought back into the fold by the EDL leadership after being threatened with expulsion because of her links with a convicted terrorist. Of course, the documentary makers saw no need to check the backgrounds of these supposed paragons of middle-class respectability.

The basic aim of the The Great Divide is to present multiculturalism in Australia as generally a success while warning against the supposed nightmare of failed multiculturalism in the UK. The documentary makers presumably thought this made for good TV and presented a “balanced” view of the advantages and potential dangers of multiculturalism. But the result, through a combination of ignorance and irresponsibility, was that they swallowed the EDL’s own lying propaganda and provided a free platform for a repulsive gang of anti-Muslim racists.

EDL interviewed by Australian TV 2
“Tommy” introduces the EDL’s respectable, middle-class members – “And on the right, that’s our favourite Muslim-hating, terrorist-supporting Kahanist, Roberta Moore”

Obama is ‘backing Al Qaeda in Libya’ – Geller sides with Gaddafi

Well, you have to hand it to Obama, he is consistent in his extreme anti-Americanism. Throughout his presidency and all of the Islamic revolutions sweeping the Middle East and Africa, he has sided with the Islamic supremacists at every turn. His fierce islamophilia threatens free men the world over. Taking his marching orders from the vile America-hater and Jew-hater, the devout Muslim Sheik Qaradawi, Obama paves the way for an Islamic state in Libya.

Atlas Shrugs, 19 March 2011

‘Radical Islam’ and the ‘radical far far left’ have formed an alliance based on antisemitism, claims Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took aim Thursday at what he called Europe’s “strange fusion” of radical Islam and the far left.

“There is a new boiling anti-semitism of radical Islam that sweeps Europe as a whole, and there’s a strange fusion – it’s the only word I can use to describe it – a fusion with the anti-semitism of the radical far far left,” Mr. Netanyahu said in an interview on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight.

“This is the strangest union you could possibly contemplate,” he said, “because radical Muslims: they stone women, they execute gays, they are against any human rights, against feminism, against whathaveyou. And the far left is supposed to be for these things.”

Washington Times, 17 March 2011

Resisting the Islamification of Alaska

An Alaskan lawmaker hopes to guard against Islamic Sharia law by prohibiting state courts from honoring foreign law that violates Alaskan or U.S. constitutional rights.

Though the bill’s language does not specifically target Sharia, Rep. Carl Gatto, R-Palmer, said the legislation is a reaction to what he sees as the growing use of international law codes in courts that have robbed people of their constitutional rights.

In a hearing before the House State Affairs Committee, Gatto’s chief of staff Karen Sawyer said Sharia is an example of the type of transnational law that has appeared in family law, divorce and child custody cases nationally, though she knows of instances of it appearing in Alaska courts.

“Sharia is clearly offensive to the U.S. Constitution,” Sawyer said. “It is the foremost foreign law that is impacting our legal system.” Sawyer added that countries following Sharia law do not allow freedom of religion or equal rights to women.

Gatto called the law a preventative measure necessitated by the religious beliefs of recent immigrants. “As a kid, we had Italian neighborhoods, Irish neighborhoods … but they didn’t impose their own laws,” Gatto said. “When these neighborhoods are occupied by people from the Middle East, they do establish their own laws.”

Associated Press, 17 March 2011

See also “Alaska lawmaker smears American Muslims”, CAIR press release, 18 March 2011

Sunday Telegraph sued over ‘extremist’ claim

Yahya_IbrahimAn Islamic preacher is demanding libel damages of up to £100,000 over a Sunday Telegraph story.

Yahya Ibrahim launched an action for defamation claiming the story suggested he was a proponent of terror who holds offensive, violently extreme and anti-Semitic beliefs. The story, headed “Hardline cleric banned in the US will preach to British universities” ran in the paper and online in January last year.

According to a writ filed with the High Court, Ibrahim says the story suggests he intended to preach his dangerous beliefs to students in the Yuk in a bid to radicalise them and turn them to violence. Ibrahim says he is a moderate teacher committed to religious tolerance, denies he holds radical views, and is opposed to violence.

After he complained by email, the writ claims, publishers Telegraph Media Group ran a short apology and changed the online version of the story. However, Ibrahim claims the article included defamatory allegations until April last year.

Ibrahim, who lives in Western Australia, claims he suffered acute embarrassment and distress, and argues that his personal and professional reputations were damaged by publication.

He also claims his distress was compounded by the paper’s solicitors who falsely accused him of having discriminatory and anti-Semitic views. The solicitors also tried to tarnish him by citing untrue and defamatory material from the internet to support their position, without any proper research, the writ claims.

Ibrahim is seeking aggravated damages, saying the paper ran the stories without checking the facts with him first or giving him the chance to comment, and then published a woefully inadequate and insulting apology in the print edition. He is also seeking an injunction banning repetition of the allegations at the heart of his legal battle.

Press Gazette, 16 March 2011

Via ENGAGE


The offending article, by Patrick Sawer and Philip Sherwell, which was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 24 January 2010, was a typical scaremongering piece about “extremist preachers” speaking at British universities.

The reliability of the article may be judged by the fact that the main source for the attack on Yahya Ibrahim was David Ouellette, formerly of the (now defunct) right-wing Zionist website Judeoscope, which specialised in portraying mainstream Muslim figures as dangerous extremists. Ouellette was quoted as saying that while Ibrahim was “widely considered as a ‘bridge builder’ between Muslims and non-Muslims” in Australia, he was in reality “a hard-core activist of the Wahhabi strain working to spread in the West the hateful, terror-inspiring Salafi ideology, the likes of whom should not be welcome in free societies fighting Islamic extremism”.

The article also quoted critics who had “called on the Government to take a tougher line on barring extremists from Britain”. Predictably, these critics were Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens and Paul Goodman.