Now here is a leftist politician that gets it. Villy Søvndal, leader of the Socialist People’s Party tells it like it is, responding to a demonstration held by the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark last Friday, the socialist leader stated on his blog that:

“the group was to ’seek other pastures’ and that their ‘undertakings had no perspective, nor future, in Denmark’.”

Now if only other European socialists and politicians across the political spectrum, were to get on board and confront the Islamists with the same line of reasoning, we would see a dramatic shift away from the moronic political correctness that currently blankets the political atmosphere in Europe. Søvndal also adds:

“‘If they want to live in a religious dictatorship so badly, they can go to those countries in the Middle East where such dictatorships exist.”

Right again, and how refreshing! About a proposed banning of the group:

‘Instead of turning them into martyrs with a ban, they must be put in the spotlight. It would expose their completely ridiculous views”

Instead of practicing selfcensorship and fawning gross tolerance towards the intolerant, we should be actively engaging these religious fascists in open, public debate. The more we dare to draw the public’s attention to the lunacy of Islamism, and unfettered immigration for people who come from a part of the world that traditionally resists modern thinking and modern living,…the better.

Villy Søvndal then levels his disgust at Birthe Rønn Hornbech, Denmark’s integration minister, for meeting with Kassem Ahmad, [spokesperson for the Islamic Society in Denmark] behind closed doors. Ahmad had participated in the march, being seen walking alongside Fadi Abdullatif, leader of the Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark:

‘It is strange that religious representatives should be given preferential treatment in a secular democracy. If the minister wanted to speak with ethnic minorities, she could have spoken with members of city council who were democratically elected.’

This shows that some Leftists actually do understand what’s at stake, and that Islamism has no place within the democracies of Europe. Only when the Left becomes more engaged with the dangers Islamism poses for western societies, can any headway be made. This is all very good news. Once again Denmark shows the rest of Europe the mess it has gotten itself into, and most importantly…the way out. More here.

Muslims hate pigs–real ones, digital images, statues, etc.

Once again in the UK, "The Three Little Pigs" (an award-winning version!) has been deemed offensive, as has the statue of a boar.

Read the details at Always On Watch.

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

Two recent stories, both involving medical professionals, from the UK:

1. Story from September 27, 2007 edition of the Times Online:

A Muslim dentist insisted that a young woman wear an Islamic headscarf before he would agree to treat her for toothache, the General Dental Council was told yesterday.The patient, a community nurse, alleges that she reluctantly told Omer Butt, 31, who runs a dental practice in Bury, Greater Manchester, that she was a nonpractising Muslim.It is alleged that the dentist then told her that he would refuse to register her as an NHS patient if she did not cover her head. She was in so much pain that she agreed to borrow a scarf from a nurse at the clinic.

The panel was told that when the dentist, quoting the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, told her to wait in the waiting room, she felt so humiliated that she left the clinic and made a complaint about his behaviour.

Mr Butt denies the charge that he has undermined public confidence in his profession by discriminating against a patient and failing to act in her best interests. If found guilty of the charge by the council’s professional misconduct committee he could be struck off the register.

After learning of the charges laid against him, he wrote to the council praising Allah. He referred to the patient as his “sister” and concluded: “May Allah protect us all from the evils of Shaitan [Satan].”

John Snell, for the council, said that the woman, referred to as Patient A, went to see Mr Butt at his clinic in April, 2005.

Mr Snell said: “He asked her if she was a Muslim and she asked him why it mattered. He said he needed to know.”

The nurse allegedly told her: “Inside the surgery it is Mr Butt’s world and his rules that apply.”

Patient A told the hearing: “I did ask what would happen if I did not wear a headscarf and was told I would not be able to register there as a patient. I did feel that I was under duress.”

Andrew Hockton, defending the dentist, said that Mr Butt asked Muslim women to cover everything except their hands and faces “in order to protect his honour”.

The hearing continues. [Hat-tip to Kender, who alerted me to the above story]

The hearing continues. [Hat-tip to , who alerted me to the above story]

2. Story from the October 7, 2007 edition of the Times Online:

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.Some trainee doctors say learning to treat the diseases conflicts with their faith, which states that Muslims should not drink alcohol and rejects sexual promiscuity.A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.

The religious objections by students have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions.

The religious objections by students have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions.It will intensify the debate sparked last week by the disclosure that Sainsbury’s is permitting Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers’ alcohol purchases on religious grounds. It means other members of staff have to be called over to scan in wine and beer for them at the till.

Critics, including many Islamic scholars, see the concessions as a step too far, and say Muslims are reneging on their professional responsibilities.This weekend, however, it emerged that Sainsbury’s is also allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds.At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds.The BMA said it had received reports of Muslim students who did not want to learn anything about alcohol or the effects of overconsumption. “They are so opposed to the consumption of it they don’t want to learn anything about it,” said a spokesman.

At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds.The BMA said it had received reports of Muslim students who did not want to learn anything about alcohol or the effects of overconsumption. “They are so opposed to the consumption of it they don’t want to learn anything about it,” said a spokesman.The GMC said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate”. Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice”.

Shazia Ovaisi, a GP in north London, said one of her male Muslim contemporaries at medical school failed to complete his training because he refused to examine a woman patient as part of his final exams.“He was academically gifted, one of the best students, but gradually he got in with certain Islamic groups and started to become more radical,” said Ovaisi.“You could see there was a change in his personality as time went by. During the final exams he was supposed to treat a female patient in hospital. He refused to do it, even though it would have been a very basic examination, nothing intrusive.

“But he refused and as a result he failed his exams. I was quite shocked and disappointed about it because I don’t see there being anything in our religion that prohibits us from examining male and female patients.”

“But he refused and as a result he failed his exams. I was quite shocked and disappointed about it because I don’t see there being anything in our religion that prohibits us from examining male and female patients.”Both the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Doctors and Dentist Association said they were aware of students opting out but did not support them.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, of the Islamic Medical Association, said: “To learn about alcohol, to learn about sexually transmitted disease, to learn about abortion, it gives us more evidence to campaign against it. There is a difference between learning and practising.

“It is obligatory for Muslim doctors and students to learn about everything. The prophet said, ‘Learn about witchcraft, but don’t practise it’.”

[Hat-tip to Mark Alexander for alerting me to the above story]

I’ve been doing research for an upcoming speech and learned that, according to some sources, shari’a law is supposed to apply only to Muslims or to those living under Islamic rule. But Muslims living in Western nations are pushing the envelope. The above two examples are extremes, but other less obvious attempts at applying shari’a law and Islamic customs are also proceeding, most in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism.

Will the West refuse to slide further into dhimmitude (defined HERE by Bat Ye’or)? The National Health Service of the UK must take a solid stand against Muslims such as those in the above two stories! Otherwise, the pushing of the envelope will continue to get worse.

The greater danger of Islamification lies in the West’s concessions and in the media’s not making certain stories very public, not in the sporadic attacks by jihadists, though the latter get a lot of attention. The West’s own desire to be tolerant is leading us down the path of the destruction of Western civilization. No wonder I’m sick!

According to an article in the September 26, 2007 edition of Telegraph.co.uk, other races and cultures should be included in historical accounts, starting with the role played by the Turks in the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Read the article.

Did Allah send the storm, too, in answer to pleas from the Turks, thus making Great Britain a land rightfully belonging to Muslims?

…The Armada was blown north up the east coast of England and attempted a return to Spain by sailing around Scotland and out into the Atlantic, past Ireland. But very severe weather destroyed a portion of the fleet, and more than 24 vessels were wrecked on the north and western coasts of Ireland…

Will the next call be for a change to the British flag, which prominently features a cross at its center? After all, according to Trevor Philips, chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, the Turks played an important role in the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Perhaps a crescent and star should be added so that Muslims feel more included. Or perhaps replacing the cross on the flag will make them feel even better. Sure, let’s take that step in the name of inclusionism — never mind historical realities.

Multiculturalists desire to rewrite history so that the new account subverts and denies Western culture. What I don’t understand is why it’s just fine for any culture other than our Western one something to be proud of. For example, speaking of the realities of Islamic history elicits cries of “Racist!” and “Islamophobe!” Perhaps a commenter can explain that conundrum to me?

From http://www.aims.ca/library/Paradoxes.pdf (dated May 4, 2007):

…In Brussels, the capital not only of Belgium but the adminstrative centre of the European Union, policemen have been enjoined by their superiors not to eat or drink anything during the day in the month of Ramadan while patrolling the predominantly Muslim area of the city, for fear of offending the population….But fear of what, exactly?  Social disorder, perhaps, or fear of terrorist attack, or even of merely ideological criticism and the charge of being culturally sensitive and perhaps racist?…

Can’t you just imagine the outcry if a similar enjoining had been propounded for the religious observances of any group other than Muslims?

I don’t recall there ever being a similar push to force the restrictions of Ramadan upon the general population of non-Islamic nations.

Something is being tested right now.  Little by little, the inroads of Islamification are being accomplished throughout the West.

A little update on Muslims in the UK…

First, it’s the fear of pork fumes, now this: “Doctors Give in to Muslims.” Indeed! Full article, from the Daily Express (emphases mine):

DOCTORS and health workers have been banned from eating lunch at their desks - in case it offends their Muslim colleagues.Health chiefs believe the sight of food will upset Muslim workers when they are celebrating the religious festival Ramadan.

The lunch trolley is also to be wheeled out of bounds as the 30-day fast begins next month.

But staff and politicians branded the move political correctness gone mad and warned that it was a step too far.

Bill Aitken, the Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, said: “This advice, well-meaning as it may be, is total nonsense.

“It is the sort of thing that can stir up resentment rather than result in good relations.”

The new guidance comes in the wake of the failed terror attacks on Glasgow and the death of suspect Kafeel Ahmed, 27.

Health chiefs in Lothian and Glasgow will give all employees time off to pray and to celebrate Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan.

But Greater Glasgow and Clyde as well as Lothian NHS boards also issued the advice, warning workers not to take working lunches, and said all vending machines should be removed from areas where Muslims work.

One senior consultant said: “What next? Are we going to have advice on how to deal with Catholics during Lent?

“This kind of thing does more harm than good.”

The guidance, which was sent round many organisations, was produced by Glasgow consultancy Meem, which advises on Muslim issues and counts the Scottish Parliament among its clients.

Na’eem Raza, a senior consultant with the firm, said he was thrilled that the health boards had formally adopted the guidance.He added: “The idea is to get faith in the workplace out in the open.

“In the current climate, people need to understand where communities are coming from and what people are feeling.

“After the Glasgow attack this is very important. This is about educating people and making them more aware and more confident when dealing with issues surrounding the Muslim community.

“People have stopped talking over the garden fence and we need to break down the barriers so that people can talk comfortably to each other.

“It would never stir up resentment. Faith is an important issue. Why not have guidance on all of the issues that affect us, including different faiths?”

Health chiefs defended their use of the guidance and said it was important to promote a positive and tolerant culture at work.

A NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde spokesman said: “As a large organisation we recognise that many of our staff, patients and visitors will be participating in Ramadan.

“We have therefore made information available to our staff to raise awareness of Ramadan and help to answer any questions they may have.”

NHS Lothian said: “We have recently agreed a quality and diversity strategy and as a responsible and pro-active employer we will continue to promote a positive culture which recognises and respects diversity both in our workforce and in the people we serve.”

In the UK today. In America tomorrow?

[Hat-tip to Raven, who alerted me to this article]

In his 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury published a story about a dystopian society in which all books are burned. According to one review at Amazon.com,

In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury’s classic, frightening vision of the future, firemen don’t put out fires–they start them in order to burn books. Bradbury’s vividly painted society holds up the appearance of happiness as the highest goal–a place where trivial information is good, and knowledge and ideas are bad. Fire Captain Beatty explains it this way, “Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs…. Don’t give them slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy.”

Another review states the following:

The disturbing thing about the book is that, unlike many other books that deal with the distant future, “Fahrenheit 451″ (written in 1953) hasn’t been proved wrong simply by time itself. Not at all. Actually, what is shocking to realize is that we’ve come quite close to the society Bradbury writes about. Perhaps books haven’t been banned yet, but it is indeed the entertainment industry that controls people’s minds, the political correctness has reached ridiculous levels…

Coincidentally, early last spring I chose Fahrenheit 451 as one of the readings for my World Literature class for the 2007-2008 school term. At the time, I didn’t realize just how important the reading of Bradbury’s classic was going to be.

Now comes the story about the recall and destruction of Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, a book published just last year and now becoming scarce at the behest of Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. From this source:

I’ve gotten numerous reports from readers who have attempted to purchase Alms for Jihad from Books a Million and elsewhere, only to have the purchase denied because that title is currently unavailable. That’s because, as Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and I discussed earlier this week, Khalid bin Mafouz has successfully bullied the Cambridge University Press into pulping the book. Cambridge has even sent out notices to have it removed from some libraries…

According to the above source, Alms for Jihad is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain (at any price, according to Cassandra, who phoned me last night), even via digital download. At the moment, the hard copy of Alms of Jihad is unavailable at Amazon.com, although the site has a link for digital download. I don’t know if that link still works.

Mark Steyn has written a commentary about the disappearance of Alms for Jihad. His commentary is reproduced below in its entirety (emphases mine):

How will we lose the war against “radical Islam”?Well, it won’t be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won’t be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter’s on the same Tuesday morning.The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who’s behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?

For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called “Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World,” by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can’t find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let’s go to Amazon. Everything’s available there. And sure enough, you’ll come through to the “Alms for Jihad” page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: “The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world,” according to Canada’s Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.Unfortunately, if you then try to buy “Alms for Jihad,” you discover that the book is “Currently unavailable. We don’t know when or if this item will be back in stock.” Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of “Alms for Jihad” and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:

This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:”Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.

This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:”Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.”As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false.”

Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he’s a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

I’m not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it’s considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his “family, businesses and charities” are “entirely and manifestly false,” the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank’s funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz’s lawyer has said: “Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them.” Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or “Blessed Relief”) Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.

In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as “an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen” and its chairman as a “specially designated global terrorist.” As the Treasury concluded, “Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief.”

Indeed, this “charity” seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he’s called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.

So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?

Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call “libel chill” is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He’s one of the richest men on the planet, and they’re an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you’ve got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: “House Of Saud, House Of Bush” did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there’s no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn’t worth it.

We’ve gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can’t open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.

Suppose you’ve got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?

The following is some additional information about Alms for Jihad. According to this source, the book:

is properly sourced, with hundreds of references. And Burr and Collins provided Cambridge University Press with all their materials on bin Mahfouz’ al Qaeda and Hamas financing, contrary to the false statements by both bin Mahfouz’ and Cambridge University Press attorneys.Incredibly, the publishing arm of the world’s second oldest English speaking university (est. 1209), completely capitulated to bin Mahfouz, offering a comprehensive apology and substantial damages, according to an agreement read in the U.K. High Court on July 30, 2007. Cambridge University Press also promised to pulp the books, publish a detailed apology on its website and contribute to bin Mahfouz’ legal costs.[T]hese authors’ statements and data were all previously well documented by the media and U.S. Congressional, Court, Treasury Department and other official statements.

These reports were further corroborated by French intelligence officials at the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), and published in the French daily, Le Monde. The DGSE reported that in 1998, they knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme built to benefit Osama bin Laden; both U.S. and British intelligence services knew it, too.

In short, Cambridge University Press had nothing for which to apologize….

The pre-existing British intelligence knowledge of bin Mahfouz’ terrorist ties render the British High Court announcement all the more appalling an infringement of free speech…

Libraries here in the United States are not legally obligated to remove Alms for Jihad from their stacks. This morning, I noted that the Fairfax County Public Library system does not have the book; however, I do not know if the Fairfax system ever carried the book, but if so, voluntary censorship, resulting from fear of litigation, is afoot. You might want to check the library system in your area. Also, check your local bookstores. Cassandra told me yesterday that she couldn’t find the book in her area. Is the book being pulled here in the United States?

After all, libel suits are costly affairs. Jeffrey Breinholt of the Counterterrorism Blog recently compiled the following list of legal actions attempted or taken against books unfavorable to Islam, Muslim organizations, and individual Muslims (emphasis mine):

Two news flashes on August 1, 2007. First, the lawyers representing the so-called Flying Imams in their lawsuit against US Airways announced that they were not going after the unnamed passengers whose concerns prompted the men to be pulled off the Arizona-bound flight (here). I suppose that is good to know, now that the long-term policy implications of their lawsuit are about to justify (literally) an act of Congress. Second, Cambridge University Press announced that it was going to destroy all copies of the 2006 book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, in response to a libel claim filed in England by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker (here).

And let’s not forget the recent dust-up between CAIR and the Young America’s Foundation, when the group scheduled Robert Spencer to speak.

Continuing now with the piece from the Counterterrorism Blog:

Connected? Absolutely. Each story involves people who do not like how information flows these days. Each chose litigation as the means to try to get their way.[...]DATELINE - BOSTON 2003
The Boston Herald reported on community concerns with the generous land deal between the city and the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), based on suspicions that ISB had connections to terrorists in the Middle East. ISB sues the Herald and various people who provided it information for libel. Islamic Soc. of Boston v. Boston Herald, Inc.,21 Mass.L.Rptr. 441, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2006 WL 2423287, Mass.Super. 2006.

DATELINE - WASHINGTON DC 2003
A sitting U.S. Congressman finds himself having to explain why he has chosen not to run for re-election, after public reports that he and his wife are having marital problems. To redress public concerns, he speaks by phone to a reporter from the Charlotte Observer, and describes how living in Washington no longer appeals to him, especially across the street from the headquarters of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) after the events of 9/11 and the rumor he heard that CAIR is a fundraising front for Hizballah. CAIR sues the congressman for libel. CAIR v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

DATELINE - SAN FRANCISCO 2002
The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) posts a letter on its website calling for an investigation of Khadja Ghafur, the former superintendent of public charter schools, based on indications that public schools under his supervision are teaching religion and are associated with a controversial Pakistani organization. Ghafur sues the ADL for libel. Ghafur v. Bernstein, 131 Cal.App.4th 1230, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 626, Cal.App. 1 Dist.,2005.

DATELINE - CHICAGO 2001
The New York Times and other news organizations report that Global Relief Foundation (GRF) is the target of an investigation based on suspicions of its terrorist fundraising. GRF sues the news organizations for libel. GRF v. NY Times, 390 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2003)

DATELINE - OMAHA 2001
Radio personality Rick Dees makes some on-air statements that are offensive to Muslims. Durkhan Iqraa Jihad Mumin and two other people sue Dees and his station for libel. Mumin v. Dees, 266 Neb. 201, 663 N.W.2d 125 Neb. 2003.

DATELINE - VIRGINIA 1998
America Online (AOL) permits chat rooms dealing with the the Qu’ran and the beliefs of Islam, and this generates posts that Muslims consider harassing and blasphemous. One Muslim visitor to the chat room user sues AOL for libel. Noah v. AOL, 261 F.Supp.2d 532 (E.D. Va. 2003)

DATELINE - NEW YORK 1994
The New York Post publishes an interview of Dr. Betty Shabazz, the widow of Malcolm X, suggesting complicity of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in the assassination of her husband. Farrakhan sues the Post for libel. Farrakhan v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.,168 Misc.2d 536, 638 N.Y.S.2d 1002, N.Y.Sup.,1995.

DATELINE - BOSTON - 1993
The Wellesley College journal Counterpoint publishes an article about professor Tony Martin, who is believed to be associated with the Nation of Islam, suggesting that the decision to grant him tenure was based on threats of litigation. Martin sues Counterpoint for libel. Martin v. Roy, 54 Mass.App.Ct. 642, 767 N.E.2d 603, Mass.App.Ct., 2002.

DATELINE - BOSTON - 1984
The Boston Globe publishes an article about Yusuf Islam, the popular musician formerly known as Cat Stevens, describing how he had embraced Islam and moved to Iran. Islam sues the Globe for libel. Globe Communications Corp. v. R.C.S. Rizzoli Periodici, S.p.A., 729 F.Supp. 973 (S.D.N.Y.1990).

DATELINE - NEW YORK - 1983
Newsweek publishes an article suggesting that Pakistani businessman Mahmoud Khan is associated with the CIA. Khan sues Newsweek for libel. Khan v. Newsweek, Inc, 160 A.D.2d 425, 554 N.Y.S.2d 119, N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,1990.

DATELINE - ARIZONA - 1981
A student religious journal Al-Ittihad publishes an unfavorable review of a translation of the Qu’ran by Rashad Khalifa, using the words “charlatan” and “mental imbalance.” Khalifa sues the journal for libel. Khalifa v. Muslim Students’ Ass’n of U. S. and Canada, Inc., 131 Ariz. 328, 641 P.2d 242, Ariz.App., 1981

DATELINE - SAN FRANCISCO - 1980
A California television station broadcasts “Death of a Princess,” a film depicting the public execution of a Saudi Arabian princess for adultery. Prince Khalid Abdullah Tariq Mansour Faissal Fahd Al Talal, on behalf of 600 million Muslims throughout the world, sues the television station for libel. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Mansour Faissal Fahd Al Talal v. Fanning, 560 F. Supp. 186 (N.D. Cal. 1980)

DATELINE - WASHINGTON D.C. 1964
The Evening Star newspaper publishes an article describing political activist Dolphin Thomas as a chief spokesman for Malcolm X and his Black Muslim Mosque. Thomas sues the Star for libel. Thompson v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 394 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1968).

DATELINE – BIRMINGHAM 1935
The Birmingham Post reports that an Arab sheik is interested in acquiring an American bride for his harem, and describes what he is looking for and some of his good attributes. The newspaper is sued for libel. White v. Birmingham Post Co., 233 Ala. 547, 172 So. 649, Ala. 1937.

Legal efforts to control how Muslim organizations and individuals are portrayed is not limited to public statements. They extend to non-public statements about Muslim employees’ job performance. This list above does not contain other lawsuits that are more akin to the recent US Airway litigation: Muslim employees who sued for their employers for libel, alleging that their employers spoke about their job performance to state licensing boards created to assure quality health care, or government agents or persons employed by the university or company responsible for investigating the employment discrimination allegations that arose from the libel actions themselves. Mawaldi v. St. Elizabeth Health Center, 381 F.Supp.2d 675 (N.D. Ohio 2005); Shabazz v. PYA Monarch, LLC, 271 F.Supp.2d 797 (E.D.Va. 2003); Obu v. Ohio Dept. of Aging,119 Ohio Misc.2d 131, 774 N.E.2d 812, Ohio Ct.Cl.,2002; Ahmed v. Gelfand,160 F.Supp.2d 408 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Naeemullah v. Citicorp Services, Inc., 78 F.Supp.2d 783 (N.D.Ill. 1999); El-Ghori v. Grimes, 23 F.Supp.2d 1259 (D.Kan.1998); Al-Khazraji v. Saint Francis College, 523 F.Supp. 386 (W.D. Pa. 1981). In all of these lawsuits, the libel complaints were dismissed by the court, which ruled that the employee had no action. There must have been some very disappointed lawyers.

These cases may be the tip of the iceberg. Although truth is a defense to libel lawsuits, it generally takes thousands of dollars to establish the truth sufficiently to achieve a dismissal. Settlement is sometimes the best option, no matter how unmeritorious the allegations. When that happens, there will be no court opinion. Thus, we do not know how many more cases are out there in which someone facing steep legal bills chose to quietly settle. For those defendants, they will probably never mention the word Islam again in public. Who loses then? In the long run, fear of discussion has costs to society’s search for the truth. Some of us like the fact that information flows so efficiently, and we want to keep it that way.

Moreever [sic], the truth is not always obvious when the lawsuit is being pursued. It often takes many years and much more lively American dialogue to get there. That means the use of litigation to control the flow of information should matter to those all who appreciate the gradual pace at which knowledge develops. There is now no question that GRF was under investigation - it has since been designated as a terrorist financier by President Bush. Cat Stevens’ conversion to Islam and his relocation to Iran is now common knowledge, as is the CIA‘s involvement in Afghanistan through Pakistani intermediaries. Historically, with some libel actions, we sometimes look back years late and wonder how anyone could have questioned the information then at issue, either because it is so obviously true or because our mores have changed. Then we feel dirty.

…[O]f these cases I list above, there was only one that was not dismissed in favor of the defendants - the oldest one, involving the Arab Sheik looking to acquire an American wife. In that 1937 case, the Alabama judge refused the dismiss the libel action…

Read the entire article.

Litigation jihad — another of the tactics used to accomplish the Islamification of the West and to silence the critics of Islam. Is the blogosphere next on their hit-list?

[Hat-tip to Maccus Germanis for providing me this link]

Received via email from Councillor Alan Craig:

For Immediate ReleaseOlympics mega-mosque linked to London and Glasgow car bomb plots

Arrested suspects radicalised by mosque promoters Tablighi Jamaat

“Government must ban construction of mega-mosque” says Cllr Alan Craig

Newham councillor Alan Craig today called on the government to formally ban the construction of a massive mosque on a site less than a mile from the main 2012 Olympic stadium at Stratford, east London.

Reports that Tablighi Jamaat - the fundamentalist Islamic sect who propose to build the mosque as their international headquarters - are directly responsible for radicalising two of the London and Glasgow car bomb suspects has added to suspicions that the sect are not the peaceable group they claim to be.

“The dangerous truth about Tablighi Jamaat is coming out. We must watch the gap between what they say and what they do,” said Cllr Craig, leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance group on Newham Council, who lives with his young family a mile from the mosque site. ”It will be a horrendous security nightmare if they are allowed to build this large mosque so close to the Olympics.”

In the last few days friends and neighbours of Kafeel and Saheel Ahmed in Bangalore, India, have told how the brothers changed dramatically a few years ago when they joined Tablighi Jamaat. They were reportedly barred from the local mosque because they insisted on praying in the prescribed Tablighi manner. Kafeel is now in a critical condition in Glasgow Royal Infirmary with 92% burns following the failed attempt to blow up a flaming Jeep at Glasgow Airport last Saturday. Saheel remains under arrest in Paddington Green police station.

Furthermore it is also significant that a number of suspects arrested in connection with last August’s Atlantic airline terror plot too were followers of Tablighi Jammat. Friends and families of Assad Sarwar and Waheed Zuman have spoken publicly about how Tablighi Jamaat changed the two men and radicalised their religious commitment prior to their alleged involvement in the planned atrocity.

7/7 suicide bombers Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer are reckoned to have attended Tablighi Jamaat’s European headquarters mosque in Dewsbury, west Yorkshire, where Tanweer also attended Tabligh’s madrassa or Islamic school. And Richard “Shoe bomber” Reid worshipped at a Tablighi mosque.

“Tablighi Jamaat radicalises and dehumanises Muslim young men,” said Alan Craig. “They have a growing and ominous track record as further young men follow Tabligh teaching about Islam and then go on to plan horrendous atrocities.”

Cllr Craig also demonstrated the radicalising effect of Tablighi Jamaat by pointing to a Muslim publication that highlights the dramatic impact of Tablighi teaching on individuals and families. See Islamic Research Foundation International webpage:

“Tablighi Jamaat is large, powerful, ambitious, secretive and apparently well-funded,” said Alan Craig. “They have deliberately stayed below the radar screen for too long. They must be now fully investigated by the government. And they must be banned from building their mega-mosque.”

- Ends -

A mosque linked to radicalization? Surprise, surprise! NOT!

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, of which I am cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday for one hour at noon, Pacific Time. 

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.

Callers welcome!

Friday, July 6: Special show!

This week we are scheduled to have two interviewees, one from the UK and one from Australia.

1. Our first scheduled guest for the top of the hour will be Lion Heart of the LionHeart Blog; he has requested time on the air to discuss the recent failed bombings in the UK.

2. Our second scheduled guest, for the bottom of the hour, will be Gravelrash of Democracy Frontline Blog, which is based in Australia.

If you are unable to listen live to the radio show, you can listen to recordings of the radio broadcasts later by CLICKING HERE.

Danish MP and moderate muslim Naser Khader, (who you would see on the PBS special Islam Vs. Islamists if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would release it) has been attracting attention lately. Blogger Exile took note of a speech in which Khader called for the need for a  Muhammad cartoon incident in America. GOV, who always has the pulse of all things Danish, also has noted Khader’s message and its importance.

What struck me was Mr. Khader’s statement that it was the cartoon controversy which spurred Danish democratic muslims to action. In absurdity lies truth, I suppose. Time and again we have seen that the islamists will always, without fail, over-react. If the incident might call for a polite discussion between neighbors, its a lawsuit. If a well written op-ed would suffice, its the threat (or practice) of decapitation.

This is of course why the political correctness crowd in general, and the grievance industry, in particular, is a massive threat to the counter-jihad movement. A simple search reveals the number of times the word “offensive” appears on the Council of American-Islamic Relations Website. The word “Hate Crime” is even more common.

This reminds me of an incident in Tennessee, which was related to me by Christine this afternooon, which occurred a while ago, and which she blogged about here. Bacon is not, cannot, be a hate crime. Neither can cartoons, or the use of ACTUAL Koran quotes. Free speech, and its consquences, are our very best weapon. The Islamists know this, and are coming for it.

The wider the gulf between a rational response to a provocation, and the Islamist response to a provocation, the more people awake to the simple fact, that a large number of people out there subscribe to a violent, intolerant and anachronistic ideology. And, perhaps as Mr. Khader suggests, such provocations can also awaken a large number of otherwise passive muslim immigrants to point out that it is time for a real “islamic revolution.” As Exile says of Khader:

Could it be that this relatively quiet man, in his modest way, can start the revolution that Islam is so seriously in need of? Someone has to. If it should be him, then I can only applaud him and continue to support him.

Anyone else would recieve my blessing too.

To that I would add not only “Anyone” else, but ”Everyone” else.

Ligneus at Spiced Sass provides you with your Easter evening reading, including this grim (rather than glib, I think) assessment by Bernard Lewis, lamented by Hugh Fitzgerald:

Another one of those must read articles, this one by Hugh Fitzgerald writing on Bernard Lewis

“And then he did something that was truly astonishing. He had earlier mentioned the two Muslim assaults on Europe: the Arab one that ended in the West, near Poitiers with the victory of Charles Martel in 732. And the one that started in the East, with the Turks, which was marked by the two assaults on Vienna, the second one in 1683, the high-water mark of Ottoman power in Europe.

And so, just toward the end, was this unremarked but remarkable sentence:

“Third time lucky?”

And that was how Bernard Lewis, sage of the age, the man whom so many in the Pentagon took as the last word on Islam because compared to what is dished out by Esposito and MESA Mostra he may appear to be that last word, dealt with the most terrifying danger to the survival of the West, offered a flippant phrase. Muslims by the millions, having settled within Western Europe, are now playing on the two pre-existing mental pathologies of antisemitism and anti-Americanism, as well as on the sentimental levelling (some call it “multiculturalism”) of the entire Western world, that world that appears to have forgotten its own past achievements, and the legacy that deserves to be preserved, and fails to recognize the West’s clear superiority to Islam, to everything about Islam.”

Read it all…

Wahrheit of Illumination Inc. speaks out for facing reality in the UK and keeping actual history in the history books - like the history of the Holocaust and of the Crusades:

Acknowledge reality, or it will automatically work against you. Muslims who are offended by reality will never break out of the circumscribed mental world they live in, and teachers who try to deny historical reality to avoid giving “offence” are one small step from dhimmitude, if they’re not already there.

Not talking about it is not going to make the bad people who want to blow you to pieces go away. It’s going to work against you.

Perhaps only another deadly scene of people blown to bits and burned to ashes is going to concentrate the minds of the British people, or the Americans. You’d think that the relatively recent demonstrations of the consequences of ignoring reality in London and New York would have been enough.

But that’s just history now, right? How long until they’re afraid to talk about 7 July in British classrooms?

Read the whole thing…

Exile at On The Wing, an intrepid blogger in Denmark, has the latest on EU baseless attacks and general lack of common sense:

Denmark has been pointed out, once again, as being racist toward its overwhelming hordes of unwanted, unloved, unwashed and misunderstood muslims. Yet again, we are intolerant, ignorant of their special needs and unwilling to accomodate them. We have adopted a harsh tone when discussing, no, condemning is a better word, our wonderful culturally enriching muslim population.

My only comment is; “Hallelujah”. In that case, we are doing something right over here.

This new accusation comes from yet another European watchdog social democratic package of initials calling itself the OSCE. Another overpaid and idiotic edict-producing body of know alls that sit in Brussels. The OSCE is the “Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe”. You can add it to my list of hate-entities like the ECRI (European Committee against Racism and Intolerance) and CERD (Committee for the Eradication of Racial Discrimination).

The OSCE report states that Denmark is limiting the amount of social benefits available to muslims, allows no mosques, no burial grounds and that we rarely invoke the racism paragraphs of of our legal system. All of the above statements from the OSCE are untrue. The government here is livid and, frankly, so am I.

So who wrote this anti-Danish society report? Let me tell you….”

More….