I'm not one to be a cry baby, but something such as this...well, it just bothers the crap out of me. I am a firm believer that our site is a pretty good one. Good resources. Up to date information. Great participation from our staff. News and commentaries. Then out of the blue we get a guy that thinks he can decide which site is just ok, and which are "highly developed."
I was on Infidels United the other day and this member was lsiting web sites to go too. I threw ours in just to be funny and he comes back with this:
" Great work for those who have the time to scroll through it all. Can it be redone to be placed in categories? It's not bad but I'm going to try to limit my list to the higher developed sites, or at least I think I am. All I know is that I appreciate your great effort & what you're doing to alert and educate about Islam. "
I guess he didn't see the menu which "categorized" different Islamic Subject matter. He must have liked it because he said......"not bad". Ooooh.....not bad. But I guess we are not of the "higher developed" sites. Oh darn.
I responded with:
" The ITF gets a pretty decent hit count.
we have a nice size following. Tons of information and resources for people who are serious in fighting the threat of radical Islam. Unlike other sites, ours is not run by the size of our egos.
I don't appreciate the comment .."higher developed sites."
We at the ITF are very proud of what we produce. "
I think he means well, and I'm sure it was his first time visiting the ITF, so he is not familiar with our "rich content". How is that for a description? "Rich Content" If he was a regular visitor, I'm sure he would have a different opinion, but maybe I should see his site just to be sure. Problem is, I don't know the path.
Listen....what I'm trying to get at is if your going to produce a list of the Anti-Radical Islamic sites. Don't pick and choose. We are all in this together. Some sites are better maintained and others aren't. Some are done by one person, others have teams. Some sites are well known and MANY others are not.
I discover new sites everyday.
But...EVERY site is important! There are no little sites that do nothing. If some have no comments on their threads, we should help them. Get the word out!! Publicize all the web sites. Granted Atlas Shrugs and Jihad Watch and Bare Naked Islam and some others like to think of themselves as GODS and Goddesses of the bandwith, but they have also let the sites grow as big as their swelled heads. They truly want to educate the masses.....but they are looking out for their own hit counts as well, believe me.
The Infidel Task Force is in partnership with some GREAT sites well known to everyone. Sites like...Blazing Cat Fur and Tundra Tabloids and 1389. I can't list them all here so take a look at our blog list. Those sites came through and teamed with us when we were young and just starting. And they are with us still. Those sites and others, send us a lot of readers. And we are grateful to them.
All I'm asking is that one does not categorize sites or presume they are small and unworthy of mention. There is a deadly threat out there willing to kill and conquer us. We are all in this together, and the sooner we all realize that, the better.
Showing posts with label islam democracy terror shariah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islam democracy terror shariah. Show all posts
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Monday, January 25, 2010
French Call for Veil Ban in Public Buildings
Monday, January 25, 2010
PARIS — A French parliamentary panel will stop short of recommending a ban on face-covering veils in the street and instead will ask for the garb to be banned in public facilities such as hospitals, the panel's president says.
The 32-member panel's report due Tuesday culminates a six-month inquiry into the wearing of all-encompassing veils that began after President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June that they are "not welcome" on French territory.
Andre Gerin, a Communist lawmaker who heads the multiparty panel, said the report contains a "multitude of proposals" to ban such garb in places like schools, hospitals and other public buildings, but not private buildings or on the street.
Gerin stressed the need to move "progressively" toward a law banning the attire in the streets and to work "hand in hand" with Muslim leaders and associations.
A 2004 French law bans Muslim headscarves from classrooms.
Muslim religious leaders have warned that a law banning face-covering attire in the streets could stigmatize Muslims and drive some to extremism. They were joined last week by Roman Catholic and Jewish leaders who said they consider such a drastic step unnecessary.
France has Western Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated at some 5 million. Only a tiny minority of Muslim women wear such attire, usually a "niqab" pinned across the face to cover all but the eyes.
Critics of the veils call them a gateway to extremism, an insult to gender equality and an offense to France's secular system.
"It is perhaps a marginal problem, but it is the visible part of the iceberg," Gerin said in a recent interview. "Behind the iceberg is a black tide of ... fundamentalism." He denounced those he called "gurus" or "French Taliban" who, he claimed, promote a radical brand of Islam that forces women and girls to hide themselves.
Critics of a formal ban have raised concerns about the constitutionality of state mandates on dress.
"I don't think an ideology should be fought through constraining measures but through ideas," Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of a coalition of Muslim organizations, said in an interview. "It's very difficult to talk about the liberation of women through a law that constrains." (WHAT??? HUH???- BBJ)
PARIS — A French parliamentary panel will stop short of recommending a ban on face-covering veils in the street and instead will ask for the garb to be banned in public facilities such as hospitals, the panel's president says.
The 32-member panel's report due Tuesday culminates a six-month inquiry into the wearing of all-encompassing veils that began after President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June that they are "not welcome" on French territory.
Andre Gerin, a Communist lawmaker who heads the multiparty panel, said the report contains a "multitude of proposals" to ban such garb in places like schools, hospitals and other public buildings, but not private buildings or on the street.
Gerin stressed the need to move "progressively" toward a law banning the attire in the streets and to work "hand in hand" with Muslim leaders and associations.
A 2004 French law bans Muslim headscarves from classrooms.
Muslim religious leaders have warned that a law banning face-covering attire in the streets could stigmatize Muslims and drive some to extremism. They were joined last week by Roman Catholic and Jewish leaders who said they consider such a drastic step unnecessary.
France has Western Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated at some 5 million. Only a tiny minority of Muslim women wear such attire, usually a "niqab" pinned across the face to cover all but the eyes.
Critics of the veils call them a gateway to extremism, an insult to gender equality and an offense to France's secular system.
"It is perhaps a marginal problem, but it is the visible part of the iceberg," Gerin said in a recent interview. "Behind the iceberg is a black tide of ... fundamentalism." He denounced those he called "gurus" or "French Taliban" who, he claimed, promote a radical brand of Islam that forces women and girls to hide themselves.
Critics of a formal ban have raised concerns about the constitutionality of state mandates on dress.
"I don't think an ideology should be fought through constraining measures but through ideas," Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of a coalition of Muslim organizations, said in an interview. "It's very difficult to talk about the liberation of women through a law that constrains." (WHAT??? HUH???- BBJ)
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
What Oath? Muslims Unfit for Citizenship and Military Duty
By Scott W. Winchell
Editor-in-Chief; Interim CEO; Stand Up America Project
In 1960, one of the biggest questions in the race for the Presidency between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was Kennedy’s religion. Being a Catholic, Kennedy was asked if his allegiance was to the country or the Pope. In those days, the same as today, in Catholicism, each adherent was first a Catholic, and second, a citizen of their country.
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.
The following is from a transcript of Kennedy’s speech:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in – for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
Apparently, this was enough to resolve the question, and he won the election. Today, we have a new question of allegiance. Not a question regarding Catholicism, but rather, Islam. The reason we ask this question is based on the fact, that a Muslim, is a Muslim first no matter where that person lives. Islam recognizes Dar el Islam, the “house of Islam” as any place a Muslim is present. Islam may not control that place, but the man that proclaims his devotion and submission to Allah is by Sha’ariah Law, a Muslim first and foremost.
Islam means submission, literally; there is no doubt that a devout Muslim must proclaim this or he is an apostate. This is something worse than an infidel, or non-believer, for he has forsaken his duty to Allah. Therefore, he must always be a Muslim first, and that means he is not only unable, but also forbidden from acting in any other fashion. If he is in our military, he may take orders, and obey, but at some level, when the order runs afoul of Islam, he must revert to Islam first. This is very obvious in the case of the terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood.
Unlike Catholicism, Islam enforces this by the sword. In many lands around the world, there are frequent examples of this enforcement, especially among the woman in Islam. Honor killings are frequent and occur everywhere, even here in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and many other places in the western world. Kennedy, back in 1960 was not even ex-communicated let alone receiving a Fatwa from an Imam, declaring he must die, and that all Muslims are duty bound to carry this edict out. This is a religious edict known only to Islam. Somehow, Major Nidal found that he could no longer be a member of the Military and decided to act on his devoutness to Islam, and to proceed to kill his own military comrades to whom he swore an oath.
Therefore, as we see in Hasan’s example, Islam is first in the mind of the devout, and it is clear that he never intended on living up to his oath as a soldier. He took the license of takiya, the Islamic right to lie for the sake of Islam to infidels. His oath never mattered and therefore, regarless of any oath a Muslim takes, it is to be totally discounted. Not only did he commit acts of terrorism, he also broke numerous laws, both military and civil. The worst of which was violating 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code – Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
These are acts of Sedition and Treason. But to a Muslim, they are acts of devotion to Allah. So which prevails? As a free society where we are a land of laws, not men, the former applies. So we now have a very real question of loyalty.
To a lesser degree, when a Muslim from another land is naturalized in the United States, and they swear an oath to gain citizenship, to whom are they beholding? When a recruit signs up for the military, takes the oath, yet declares he is a Muslim on the form, what should we expect?
Here is the oath on citizenship:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Or was that Allah?
Here are the oaths for the military:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I, (State your name) (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of (BLANK) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Citizenship form n-400 also asks whether or not the applicant has:
…advocated the overthrow of any government by force or violence (either directly or indirectly)?
I think a great many Muslims would fail this test immediately if it could be proven, but takiya absolves them anyway under Islam if they lie about it. How do we prove or disprove these issues?
The answer is clear, we cannot. If we tried, the ACLU would file cases by the boatload. Therefore the only sane thing to do to protect us from the Hasan’s of the world and Islamic deceit is to ban any person with Muslim affiliation of any sort from both citizenship and military service. Islam has no place in modern society. It is a barbaric political ideology, not a religion, and therefore, it is akin to citizenship from another country. Islam knows no boundaries, but acts as if it were a separate state. Therefore, we should treat them as if they were. They are devout, abiding peoples of another country/state make no mistake about it.
Editor-in-Chief; Interim CEO; Stand Up America Project
In 1960, one of the biggest questions in the race for the Presidency between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was Kennedy’s religion. Being a Catholic, Kennedy was asked if his allegiance was to the country or the Pope. In those days, the same as today, in Catholicism, each adherent was first a Catholic, and second, a citizen of their country.
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.
The following is from a transcript of Kennedy’s speech:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in – for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
Apparently, this was enough to resolve the question, and he won the election. Today, we have a new question of allegiance. Not a question regarding Catholicism, but rather, Islam. The reason we ask this question is based on the fact, that a Muslim, is a Muslim first no matter where that person lives. Islam recognizes Dar el Islam, the “house of Islam” as any place a Muslim is present. Islam may not control that place, but the man that proclaims his devotion and submission to Allah is by Sha’ariah Law, a Muslim first and foremost.
Islam means submission, literally; there is no doubt that a devout Muslim must proclaim this or he is an apostate. This is something worse than an infidel, or non-believer, for he has forsaken his duty to Allah. Therefore, he must always be a Muslim first, and that means he is not only unable, but also forbidden from acting in any other fashion. If he is in our military, he may take orders, and obey, but at some level, when the order runs afoul of Islam, he must revert to Islam first. This is very obvious in the case of the terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood.
Unlike Catholicism, Islam enforces this by the sword. In many lands around the world, there are frequent examples of this enforcement, especially among the woman in Islam. Honor killings are frequent and occur everywhere, even here in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and many other places in the western world. Kennedy, back in 1960 was not even ex-communicated let alone receiving a Fatwa from an Imam, declaring he must die, and that all Muslims are duty bound to carry this edict out. This is a religious edict known only to Islam. Somehow, Major Nidal found that he could no longer be a member of the Military and decided to act on his devoutness to Islam, and to proceed to kill his own military comrades to whom he swore an oath.
Therefore, as we see in Hasan’s example, Islam is first in the mind of the devout, and it is clear that he never intended on living up to his oath as a soldier. He took the license of takiya, the Islamic right to lie for the sake of Islam to infidels. His oath never mattered and therefore, regarless of any oath a Muslim takes, it is to be totally discounted. Not only did he commit acts of terrorism, he also broke numerous laws, both military and civil. The worst of which was violating 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code – Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
These are acts of Sedition and Treason. But to a Muslim, they are acts of devotion to Allah. So which prevails? As a free society where we are a land of laws, not men, the former applies. So we now have a very real question of loyalty.
To a lesser degree, when a Muslim from another land is naturalized in the United States, and they swear an oath to gain citizenship, to whom are they beholding? When a recruit signs up for the military, takes the oath, yet declares he is a Muslim on the form, what should we expect?
Here is the oath on citizenship:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Or was that Allah?
Here are the oaths for the military:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I, (State your name) (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of (BLANK) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Citizenship form n-400 also asks whether or not the applicant has:
…advocated the overthrow of any government by force or violence (either directly or indirectly)?
I think a great many Muslims would fail this test immediately if it could be proven, but takiya absolves them anyway under Islam if they lie about it. How do we prove or disprove these issues?
The answer is clear, we cannot. If we tried, the ACLU would file cases by the boatload. Therefore the only sane thing to do to protect us from the Hasan’s of the world and Islamic deceit is to ban any person with Muslim affiliation of any sort from both citizenship and military service. Islam has no place in modern society. It is a barbaric political ideology, not a religion, and therefore, it is akin to citizenship from another country. Islam knows no boundaries, but acts as if it were a separate state. Therefore, we should treat them as if they were. They are devout, abiding peoples of another country/state make no mistake about it.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Somali charged in attack on Danish cartoonist
By JAN M. OLSEN, Associated Press Writer Jan M. Olsen, Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago
COPENHAGEN – A Somali man was charged Saturday with two counts of attempted murder for an attack on a Danish artist whose 2005 cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad ignited riots and outrage across the Muslim world, authorities said.
The artist — 74-year-old Kurt Westergaard — was moved to an undisclosed location for his own protection.
The 28-year-old Somali man with ties to al-Qaida broke into Westergaard's home in Aarhus on Friday night armed with an ax and a knife, said Jakob Scharf, head of Denmark's PET intelligence agency.
Westergaard, who has been the target of several death threats since depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, pressed an alarm and fled with his 5-year-old granddaughter to a specially made safe room. He had been under round-the-clock protection by Danish security agents.
Officers arrived two minutes later and tried to arrest the assailant, but then shot him in the hand and knee when he threatened them with the ax, said Preben Nielsen of the Aarhus police.
Nielsen said the man's wounds were serious but not life-threatening, and Westergaard was "quite shocked" by the attack but was not injured.
The Somali man denied the charges at a court hearing Saturday in Aarhus, Denmark's second largest city, 125 miles (200 kilometers) northwest of Copenhagen. Accompanied by a lawyer, he was wheeled into the court on a stretcher from the hospital where he was being treated.
Chief Superintendent Ole Madsen in Aarhus said the man was charged with two counts of attempted murder: one on Westergaard and one on a police officer. The court also banned publication of the man's name.
"He will be in custody for four weeks, and in isolation for two," Madsen said, adding that the Somali would be moved to the Vestre Faengsel prison in Aarhus, which has medical facilities.
His defense lawyer, Niels Christian Strauss, told reporters outside the court he had urged his client to remain silent during the hearing to give him more time to examine the evidence.
Westergaard remains a potential target for extremists nearly five years after he drew a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad along with 11 other Danish cartoonists that were printed in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. Since Westergaard's cartoon is viewed the most provocative, he is the only of the twelve to live under round-the-clock protection.
The Jyllands-Posten had asked Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as a challenge to a perceived self-censorship, not to insult Muslims. Still, Danish and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries were torched a few months later in 2006 by angry protesters who felt the cartoons had profoundly insulted Islam.
Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
The Somali man had won an asylum case and received a residency permit to stay in Denmark, Scharf said, declaring the Friday attack "terror related."
"The arrested man has, according to PET's information, close relations to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab and al-Qaida leaders in eastern Africa," Scharf said. "(The attack) again confirms the terror threat that is directed at Denmark and against the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in particular."
Scharf said the man is suspected of having been involved in terror-related activities in east Africa and had been under PET's surveillance but not in connection with Westergaard.
Westergaard could not be reached for comment. However, he told his employer, the Jyllands-Posten, that the assailant shouted "Revenge!" and "Blood!" as he tried to enter the bathroom where Westergaard and the child had sought shelter.
"My grandchild did fine," Westergaard said, according to the newspaper's Web site. "It was scary. It was close. Really close. But we did it."
Westergaard has received previous death threats and was the subject of an alleged assassination plot.
In October, terror charges were brought against two Chicago men who planned to kill Westergaard and newspaper's former cultural editor. That trial has not yet begun.
In 2008, Danish police arrested two Tunisian men suspected of plotting to kill Westergaard. Neither suspect was prosecuted. One was deported and the other was released Monday after an immigration board rejected PET's efforts to expel him from Denmark.
Throughout the crisis, then-Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen distanced himself from the cartoons but resisted calls to apologize for them, citing freedom of speech and saying his government could not be held responsible for the actions of Denmark's press.
An umbrella organization for moderate Muslims in Denmark condemned the Friday attack.
"The Danish Muslim Union strongly distances itself from the attack and any kind of extremism that leads to such acts," the group said in a statement.
But I'm sure it is all for show. - BBJ
COPENHAGEN – A Somali man was charged Saturday with two counts of attempted murder for an attack on a Danish artist whose 2005 cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad ignited riots and outrage across the Muslim world, authorities said.
The artist — 74-year-old Kurt Westergaard — was moved to an undisclosed location for his own protection.
The 28-year-old Somali man with ties to al-Qaida broke into Westergaard's home in Aarhus on Friday night armed with an ax and a knife, said Jakob Scharf, head of Denmark's PET intelligence agency.
Westergaard, who has been the target of several death threats since depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, pressed an alarm and fled with his 5-year-old granddaughter to a specially made safe room. He had been under round-the-clock protection by Danish security agents.
Officers arrived two minutes later and tried to arrest the assailant, but then shot him in the hand and knee when he threatened them with the ax, said Preben Nielsen of the Aarhus police.
Nielsen said the man's wounds were serious but not life-threatening, and Westergaard was "quite shocked" by the attack but was not injured.
The Somali man denied the charges at a court hearing Saturday in Aarhus, Denmark's second largest city, 125 miles (200 kilometers) northwest of Copenhagen. Accompanied by a lawyer, he was wheeled into the court on a stretcher from the hospital where he was being treated.
Chief Superintendent Ole Madsen in Aarhus said the man was charged with two counts of attempted murder: one on Westergaard and one on a police officer. The court also banned publication of the man's name.
"He will be in custody for four weeks, and in isolation for two," Madsen said, adding that the Somali would be moved to the Vestre Faengsel prison in Aarhus, which has medical facilities.
His defense lawyer, Niels Christian Strauss, told reporters outside the court he had urged his client to remain silent during the hearing to give him more time to examine the evidence.
Westergaard remains a potential target for extremists nearly five years after he drew a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad along with 11 other Danish cartoonists that were printed in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. Since Westergaard's cartoon is viewed the most provocative, he is the only of the twelve to live under round-the-clock protection.
The Jyllands-Posten had asked Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as a challenge to a perceived self-censorship, not to insult Muslims. Still, Danish and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries were torched a few months later in 2006 by angry protesters who felt the cartoons had profoundly insulted Islam.
Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.
The Somali man had won an asylum case and received a residency permit to stay in Denmark, Scharf said, declaring the Friday attack "terror related."
"The arrested man has, according to PET's information, close relations to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab and al-Qaida leaders in eastern Africa," Scharf said. "(The attack) again confirms the terror threat that is directed at Denmark and against the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in particular."
Scharf said the man is suspected of having been involved in terror-related activities in east Africa and had been under PET's surveillance but not in connection with Westergaard.
Westergaard could not be reached for comment. However, he told his employer, the Jyllands-Posten, that the assailant shouted "Revenge!" and "Blood!" as he tried to enter the bathroom where Westergaard and the child had sought shelter.
"My grandchild did fine," Westergaard said, according to the newspaper's Web site. "It was scary. It was close. Really close. But we did it."
Westergaard has received previous death threats and was the subject of an alleged assassination plot.
In October, terror charges were brought against two Chicago men who planned to kill Westergaard and newspaper's former cultural editor. That trial has not yet begun.
In 2008, Danish police arrested two Tunisian men suspected of plotting to kill Westergaard. Neither suspect was prosecuted. One was deported and the other was released Monday after an immigration board rejected PET's efforts to expel him from Denmark.
Throughout the crisis, then-Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen distanced himself from the cartoons but resisted calls to apologize for them, citing freedom of speech and saying his government could not be held responsible for the actions of Denmark's press.
An umbrella organization for moderate Muslims in Denmark condemned the Friday attack.
"The Danish Muslim Union strongly distances itself from the attack and any kind of extremism that leads to such acts," the group said in a statement.
But I'm sure it is all for show. - BBJ
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Mass man accused of plot to kill U.S politicians
BOSTON – A Massachusetts man and two friends tried and failed to get into terrorist training camps and then plotted to kill two prominent U.S. politicians and randomly shoot people at American shopping malls, authorities said Wednesday.
Tarek Mehanna, who recently taught at a Muslim school in Worcester, was arrested early Wednesday at his parents' suburban Boston home. Mehanna was charged with conspiring with two other men — an American now in Syria and another man who is cooperating with authorities — to provide support to terrorists.
Ultimately, the trio never came close to pulling off an attack. Authorities say they never got the terrorist training they sought — that the men told friends they were turned down because of their nationality, ethnicity or inexperience, or that the people they'd hoped would get them into such camps were either in jail or on a religious pilgrimage.
The men abandoned the mall attack plans after their weapons contact said he could find only handguns, not automatic weapons.
The men used code words such as "peanut butter and jelly" for fighting in Somalia and "culinary school" for terrorist camps, and talked extensively of their desire to "die on the battlefield," according to court documents.
Mehanna, who has taught math and religion at Alhuda Academy, made a defiant court appearance hours after his arrest. He refused to stand to hear the charge against him and finally did — tossing his chair loudly to the floor — only after his father urged him to do so.
"This really, really is a show," his father, Ahmed Mehanna, said as his son was being led away in handcuffs. When asked if he believed the charges against his son, he said, "No, definitely not."
Prosecutors said Mehanna worked with two men from 2001 to May 2008 on the conspiracy that, over time, intended to "kill, kidnap, maim or injure" soldiers and two politicians who were members of the executive branch but are no longer in office. Authorities refused to identify the politicians and said they were never in danger.
Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Loucks said the men justified the planned attacks on malls because U.S. civilians pay taxes to support the U.S. government and because they are "nonbelievers," Loucks said. He refused to identify the targeted malls.
Mehanna — who received a doctorate in 2008 from the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy in Boston, where his father is a professor — allegedly conspired with Ahmad Abousamra, who authorities say is now in Syria.
Mehanna, 27, is being held without bail until his next court appearance on Oct. 30.
"I'm confident that the American people will put aside their fears and instead rely on the fairness guaranteed by our Constitution," said his attorney, J.W. Carney Jr. "Mr. Mehanna is entitled to that."
Rola Yaghmour, 20, of Shrewsbury and her family are friends with the Mehannas and she said she couldn't believe the new charges against Mehanna, calling him a "good man."
"He's not going to go crazy in a mall. There's no way he would do something like that," she said. "I read it and I was laughing, and I was like, 'They have to be kidding.' Because there's no way he would do something like that. It makes no sense. I was in shock. That's not like him at all nor his family, nothing of them at all."
Mehanna first was arrested in November and charged with lying to the FBI in December 2006 when asked the whereabouts of Daniel Maldonado, who is now serving a 10-year prison sentence for training with al-Qaida to overthrow the Somali government.
Authorities said Wednesday that Mehanna and his conspirators had contacted Maldonado about getting automatic weapons for their planned mall attacks, but he told them he could only get handguns.
Court documents filed by the government say that in 2002, Abousamra became frustrated after repeatedly being rejected to join terror groups in Pakistan — first Lashkar e Tayyiba, then the Taliban.
"Because Abousamra was an Arab (not Pakistani) the LeT camp would not accept him, and because of Abousamra's lack of experience, the Taliban camp would not accept him," Williams wrote in the affidavit.
Mehanna and Abousamra traveled to Yemen in 2004 in an attempt to join a terrorist training camp, according to court documents.
Mehanna allegedly told a friend, the third conspirator who is now cooperating with authorities, that their trip was a failure because they were unable to reach people affiliated with the camps.
Abousamra said he was rejected by a terror group when he sought training in Iraq because he was American, authorities said.
Tarek Mehanna, who recently taught at a Muslim school in Worcester, was arrested early Wednesday at his parents' suburban Boston home. Mehanna was charged with conspiring with two other men — an American now in Syria and another man who is cooperating with authorities — to provide support to terrorists.
Ultimately, the trio never came close to pulling off an attack. Authorities say they never got the terrorist training they sought — that the men told friends they were turned down because of their nationality, ethnicity or inexperience, or that the people they'd hoped would get them into such camps were either in jail or on a religious pilgrimage.
The men abandoned the mall attack plans after their weapons contact said he could find only handguns, not automatic weapons.
The men used code words such as "peanut butter and jelly" for fighting in Somalia and "culinary school" for terrorist camps, and talked extensively of their desire to "die on the battlefield," according to court documents.
Mehanna, who has taught math and religion at Alhuda Academy, made a defiant court appearance hours after his arrest. He refused to stand to hear the charge against him and finally did — tossing his chair loudly to the floor — only after his father urged him to do so.
"This really, really is a show," his father, Ahmed Mehanna, said as his son was being led away in handcuffs. When asked if he believed the charges against his son, he said, "No, definitely not."
Prosecutors said Mehanna worked with two men from 2001 to May 2008 on the conspiracy that, over time, intended to "kill, kidnap, maim or injure" soldiers and two politicians who were members of the executive branch but are no longer in office. Authorities refused to identify the politicians and said they were never in danger.
Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Loucks said the men justified the planned attacks on malls because U.S. civilians pay taxes to support the U.S. government and because they are "nonbelievers," Loucks said. He refused to identify the targeted malls.
Mehanna — who received a doctorate in 2008 from the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy in Boston, where his father is a professor — allegedly conspired with Ahmad Abousamra, who authorities say is now in Syria.
Mehanna, 27, is being held without bail until his next court appearance on Oct. 30.
"I'm confident that the American people will put aside their fears and instead rely on the fairness guaranteed by our Constitution," said his attorney, J.W. Carney Jr. "Mr. Mehanna is entitled to that."
Rola Yaghmour, 20, of Shrewsbury and her family are friends with the Mehannas and she said she couldn't believe the new charges against Mehanna, calling him a "good man."
"He's not going to go crazy in a mall. There's no way he would do something like that," she said. "I read it and I was laughing, and I was like, 'They have to be kidding.' Because there's no way he would do something like that. It makes no sense. I was in shock. That's not like him at all nor his family, nothing of them at all."
Mehanna first was arrested in November and charged with lying to the FBI in December 2006 when asked the whereabouts of Daniel Maldonado, who is now serving a 10-year prison sentence for training with al-Qaida to overthrow the Somali government.
Authorities said Wednesday that Mehanna and his conspirators had contacted Maldonado about getting automatic weapons for their planned mall attacks, but he told them he could only get handguns.
Court documents filed by the government say that in 2002, Abousamra became frustrated after repeatedly being rejected to join terror groups in Pakistan — first Lashkar e Tayyiba, then the Taliban.
"Because Abousamra was an Arab (not Pakistani) the LeT camp would not accept him, and because of Abousamra's lack of experience, the Taliban camp would not accept him," Williams wrote in the affidavit.
Mehanna and Abousamra traveled to Yemen in 2004 in an attempt to join a terrorist training camp, according to court documents.
Mehanna allegedly told a friend, the third conspirator who is now cooperating with authorities, that their trip was a failure because they were unable to reach people affiliated with the camps.
Abousamra said he was rejected by a terror group when he sought training in Iraq because he was American, authorities said.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Sharia Law and the US Constitution
This article has been re-printed from:
Islam In Action (http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com)
....and we thank you very much!!
Sharia Law and the US ConstitutionBy Louis Palme
Oct 14, 2009
Americans are among the most tolerant and patriotic people in the world. As a nation of immigrants, there is a certain appeal to the idea of multiculturalism where people of different backgrounds are accepted in our communities. Our nation was founded on the principles of equality and freedom, and we have invested our resources and blood over and over again to defend those principles. Our constitution guarantees not only the freedom of speech, but also the freedom to practice our religion of choice. So it is not surprising that many Americans see Sharia Law as a Muslim religious prerogative which we should support or at least tolerate. Banks have rushed to provide Sharia-compliant banking, and public institutions like universities and airports have spent taxpayer dollars to help Muslims comply with their religious requirements, providing special foot-baths and prayer rooms for them.
If anyone speaks out against Sharia Law, there is often a strong reaction within the Muslim community. This month, Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s advisor on Muslim affairs, complained on British television that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and misunderstood. While acknowledging that even Muslims associate Sharia with draconian criminal punishments and laws that seem unequal for women, she stated, “Part of the reason there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” The London-based Islam Channel panel she was on made repeated attacks against secular “man-made Law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.” Ms. Mogahed described her government role as “to convey . . to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”
(Source)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html
A similar reaction took place in a recent US Congressional hearing on the dangers posed by political Islam. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, one of the most prominent Muslim reformers in the United States, testified, “I think if Muslims want credibility and we want to be respected equally, we need to stand for reform within our faith of [Sharia] laws that are still in the 15th and 16th Century.” He explained that the jihadists will not be defeated until Muslims start to recognize that their ideology is on a slippery slope toward radicalism. In response to this testimony, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D, Mn) delivered a verbal tirade that accused Dr. Jasser of encouraging anti-Muslim bigotry and attempting to censor Islamists. Ellison said to Dr. Jasser, “I think you give people license for bigotry. I think people who engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, ‘yeah, go get after them.’ . . Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter’s hijab off, call her a horrible name, and spit on her because of something you said, Dr. Jasser? I worry about that.”
(Source )http://www.investigativeproject.org/1448/jasser-challenges-congressman-on-reforms-value
So, to better understand whether Sharia Law is desirable (or even legal) in the United States, it might be instructive to compare it with the US Constitution. This isn’t too difficult for the layman because the US Constitution is only 17 pages long, including its 27 amendments. Sharia Law is well-documented in the 1,200 page Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “The Reliance of the Traveler” by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, and published in the United States by Amana Publications. While the original document dates to the late 14th Century, it has been updated in the 1990’s and bears the approval of the Fiqh Council of North America as well as the authoritative Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy in Egypt. The introduction to this manual states, “The four Sunni schools of Islamic Law . . are identical in approximately 75 percent of the legal conclusions. . . [T]he authors of the present volume and their positions do represent the orthodox Muslim intellectual and spiritual heritage that has been the strength of the Community for over a thousand years . . to the present day.”
While this volume of Sharia Law is primarily about the religious practice of Islam, the 800 pages of the manual devoted to rules and regulations also include sections on Trade, Inheritance, Marriage (suitable partners, legal rights, custody), Divorce, and Justice which would fall under civil law in the United States. Those sections comprise 35% of the manual, and are among the most controversial because they impose draconian punishments, authorize jihad, and sanction discrimination on the basis of religion and gender.
The summary below highlights the serious disconnects between the provisions of the US Constitution and those of Sharia Law.
LEGISLATIVE POWERS
US Constitution
Article I - All legislative Powers shall be vested in the Congress.
Sharia Law
The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1) It is not a sin to comply with man-made laws that require buying auto insurance or having a photo ID because “the authorities are responsible for the sin, not the individual forced to comply.” (w42.3 and w50.4)
POWER TO DECLARE WAR
US Constitution
Section 8 – Powers of Congress include to levy taxes, to make laws, and to declare war.
Sharia Law
It is obligatory to obey the commands and interdictions of the caliph or his representative in everything that is lawful, even if he is unjust . . because the purpose of his authority is Islamic unity, which could not be realized if obeying him were not obligatory. (o25.5) The caliph or his representative have the duty of undertaking jihad if their territory borders on enemy lands, of dividing the spoils of battle, and of remitting a fifth for “deserving recipients.” (o25.9(8))
Jihad is obligatory for everyone when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims. (o9.3) It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy their dwellings. (o9.1)
PRESIDENT (CALIPH)
US Constitution
Article II, Section I -- Qualifications of a President – He must be a natural born citizen, thirty-five years old, and a resident for fourteen years. The President is elected by ballot by the people (via the Electors) and shall serve for no more than 2 four-year terms.
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Sharia Law
A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave, a male, of the Quraysh tribe, etc. (o25.0)
The Caliph appoints a group to select his successor among themselves. There is no a term of office. However, the caliphate of someone who seizes power is considered valid, even though his act of usurpation is disobedience, in view of the danger from anarchy and strife that would otherwise ensue. (o25.4(3))
(Note: The Islamic Caliphate was disbanded the Turkish Parliament in 1924.)
REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
US Constitution
Section 4 – The President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office if found guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sharia Law
(No provision for removal from office.)
LEGAL AUTHORITY
US Constitution
Article VI – This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made under it shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound by them.
Senators and Representatives, legislative officers, all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and the several states shall be bound by a Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution.
Sharia Law
The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1)
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
US Constitution
Amendment 1 – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
Sharia Law
Non-Muslims are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. Non-Muslims are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures, or make a public display of feast days or funerals. Non-Muslims are forbidden to build new churches. A non-Muslim may not enter a mosque without permission. The protection for non-Muslims is withdrawn if a non-Muslim commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her, leads a Muslim away from Islam, kills a Muslim, or says anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam. (o11.5 through o11.10)
US Constitution
Amendment 2 – The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Sharia Law
It is a condition that someone buying weapons be of a people who are not at war with Muslims. (k1.2(f))
Enormities (sins) include selling weapons to non-Muslims who will use them against us. (w52.1(192))
US Constitution
Amendment 3 – No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.
Sharia Law
(Not covered.) However, the Pact of Omar (636 AD) imposed on Christians in Syria, “We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.”
US Constitution
Amendments 4 – 8 – These amendments prohibit unreasonable searches, require due process according to the law, provide for confrontation of witnesses, impose jury trial on all matters involving over $20, and prohibit excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments. Amendment 14 provides for equal protection of the laws for all citizens.
Sharia Law
No testimony may be made by people who have lowly jobs, such as a street sweeper or a bath house attendant, or non-Muslim. (o24.2-3)
Testimony regarding fornication or sodomy requires four male eye-witnesses to the act. (o24.9)
A woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man. (o24.10)
(There is no provision for a jury trial under Sharia Law.)
Cruel and unusual Islamic punishments include 1) stoning for adultery (o12.2); 2) scourging 40 lashes with hands, shoes, ends of clothes, or a whip for drunkenness (o16.3); 3) severing the right hand for theft of over $36 and the left foot for a repeat offense (o14.1); and 4) death for apostasy from Islam. (o8.2)
Indemnity for accidentally killing a male Muslim is 100 camels or 4,235 grams of gold. (Current value: $144,000.) Indemnity for killing a woman is half that of a man, for killing a Jew or a Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a killing Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that of a Muslim. The indemnity for causing a miscarriage is one slave. (o4.9)
There is no indemnity for a killing a non-Muslim at war with Muslims, an apostate, or someone sentenced to death by stoning. (o14.17)
Jews and Christians are subject to a “poll tax” not less than 1 dinar (Current value: $144) per adult male per year. No maximum is stipulated. (o11.4) This is a penalty for remaining in their ancestral religion instead of embracing the “religion of truth.” (o9.8)
A husband may beat a “rebellious” wife for 1) not allowing immediate sexual intercourse when he asks for it, at home, and if she can physically endure it; 2) answering him coldly; or 3) being averse when she was previously kind. (m5.1 and m10.12) The only limitation is that he may not break her bones, wound her, or cause bleeding.
US Constitution
Amendment 13 Slavery and involuntary servitude are abolished.
Sharia Law
The section on Slavery (k32.0) is not translated into English. The provisions remain in Arabic. The editor of “The Reliance of the Traveler” claims that these provisions are no longer applicable, yet they remain in there in the text of Sharia Law. Elsewhere, the manual states, “Originally the status of slave was simply the outcome of having been taken as a prisoner of war. A captive who could not buy his own freedom by means of ransom remained in the possession of the captor until he had earned his freedom by work or until he was granted liberty by his master.” (w13.1)
US Constitution
Amendment 21 repealed “prohibition,” thereby allowing manufacture, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages.
Sharia Law
It is unlawful to sell grapes to someone who will make wine from them. (k4.9) “Allah cursed whoever drinks wine, gives it to others to drink, sells it, buys it, presses it for another, transports it, receives it, or eats its price.”
Enormities (sins) include drinking wine in any form or other intoxicant, even if only a drop as in medicine; pressing out the juice to make wine or other intoxicant; carrying it for purposes of drinking, or having it carried; serving it to others or having it served; selling it; buying it; having it bought or sold; consuming proceeds from selling it; or keeping wine or other intoxicant. (o16.6 and w52.1(350-361))
So, the next time someone suggests that we should be more understanding of Sharia Law, it would be fair to ask him/her what parts of our US Constitution would he/she be willing to abandon in order to accommodate Sharia Law.
Islam In Action (http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com)
....and we thank you very much!!
Sharia Law and the US ConstitutionBy Louis Palme
Oct 14, 2009
Americans are among the most tolerant and patriotic people in the world. As a nation of immigrants, there is a certain appeal to the idea of multiculturalism where people of different backgrounds are accepted in our communities. Our nation was founded on the principles of equality and freedom, and we have invested our resources and blood over and over again to defend those principles. Our constitution guarantees not only the freedom of speech, but also the freedom to practice our religion of choice. So it is not surprising that many Americans see Sharia Law as a Muslim religious prerogative which we should support or at least tolerate. Banks have rushed to provide Sharia-compliant banking, and public institutions like universities and airports have spent taxpayer dollars to help Muslims comply with their religious requirements, providing special foot-baths and prayer rooms for them.
If anyone speaks out against Sharia Law, there is often a strong reaction within the Muslim community. This month, Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s advisor on Muslim affairs, complained on British television that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and misunderstood. While acknowledging that even Muslims associate Sharia with draconian criminal punishments and laws that seem unequal for women, she stated, “Part of the reason there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” The London-based Islam Channel panel she was on made repeated attacks against secular “man-made Law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.” Ms. Mogahed described her government role as “to convey . . to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”
(Source)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html
A similar reaction took place in a recent US Congressional hearing on the dangers posed by political Islam. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, one of the most prominent Muslim reformers in the United States, testified, “I think if Muslims want credibility and we want to be respected equally, we need to stand for reform within our faith of [Sharia] laws that are still in the 15th and 16th Century.” He explained that the jihadists will not be defeated until Muslims start to recognize that their ideology is on a slippery slope toward radicalism. In response to this testimony, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D, Mn) delivered a verbal tirade that accused Dr. Jasser of encouraging anti-Muslim bigotry and attempting to censor Islamists. Ellison said to Dr. Jasser, “I think you give people license for bigotry. I think people who engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, ‘yeah, go get after them.’ . . Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter’s hijab off, call her a horrible name, and spit on her because of something you said, Dr. Jasser? I worry about that.”
(Source )http://www.investigativeproject.org/1448/jasser-challenges-congressman-on-reforms-value
So, to better understand whether Sharia Law is desirable (or even legal) in the United States, it might be instructive to compare it with the US Constitution. This isn’t too difficult for the layman because the US Constitution is only 17 pages long, including its 27 amendments. Sharia Law is well-documented in the 1,200 page Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “The Reliance of the Traveler” by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, and published in the United States by Amana Publications. While the original document dates to the late 14th Century, it has been updated in the 1990’s and bears the approval of the Fiqh Council of North America as well as the authoritative Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy in Egypt. The introduction to this manual states, “The four Sunni schools of Islamic Law . . are identical in approximately 75 percent of the legal conclusions. . . [T]he authors of the present volume and their positions do represent the orthodox Muslim intellectual and spiritual heritage that has been the strength of the Community for over a thousand years . . to the present day.”
While this volume of Sharia Law is primarily about the religious practice of Islam, the 800 pages of the manual devoted to rules and regulations also include sections on Trade, Inheritance, Marriage (suitable partners, legal rights, custody), Divorce, and Justice which would fall under civil law in the United States. Those sections comprise 35% of the manual, and are among the most controversial because they impose draconian punishments, authorize jihad, and sanction discrimination on the basis of religion and gender.
The summary below highlights the serious disconnects between the provisions of the US Constitution and those of Sharia Law.
LEGISLATIVE POWERS
US Constitution
Article I - All legislative Powers shall be vested in the Congress.
Sharia Law
The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1) It is not a sin to comply with man-made laws that require buying auto insurance or having a photo ID because “the authorities are responsible for the sin, not the individual forced to comply.” (w42.3 and w50.4)
POWER TO DECLARE WAR
US Constitution
Section 8 – Powers of Congress include to levy taxes, to make laws, and to declare war.
Sharia Law
It is obligatory to obey the commands and interdictions of the caliph or his representative in everything that is lawful, even if he is unjust . . because the purpose of his authority is Islamic unity, which could not be realized if obeying him were not obligatory. (o25.5) The caliph or his representative have the duty of undertaking jihad if their territory borders on enemy lands, of dividing the spoils of battle, and of remitting a fifth for “deserving recipients.” (o25.9(8))
Jihad is obligatory for everyone when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims. (o9.3) It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy their dwellings. (o9.1)
PRESIDENT (CALIPH)
US Constitution
Article II, Section I -- Qualifications of a President – He must be a natural born citizen, thirty-five years old, and a resident for fourteen years. The President is elected by ballot by the people (via the Electors) and shall serve for no more than 2 four-year terms.
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Sharia Law
A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave, a male, of the Quraysh tribe, etc. (o25.0)
The Caliph appoints a group to select his successor among themselves. There is no a term of office. However, the caliphate of someone who seizes power is considered valid, even though his act of usurpation is disobedience, in view of the danger from anarchy and strife that would otherwise ensue. (o25.4(3))
(Note: The Islamic Caliphate was disbanded the Turkish Parliament in 1924.)
REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
US Constitution
Section 4 – The President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office if found guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sharia Law
(No provision for removal from office.)
LEGAL AUTHORITY
US Constitution
Article VI – This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made under it shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound by them.
Senators and Representatives, legislative officers, all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and the several states shall be bound by a Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution.
Sharia Law
The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1)
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
US Constitution
Amendment 1 – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
Sharia Law
Non-Muslims are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. Non-Muslims are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures, or make a public display of feast days or funerals. Non-Muslims are forbidden to build new churches. A non-Muslim may not enter a mosque without permission. The protection for non-Muslims is withdrawn if a non-Muslim commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her, leads a Muslim away from Islam, kills a Muslim, or says anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam. (o11.5 through o11.10)
US Constitution
Amendment 2 – The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Sharia Law
It is a condition that someone buying weapons be of a people who are not at war with Muslims. (k1.2(f))
Enormities (sins) include selling weapons to non-Muslims who will use them against us. (w52.1(192))
US Constitution
Amendment 3 – No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.
Sharia Law
(Not covered.) However, the Pact of Omar (636 AD) imposed on Christians in Syria, “We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.”
US Constitution
Amendments 4 – 8 – These amendments prohibit unreasonable searches, require due process according to the law, provide for confrontation of witnesses, impose jury trial on all matters involving over $20, and prohibit excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments. Amendment 14 provides for equal protection of the laws for all citizens.
Sharia Law
No testimony may be made by people who have lowly jobs, such as a street sweeper or a bath house attendant, or non-Muslim. (o24.2-3)
Testimony regarding fornication or sodomy requires four male eye-witnesses to the act. (o24.9)
A woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man. (o24.10)
(There is no provision for a jury trial under Sharia Law.)
Cruel and unusual Islamic punishments include 1) stoning for adultery (o12.2); 2) scourging 40 lashes with hands, shoes, ends of clothes, or a whip for drunkenness (o16.3); 3) severing the right hand for theft of over $36 and the left foot for a repeat offense (o14.1); and 4) death for apostasy from Islam. (o8.2)
Indemnity for accidentally killing a male Muslim is 100 camels or 4,235 grams of gold. (Current value: $144,000.) Indemnity for killing a woman is half that of a man, for killing a Jew or a Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a killing Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that of a Muslim. The indemnity for causing a miscarriage is one slave. (o4.9)
There is no indemnity for a killing a non-Muslim at war with Muslims, an apostate, or someone sentenced to death by stoning. (o14.17)
Jews and Christians are subject to a “poll tax” not less than 1 dinar (Current value: $144) per adult male per year. No maximum is stipulated. (o11.4) This is a penalty for remaining in their ancestral religion instead of embracing the “religion of truth.” (o9.8)
A husband may beat a “rebellious” wife for 1) not allowing immediate sexual intercourse when he asks for it, at home, and if she can physically endure it; 2) answering him coldly; or 3) being averse when she was previously kind. (m5.1 and m10.12) The only limitation is that he may not break her bones, wound her, or cause bleeding.
US Constitution
Amendment 13 Slavery and involuntary servitude are abolished.
Sharia Law
The section on Slavery (k32.0) is not translated into English. The provisions remain in Arabic. The editor of “The Reliance of the Traveler” claims that these provisions are no longer applicable, yet they remain in there in the text of Sharia Law. Elsewhere, the manual states, “Originally the status of slave was simply the outcome of having been taken as a prisoner of war. A captive who could not buy his own freedom by means of ransom remained in the possession of the captor until he had earned his freedom by work or until he was granted liberty by his master.” (w13.1)
US Constitution
Amendment 21 repealed “prohibition,” thereby allowing manufacture, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages.
Sharia Law
It is unlawful to sell grapes to someone who will make wine from them. (k4.9) “Allah cursed whoever drinks wine, gives it to others to drink, sells it, buys it, presses it for another, transports it, receives it, or eats its price.”
Enormities (sins) include drinking wine in any form or other intoxicant, even if only a drop as in medicine; pressing out the juice to make wine or other intoxicant; carrying it for purposes of drinking, or having it carried; serving it to others or having it served; selling it; buying it; having it bought or sold; consuming proceeds from selling it; or keeping wine or other intoxicant. (o16.6 and w52.1(350-361))
So, the next time someone suggests that we should be more understanding of Sharia Law, it would be fair to ask him/her what parts of our US Constitution would he/she be willing to abandon in order to accommodate Sharia Law.
Monday, August 24, 2009
The New Muslim
If islam, was truly a religion of peace. We would all be here extolling the virtues of said wonderful religion. Instead we are here to let everyone know that in reality, islam is a very violent, vicious, hating, and bloodthirsty cult.
Its as simple as that.
Everyday all over the world, muslims send us great examples of just how deadly islam is. From the USA to Africa.
From honor killing of apostates to slavery in the Saudi Repub.
Its time for real muslims to take stock of their religion.
muslims keep telling us , islam is peace. .
then we hear of bombings in Iraq.
islam is peace.
then we hear of raped detainees in Iran.
islam is peace.
and a bus is blown up killing 12.
islam is peace.
and a hotel is bombed killing 156.
Is islam really peace? that's not what devote muslims are showing us. Instead they say, those extremists are not real muslims.
Then are those extremists reading a different koran?
I don't think so. I think they are following it to the letter
Right now, this very day...there are 44 violent locations going on in the world. Some more severe then others. Most of these areas are in Africa.
Sudan, Darfur, Ehtiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia...and you know what they have in common?
everyone entails muslims fighting. that's right!!
All these areas of violence..and that is 44...are being done by devote islamists. Islamists that read the koran faithfully. They are not your average muslim, they are the ones causing trouble.
Muslims love to say:
"We are not violent. Read the Qu'ran for yourself to see. Its the Americans that are killing muslims."
Well, all we have to do is watch the media form all over the world. What is happening? Its muslim killing muslim. In Iraq, In Afghanistan, In almost every area in Africa. As to muslims are taking out the Jews too. Rockets fire into Israel almost daily.
So where is the United Nations on this? Where are they, when the muslims cause trouble?
Conveniently silent.
Well, as the free world sees it. Muslim extremists run the islam religion. And that is a shame. Because what this does, is just cause the regular average muslim, like those that expose the virtue of peace, on Youtube...to make excuses for their bloodthirsty brothers. Doing so they try to point the finger in every other direction but themselves.
That's why we always hear:
"its the Jews fault"
"Its Americas fault"
The finger is pointed elsewhere to try to get attention away from islam..
Blaming others to hide the violence of islam is a very old trick. But its not working anymore. All we have to do, is read the papers, listen to the news and watch the articles on the Internet.
The media is not making any of this up. All they do is report the news. And what they report about islam is pure evil and destruction.
9/11 did more for the demise of the stature of slam then anything ever reported.
I guess because of that, we have to thank those 19 radical extremists.
So anyways...that's islam in a nutshell.
As I said earlier, if islam was a religion of peace....we would not have all those web sites...
news articles...
documentaries...
movies....
books....
grassroots committees.....
or those 44 different wars involving muslims...
Its as simple as that.
Everyday all over the world, muslims send us great examples of just how deadly islam is. From the USA to Africa.
From honor killing of apostates to slavery in the Saudi Repub.
Its time for real muslims to take stock of their religion.
muslims keep telling us , islam is peace. .
then we hear of bombings in Iraq.
islam is peace.
then we hear of raped detainees in Iran.
islam is peace.
and a bus is blown up killing 12.
islam is peace.
and a hotel is bombed killing 156.
Is islam really peace? that's not what devote muslims are showing us. Instead they say, those extremists are not real muslims.
Then are those extremists reading a different koran?
I don't think so. I think they are following it to the letter
Right now, this very day...there are 44 violent locations going on in the world. Some more severe then others. Most of these areas are in Africa.
Sudan, Darfur, Ehtiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia...and you know what they have in common?
everyone entails muslims fighting. that's right!!
All these areas of violence..and that is 44...are being done by devote islamists. Islamists that read the koran faithfully. They are not your average muslim, they are the ones causing trouble.
Muslims love to say:
"We are not violent. Read the Qu'ran for yourself to see. Its the Americans that are killing muslims."
Well, all we have to do is watch the media form all over the world. What is happening? Its muslim killing muslim. In Iraq, In Afghanistan, In almost every area in Africa. As to muslims are taking out the Jews too. Rockets fire into Israel almost daily.
So where is the United Nations on this? Where are they, when the muslims cause trouble?
Conveniently silent.
Well, as the free world sees it. Muslim extremists run the islam religion. And that is a shame. Because what this does, is just cause the regular average muslim, like those that expose the virtue of peace, on Youtube...to make excuses for their bloodthirsty brothers. Doing so they try to point the finger in every other direction but themselves.
That's why we always hear:
"its the Jews fault"
"Its Americas fault"
The finger is pointed elsewhere to try to get attention away from islam..
Blaming others to hide the violence of islam is a very old trick. But its not working anymore. All we have to do, is read the papers, listen to the news and watch the articles on the Internet.
The media is not making any of this up. All they do is report the news. And what they report about islam is pure evil and destruction.
9/11 did more for the demise of the stature of slam then anything ever reported.
I guess because of that, we have to thank those 19 radical extremists.
So anyways...that's islam in a nutshell.
As I said earlier, if islam was a religion of peace....we would not have all those web sites...
news articles...
documentaries...
movies....
books....
grassroots committees.....
or those 44 different wars involving muslims...
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Islam and Democracy
Oil and Water.
Oil and water don’t mix. No matter how you shake, stir, tumble, whatever….oil and water will not mix. Eventually they will separate. They will go their own ways.
Another thing about the oil and water saga, is that one is flammable, and if you have enough, it can be downright explosive.
What am I getting at?
I use the oil/water analogy, because it illustrates our topic of Islam and Democracy. Islam does not combine with Democracy. It will never blend with Democracy, and if you have enough islamics, it will get explosive. See the picture? We can shake, and stir and do everything in our power and Islam will never mate with Democracy.
For starters, lets take a quick look at Iraq. The United States is now charged by the world to "rebuild" Iraq. In its 5,000-year history, Iraqis have never played any role in the governance of their nation, and the past three decades of ruthless and barbaric rule by Saddam Hussein have not prepared them for this task. The United States may get the electricity going in Iraq and repair its water and sewage systems, but whether it can get Iraqis to adopt a constitutionally based democratic government will prove a difficult, if not impossible, task. Iraqis today, have never experienced Democracy. In this case, its not because of their imams telling their flock, “Democracy is Evil!!”, its because they have been under the decades rule of dictatorships.
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
Among Muslims, only the Turks have experienced any form of self-rule and that was due to a remarkable man, Ataturk, who literally forced them to accept westernization. In doing so, he imposed a strict divide between Islam and the governing of Turkey. This has been maintained only because the Turkish military has judiciously stepped in time and again to crush any Islamist party seeking to impose the Islam’s system of rule. But the Islamics are still trying, and getting closer .. Its only a matter of time, that even Turkey will fall to the Islamic rule.
Democracy…as we know it, and the “religion” of Islam are totally incompatible. (Oil and water, remember?) Only the separation of church and state, only the rule of civil law can grant Muslims--the vast majority of whom, I’m sure, are good, decent people--the freedom they want and many Muslims, such as those in Iran, do want it. If you doubt it, look at the media. They tell the tales of girls wishing to look like western women. The hajib falling slightly back to show long brown hair and eye make-up is becoming the norm.
The laws of Islam, considered sacred and inviolable, clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and those expressed in both the British (1688) and American Bill of Rights (1791). To cite just a few reasons why Islam and democracy are incompatible; under Islam, women and non-Muslims are declared to be inferior, slavery is acceptable, punishments for various crimes include amputations, floggings, and stoning to death, a non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim, and conversion from Islam carries with it the death penalty. I’m not kidding!! Elements of this religious severity can be seen in Saudi Arabia. Life means little to these rulers, and the lives of non-muslims mean even less.
“The greatest threat to America, the West, and to those Islamic nations struggling to achieve democracy and freedom is Islam.” - Alan Caruba
There is no separation of church and state under Islam, and there never can be for any Muslim who accepts the Koran and the Hadith as the sacred rule of law. To suggest otherwise imperils their belief in the Koran as the word of Allah as passed to them by Muhammad, his self-appointed "final" prophet. In Muslim nations where so-called secular, i.e. socialist governments such as the former Baath Party of Iraq and the current one in Syria exist, the reality is that these nations are run by despots and their governments are mere rubber stamps. In others, such as Saudi Arabia, a self-declared royal family rules. In nations such as Iran, where a secular government is allowed to function, a supreme council of ayatollahs can and does routinely overrule any legislative act, thus rendering democratic rule moot. Islam never allows the possibility of alternatives, so the concept of debating political issues is foreign to Islamic thought. (Once again…back to my oil and water analogy)
Are you getting the point?
Freedom is about individual rights granted a citizen that governments may not trespass, nor deprive, and individualism is not a recognizable feature of Islam; instead, the collective will of the Muslim people is constantly emphasized. There is certainly no notion of individual rights, which only developed in the West, especially during the eighteenth century. The notion of an individual--a moral person who is capable of making rational decisions and accepting moral responsibility for his free acts--is lacking in Islam. Ethics is reduced to obeying orders, If that statement reminds you of the Star Trek Borgs….you’re catching on.
The most important lesson we should learn is that democracy is a combination of two distinct political traditions: popular sovereignty, in which the people choose the government in free and fair elections; and liberty – that is, freedom – which comes in religious, economic, and political forms. My favorite is Freedom of Speech. The practice of popular sovereignty without the safeguards of liberty, history shows, can have disastrous results.
Michael Mandelbaum has stated in his outline that “The United States should therefore oppose groups that reject liberty, such as Hamas, and should give higher priority in the Middle East to establishing liberty in its different forms than simply to staging elections.”
Very wise comment and one that should be headed by the Obama administration.
Looking at it from another angle… lets take a pretend Islamic country on the verge of democracy. Democracy has driven out Islam from national life. Islamic sovereignty has been replaced by the people’s sovereignty. If the people hold sovereignty, then almost all of Islamic law is useless. Then people say, “Don’t bring Islamic law into national life,” and, “Why must the state handle religion, it’s a private matter?’.
Secondly, democracy states that truth lies with the majority. Whatever the majority says is correct. In Islam truth comes from Allah. There is no question in Islam, everything comes from Allah.
There are 56 (give or take a few, depending on what day it is) Islamic countries. How many of them are total Democracies? How many of those Islamic countries, let the everyday muslim live his or her life? How many have Freedom of Religion? Open media? Respect womens rights?
If you answered none…….you would be correct. There are a few that pass as democratic Islamic regimes, but don’t let them fool you. Try to set up a Catholic church there and see how far you get. Try to remove your wifes hajib and watch the religious police come up to chat with you.
Granted in some countries, they need dictatorships. Like most Islamic countries, they are revered. Venezuala is going down that same road. If the citizens vote in a dictator, they deserve it. If the citizens vote in a terrorist government, like Hamas, they deserve it.
As for me.....Give me the Liberty and the Freedoms that the United States of America have placed before us.
- BlackbootJack -
Oil and water don’t mix. No matter how you shake, stir, tumble, whatever….oil and water will not mix. Eventually they will separate. They will go their own ways.
Another thing about the oil and water saga, is that one is flammable, and if you have enough, it can be downright explosive.
What am I getting at?
I use the oil/water analogy, because it illustrates our topic of Islam and Democracy. Islam does not combine with Democracy. It will never blend with Democracy, and if you have enough islamics, it will get explosive. See the picture? We can shake, and stir and do everything in our power and Islam will never mate with Democracy.
For starters, lets take a quick look at Iraq. The United States is now charged by the world to "rebuild" Iraq. In its 5,000-year history, Iraqis have never played any role in the governance of their nation, and the past three decades of ruthless and barbaric rule by Saddam Hussein have not prepared them for this task. The United States may get the electricity going in Iraq and repair its water and sewage systems, but whether it can get Iraqis to adopt a constitutionally based democratic government will prove a difficult, if not impossible, task. Iraqis today, have never experienced Democracy. In this case, its not because of their imams telling their flock, “Democracy is Evil!!”, its because they have been under the decades rule of dictatorships.
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
Among Muslims, only the Turks have experienced any form of self-rule and that was due to a remarkable man, Ataturk, who literally forced them to accept westernization. In doing so, he imposed a strict divide between Islam and the governing of Turkey. This has been maintained only because the Turkish military has judiciously stepped in time and again to crush any Islamist party seeking to impose the Islam’s system of rule. But the Islamics are still trying, and getting closer .. Its only a matter of time, that even Turkey will fall to the Islamic rule.
Democracy…as we know it, and the “religion” of Islam are totally incompatible. (Oil and water, remember?) Only the separation of church and state, only the rule of civil law can grant Muslims--the vast majority of whom, I’m sure, are good, decent people--the freedom they want and many Muslims, such as those in Iran, do want it. If you doubt it, look at the media. They tell the tales of girls wishing to look like western women. The hajib falling slightly back to show long brown hair and eye make-up is becoming the norm.
The laws of Islam, considered sacred and inviolable, clash with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and those expressed in both the British (1688) and American Bill of Rights (1791). To cite just a few reasons why Islam and democracy are incompatible; under Islam, women and non-Muslims are declared to be inferior, slavery is acceptable, punishments for various crimes include amputations, floggings, and stoning to death, a non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim, and conversion from Islam carries with it the death penalty. I’m not kidding!! Elements of this religious severity can be seen in Saudi Arabia. Life means little to these rulers, and the lives of non-muslims mean even less.
“The greatest threat to America, the West, and to those Islamic nations struggling to achieve democracy and freedom is Islam.” - Alan Caruba
There is no separation of church and state under Islam, and there never can be for any Muslim who accepts the Koran and the Hadith as the sacred rule of law. To suggest otherwise imperils their belief in the Koran as the word of Allah as passed to them by Muhammad, his self-appointed "final" prophet. In Muslim nations where so-called secular, i.e. socialist governments such as the former Baath Party of Iraq and the current one in Syria exist, the reality is that these nations are run by despots and their governments are mere rubber stamps. In others, such as Saudi Arabia, a self-declared royal family rules. In nations such as Iran, where a secular government is allowed to function, a supreme council of ayatollahs can and does routinely overrule any legislative act, thus rendering democratic rule moot. Islam never allows the possibility of alternatives, so the concept of debating political issues is foreign to Islamic thought. (Once again…back to my oil and water analogy)
Are you getting the point?
Freedom is about individual rights granted a citizen that governments may not trespass, nor deprive, and individualism is not a recognizable feature of Islam; instead, the collective will of the Muslim people is constantly emphasized. There is certainly no notion of individual rights, which only developed in the West, especially during the eighteenth century. The notion of an individual--a moral person who is capable of making rational decisions and accepting moral responsibility for his free acts--is lacking in Islam. Ethics is reduced to obeying orders, If that statement reminds you of the Star Trek Borgs….you’re catching on.
The most important lesson we should learn is that democracy is a combination of two distinct political traditions: popular sovereignty, in which the people choose the government in free and fair elections; and liberty – that is, freedom – which comes in religious, economic, and political forms. My favorite is Freedom of Speech. The practice of popular sovereignty without the safeguards of liberty, history shows, can have disastrous results.
Michael Mandelbaum has stated in his outline that “The United States should therefore oppose groups that reject liberty, such as Hamas, and should give higher priority in the Middle East to establishing liberty in its different forms than simply to staging elections.”
Very wise comment and one that should be headed by the Obama administration.
Looking at it from another angle… lets take a pretend Islamic country on the verge of democracy. Democracy has driven out Islam from national life. Islamic sovereignty has been replaced by the people’s sovereignty. If the people hold sovereignty, then almost all of Islamic law is useless. Then people say, “Don’t bring Islamic law into national life,” and, “Why must the state handle religion, it’s a private matter?’.
Secondly, democracy states that truth lies with the majority. Whatever the majority says is correct. In Islam truth comes from Allah. There is no question in Islam, everything comes from Allah.
There are 56 (give or take a few, depending on what day it is) Islamic countries. How many of them are total Democracies? How many of those Islamic countries, let the everyday muslim live his or her life? How many have Freedom of Religion? Open media? Respect womens rights?
If you answered none…….you would be correct. There are a few that pass as democratic Islamic regimes, but don’t let them fool you. Try to set up a Catholic church there and see how far you get. Try to remove your wifes hajib and watch the religious police come up to chat with you.
Granted in some countries, they need dictatorships. Like most Islamic countries, they are revered. Venezuala is going down that same road. If the citizens vote in a dictator, they deserve it. If the citizens vote in a terrorist government, like Hamas, they deserve it.
As for me.....Give me the Liberty and the Freedoms that the United States of America have placed before us.
- BlackbootJack -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
