It appears that the patience of the non-Muslims in the UK is wearing thin when it comes to Islamic encroachment. For 10 years a public school which catered to Islam was serving halal meat to all of its students including the non-Muslims. Now enough parents have complained and gotten halal meat taken off the menu entirely.
Halal meat taken off school menu after race row
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Old Palace School is no longer serving Halal meat on its school menu after parents complained.
The Whitgift Foundation's John Whitgift Schools committee took the decision after some parents were furious pupils were not being given a choice.
The Halal method, in which animals are slaughtered by a single slit to the throat, is the only was of killing livestock allowed under Islam.
But the method is deemed cruel by some animal-lovers, who object to the slow death it involves.
In a letter to parents, after taking advice from religious leaders, chair of the committee Rosemary Jones said: "We have decided that Halal meat should no longer be served to our pupils in line with what we understand is the general policy adopted by multi-faith schools.
"We shall continue to offer a hot vegetarian option and an extensive range of cold salads as an alternative meal for those pupils choosing not to eat non-Halal meat."
The menu was changed in November after the Advertiser revealed some parents had no idea the policy had been in force at Old Palace for up to 10 years.
Parents furious about the Halal policy were from the recently amalgamated Croham Hurst School and were labelled "racist bigots" by Old Palace spokeswoman Lucy Mazzeo.
Mrs Jones added in the letter: "We are very sorry for any anxiety or offence that may have been caused by this issue or by the recent articles and letters published in the local media.
"As a Christian Foundation, we celebrate the diversity of all the cultural and religious groups attending our schools."
Old Palace refused to answer further questions on the decision.
mercredi 4 février 2009
Les attaques contre Geert Wilders : une bonne occasion pour dénoncer les dangers du fascislamisme
This is a very strong article written by Dr. Sami Alrabaa. It tells us how the upcoming Geert Wilder's trial can be used to our advantage against Islam. Dr. Alrabaa will be a regular contributor to Islam in Action, but more importantly he has been asked by Wilders to join his defense team as an expert witness on Islam. I look forward to posting updates on the trial as I get them.
Wilders Prosecution is a Welcome Opportunity to Expose Islam
Sami Alrabaa
Prosecuting Geert Wilders, member of the Dutch Parliament, is a welcome opportunity to expose fascist Islam and radical Muslims. Wilders and his lawyers do not need to go far away to fetch crystal clear evidence that Islam, i.e. the Koran and Hadith incite to violence and hatred, and radical Muslims are behind numerous crimes against humanity.
A summary of quotations from the Koran which clearly incite to hatred and violence can be found in the following link: FamilySecurityMatters
There is an abundance of fatwas (religious edicts) by Muslim authorities inciting to genocide and suicide attacks against Christians and Jews. All these fatwas are based on the Koran and Hadith.
Ali Gom’a, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he says, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs, not only the Jews.
Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.”
Yousef Al Qaradhawi, the spiritual leader of the fundamentalist organization, the Muslim Brothers, urged on Al Jazeera TV (Jan. 9, 2009) Muslims to kill the Jews, not only in Israel but also worldwide. He added, “No peace can be made between us (Muslims) and the non-believers. This what our holy book says. This what Allah says.”
Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Abdullah Bin Mohammed al Sheikh said on Iqra’ TV channel, “Killing producers who show women unveiled is legal.”
The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, told Al Watan daily, (March 25, 2008) “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes). Further, there is not such a thing as Shiites, Sufis, etc. There are only Sunnis. All these sects must renounce their pagan beliefs and return to Sunna, the right path of Islam.”
Most recently, demonstrators in Berlin and Munich, and elsewhere in Germany, raised banners reading, “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas”. The police did not arrest anyone of them and nobody filed a court case against them for inciting to murder which in the German law is punishable.
German apologists like Claudia Roth and Cem Ozdemir (a Muslim of a Turkish decent), chairpersons of the German Green Party, said in a press conference in Berlin (Jan. 20, 2009), “Wilders’ film “Fitna” has contributed to worsening our relations with the Muslims around the globe. Geert Wilders is hurting the feelings of Muslims.”
I said in the conference, “This is not true. I know many Muslims who approve of Wilders’ critique of Islam. They do not feel offended. Only fascist Muslims feel so.” Roth and Ozdemir ignored my remark.
The truth of the matter is “Fitna” is simply reflecting how radical Muslims think and act, inspired and encouraged by the Koran.
Wilders’ comparison of the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and describing it as a fascist book is not inappropriate. Hitler referred to the Jews as “rats and vermin” and the Koran and fascist Muslims call the Jews “The descendants of apes and pigs”.
It is not Wilders who should be prosecuted, but people like Gom’s, Al Qaradhawi and their peers. They must be brought to justice before the International Tribunal. Inciting to genocide is an egregious crime.
Many Westerners are intimidated by fascist Muslims and that is what the latter want to achieve at the end of the day. Ahmed Marcouch, a prominent member of the Dutch Labor Party, of Moroccan descent, asked in 2008 an Amsterdam court to bring Muslim fascists to the Netherlands and prosecute them. His petition was turned down.
Marcouch told ARD, German TV (Dec. 19, 2008), “Not only many Westerners approve of “Fitna”, but also many decent Muslims like me, but they dare not say that openly. Fascist Islam is a virus that is not only infecting Western societies, but also Muslim societies. This virus must be exposed and dealt with by all means.”
Wilders is simply warning the West and moderate Muslims that fascist Islam is a devastating threat to humanity. This virus was born in the Arabian Peninsula and is spreading across the world.
Wilders’ prosecution is a defining point in the clash between fascist Muslims and the rest of the world. Regardless whether he is convicted or not, he must be thanked for his courage. He is simply disseminating the truth about a violent and hate-inciting “religion”. His message is very clear: “Westerners, wake up before it is too late.”
Zaghlul Al Najjar rejoices in the rise and spread of Islam across the globe. He writes in the Egyptian daily Al Ahram (Nov. 14, 2008), “Islam now is everywhere. Gorgeous mosques are build everywhere in the heart of Europe, in Rome and Cologne. The number of Muslims all over the world is also rising. More than 20 million Muslims live now in Europe. Alone in Germany there are 3.5. Demographers estimate that the majority of citizens in Germany will be Muslims in the year 2050. Two decades ago very few women wore the Hijab (headscarf). Now you can see them everywhere. Sooner or later, Islam will be in control of the whole world. This time, we don’t need to fight the infidel West with our troops as we did at the gates of Vienna. This time we’ll infiltrate the West and convert it to Islam, willy-nilly.”
Tarek Ramadan visited the Islamic Center in Bilelefeld, Germany (May 21, 2008) and gave a speech. Before he began his speech, he asked if there were any journalists in audience. As the answer was negative, he said, “OK, now I feel free to say what I really want.” Ramadan is well-known for telling his infidel audience something and his Muslim audience another thing.
Ramadan said, “My brothers and sisters, we must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals. Our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Koran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah. Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on. The only law we must respect and apply is the Shari’s.”
Ramadan added, “The Germans claim that they want to integrate you in their society. We tell them we are going to integrate them in our Umma (Muslim world) after converting them to Islam.”
If Wilders wins his case, it will not be only his own triumph, but also one for all peace-loving people all over the world.
If Wilders loses then fascist Muslims have managed to silence Islam’s critics and consequently a “Dutch court has imported Saudi blasphemy norms to Europe”, as the Wall Street Journal put it.
Wilders Prosecution is a Welcome Opportunity to Expose Islam
Sami Alrabaa
Prosecuting Geert Wilders, member of the Dutch Parliament, is a welcome opportunity to expose fascist Islam and radical Muslims. Wilders and his lawyers do not need to go far away to fetch crystal clear evidence that Islam, i.e. the Koran and Hadith incite to violence and hatred, and radical Muslims are behind numerous crimes against humanity.
A summary of quotations from the Koran which clearly incite to hatred and violence can be found in the following link: FamilySecurityMatters
There is an abundance of fatwas (religious edicts) by Muslim authorities inciting to genocide and suicide attacks against Christians and Jews. All these fatwas are based on the Koran and Hadith.
Ali Gom’a, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he says, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs, not only the Jews.
Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.”
Yousef Al Qaradhawi, the spiritual leader of the fundamentalist organization, the Muslim Brothers, urged on Al Jazeera TV (Jan. 9, 2009) Muslims to kill the Jews, not only in Israel but also worldwide. He added, “No peace can be made between us (Muslims) and the non-believers. This what our holy book says. This what Allah says.”
Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Abdullah Bin Mohammed al Sheikh said on Iqra’ TV channel, “Killing producers who show women unveiled is legal.”
The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, told Al Watan daily, (March 25, 2008) “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes). Further, there is not such a thing as Shiites, Sufis, etc. There are only Sunnis. All these sects must renounce their pagan beliefs and return to Sunna, the right path of Islam.”
Most recently, demonstrators in Berlin and Munich, and elsewhere in Germany, raised banners reading, “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas”. The police did not arrest anyone of them and nobody filed a court case against them for inciting to murder which in the German law is punishable.
German apologists like Claudia Roth and Cem Ozdemir (a Muslim of a Turkish decent), chairpersons of the German Green Party, said in a press conference in Berlin (Jan. 20, 2009), “Wilders’ film “Fitna” has contributed to worsening our relations with the Muslims around the globe. Geert Wilders is hurting the feelings of Muslims.”
I said in the conference, “This is not true. I know many Muslims who approve of Wilders’ critique of Islam. They do not feel offended. Only fascist Muslims feel so.” Roth and Ozdemir ignored my remark.
The truth of the matter is “Fitna” is simply reflecting how radical Muslims think and act, inspired and encouraged by the Koran.
Wilders’ comparison of the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and describing it as a fascist book is not inappropriate. Hitler referred to the Jews as “rats and vermin” and the Koran and fascist Muslims call the Jews “The descendants of apes and pigs”.
It is not Wilders who should be prosecuted, but people like Gom’s, Al Qaradhawi and their peers. They must be brought to justice before the International Tribunal. Inciting to genocide is an egregious crime.
Many Westerners are intimidated by fascist Muslims and that is what the latter want to achieve at the end of the day. Ahmed Marcouch, a prominent member of the Dutch Labor Party, of Moroccan descent, asked in 2008 an Amsterdam court to bring Muslim fascists to the Netherlands and prosecute them. His petition was turned down.
Marcouch told ARD, German TV (Dec. 19, 2008), “Not only many Westerners approve of “Fitna”, but also many decent Muslims like me, but they dare not say that openly. Fascist Islam is a virus that is not only infecting Western societies, but also Muslim societies. This virus must be exposed and dealt with by all means.”
Wilders is simply warning the West and moderate Muslims that fascist Islam is a devastating threat to humanity. This virus was born in the Arabian Peninsula and is spreading across the world.
Wilders’ prosecution is a defining point in the clash between fascist Muslims and the rest of the world. Regardless whether he is convicted or not, he must be thanked for his courage. He is simply disseminating the truth about a violent and hate-inciting “religion”. His message is very clear: “Westerners, wake up before it is too late.”
Zaghlul Al Najjar rejoices in the rise and spread of Islam across the globe. He writes in the Egyptian daily Al Ahram (Nov. 14, 2008), “Islam now is everywhere. Gorgeous mosques are build everywhere in the heart of Europe, in Rome and Cologne. The number of Muslims all over the world is also rising. More than 20 million Muslims live now in Europe. Alone in Germany there are 3.5. Demographers estimate that the majority of citizens in Germany will be Muslims in the year 2050. Two decades ago very few women wore the Hijab (headscarf). Now you can see them everywhere. Sooner or later, Islam will be in control of the whole world. This time, we don’t need to fight the infidel West with our troops as we did at the gates of Vienna. This time we’ll infiltrate the West and convert it to Islam, willy-nilly.”
Tarek Ramadan visited the Islamic Center in Bilelefeld, Germany (May 21, 2008) and gave a speech. Before he began his speech, he asked if there were any journalists in audience. As the answer was negative, he said, “OK, now I feel free to say what I really want.” Ramadan is well-known for telling his infidel audience something and his Muslim audience another thing.
Ramadan said, “My brothers and sisters, we must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals. Our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Koran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah. Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on. The only law we must respect and apply is the Shari’s.”
Ramadan added, “The Germans claim that they want to integrate you in their society. We tell them we are going to integrate them in our Umma (Muslim world) after converting them to Islam.”
If Wilders wins his case, it will not be only his own triumph, but also one for all peace-loving people all over the world.
If Wilders loses then fascist Muslims have managed to silence Islam’s critics and consequently a “Dutch court has imported Saudi blasphemy norms to Europe”, as the Wall Street Journal put it.
mardi 3 février 2009
La population musulmane s’accroît 10 fois plus rapidement que le reste de la société britannique
Source : site de Bivouac
La population musulmane en Grande-Bretagne a augmenté de plus de 500 000 en seulement quatre ans et atteint 2,4 millions, selon les données des recherches officielles réunies pour le Times. La population musulmane s’accroît 10 fois plus rapide que le reste de la société, c’est ce que révèlent les recherches de l’Office Nationales des Statistiques. Pendant la même période, le nombre de chrétiens dans le pays a chuté de plus de 2 millions.
Les experts déclarent que l’augmentation est attribuable à l’immigration, à un taux de natalité plus élevé, ainsi qu’aux conversions à l’islam au cours de la période entre 2004 et 2008 pendant laquelle les données ont été recueillies. Ils suggérent aussi qu’il existe une plus grande volonté de s’indentifier en tant que musulmans en réaction à la guerre contre le terrorisme qui a renforcé leur sentiment d’identité.
Les dirigeants de la communauté musulmane se sont félicités de l’accroissement de la population de leurs communautés tandis que les experts soulignent les implications pour la société britannique, pour l’intégration et pour les ressources gouvernementales.
David Coleman, professeur de démographie à l’Université d’Oxford, a déclaré: “Les implications sont très importantes. Certains dans la population musulmane, mais pas tous, sont les moins intégrés du point de vue social et économique dans le Royaume-Uni … et les plus politiquement mécontents.
On ne peut pas prédire que simplement parce que le nombre augmente, les problèmes vont empirer, mais c’est l’une des nombreuses hypothèses raisonnables qui peut se présenter. ”
Le Professeur Coleman explique que les musulmans tireront naturellement des avantages collectifs de l’augmentation de leur population.
Avec la croissance de n’importe quelle population, son poids politique est considéré plus grand. Notamment parce que nous vivons dans une démocratie où presque tout le monde à une voix dans tous les groupes religieux et ethniques. Cela implique nécessairement que leurs opinions doivent être prises en compte et qu’il faille y prêter attention.
Il y a plus de 42,6 millions de chrétiens en Grande-Bretagne, selon l’Office Nationales des Statistiques, dont les chiffres ont été obtenus par l’enquête trimestrielle sur l’emploi dans près de 53 000 foyers. Mais, alors que dans la population chrétienne, la plus grande tranche d’âge est celle des plus de 70 ans, pour les musulmans, c’est celle des moins de 4 ans.
[…]
Muhammad Abdul Bari, secrétaire général du Conseil musulman de Grande-Bretagne, a prédit que le nombre de mosquées en Grande-Bretagne actuellement de 1600 allaient se multiplier avec l’augmentation de population islamique. Il a dit que le plus grand espace que les musulmans occuperont à l’avenir ne doit pas être perçu comme une menace pour le reste de la société.
“Nous avons chacun nos propres croyances. Cela devrait vraiment être une source de joie plutôt que de peur, tant que nous tous comprenons bien que nous devons respecter les lois de ce pays, indépendamment de la foi à laquelle nous appartenons*” a-t-il dit.
Le ministre de la cohésion, Sadiq Khan, a déclaré au Times: “Nous, le gouvernement central et les autorités locales, avons besoin pour continuer notre travail que nos communautés soient aussi intégrées et soudées que possible.”
Nombre de musulmans en Grande-Bretagne selon l’étude pour l’emploi :
2004: 1 087 000
2005: 2 017 000
2006: 2 142 000
2007: 2 327 000
2008: 2 422 000
Source : Times on Line Traduction Bivouac-id.
Signalé par tnr
*) comprendre : “jusqu’au moment où nous serons en majorité, alors nous ferons changer ces lois.”
La population musulmane en Grande-Bretagne a augmenté de plus de 500 000 en seulement quatre ans et atteint 2,4 millions, selon les données des recherches officielles réunies pour le Times. La population musulmane s’accroît 10 fois plus rapide que le reste de la société, c’est ce que révèlent les recherches de l’Office Nationales des Statistiques. Pendant la même période, le nombre de chrétiens dans le pays a chuté de plus de 2 millions.
Les experts déclarent que l’augmentation est attribuable à l’immigration, à un taux de natalité plus élevé, ainsi qu’aux conversions à l’islam au cours de la période entre 2004 et 2008 pendant laquelle les données ont été recueillies. Ils suggérent aussi qu’il existe une plus grande volonté de s’indentifier en tant que musulmans en réaction à la guerre contre le terrorisme qui a renforcé leur sentiment d’identité.
Les dirigeants de la communauté musulmane se sont félicités de l’accroissement de la population de leurs communautés tandis que les experts soulignent les implications pour la société britannique, pour l’intégration et pour les ressources gouvernementales.
David Coleman, professeur de démographie à l’Université d’Oxford, a déclaré: “Les implications sont très importantes. Certains dans la population musulmane, mais pas tous, sont les moins intégrés du point de vue social et économique dans le Royaume-Uni … et les plus politiquement mécontents.
On ne peut pas prédire que simplement parce que le nombre augmente, les problèmes vont empirer, mais c’est l’une des nombreuses hypothèses raisonnables qui peut se présenter. ”
Le Professeur Coleman explique que les musulmans tireront naturellement des avantages collectifs de l’augmentation de leur population.
Avec la croissance de n’importe quelle population, son poids politique est considéré plus grand. Notamment parce que nous vivons dans une démocratie où presque tout le monde à une voix dans tous les groupes religieux et ethniques. Cela implique nécessairement que leurs opinions doivent être prises en compte et qu’il faille y prêter attention.
Il y a plus de 42,6 millions de chrétiens en Grande-Bretagne, selon l’Office Nationales des Statistiques, dont les chiffres ont été obtenus par l’enquête trimestrielle sur l’emploi dans près de 53 000 foyers. Mais, alors que dans la population chrétienne, la plus grande tranche d’âge est celle des plus de 70 ans, pour les musulmans, c’est celle des moins de 4 ans.
[…]
Muhammad Abdul Bari, secrétaire général du Conseil musulman de Grande-Bretagne, a prédit que le nombre de mosquées en Grande-Bretagne actuellement de 1600 allaient se multiplier avec l’augmentation de population islamique. Il a dit que le plus grand espace que les musulmans occuperont à l’avenir ne doit pas être perçu comme une menace pour le reste de la société.
“Nous avons chacun nos propres croyances. Cela devrait vraiment être une source de joie plutôt que de peur, tant que nous tous comprenons bien que nous devons respecter les lois de ce pays, indépendamment de la foi à laquelle nous appartenons*” a-t-il dit.
Le ministre de la cohésion, Sadiq Khan, a déclaré au Times: “Nous, le gouvernement central et les autorités locales, avons besoin pour continuer notre travail que nos communautés soient aussi intégrées et soudées que possible.”
Nombre de musulmans en Grande-Bretagne selon l’étude pour l’emploi :
2004: 1 087 000
2005: 2 017 000
2006: 2 142 000
2007: 2 327 000
2008: 2 422 000
Source : Times on Line Traduction Bivouac-id.
Signalé par tnr
*) comprendre : “jusqu’au moment où nous serons en majorité, alors nous ferons changer ces lois.”
Djihadistes aux USA
FBI Cuts Off CAIR Over Hamas Questions
by Mary Jacoby
IPT News
January 29, 2009
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR was made quietly last summer as federal prosecutors prepared for a second trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an Islamic charity accused of providing money and political support to the terrorist group Hamas, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
CAIR and its chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current national executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed on government wiretaps as having been active participants in early Hamas-related organizational meetings in the United States. During testimony, FBI agent Lara Burns described CAIR as a front organization.
Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and it's been illegal since 1995 to provide support to it within the United States.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR is a significant policy change for the FBI. For years, the FBI worked with the national organization and its state chapters to address Muslim community concerns about the potential for hate crimes and other civil liberty violations in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
But critics said the FBI improperly conferred legitimacy on CAIR by meeting with its officials, even as its own investigative files contained evidence of CAIR leaders' ties to Hamas.
Last autumn, FBI field offices began notifying state CAIR chapters that bureau officials could no longer meet with them until CAIR's national leadership in Washington had addressed issues raised by the HLF trial, according to people with knowledge of the notifications.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment Wednesday when the IPT called for comment. Before hanging up, Hooper said "We're more than happy to cooperate with legitimate media. But we don't cooperate with those who promote anti-Muslim bigotry."
In one letter obtained by IPT News, James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Oklahoma City field office, canceled a meeting of the local Muslim Community Outreach Program, a state-federal program designed to enlist Muslims in terrorism prevention and investigate reports of civil liberties violations.
"Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond my control, the meeting will be postponed until further notice as a result of the planned participation by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations," Finch's Oct. 8, 2008 letter to Muslim groups in the Oklahoma outreach program said.
Finch made clear the Oklahoma office valued its relationship with local Muslims. He said the stumbling block to further outreach was CAIR's national leadership.
"[I]f CAIR wishes to pursue an outreach relationship with the FBI, certain issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the FBI. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed at the local level and must be addressed by the CAIR National Office in Washington, D.C.," the letter said.
A spokesman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office referred questions about the letter to the FBI's national press office. In Washington, FBI spokesman John Miller said, "We've certainly been in contact with CAIR chapters" about the un-indicted co-conspirator designation. "The letter speaks for itself."
Letters with similar wording were sent in other states, people with knowledge of the matter said. It is not known how many letters were issued, but the FBI has had strong working relationships with CAIR chapters in states including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and Florida.
Hamas was formed in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic political movement that aims to spread the rule of Shariah, or Islamic law, throughout the world.
A North American branch of the Brotherhood supervised HLF, CAIR and other organizations to build political, financial and public relations support for Hamas, evidence at the HLF trial showed.
The U.S.-based Brotherhood formed a Palestine Committee, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, in 1988 during the first intifada uprising in Palestinian territories against Israel. Hamas's stated policy is for the destruction of Israel.
CAIR co-founders Ahmad and Awad were early active members of the Palestine Committee, evidence showed. Wiretaps recorded the two CAIR leaders participating in strategy meetings of the committee in the 1990s, and both were also on a phone list of its members, the evidence showed.
The first HLF trial in Texas ended in a mistrial in October 2007. In November 2008, the second trial resulted in convictions of five former HLF officials on all counts of providing material support to Hamas.
It is unclear what changed between the first and second HLF trials to make the FBI rescind its policy of outreach to CAIR. The un-indicted co-conspirator designations were made on May 27, 2007 in connection with the first HLF trial. Moreover, much of the evidence linking the CAIR officials to Hamas was aired in an earlier public trial in 2006.
CAIR, however, vigorously challenged the un-indicted co-conspirator designation as a violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights, accusing the government of "demonization of all things Muslim" in a brief filed in the summer of 2007 with the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The co-conspirator designation is "particularly insidious and ironic as CAIR is an organization dedicated to fostering acceptance of Muslims in American society and protecting the civil liberties of all Muslim Americans," CAIR's brief read.
The government filed a brief on Sept. 4, 2007 opposing CAIR's filing, arguing the group lacked standing to challenge the co-conspirator designation and that the matter was moot, as the evidence was already entered into the public record. The judge never ruled on CAIR's request.
The HLF trial showed that CAIR was formed to covertly influence US opinions of the Palestinian conflict and Islam, but without revealing its connections to Hamas.
For example, prosecutors introduced transcripts of wiretaps from a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia of the Palestine Committee, called to order by Ahmad (see page 10 of the hyperlink) and attended by Awad. In that meeting, Ahmad and others discussed the need to create a new political organization seemingly unconnected to Hamas or the Brotherhood.
In one excerpt, (see page 4 of the link) an unidentified male said: "We must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral, because we are placed in a corner, we are place in a corner. It is known who we are, we are marked and I believe there should be a new neutral organization which works on both sides."
CAIR was founded a year later, in 1994, by Ahmad and Awad. In March 1994, Awad was taped at Miami's Barry University publicly declaring his support for Hamas: "I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO," Awad said.
A July 30, 1994 agenda for the Palestine Committee, seized by federal agents and introduced at trial, showed that "suggestions to develop the work" of HLF, CAIR and other organizations was on the agenda.
Under the heading "The need for trained resources in the media and political fields," the agenda said: "No doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide."
By 1995, CAIR was conducting public relations work to counter the US detention of Mousa Abu Marzook, the Hamas official and Palestine Committee member who was also head of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US.
A transcript of an August 1995 phone call intercepted by government investigators showed HLF officials Shukri Abu Baker and Ghassan Elashi talking about CAIR's efforts (see page 12 of the link).
Days before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI raided the offices of Infocom, a Texas internet company connected to HLF. CAIR's Nihad Awad appeared at a press conference outside Infocom headquarters to denounce what he called an "anti-Muslim witch hunt."
CAIR remained a vocal player in the public debate after 9/11. It developed relationships with members of Congress. FBI officials frequently attended CAIR fundraising banquets, and CAIR cited such contacts in its own literature and Web site as evidence of its good standing with the government.
Mary Jacoby is an award winning reporter who has worked for the Wall Street Journal, Salon.com, the St. Petersburg Times, Chicago Tribune and Roll Call. She may be reached at writetomaryjacoby@gmail.com
For more on CAIR's roots and its history of attacking law enforcement investigations and supporting Islamic terrorists, see the IPT's dossier on the group. Check back at the IPT website tomorrow for a report on CAIR's consistent refusal to condemn terrorist organizations and its rationalization of suicide bombings.
by Mary Jacoby
IPT News
January 29, 2009
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR was made quietly last summer as federal prosecutors prepared for a second trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an Islamic charity accused of providing money and political support to the terrorist group Hamas, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
CAIR and its chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current national executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed on government wiretaps as having been active participants in early Hamas-related organizational meetings in the United States. During testimony, FBI agent Lara Burns described CAIR as a front organization.
Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and it's been illegal since 1995 to provide support to it within the United States.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR is a significant policy change for the FBI. For years, the FBI worked with the national organization and its state chapters to address Muslim community concerns about the potential for hate crimes and other civil liberty violations in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
But critics said the FBI improperly conferred legitimacy on CAIR by meeting with its officials, even as its own investigative files contained evidence of CAIR leaders' ties to Hamas.
Last autumn, FBI field offices began notifying state CAIR chapters that bureau officials could no longer meet with them until CAIR's national leadership in Washington had addressed issues raised by the HLF trial, according to people with knowledge of the notifications.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment Wednesday when the IPT called for comment. Before hanging up, Hooper said "We're more than happy to cooperate with legitimate media. But we don't cooperate with those who promote anti-Muslim bigotry."
In one letter obtained by IPT News, James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Oklahoma City field office, canceled a meeting of the local Muslim Community Outreach Program, a state-federal program designed to enlist Muslims in terrorism prevention and investigate reports of civil liberties violations.
"Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond my control, the meeting will be postponed until further notice as a result of the planned participation by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations," Finch's Oct. 8, 2008 letter to Muslim groups in the Oklahoma outreach program said.
Finch made clear the Oklahoma office valued its relationship with local Muslims. He said the stumbling block to further outreach was CAIR's national leadership.
"[I]f CAIR wishes to pursue an outreach relationship with the FBI, certain issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the FBI. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed at the local level and must be addressed by the CAIR National Office in Washington, D.C.," the letter said.
A spokesman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office referred questions about the letter to the FBI's national press office. In Washington, FBI spokesman John Miller said, "We've certainly been in contact with CAIR chapters" about the un-indicted co-conspirator designation. "The letter speaks for itself."
Letters with similar wording were sent in other states, people with knowledge of the matter said. It is not known how many letters were issued, but the FBI has had strong working relationships with CAIR chapters in states including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and Florida.
Hamas was formed in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic political movement that aims to spread the rule of Shariah, or Islamic law, throughout the world.
A North American branch of the Brotherhood supervised HLF, CAIR and other organizations to build political, financial and public relations support for Hamas, evidence at the HLF trial showed.
The U.S.-based Brotherhood formed a Palestine Committee, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, in 1988 during the first intifada uprising in Palestinian territories against Israel. Hamas's stated policy is for the destruction of Israel.
CAIR co-founders Ahmad and Awad were early active members of the Palestine Committee, evidence showed. Wiretaps recorded the two CAIR leaders participating in strategy meetings of the committee in the 1990s, and both were also on a phone list of its members, the evidence showed.
The first HLF trial in Texas ended in a mistrial in October 2007. In November 2008, the second trial resulted in convictions of five former HLF officials on all counts of providing material support to Hamas.
It is unclear what changed between the first and second HLF trials to make the FBI rescind its policy of outreach to CAIR. The un-indicted co-conspirator designations were made on May 27, 2007 in connection with the first HLF trial. Moreover, much of the evidence linking the CAIR officials to Hamas was aired in an earlier public trial in 2006.
CAIR, however, vigorously challenged the un-indicted co-conspirator designation as a violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights, accusing the government of "demonization of all things Muslim" in a brief filed in the summer of 2007 with the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The co-conspirator designation is "particularly insidious and ironic as CAIR is an organization dedicated to fostering acceptance of Muslims in American society and protecting the civil liberties of all Muslim Americans," CAIR's brief read.
The government filed a brief on Sept. 4, 2007 opposing CAIR's filing, arguing the group lacked standing to challenge the co-conspirator designation and that the matter was moot, as the evidence was already entered into the public record. The judge never ruled on CAIR's request.
The HLF trial showed that CAIR was formed to covertly influence US opinions of the Palestinian conflict and Islam, but without revealing its connections to Hamas.
For example, prosecutors introduced transcripts of wiretaps from a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia of the Palestine Committee, called to order by Ahmad (see page 10 of the hyperlink) and attended by Awad. In that meeting, Ahmad and others discussed the need to create a new political organization seemingly unconnected to Hamas or the Brotherhood.
In one excerpt, (see page 4 of the link) an unidentified male said: "We must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral, because we are placed in a corner, we are place in a corner. It is known who we are, we are marked and I believe there should be a new neutral organization which works on both sides."
CAIR was founded a year later, in 1994, by Ahmad and Awad. In March 1994, Awad was taped at Miami's Barry University publicly declaring his support for Hamas: "I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO," Awad said.
A July 30, 1994 agenda for the Palestine Committee, seized by federal agents and introduced at trial, showed that "suggestions to develop the work" of HLF, CAIR and other organizations was on the agenda.
Under the heading "The need for trained resources in the media and political fields," the agenda said: "No doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide."
By 1995, CAIR was conducting public relations work to counter the US detention of Mousa Abu Marzook, the Hamas official and Palestine Committee member who was also head of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US.
A transcript of an August 1995 phone call intercepted by government investigators showed HLF officials Shukri Abu Baker and Ghassan Elashi talking about CAIR's efforts (see page 12 of the link).
Days before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI raided the offices of Infocom, a Texas internet company connected to HLF. CAIR's Nihad Awad appeared at a press conference outside Infocom headquarters to denounce what he called an "anti-Muslim witch hunt."
CAIR remained a vocal player in the public debate after 9/11. It developed relationships with members of Congress. FBI officials frequently attended CAIR fundraising banquets, and CAIR cited such contacts in its own literature and Web site as evidence of its good standing with the government.
Mary Jacoby is an award winning reporter who has worked for the Wall Street Journal, Salon.com, the St. Petersburg Times, Chicago Tribune and Roll Call. She may be reached at writetomaryjacoby@gmail.com
For more on CAIR's roots and its history of attacking law enforcement investigations and supporting Islamic terrorists, see the IPT's dossier on the group. Check back at the IPT website tomorrow for a report on CAIR's consistent refusal to condemn terrorist organizations and its rationalization of suicide bombings.
Le jihad gagne la Thailande
Thailand: Muslim "rebels" behead two soldiers
More on the reckless Thai jihad. "Two soldiers beheaded in Muslim southern Thailand," from Reuters, February 2:
BANGKOK, Feb 2 (Reuters) - Suspected Muslim rebels killed and then decapitated two Thai paramilitary rangers on Monday in the Muslim-majority far south, which has been plagued by five years of separatist unrest, police said.
"They were both shot dead while they were riding out of the village and were then decapitated," a policeman, who did not wish to be identified, told Reuters.
The head of one of the soldiers, a Muslim, was removed from the scene, while that of his Buddhist colleague was burnt along with his body and motorbike, the officer said.
There was no claim of responsibility, a feature common to all the attacks that have claimed more than 3,000 lives in Thailand's four southernmost provinces since 2003.
The region abutting the Malaysian border was a Muslim sultanate until annexed by predominantly Buddhist Bangkok a century ago. Since then it, has been plagued by intermittent unret.
The majority of the population are Muslim and Malay-speaking, and have few links to the rest of Thailand.
The violence has ranged from drive-by shootings and bombings or beheadings, and appears to target both Buddhist and Muslims associated with the Thai state. Police, soldiers, government officials and teachers are frequent victims...
The former infidels, the latter apostates -- both enemies to jihadis.
More on the reckless Thai jihad. "Two soldiers beheaded in Muslim southern Thailand," from Reuters, February 2:
BANGKOK, Feb 2 (Reuters) - Suspected Muslim rebels killed and then decapitated two Thai paramilitary rangers on Monday in the Muslim-majority far south, which has been plagued by five years of separatist unrest, police said.
"They were both shot dead while they were riding out of the village and were then decapitated," a policeman, who did not wish to be identified, told Reuters.
The head of one of the soldiers, a Muslim, was removed from the scene, while that of his Buddhist colleague was burnt along with his body and motorbike, the officer said.
There was no claim of responsibility, a feature common to all the attacks that have claimed more than 3,000 lives in Thailand's four southernmost provinces since 2003.
The region abutting the Malaysian border was a Muslim sultanate until annexed by predominantly Buddhist Bangkok a century ago. Since then it, has been plagued by intermittent unret.
The majority of the population are Muslim and Malay-speaking, and have few links to the rest of Thailand.
The violence has ranged from drive-by shootings and bombings or beheadings, and appears to target both Buddhist and Muslims associated with the Thai state. Police, soldiers, government officials and teachers are frequent victims...
The former infidels, the latter apostates -- both enemies to jihadis.
Islamisation de l'Angleterre
Cela vous plairait de vous faire arrêter par une belphégor policière portant le hidjab ?
UK:Police Adopt Uniform Hijab
Posted: 02 Feb 2009 02:27 PM CST
It is known that the Metro Police of the UK has numerous Al Qaeda members and supporters working for them. So instead of realizing the threat of having Muslims on their police force in the first place, they turn around and make a special uniform for Muslim women. Their goal is to bring in more Muslim officers.
Police adopt uniform hijab
Saturday, January 31, 2009, 09:30
Police have opened the door to female Muslim recruits by incorporating the hijab into the uniform.
The force has become the latest to approve a design for a headscarf suitable for officers on patrol.
Senior officers believe the lack of the option has deterred applications from the considerable number of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab.
The police hijab is plain black and made of a flame-retardant material.
Officers will be able to wear a standard police hat on top of it.
A small number of forces nationwide have taken a similar step, including Thames Valley and the Metropolitan police.
Superintendent Geoff Feavyour, who leads the Leicestershire Constabulary recruitment team, compared the development to the incorporation of the turban several years ago, which removed a barrier to the recruitment of male Sikhs.
The police's annual report for 2007/08 showed women made up about 23 per cent of the force's officers.
The number of officers from black and Asian communities stood at about six per cent – short of the 15 per cent target.
Mr Feavyour said: "Clearly, we want people from all walks of life to join the force and the fact we have the hijab available now shows our commitment to that. It's an extension to our uniform which will, hopefully, show people they are welcome.
"It is very important to us that the force reflects the community it serves."
The move has also been welcomed by officers, including the Leicestershire branch of the National Association of Muslim Police.
Sgt Yakub Ismail, chairman of the branch, said: "Leicestershire Constabulary is always understanding and supportive of the religious needs of its staff.
"It has always encouraged applicants from all communities and religious denominations.
"I firmly believe neighbourhood policing can only be truly achieved by having officers from within those neighbourhoods being part of the police family."
Sughra Ahmed, a research fellow at the Islamic Foundation, in Markfield, said: "Not every Muslim woman who wants to join the police would want to wear the hijab, but that choice is there now and that is a very important step.
"There may also be women who are already with the force who do not wear the scarf but choose to later. Again, this will be positive for them."
Sabrina Khan, a 19-year-old student from Evington, Leicester, said: "I don't wear the veil, but a lot of my family and friends do.
"I have seen Sikh officers wearing turbans and if I saw a female officer wearing the hijab, I would feel that the police respected the Muslim faith."
Osob Osman, an 18-year-old student from North Evington, said: "The hijab has had a lot of bad press during the past couple of years.
"This will give women more career opportunities and, hopefully, change people's attitudes to Muslim people."
Police spoke to community groups, including the Leicestershire Federation of Muslim Organisations, when they were developing the garment.
Suleman Nagdi, spokesman for the federation, said: "It's a wonderful move and it will help the police encompass a wider range of people in its recruitment."
Resham Singh Sandhu, chairman of the Sikh Welfare and Cultural Society and a trustee of Leicester Council of Faiths, said: "This is a positive step forward for religious people who want to serve the community as police officers."
UK:Police Adopt Uniform Hijab
Posted: 02 Feb 2009 02:27 PM CST
It is known that the Metro Police of the UK has numerous Al Qaeda members and supporters working for them. So instead of realizing the threat of having Muslims on their police force in the first place, they turn around and make a special uniform for Muslim women. Their goal is to bring in more Muslim officers.
Police adopt uniform hijab
Saturday, January 31, 2009, 09:30
Police have opened the door to female Muslim recruits by incorporating the hijab into the uniform.
The force has become the latest to approve a design for a headscarf suitable for officers on patrol.
Senior officers believe the lack of the option has deterred applications from the considerable number of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab.
The police hijab is plain black and made of a flame-retardant material.
Officers will be able to wear a standard police hat on top of it.
A small number of forces nationwide have taken a similar step, including Thames Valley and the Metropolitan police.
Superintendent Geoff Feavyour, who leads the Leicestershire Constabulary recruitment team, compared the development to the incorporation of the turban several years ago, which removed a barrier to the recruitment of male Sikhs.
The police's annual report for 2007/08 showed women made up about 23 per cent of the force's officers.
The number of officers from black and Asian communities stood at about six per cent – short of the 15 per cent target.
Mr Feavyour said: "Clearly, we want people from all walks of life to join the force and the fact we have the hijab available now shows our commitment to that. It's an extension to our uniform which will, hopefully, show people they are welcome.
"It is very important to us that the force reflects the community it serves."
The move has also been welcomed by officers, including the Leicestershire branch of the National Association of Muslim Police.
Sgt Yakub Ismail, chairman of the branch, said: "Leicestershire Constabulary is always understanding and supportive of the religious needs of its staff.
"It has always encouraged applicants from all communities and religious denominations.
"I firmly believe neighbourhood policing can only be truly achieved by having officers from within those neighbourhoods being part of the police family."
Sughra Ahmed, a research fellow at the Islamic Foundation, in Markfield, said: "Not every Muslim woman who wants to join the police would want to wear the hijab, but that choice is there now and that is a very important step.
"There may also be women who are already with the force who do not wear the scarf but choose to later. Again, this will be positive for them."
Sabrina Khan, a 19-year-old student from Evington, Leicester, said: "I don't wear the veil, but a lot of my family and friends do.
"I have seen Sikh officers wearing turbans and if I saw a female officer wearing the hijab, I would feel that the police respected the Muslim faith."
Osob Osman, an 18-year-old student from North Evington, said: "The hijab has had a lot of bad press during the past couple of years.
"This will give women more career opportunities and, hopefully, change people's attitudes to Muslim people."
Police spoke to community groups, including the Leicestershire Federation of Muslim Organisations, when they were developing the garment.
Suleman Nagdi, spokesman for the federation, said: "It's a wonderful move and it will help the police encompass a wider range of people in its recruitment."
Resham Singh Sandhu, chairman of the Sikh Welfare and Cultural Society and a trustee of Leicester Council of Faiths, said: "This is a positive step forward for religious people who want to serve the community as police officers."
Le politiquement correct a besoin de lepéniser ses contradicteurs
Editorial de Riposte laïque
On ne dénoncera jamais assez comment toute une élite, souvent de gauche, a imposé un véritable terrorisme intellectuel, des années durant, contre les « petites gens », le peuple, en parlant de « lepénisation des esprits ».
A Riposte Laïque, nous sommes habitués à subir ce genre le verdict implacable de tous les bien-pensant : "vous critiquez l’islam, vous êtes contre la régularisation de tous les sans-papiers, vous êtes des lepénistes !"
Le 24 janvier dernier, lors d’un débat sur France O, Eric Zemmour s’est vu,à son tour, qualifié de « lepéniste » par un chercheur du CNRS, Dominique Wolton, pour avoir osé dire, prenant l’exemple de la Seine-Saint-Denis, que les citoyens, dès que le nombre d’immigrés était trop important, dans un immeuble, un quartier, une ville ou un département, cherchaient, dès qu’ils en avaient les moyens, à en partir, ne se sentant plus en France (1) ! C’est pourtant la réalité, à de rares exceptions, même les militants de gauche sont partis, mais il est interdit d’en parler !
Ce Dominique Wolton est une véritable caricature du sociologue de service, qui se raconte une belle histoire, même si elle ne correspond en rien à la réalité de la vie des Français. Il a essayé, lors de ce débat, de compenser une argumentation défaillante en levant les yeux au ciel, en soupirant, en remuant frénétiquement la tête à chaque fois que Zemmour prenait la parole. Comme si le simple déni exprimé par un Wolton pouvait jeter le discrédit sur une argumentation étayée ! Puis, se croyant le patron du plateau, il intime l’ordre au journaliste de passer à autre chose, faisant le coup du mépris à Eric Zemmour !
Toute la dictature de la bien-pensance est là ! Chercheurs en sciences sociales, sociologues, défenseurs de la société multiculturelle, haineux contre la République et la laïcité, ils pensent que le petit peuple français, pour lequel ces élites de gauche ont un profond mépris, est raciste, puisque c’était dans les quartiers populaires (où il y avait beaucoup d’immigrés) que Le Pen avait souvent les meilleurs scores électoraux.
Il serait facile de faire remarquer à ces bonnes âmes, dont la plupart vivent confortablement dans les beaux quartiers, et y travaillent, que quand on propose de déménager l’Ehess (machine à formater de sociologues communautaristes) dans le 93, c’est la levée de boucliers ! La mixité sociale, c’est bon pour les pauvres, mais surtout pas pour les élites de gôche (2) !
Dans un registre différent, un autre sociologue, Michel Wieviorka, auteur par ailleurs du livre « La France raciste », se croit autorisé à demander que les chaînes de télévision « fassent le ménage », et virent Eric Zemmour, coupable d’avoir parlé de « race » sur un plateau télévisé. Forcément lepéniste, Zemmour ! (3) Ce même Wieviorka s’était ridiculisé en cherchant à descendre « Bienvenue chez les ch’tis », parlant d’un film franchouillard (4).
Ce sont ces personnages, imbus d’eux-mêmes, qui, pendant des années, ont interdit tout débat sur la sécurité, qualifiant de lepéniste le malheureux qui n’acceptait pas les incendies de voitures, les rodéos, ni que les quartiers soient sous la coupe de délinquants de plus en plus jeunes.
Ce sont ces dictateurs du politiquement correct qui ont refusé systématiquement tout débat sur l’immigration, qualifiant de lepéniste les malheureux qui évoquaient les conséquences quotidiennes d’une immigration post-coloniale mal maîtrisée. Ce sont souvent eux qui réclament la régularisation de tous les sans-papiers. Forcément lepénistes, ceux qui pensent qu’un pays doit conserver la maîtrise de son immigration, pour mieux réussir l’intégration des derniers arrivés, et donc renvoyer des personnes en situation irrégulière (5).
Ce sont eux qui ont sali Jean-Pierre Chevènement, auteur de la célèbre expression « les sauvageons ». Forcément lepéniste, Chevènement !
Ce sont eux qui ont insulté les laïques qui s’opposaient à l’offensive du voile : forcément lepénistes, ces laïques !
Mais ces derniers temps, outre Zemmour, c’est Geert Wilders qui bénéficie d’un traitement de faveur, de la part d’une frange bien-pensante du camp laïque.
Lors de la sortie de Fitna, ils s’étaient déchaînés contre le député hollandais, les Philippe Val, Caroline Fourest, Dominique Sopo, Bernard-Henri Levy et Nadia Geerts (laïque souvent présentée comme la Caroline Fourest belge). Riposte Laïque se retrouva, dans le camp laïque, bien seul à défendre le droit d’expression de l’auteur du film sacrilège (6).
Pour nos adversaires, les choses étaient claires : Wilders est un extrémiste de droite, raciste, qui utilise la critique de l’islam pour mieux stigmatiser tous les musulmans.
Peu importe qu’il soit menacé de mort, et vive sous surveillance policière depuis quatre ans, on le lynche ! Peu importe qu’Ayaan Hirsi Ali dise la même chose que Wilders ! Peu importe que les fanatiques islamistes multiplient les pressions contre la sortie de son film, on aboie avec les loups !
Aujourd’hui, alors que la cour d’appel d’Amsterdam a décidé de poursuivre le député hollandais pour son film, pour discrimination contre les musulmans, il faut que les censeurs d’hier justifient leur silence d’aujourd’hui, sur cette grave attaque contre la liberté d’expression.
Nadia Geerts, qui, sur le conflit israélo-palestinien, a eu des positions courageuses, polémiquant sans concession avec ceux qui ont manifesté avec les islamistes, s’y est laborieusement attelée. Elle ne peut s’empêcher, dans un texte intitulé « Islamophobie, un concept mis à toutes les sauces » de salir encore une fois Wilders, le qualifiant de militant d’extrême droite attisant la haine sur l’ensemble des musulmans (7). Elle est incapable d’étayer ce grossier mensonge, elle déforme malhonnêtement le film, sous-entendant que Wilders n’est pas fréquentable, et donc qu’il mérite ce qui lui arrive. Comme Zemmour, lepénisé Wilders !
On a retrouvé d’ailleurs une partie de ce petit monde, lors du procès intenté à Siné, de manière lamentable, par la Licra.
Rappelons que pendant des semaines, en plein été, la France avait été sommée de choisir son camp, entre les partisans de Val (scandaleusement dessiné en nazi par Plantu) et ceux de Siné, lepénisé à son tour (8) !
On a entendu, lors du procès, les Bernard-Henri Levy, Dominique Sopo, Michel Wievorka, Philippe Val, essayer de nous expliquer, souvent laborieusement, que Siné avait « mordu la ligne jaune ».
Nous ne sommes pas, loin s’en faut, des inconditionnels de ce dessinateur, et encore moins de certains de ses soutiens. Mais ceux qui l’ont traîné devant les tribunaux, et ont témoigné pour le faire condamner, se sont couverts de ridicule. Ils ont dit tout le contraire de ce qu’ils disaient, souvent brillamment, lors de l’affaire des caricatures. Nous nous réjouissons de l’acquittement prochain de Siné sur cette affaire. A une époque où la critique des religions, et particulièrement de l’islam, est remise en cause, c’est la liberté d’expression qui sortira gagnante de ce verdict, et nous espérons que cela fera jurisprudence.
Pour tous les censeurs du politiquement correct, je propose ces quelques lignes du dessinateur :
« Je n’ai jamais brillé par ma tolérance mais ça ne s’arrange pas et, au risque de passer pour politiquement incorrect, j’avoue que, de plus en plus, les musulmans m’insupportent et que, plus je croise les femmes voilées qui prolifèrent dans mon quartier, plus j’ai envie de leur botter violemment le cul !
J’ai toujours détesté les grenouilles de bénitier catholiques vêtues de noir, je ne vois donc pas pourquoi je supporterai mieux ces patates à la silhouette affligeante et véritables épouvantails contre la séduction !
Leurs maris barbus embabouchés et en sarouel coranique sous leur tunique n’ont rien à leur envier au point de vue disgracieux. Ils rivalisent de ridicule avec les juifs loubavitchs !
Je renverserais aussi de bon coeur, le plat de lentilles à la saucisse sur la tronche des mômes qui refusent de manger du cochon à la cantoche. Quand on a des parents aussi bornés que les leurs, le seul remède est de leur désobéir et de les envoyer se prosterner […]
La bêtise n’a pas de limites, c’est connu, mais arrêtons de la respecter et, qui plus est, de l’entretenir au nom d’une indulgence dont ils ne font, eux, aucune preuve ! »
N’en déplaise à Bernard-Henri Levy, j’aime ce Siné là.
Quant à tous les Wolton-Wievorka, et autres policiers de la bien-pensance, qui lepénisent à tour de bras tout ce qui dépasse, (9) je leur dédie ce texte :
"Nous haïssions Jean-Marie Le Pen. C’était une haine obsessionnelle. Viscérale, instinctive (…)
Nous aussi cherchions désespérément à la fois notre Pétain et notre Hitler. Celui qui incarnait à la fois le fascisme nazi et le nationalisme français que nous confondions dans un même opprobre. Enfin Le Pen vint.
Il prétendait incarner la France et c’est comme cela que nous voulions imaginer la France : chauvine, xénophobe, raciste. La France de tous les Dupont Lajoie. Nous nous étions donné une mission : achever la liquidation de la France.
Nous haïssions la France sans nous rendre compte à quel point cette haine de soi était une maladie française.
(…) Nous n’avions pas pardonné aux ouvriers français d’avoir préféré en Mai 68 des augmentations salariales à la Révolution, leurs médiocres congés payés dans leurs minables Renault 4 plutôt que le grand soir. Nous avions pris au pied de la lettre les conseils ironiques de Brecht qui avait proclamé « Le peuple refuse le communisme ? Il faut dissoudre le peuple. » Nous avions dissous le peuple. Il avait été submergé par la vague innombrable et inépuisable des nouveaux damnés de la terre. Parce que nous avions échoué à changer l’homme, nous avions changé les hommes. Le Pen nous avait bien aidés.
Les ouvriers, encore oints de l’huile sainte de la gauche par le « parti des fusillés », devenaient, en votant désormais pour lui, des « fascistes ». Des « salauds de pauvres ». Les enfants de la bourgeoisie, harnachés d’un mépris de classe de fer, avaient déclaré la guerre au peuple français. L’antiracisme fut notre arme absolue, notre bombe atomique. Le peuple, la nation, l’Etat, les frontières, tout serait emporté dans la tourmente. Sali, avili « bien creusé, la taupe ! ». de la belle ouvrage dont nous avions besoin pour accéder enfin à la modernité internationale, pour en finir avec ce fichu « roman national » qui aliénait les prolétaires, les enfermant dans leurs romantiques allégeances nationales. Grâce à Le Pen, nous avions rendu la nation infâme. Nous avions fait le grand saut vers l’Europe. Nous sommes désormais tous des citoyens du monde. Un monde made un USA. Toute époque a l’empire qu’elle mérite.
Il fut soviétique dans notre prime jeunesse ; américain désormais.
(…) Cent fois nous crûmes avoir tué Le Pen, cent fois il ressuscita. Heureusement. Que serait-on devenu sans ennemi, sans diable, sans cause ? Sans indignation, incantations, imprécations, si télégénique.
Le Pen, l’homme qui fit notre fortune".
Ces extraits sont issus du livre « Petit Frère » d’Eric Zemmour (10). Tout est dit.
(1) http://fr.youtube.com/watch ?v=Mfw4dHcm2I0
(2) http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualites/2007/11/22/01001-20071122ARTFIG00004-les-experts-des-banlieues-preferent-rester-a-paris.php
(3) http://www.telerama.fr/idees/michel-wieviorka-eric-zemmour-doit-etre-sanctionne,36411.php
http://www.ripostelaique.com/Les-faux-antiracistes-veulent-la.html
(4) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4m4qy_wieviorka-cauchemar-gauchiste_news
(5) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5xolh_dbat-immigration-sans-idologie_news
(6) http://www.ripostelaique.com/Defendre-Fanny-Truchelut-Ayaan.html
(7) http://nadiageerts.over-blog.com/article-27234358.html
(8) http://www.ripostelaique.com/Quand-Sine-est-traite-d-ordure.html
(9) http://www.ripostelaique.com/Comment-utiliser-les-mots-raciste,1201.html
(10 http://www.ripostelaique.com/Petit-Frere-d-Eric-Zemmour-un.html
On ne dénoncera jamais assez comment toute une élite, souvent de gauche, a imposé un véritable terrorisme intellectuel, des années durant, contre les « petites gens », le peuple, en parlant de « lepénisation des esprits ».
A Riposte Laïque, nous sommes habitués à subir ce genre le verdict implacable de tous les bien-pensant : "vous critiquez l’islam, vous êtes contre la régularisation de tous les sans-papiers, vous êtes des lepénistes !"
Le 24 janvier dernier, lors d’un débat sur France O, Eric Zemmour s’est vu,à son tour, qualifié de « lepéniste » par un chercheur du CNRS, Dominique Wolton, pour avoir osé dire, prenant l’exemple de la Seine-Saint-Denis, que les citoyens, dès que le nombre d’immigrés était trop important, dans un immeuble, un quartier, une ville ou un département, cherchaient, dès qu’ils en avaient les moyens, à en partir, ne se sentant plus en France (1) ! C’est pourtant la réalité, à de rares exceptions, même les militants de gauche sont partis, mais il est interdit d’en parler !
Ce Dominique Wolton est une véritable caricature du sociologue de service, qui se raconte une belle histoire, même si elle ne correspond en rien à la réalité de la vie des Français. Il a essayé, lors de ce débat, de compenser une argumentation défaillante en levant les yeux au ciel, en soupirant, en remuant frénétiquement la tête à chaque fois que Zemmour prenait la parole. Comme si le simple déni exprimé par un Wolton pouvait jeter le discrédit sur une argumentation étayée ! Puis, se croyant le patron du plateau, il intime l’ordre au journaliste de passer à autre chose, faisant le coup du mépris à Eric Zemmour !
Toute la dictature de la bien-pensance est là ! Chercheurs en sciences sociales, sociologues, défenseurs de la société multiculturelle, haineux contre la République et la laïcité, ils pensent que le petit peuple français, pour lequel ces élites de gauche ont un profond mépris, est raciste, puisque c’était dans les quartiers populaires (où il y avait beaucoup d’immigrés) que Le Pen avait souvent les meilleurs scores électoraux.
Il serait facile de faire remarquer à ces bonnes âmes, dont la plupart vivent confortablement dans les beaux quartiers, et y travaillent, que quand on propose de déménager l’Ehess (machine à formater de sociologues communautaristes) dans le 93, c’est la levée de boucliers ! La mixité sociale, c’est bon pour les pauvres, mais surtout pas pour les élites de gôche (2) !
Dans un registre différent, un autre sociologue, Michel Wieviorka, auteur par ailleurs du livre « La France raciste », se croit autorisé à demander que les chaînes de télévision « fassent le ménage », et virent Eric Zemmour, coupable d’avoir parlé de « race » sur un plateau télévisé. Forcément lepéniste, Zemmour ! (3) Ce même Wieviorka s’était ridiculisé en cherchant à descendre « Bienvenue chez les ch’tis », parlant d’un film franchouillard (4).
Ce sont ces personnages, imbus d’eux-mêmes, qui, pendant des années, ont interdit tout débat sur la sécurité, qualifiant de lepéniste le malheureux qui n’acceptait pas les incendies de voitures, les rodéos, ni que les quartiers soient sous la coupe de délinquants de plus en plus jeunes.
Ce sont ces dictateurs du politiquement correct qui ont refusé systématiquement tout débat sur l’immigration, qualifiant de lepéniste les malheureux qui évoquaient les conséquences quotidiennes d’une immigration post-coloniale mal maîtrisée. Ce sont souvent eux qui réclament la régularisation de tous les sans-papiers. Forcément lepénistes, ceux qui pensent qu’un pays doit conserver la maîtrise de son immigration, pour mieux réussir l’intégration des derniers arrivés, et donc renvoyer des personnes en situation irrégulière (5).
Ce sont eux qui ont sali Jean-Pierre Chevènement, auteur de la célèbre expression « les sauvageons ». Forcément lepéniste, Chevènement !
Ce sont eux qui ont insulté les laïques qui s’opposaient à l’offensive du voile : forcément lepénistes, ces laïques !
Mais ces derniers temps, outre Zemmour, c’est Geert Wilders qui bénéficie d’un traitement de faveur, de la part d’une frange bien-pensante du camp laïque.
Lors de la sortie de Fitna, ils s’étaient déchaînés contre le député hollandais, les Philippe Val, Caroline Fourest, Dominique Sopo, Bernard-Henri Levy et Nadia Geerts (laïque souvent présentée comme la Caroline Fourest belge). Riposte Laïque se retrouva, dans le camp laïque, bien seul à défendre le droit d’expression de l’auteur du film sacrilège (6).
Pour nos adversaires, les choses étaient claires : Wilders est un extrémiste de droite, raciste, qui utilise la critique de l’islam pour mieux stigmatiser tous les musulmans.
Peu importe qu’il soit menacé de mort, et vive sous surveillance policière depuis quatre ans, on le lynche ! Peu importe qu’Ayaan Hirsi Ali dise la même chose que Wilders ! Peu importe que les fanatiques islamistes multiplient les pressions contre la sortie de son film, on aboie avec les loups !
Aujourd’hui, alors que la cour d’appel d’Amsterdam a décidé de poursuivre le député hollandais pour son film, pour discrimination contre les musulmans, il faut que les censeurs d’hier justifient leur silence d’aujourd’hui, sur cette grave attaque contre la liberté d’expression.
Nadia Geerts, qui, sur le conflit israélo-palestinien, a eu des positions courageuses, polémiquant sans concession avec ceux qui ont manifesté avec les islamistes, s’y est laborieusement attelée. Elle ne peut s’empêcher, dans un texte intitulé « Islamophobie, un concept mis à toutes les sauces » de salir encore une fois Wilders, le qualifiant de militant d’extrême droite attisant la haine sur l’ensemble des musulmans (7). Elle est incapable d’étayer ce grossier mensonge, elle déforme malhonnêtement le film, sous-entendant que Wilders n’est pas fréquentable, et donc qu’il mérite ce qui lui arrive. Comme Zemmour, lepénisé Wilders !
On a retrouvé d’ailleurs une partie de ce petit monde, lors du procès intenté à Siné, de manière lamentable, par la Licra.
Rappelons que pendant des semaines, en plein été, la France avait été sommée de choisir son camp, entre les partisans de Val (scandaleusement dessiné en nazi par Plantu) et ceux de Siné, lepénisé à son tour (8) !
On a entendu, lors du procès, les Bernard-Henri Levy, Dominique Sopo, Michel Wievorka, Philippe Val, essayer de nous expliquer, souvent laborieusement, que Siné avait « mordu la ligne jaune ».
Nous ne sommes pas, loin s’en faut, des inconditionnels de ce dessinateur, et encore moins de certains de ses soutiens. Mais ceux qui l’ont traîné devant les tribunaux, et ont témoigné pour le faire condamner, se sont couverts de ridicule. Ils ont dit tout le contraire de ce qu’ils disaient, souvent brillamment, lors de l’affaire des caricatures. Nous nous réjouissons de l’acquittement prochain de Siné sur cette affaire. A une époque où la critique des religions, et particulièrement de l’islam, est remise en cause, c’est la liberté d’expression qui sortira gagnante de ce verdict, et nous espérons que cela fera jurisprudence.
Pour tous les censeurs du politiquement correct, je propose ces quelques lignes du dessinateur :
« Je n’ai jamais brillé par ma tolérance mais ça ne s’arrange pas et, au risque de passer pour politiquement incorrect, j’avoue que, de plus en plus, les musulmans m’insupportent et que, plus je croise les femmes voilées qui prolifèrent dans mon quartier, plus j’ai envie de leur botter violemment le cul !
J’ai toujours détesté les grenouilles de bénitier catholiques vêtues de noir, je ne vois donc pas pourquoi je supporterai mieux ces patates à la silhouette affligeante et véritables épouvantails contre la séduction !
Leurs maris barbus embabouchés et en sarouel coranique sous leur tunique n’ont rien à leur envier au point de vue disgracieux. Ils rivalisent de ridicule avec les juifs loubavitchs !
Je renverserais aussi de bon coeur, le plat de lentilles à la saucisse sur la tronche des mômes qui refusent de manger du cochon à la cantoche. Quand on a des parents aussi bornés que les leurs, le seul remède est de leur désobéir et de les envoyer se prosterner […]
La bêtise n’a pas de limites, c’est connu, mais arrêtons de la respecter et, qui plus est, de l’entretenir au nom d’une indulgence dont ils ne font, eux, aucune preuve ! »
N’en déplaise à Bernard-Henri Levy, j’aime ce Siné là.
Quant à tous les Wolton-Wievorka, et autres policiers de la bien-pensance, qui lepénisent à tour de bras tout ce qui dépasse, (9) je leur dédie ce texte :
"Nous haïssions Jean-Marie Le Pen. C’était une haine obsessionnelle. Viscérale, instinctive (…)
Nous aussi cherchions désespérément à la fois notre Pétain et notre Hitler. Celui qui incarnait à la fois le fascisme nazi et le nationalisme français que nous confondions dans un même opprobre. Enfin Le Pen vint.
Il prétendait incarner la France et c’est comme cela que nous voulions imaginer la France : chauvine, xénophobe, raciste. La France de tous les Dupont Lajoie. Nous nous étions donné une mission : achever la liquidation de la France.
Nous haïssions la France sans nous rendre compte à quel point cette haine de soi était une maladie française.
(…) Nous n’avions pas pardonné aux ouvriers français d’avoir préféré en Mai 68 des augmentations salariales à la Révolution, leurs médiocres congés payés dans leurs minables Renault 4 plutôt que le grand soir. Nous avions pris au pied de la lettre les conseils ironiques de Brecht qui avait proclamé « Le peuple refuse le communisme ? Il faut dissoudre le peuple. » Nous avions dissous le peuple. Il avait été submergé par la vague innombrable et inépuisable des nouveaux damnés de la terre. Parce que nous avions échoué à changer l’homme, nous avions changé les hommes. Le Pen nous avait bien aidés.
Les ouvriers, encore oints de l’huile sainte de la gauche par le « parti des fusillés », devenaient, en votant désormais pour lui, des « fascistes ». Des « salauds de pauvres ». Les enfants de la bourgeoisie, harnachés d’un mépris de classe de fer, avaient déclaré la guerre au peuple français. L’antiracisme fut notre arme absolue, notre bombe atomique. Le peuple, la nation, l’Etat, les frontières, tout serait emporté dans la tourmente. Sali, avili « bien creusé, la taupe ! ». de la belle ouvrage dont nous avions besoin pour accéder enfin à la modernité internationale, pour en finir avec ce fichu « roman national » qui aliénait les prolétaires, les enfermant dans leurs romantiques allégeances nationales. Grâce à Le Pen, nous avions rendu la nation infâme. Nous avions fait le grand saut vers l’Europe. Nous sommes désormais tous des citoyens du monde. Un monde made un USA. Toute époque a l’empire qu’elle mérite.
Il fut soviétique dans notre prime jeunesse ; américain désormais.
(…) Cent fois nous crûmes avoir tué Le Pen, cent fois il ressuscita. Heureusement. Que serait-on devenu sans ennemi, sans diable, sans cause ? Sans indignation, incantations, imprécations, si télégénique.
Le Pen, l’homme qui fit notre fortune".
Ces extraits sont issus du livre « Petit Frère » d’Eric Zemmour (10). Tout est dit.
(1) http://fr.youtube.com/watch ?v=Mfw4dHcm2I0
(2) http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualites/2007/11/22/01001-20071122ARTFIG00004-les-experts-des-banlieues-preferent-rester-a-paris.php
(3) http://www.telerama.fr/idees/michel-wieviorka-eric-zemmour-doit-etre-sanctionne,36411.php
http://www.ripostelaique.com/Les-faux-antiracistes-veulent-la.html
(4) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4m4qy_wieviorka-cauchemar-gauchiste_news
(5) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5xolh_dbat-immigration-sans-idologie_news
(6) http://www.ripostelaique.com/Defendre-Fanny-Truchelut-Ayaan.html
(7) http://nadiageerts.over-blog.com/article-27234358.html
(8) http://www.ripostelaique.com/Quand-Sine-est-traite-d-ordure.html
(9) http://www.ripostelaique.com/Comment-utiliser-les-mots-raciste,1201.html
(10 http://www.ripostelaique.com/Petit-Frere-d-Eric-Zemmour-un.html
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)