I Hope That N***** Obama Gets Assassinated, But I'm Not a Racist Bigot or Crazy... Honest!!!

Well, that's basically what Denise Helms, a 22-year-old from Turlock, is telling us after her clearly racist and crazy Facebook post received a little more attention that she had originally hoped.

What I find more crazy than her comments is the denial, something that appears to be common among racists. Similar to Whoopi Goldberg with her obscene "rape-rape" comment, they don't seem to understand that you do not have to physically lynch someone before being a "real" racist. No, calling someone a n****** and hoping they're murdered is enough. And to top it all off, some people, including Helms herself, are trying to make this into a free speech issue.

From the Associated Press:

"TURLOCK -- A Turlock woman who posted inflammatory comments on Facebook about President Barack Obama has been fired from her job and reported to the U.S. Secret Service.

Turlock resident Denise Helms, 22, posted shortly after the president's re-election Tuesday on her Facebook page, "And another 4 years of the (n-----). Maybe he will get assassinated this term..!!"

The post quickly made the rounds on social media, prompting Sacramento TV station Fox 40 to interview her about her comments Wednesday night. She told the Fox 40 reporter: "I didn't think it would be that big of a deal. The assassination part is kind of harsh. I'm not saying like I would go do that or anything like that, by any means, but if it was to happen, I don't think I'd care one bit."

Helms has since deleted the post and posted again about the incident. It reads: "So apparently my post last night about Obama got onto Twitter and Fox 40 came and interviewed me cause apparently a lot of people in Sacramento think I'm crazy and racist. WOW is all I got to say!! I'm not racist and I'm not crazy. just simply stating my opinion.!!!"

But the incident and surrounding outrage caused her to lose her job at Cold Stone Creamery, where she had worked for less than a year. Store director Chris Kegle said he was shocked to read her racist slur and see her accompanying interview.

"We found her comments to be very disgusting, and they do not reflect our opinions here,"Kegle said.

When he arrived Thursday at the store, he said, there were more than 20 angry voicemails about Helms.

"We made the decision because of her comments, but also the community feedback," he said.

Helms also caught the attention of the Secret Service. Agent Scott Gillingham from the Sacramento office said he was not familiar with Helms' case specifically, but he would check out her posting and the Fox 40 report. He said threats against the president are a felony under U.S. Code Section 871.

It reads: "Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Gillingham said his office would be assigned to review any report from Turlock, but he would not comment further on any possible investigation into her posting.

"We get a lot of these kinds of referrals, especially off of the Internet," he said.

Helms graduated from Placer High School in 2008, according to her Facebook page, and has the Romney/Ryan 2012 page among her "likes." She is not listed as a registered voter in the state registry database.

Helms could not be reached for comment by The Bee. She told Fox 40 she wasn't aware she could be investigated by the Secret Service for her post.

"OK, but what did I do wrong? That's fine if they want to," she told the reporter. "But I don't understand what I did wrong.""

Britain's Sikhs Reeling from Wisconsin Attack (& Personal Update from Me)

Lately, as you have all probably noticed, I have not been posting regularly. This is because I am working on a new project with some fellow South Asians. We are a varied bunch --Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and freethinkers-- but we all share some common values and goals. I will still make a few posts here and there, maybe respond to some Muslim apologetics, but not very often at all. This is a big project that will take up a lot of my spare time, but I thought I'd make this final post before I say goodbye.

When I first heard of the Wisconsin terrorist attack, I thought (like millions of others, I'm sure) this is either the work of a white, far-right, convert to Islam nut-job or a white, far-right, Neo-Nazi nut-job. Both have a lot in common, but it is mainstream Sunni Muslims (especially the converts) who far outperform their Neo-Nazi counterparts in violence (Sunni Muslim terrorists committed 8,886 [more than 70% of the total] terrorist murders in the world last year. Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist groups committed 77 murders). Attacks on South Asian minorities living in the West by  far-right Muslims is also not uncommon (e.g. there are many examples in the UK, Australia's oldest Hindu temple [situated in a "Muslim area"] was also sprayed with bullets, an armed group of Muslims in Denmark attacked a Hare Krishna temple, and there was also a massive terror plot targeting 4,500 Hindus and Sikhs in Toronto), so there is little wonder that I assumed the former and was surprised that it turned out to be the latter. Nevertheless, acts of terrorism  committed by anyone, for any purpose, is as worthy of condemnation as the next. As always, regardless of their beliefs, my thoughts go out to the victims and their loved-ones.

From Reuters:

Devastated by the massacre of their brethren across the Atlantic, Britain's vast Sikh community blamed ignorance and racism for a rise in attacks on members of their religion since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Sikhs say they have been singled out increasingly for harassment around the world since September 11, with attackers believing incorrectly that they are Muslim extremists because of their turbans and beards.

In the paranoid environment just after the 2005 London suicide bombings, many Sikhs were spotted wearing badges and stickers saying 'Don't freak, I'm a Sikh'.

Sunday's attack - in which a gunman killed six people at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin - has only confirmed their worst fears.

"It's just devastating," Ranjit Kaur, a Sikh mother of four, said as she reclined on the floor of one of Europe's biggest Sikh temples, known as Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, located in the ethnically mixed suburb of Southall in west London.

"Since 9/11 there is just no awareness as to who we are. Somehow people categorize us as Muslims, or radical Muslims. (My neighbors) here are a bit confused. A lot of them would come up and ask: 'Are you Muslim?'"

The confusion itself does not bother Kaur and other community members in Southall, where many spoke warmly about their Muslim neighbors and emphasized that a similar attack against a mosque would have been equally devastating.

But the Wisconsin massacre still sent a chill through the community where exactly a year ago a wave of violent riots in London prompted Sikh men to grab their ceremonial swords to protect their property and temples.

In Southall, one of Britain's most densely populated Sikh areas, Sikhs have lived peacefully for generations alongside other South Asian diasporas, Muslim and Hindu.

Sikh cafes and sari parlors stand next to Muslim butchers and kebab shops.

The Sikh temple's white and gold domes glitter in the sun above the bustling street, with white-bearded Sikh men in black turbans, women in pink and orange saris and Muslim men in flowing white robes rushing about on daily errands.

VULNERABLE

Indarjit Singh, a lawmaker in Britain's House of Lords who was the first Sikh to wear a turban in the upper house, said it was ignorance about their religion that worried him most.

"What concerns Sikhs is that, because (Osama) bin Laden wore a turban where most Muslims don't, people assume that Sikhs and Muslims are all the same," said Singh.

He said the Sikh community - which numbers about 330,000 people in Britain - has felt much more vulnerable since September 11, adding that he and many others had been taunted by people, while temples have been defaced and people threatened.

Some Sikhs in Southall said they tried not to venture out outside their community because the reaction of other Londoners was more unpredictable.

"In Southall, yes, it's all good, but in other places it's different," said Sukhraj Singh, a lanky teenager of 15, his head wrapped tightly in a black turban.

"Some friends of mine had a bad experience. In central London, if you walk with the turban, you might get discriminated, like, people would say something rude, young kids. But here it's all fine, people get along."

His mother, Binder Singh, standing next to him, looked worried as she listened to her son and shook her head. Asked about her view, she just said: "If it happened in America, it could happen in London.

But many community members emphasized that the long-standing presence of Sikhs in Britain meant the average British person knew more about them.

Sikh bikers in turbans are exempted from wearing crash helmets in Britain. Sikhs, whose religion was founded by Guru Nanak Dev in Punjab in the 15th century, also fought alongside British troops in the Burma campaign of World War Two.

Those warm memories are still intact, and many Sikhs said a Wisconsin-style attack could not happen in Britain.

"Britain and Sikhs have a long history stretching back over 200 years, so there is a far better understanding of Sikhs in the UK, but when you go across to Europe confusion persists, while in the US it is the worst," said Gurmel Singh, Secretary General of Sikh Council UK.

In Southall, the idea of unity among religions and ethnic groups runs deep among community members.

A giant colorful mural depicting communal scenes from mosques, Sikh temples, churches and libraries dominates one of the central streets, and members of various religious groups could be seen shopping in local stored together.

"There is freedom here. Sikhs, Muslims, Hindu, we are all fine," said Adnan Sayed, who runs a Muslim halal meat shop. "After the night service at the mosque, people go home and there is never a problem. In this area there will never be a problem like that."

US: Muslim Charged with 9 Counts of Attempted Murder for Trying to Kill Street Preachers

From Answering Muslims:

I heard about this when I was still in Michigan, but I didn't want to post anything until I had some documentation. I waited for the Detroit Free Press and other local media to report the story, but I gave up after more than a week of searching. Fortunately, Gadi Adelman (GA) interviewed Ruben Israel (RI) and posted the disturbing news over at Front Page Magazine.

On Sunday, June 17th, 2012, Ruben Israel's group of street preachers went to the Islamic Center of America (the same mosque I had visited two days earlier). While the group was preaching, a Muslim emerged from the mosque, got into his SUV, and tried to run them over. Mosque security naturally blamed the preachers for provoking him.

Everyone should take note here. Ruben Israel's presence at the Dearborn Arab Festival was national news. The media jumped at the chance to show images of intolerant Christians harassing Muslims (check out Niraj Warikoo's coverage over at the Detroit Free Press). While I have no objections to calling attention to (and criticizing) the actions of Ruben Israel and his associates, we should all be horrified to realize that nine counts of attempted murder by a Muslim targeting Christians isn't even considered newsworthy by local media in Michigan.

Here's an excerpt from Adelman's interview:

GA: Now give me the exclusive; what happened on Sunday?

RI: We were at the Arab fest on Friday. On Sunday we went to the mosque in Dearborn.

GA: Were you on mosque property or out on the side walk?

RI: What mosque doesn’t have a sidewalk, but we stood by the street where the side walk would be. Of course the Dearborn Police showed up instantly. We were able to use our megaphone. We were able to fly our banners and there was no problem. The officers said everything was fine and we’re doing good. There were 2 squad cars and they flanked us just to make sure we were safe. Some of the Muslims came out and were screaming at us and we yelled back and forth and we did not go on their property, and according to police it was fine.

Unfortunately, one of the Muslims got in his SUV, drove up over the hill, accelerated and came right at us where we were standing. This guy came directly at us and we had to jump out of the way and he came screaming by us. Both of the police cars stopped him, pulled him out and cuffed him and he showed no remorse. The police actually have it on video because both police cars had there dash cameras on, so it’s not like it’s my word against his.

Then mosque security came out and said that they knew this guy and that we provoked him and the Dearborn Police officer yelled at the security guard and told him if he didn’t back off he would also be arrested for hindering a police investigation.

GA: Did the guy in the SUV pull over or was he forced to?

RI: They had to block him in. Once he was on the street they were headed his way and he was blocked in. They threw him against the car, cuffed him, frisked him, checked his car and again. It’s not like we can make this up. He is now officially charged with 9 counts of attempted murder.

GA: This never hit the news, not even in Dearborn?

RI: No, of course not, but if I had attempted to run down a Muslim that would be the head news on CNN, CBS, NBC, but when a Muslim wants to take out 9 Christians. We were the visiting team. This guy may walk; he has the potential to walk. At the very best they may take away his library card for a few weeks, but he’s out on bail. He’s out on high-dollar bail and from what I was told by the detective in charge, he does have a high-dollar attorney, so he’s not going to go down easy. He’s going to fight this thing.

Hmmm. It seems police have video footage of the attempted murder of the group. Since the Dearborn Police Department and I aren't on the best of terms, anyone care to put in a FOIA request for the footage and police reports?

For more on Dearborn, click here.

UAE: Police Insisted he "Remove his Niqab... Greeted with a Long Beard," Another 'Burka Bandit' Nabbed

Similar incidents have happened all over the world. For example; in Australia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Terrorist also use this as a way to elude the authorities (e.g. here). This time it's the United Arab Emirates.

From Gulf News:

Dubai A man has been accused of cross-dressing after police said they found him walking like a man while wearing an abaya and a niqab in a street.

Police said the 35-year-old Frenchman said he dressed in the abaya to steal jewellery and sell it to repay a €1 million (Dh4.6 million) debt he had accumulated in Paris.

Police suspected 35-year-old K.K., when they saw him walking in the street, and they arrested him when they realised he maybe a man despite being covered from top to bottom.

Prosecutors charged K.K. with cross-dressing by wearing women’s clothing, covering his hands with black gloves and carrying a female purse.

He was also accused of using a different name during a police investigation, by claiming he was an Algerian named A.J.

When the suspect appeared at Dubai Misdemeanour Court, he could not admit or deny the accusations as there was no French language translator.

“I don’t understand English, I only speak French,” K.K. told Presiding Judge Ali Saad.

The policemen who found the man said nothing was revealed from his body except his eyes. 

Walk like a man

One of the arresting police officers called K.K. and asked him to stop when he noticed that he walked like a man. The suspect did not reply and continued walking into a shop. The policemen followed him inside. When one of them tried to speak to him, K.K. tried to soften his voice and spoke like a woman.

The two policemen insisted he was a man and asked him to remove his niqab. They were greeted with a long beard.

Police searched his purse and confiscated a toy gun, knife and plastic tape in his possession.

During prosecution questioning, K.K. claimed he was a merchant but had suffered major financial loss and accumulated €1 million in debt in Paris.

“I could not repay my debts. I decided to visit Dubai and steal diamonds then sell it to be able to cover my debts. I took my wife’s abaya and niqab then came here. I came here on May 30 and I got arrested on June 1. I purchased the confiscated items from Mall of the Emirates. I stood in front of the shop that I was planning to rob before the policemen suspected me. My debt is what urged me to do this… I dressed up like a woman to steal,” claimed K.K.

The court reconvenes on July 2.

Islamophobia in US? Muslim Threatens Christians, "F**K Freedom of Speech... Shari'ah is Coming, Baby!"

I thought it was only deluded and "Islamophobic" right-wingers who believed Shari'ah law was coming to America, and that it was only them who believed "peace-loving moderate Muslims" in the US couldn't give a damn about freedom of speech. Apparently not....

From Answering Muslims:

Politicians, the media, and Muslim organizations assure us that Muslims have no desire to establish Sharia in America. For whatever reason, some Muslims didn't get the memo.

Why Is A US Judge So Shocked That A Practicing Muslim Would Break Their "Oath To God"?

A federal judge has just sentenced a 58-year-old Pakistani-born Chicago taxi driver to 7 ½ years in prison for attempting to send money to a terrorist with links to al-Qaida.

What drew my interest in this story was the fact that the sentencing judge was so shocked that a practicing Muslim would break their "oath to God" i.e.  the citizenship oath made to God promising never to do harm to the United States.

"A federal judge sentenced a Pakistani-born Chicago taxi driver Friday to 7 ½ years in prison for attempting to send money to a terrorist with alleged links to al-Qaida, telling the 58-year-old he had violated a citizenship oath made to God promising never to do harm to the United States. [...] 

Khan pleaded guilty in February to one count of attempting to provide material support to terrorism. His plea agreement recommended a relatively lenient five- to eight-year sentence – well short of the 15-year maximum – in a concession for Khan's willingness to cooperate with authorities.

Judge James Zagel mostly struck a calm, professorial tone in his remarks before imposing a sentence. But he grew angry as he began talking about the oath Khan took when he became a U.S. citizen in 1988, the grizzled judge noting he had administered that oath himself hundreds of times.

"He raised his hand and swore to God he would not act against this country's interests," Judge Zagel said about Khan. That he had violated that oath, Zagel said, was a "profoundly aggravating factor." 

Most people who have grown up in societies largely influenced by Christianity, Hinduism or numerous other faiths, wrongly assume that no world-religion could possibly advocate lying or braking oaths. As with other issues, Islam is the exception to the rule.

Islam permits lying if it will further the cause of Islam

I detest the way critics like to slap silly and constrictive labels on Islamic beliefs. Yes, Islam permits lying if it will further the cause of Islam, but calling it "Taqiyya" or any of the other stupid names they have found is inaccurate and only gives apologists "wiggle room".

Technically, Taqiyya is a Shi'ite practice used by them to literally save their skin from Sunni Jihadis, but what critics generally refer to as Taqiyya is more accurately and more simply referred to as "lying for Islam". No exotic-sounding Arabic name needed.

From WikiIslam (visit original page for references):

"Islam is the only world religion which allows, encourages, and even demands lying by its followers. Lying for Islam is generally referred to as Taqiyya (تقي). Many Muslims will claim that this is not an Islamic, but a Shi'ite practice. Unfortunately, this is a lie. 

There are many verses in the Qur'an which condone lying and deception, and several classical and contemporary Sunni scholars have validated its place within main-stream Islam. In the inquisition miḥna during the Caliphate of al-Ma’mun, a number of Sunni scholars used taqiyya, attesting to the Qur’an as having been created despite believing the opposite.

Given these facts, some will go on to attack the strict definition of Taqiyya and claim that it is “only allowed to save one's own life” or that its "restricted to its use in war". Again, these statements are false. In sahih (authentic) hadith, Muhammad admits to being a liar and advises its acceptable for Muslims to do likewise, allowing his followers to use deception to silence critics. 

One of the 99 "holy names" of the Islamic deity is Al-Makir (the Deceiver), and in the Qur'an Allah refers to himself as the 'best deceiver', and admits to deceiving Muslims and creating Christianity through deception.

With all things considered, the simple fact is Islamic teachings as a whole breed dishonesty like no other religion and even elevates it to a holy status."

Muhammad himself (the "Uswa Hasana") allowed Muslims to lie and kill in order to silence critics. For example, he permitted a Muslim to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who wrote an anti-Muslim poem that offended him:

"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). " The Prophet said, "You may say it." [...] So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."  [Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369]

Islam permits the expiation of oaths if it is "better"

The Qur'an tells us that Allah will not call Muslims to account for what is "futile in their oaths", and deliberately breaking oaths is not much of a problem because they will be forgiven if they fast for three days:

"Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." [Qur'an 5:89]

In the Sahih Hadith we find multiple narrations telling us Muhammad had said if he took an oath and later found something else better than that, he would do "what is better" and expiate his oath.

He is basically admitting to being a liar when it suits him, and he actually encourages Muslims to lie by saying it's acceptable for Muslims to do likewise:

"[...] So we returned to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.' He said, 'It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' " [Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427]

"Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura: The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." [Sahih Bukhari 9:89:260]

There are many more similar authentic narration to be found (see here). And as this site points out,  "Since determining what is 'better' is a very subjective evaluation, then one can break any agreement with anyone else at any time he/she chooses to do so just based on one's perception of what is 'better'"

Virgins or Raisins? A Dilemma for Intellectually Dishonest Muslim Apologists

Little do Muslim apologists realize that when they attempt to defend the Qur'an against the claim (actually, the fact) that it promises Muslim men virgins in paradise, they are actually committing apostasy via blasphemy in belief.

As you will find out, any Muslim who claims the Qur'an refers to "white raisins", not "virgins", has to also accept that "the Qur'an was not written by Allah or revealed to Muhammad in Arabic during the 7th century, but was in fact written by Christian evangelists in Syro-Aramaic during the 8th century."

From WikiIslam (visit the original page for references):

This false myth of "white raisins" originated from Christoph Luxenberg, a modern author writing under a pseudonym. His anti-Islamic claim, which has been accused of having a "Christian apologetic agenda", is that the Qur'an was drawn from Christian Syro-Aramaic texts in the early 8th century, in order to evangelize the Arabs, and that the Aramaic word 'hur' (white raisin) had been mistranslated by later Arab commentators into the Arabic word 'houri' (virgin).

The Qur'an describes the physical characteristics of the houri in many places, and a reading of relevant verses show that Luxenberg's theory regarding heavenly white raisins is in error.

Raisins, which are dried grapes, cannot have large eyes, big breasts, cannot restrain their glances, cannot be described as chaste, or have any of the characteristics listed above. The Qur'an further states that men will be wed to these houri. Men cannot be married to raisins or white grapes.

Additionally, for someone to accept this "72 raisins" theory, they would also have to accept that the Qur'an was not written by Allah or revealed to Muhammad in Arabic during the 7th century, but was in fact written by Christian evangelists in Syro-Aramaic during the 8th century.

Of course, none of this has stopped the ignorant and agenda-driven Western media from repeating this blasphemous claim to more ignorant and agenda-driven Western viewers/readers as the "correct" interpretation of the Qur'an. An interpretation that, if accepted, would prove Islam to be a man-made religion just like any other.

From Answering Muslims:

Robert Spencer vs David Wood: Biblical-Style Higher Criticism of Islam About to go Mainstream

I've been looking forward to this debate ever since it was first proposed by Dr. Wood in his own unique style. After having finally viewed it, I still lean heavily towards Wood's thesis, but I must admit that Spencer made a compelling argument.

As they both mention in this debate, higher criticism of the Bible and other scriptures is already a "mainstream" thing and their theories/conclusions are easily accessible to the layman. This is not yet the case for Islam.

Higher criticism of Islam has existed for a long time, but it is insignificant when compared to the amount of  critical scholarship devoted to Judaism and Christianity, and their conclusions are rarely discussed outside of scholarly circles.

This is in part due to the fear produced by Muslim intolerance, a fear which "moderate" Muslims reap the benefit of. For example, Bart Ehrman is an agnostic scholar which Muslims love to use in order to attack Christianity. When asked if he would consider subjecting the Qur'an to such study, he replied, "When I stop valuing my life, that is what I'll do." In fact, Wood, Spencer and Pamella Gellar have just received some more very public death-threats. The Muslim is so emboldened by the West's special treatment of Islam, he doesn't bother hiding his home address (who wants to bet the police don't give a damn?)

Muslims are often very hypocritical, in that they gratuitously accept this higher criticism of other religions, claim that their scriptures have been distorted, etc., but refuse to accept the same about their own religion. Basically saying, "This is what we believe, and if scholars say it is false, we don't care". As Wood and Spencer also point out, even the Islamic texts themselves refute the myth of "One Qur'an, perfectly preserved".

From Jihad Watch:

This much-anticipated debate took place Monday, May 28, at 8PM on ABN. Recently David and I teamed up against Anjem Choudary and Sheikh Omar Bakri to debate the same question, did Muhammad exist? (Watch that one here.) As David explained before our Monday debate, "we showed that two Muslim apologists couldn't defend the existence of their prophet....Choudary and Bakri relied on a backwards, archaic, absurd methodology ('The Qur'an says it, so it must be true!'). Can a more sophisticated argument show that Muhammad existed? Only one way to find out."

Indeed. Watch and see.

And get the book Did Muhammad Exist? here.

US Lawmakers call Pakistan 'Terrorist State', 'Schizophrenic Ally'

From The Times of India:

A key US Senate panel has voted to impose pointed and punitive cut in aid dollars to Pakistan for its continued support to state-engineered extremism, although the country described bluntly by one lawmaker as a "terrorist state" will still get at least $ 1 billion in American taxpayer money for 2013.

Angered by a Pakistani court's sentencing of a doctor who helped the US nail Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison (for high treason), the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday voted for a symbolic but token $ 33 million cut in aid -- a million for each year of the sentence.

The cut came on top of the panel voting to withhold nearly a billion dollars in proposed assistance subject to Pakistan re-opening Nato supply routes, although it still left more than $ 1 billion on the table for a country that has publicly castigated the US for killing a universally reviled terrorist. Further reductions have been threatened if Pakistan does not change course.

The Senate action reflected growing American anger over issues ranging from the Nato supply route stand-off to the sentencing of Dr Shakil Afridi, all of which, some US lawmakers suggest, show that Pakistan is in league with terrorists rather than with the United States.

"We need Pakistan, Pakistan needs us, but we don't need Pakistan double-dealing and not seeing the justice in bringing Osama bin Laden to an end," Lindsey Graham, a Senate Republican who pushed for the additional cut in aid said, while calling Pakistan a "schizophrenic ally."

Lawmakers on the House side have been less kind. Following the sentencing by Pakistan's pro-jihadi courts of Dr Afridi, who helped the US locate bin Laden, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said "This is decisive proof Pakistan sees itself as being at war with us."

"There is no shared interest against Islamic terrorism," Rohrabacher maintained in a statement, contesting the bromide periodically advanced by the administration that Islamabad is an ally in the war on terror. "Pakistan was and remains a terrorist state."

These and other remarks by US lawmakers suggest that many of them, including Rohrabacher, who supported Pakistan for more than two decades despite its track record of rampant nuclear proliferation and sponsorship of terrorism, have turned against the country, although even now the administration and its supporters advance the idea that Pakistan is better treated as an ally rather than as an adversary.

"It's Alice in Wonderland at best," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat who heads the appropriations sub-committee which voted to size down and make conditional some of the aid to Pakistan. "If this is cooperation, I'd hate like hell to see opposition." The United States, Leahy added, is "not going to invest in a country that won't help us in a reasonable way to deal with threats to our forces in Afghanistan."

Meanwhile, Washington and Islamabad clashed over the sentencing of sentencing of Dr Afridi, even as the matter became a political issue in the US election season with some Republicans accusing the administration of throwing him under the bus by publicly revealing his identity and his cooperation even before he could be rescued from Pakistan.

On Thursday, secretary of state Hillary Clinton waded into the issue, demanding that Dr Afridi be released, because "his help was instrumental in taking down one of the world's most notorious murderers that was clearly in Pakistan's interest as well as ours and the rest of the world." The Pakistani foreign office fired back, saying the US needed to respect Pakistan's legal processes and judgments. Congressman Rohrabacher meanwhile is pushing for legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal and a US citizenship for Dr Afridi.

"Secretary Clinton will have to do more than voice protests over the Afridi case. Both the Departments of State and Defense need to take punitive actions against Pakistan. Carrots are not enough when dealing with an adversary. Sticks are needed to prove we are serious," Rohrabacher said.

The lawmaker also contested arguments from advocates of aid to Pakistan that the US should draw a distinction between the civilian government and the military-intelligence cabal who are supporting terrorist groups, saying President Zardari's behavior at the NATO summit in Chicago indicates that he is either in league with the military or under their domination.

"Any money that goes to Islamabad will continue to end up in the pockets of people actively and deadly hostile to America," he said. "The Taliban is only the tip of the spear, the real enemy is Pakistan."

Tunisia: Thousands of Muslims Chant "Allahu Akbar", So "OBAMA THE APE" Can Hear Them

This short video is one giant orgy of Muslim intolerance and bigotry. In addition to proclaiming that "Every Muslim is a jihadist" (Islamophobic Muslims, maybe?), and genocidal anti-semitic chants of "Oh Jews, the army of Muhammad is returning", the cleric refers to America's first black President as an ape. I wonder how black Muslims will react to this, if at all.

If the same were to happen in America, the media and politically-driven "civil rights" activists would be (rightly) all over it. In fact, similar incidents involving some right-wing loons have occurred in America (no surprise there really). Even the left-leaning New York Magazine have had their turn. But the major difference between these incidents lay in the fact that they never had thousands of religious cheerleaders on their side, cheerleaders who found absolutely nothing offensive about referring to a black man as an ape, calling all Muslims terrorists, or calling for genocide against Jews. And they weren't completely ignored by the mainstream media.

Transcripts from MEMRI:

The following are excerpts from a rally which aired on the Internet on May 20, 2012. Crowd: 

“Obama, Obama, we are all Osama...” (continuous cheer, the slogan rhymes in Arabic obama, obama, kuluna osama) [...]

Speaker: “Some Tunisians and some Muslims are afraid of the jihadists

We must ask, How come?

Because the enemies have distorted the image of the jihadists, presenting them as the enemies of the Muslims.

We say: no! Every Muslim is a jihadist

Every Muslim is a jihadist [...]

The enemies of Islam want us to be like sheep, to act like women.

They want to deprive us of our will.

They plundered Palestine and other lands and holy places.

They want the jihadists behind bars

Why? So that the holy places will not be liberated?

We are all jihadists, supporting Jerusalem, and elevating the word of Allah. [...]

Let us all cry 'Allah akbar' together, so that Obama the ape can hear us. All together now!

Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Let America hear us!

Say 'Allah Akbar!' Crowd: “Allahu Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "We are coming, We are coming" Crowd: "We are coming, We are coming" Speaker: "We are coming, We are coming" Crowd: "We are coming, We are coming" Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar”

Speaker: "Hear us Obama!

Say 'Allah Akbar!'” Crowd: “Allah Akbar” (Men with covered faces do martial arts on stage in front of the crowd) Crowd: Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad is returning (Slogan repeats and rhymes: jeisha Muhammad soufa y`aud) (x5) (After several minutes of demonstrating hand to hand combat, the men start demondtrating fighting with wooden swords) Speaker: "We want to convey a clear message one that will reach the heavens." Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Crowd: "We respond to your call, Oh Allah!" (x3)

Serge Daniel: Western Countries are to Blame for Financing Al Qaeda in Africa with Ransom Money

This is very shameful of Western countries. In essence they are sacrificing the lives of countless, apparently insignificant, "others" in order to save one of their own.

From ANSAmed:

Several Western countries are to blame if Al Qaida in Islamic Maghreb not only extended its activities all over the Sahel, but also cast its sinister shadow on several other countries in Western Africa; indeed, Western countries decided to pay the ransom for their fellow countrymen and women who had been either directly kidnapped by Al Qaida or given to the Jihadist group by other groups. This is what Serge Daniel maintains in the book he wrote on this characteristic of Al Qaida in Islamic Maghreb, whose title is "AQIM, the kidnapping industry", a sort of Bible for those who try to clear out the mystery surrounding this blood-thirsty and very determined group and its activities of.

In an interview on the site Maliweb, Serge Daniel talked about some elements which, in his own opinion, are objective and cannot be questioned. Western countries are ready to pay several millions of dollars or Euros for the release of their fellow countrymen and women whose kidnapping is managed by AQIM. The analyst provides a long and detailed list of paid ransoms, there are also some "voids" which may raise suspicions. According to Daniel, in recent years money from Spain (between EUR 8 and 9 mln), Canada ("some millions"), Austria (between EUR 2.5 and 3.5 mln), Germany (five millions) has flowed in AQIM's cash. Italy is included in the list too: according to the expert, Italy paid EUR 3 mln for the release of its hostages. Switzerland's position is quite peculiar: although it was the only country which did not provide exact figures, Daniel labels Switzerland as "very generous with kidnappers".

A huge amount of money has circulated for all these years, although individual States have officially denied allegations and suspicions of having paid the ransom, they have actually created a way to negotiate with dangerous individuals, departing from the international principle which says "do not negotiate with terrorists". But what has Al Qaida in Maghreb done and continues to do with the money? It funds its complex organisation structure, it buys weapons and equips the men it chooses to populate its ranks. We are talking about actual hiring, because it is hard to think that all militiamen are driven by a religious motivation; it is far more likely that they are "mainly and simply" attracted by money. Daniel does not write about this in his book, he just mentions an episode: among Jihadists entering Timbuktu there were some young men from his own Mali city who had moved to Libya to work. It was just found out that the money they used to send home were directly taken form the cash of one of Al Qaida's Katibats (brigades) in Maghreb.

In Islam, Heaven Is Not Exclusive; Oh Really? The Lies of Ahmadiyya Missionaries

Today I came across an article by an American named Dr. Faheem Younus, on his Huffington Post‎ blog, titled "In Islam, Heaven Is Not Exclusive".

Claim

Islam's holy Quran provides not one, but many ways to the heaven (29:69). Yes, some are straight -- like belief (3:85) and good deeds (5:10) -- while others are convoluted. It's like going to New York City. You could take the bridge, tunnel, ferry or simply fly into the Big Apple. 

God's grace though, truly leads the way to salvation. "He forgives whom He pleases and punishes whom He pleases (5:19)" to me, assures that no matter which way you take, you won't hit traffic, accidents or bad weather. 

To the Jewish man mentioned above, some Muslims may say: No way! How can a Jew or a Christian ever go to heaven? To them I present this from Quran: "Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians -- whichever party believes in God and the Last Day and does good deeds -- shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve (2:63)." 

How can the Quran charge Jews and Christians of the notion of an exclusive heaven and then turn around to claim the same? 

This is not a fringe interpretation, applicable to Jews and Christians only. Prophet Muhammad (sa) paved the way to salvation -- ultimately for all humans -- in a famous narration from the book of Muslim, "A man said: By God, God will not forgive so-and-so. At this, God said: Who is he who swears by Me that I will not forgive so-and-so? Verily, I have forgiven so-and-so and have nullified your good deeds."

Reality    

From WikiIslam:

Those who believe in God, Christians and Jews, shall be in Heaven (2:62)

Verse

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." [Qur'an 2:62]

Meaning of Verse

This verse is often quoted by Muslims in an effort to prove Islam is tolerant and inclusive of other faiths. After all, how much more tolerant can a faith be than to allow the followers of other faiths into its vision of heaven?

However, this is in direct conflict with the following:

"And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" [Qur'an 48:13]

As most Muslims will already be aware, this is not a contradiction per se, when you take abrogation into consideration. Verse 2:62 has been abrogated by verse 3:85.

"And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers." [Qur'an 3:85]

Conclusion

Heaven in Islam is exclusive to Muslims. Christians and Jews may believe in God, but they do not believe in "His Messenger". Thus they are destined for the "Blazing Fire".

The only way a Christian or Jew can make it into heaven is by accepting Muhammad as a prophet, but then they would no longer be Christians or Jews, they would be Muslims.

In fact, Muslims will be spared hell-fire by Allah on the Day of Resurrection by making innocent Christians and Jews take their place and be thrown into hell.

"Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire." [Sahih Muslim 37:6665, See also: Sahih Muslim 37:6666, Sahih Muslim 37:6667, and Sahih Muslim 37:6668]

Dr. Faheem Younus  

According to his bio on Huffington Post, Dr. Faheem Younus is an Ahmadi:

Dr. Faheem Younus serves as the Adjunct Faculty for Religion and History at the Community Colleges of Baltimore County and a Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Maryland. He is a recipient of the prestigious Presidential Service Award (Gold) by Barack Obama in 2009 for his work with Muslim Youth in America, Dr. Younus served as the National Youth President of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA (MKA USA) from 2006-10. This leading Muslim Youth group has thousands of members organized in over 63 chapters all across USA. He currently serves as the National Secretary for Education for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA. Being an expert on issues surrounding Muslim youth in America, Dr. Younus launched his blog www.Muslimerican.com where you can find an archive of his works .

 Dr. Younus teaches a popular course, Islam: Fact and Fiction, at multiple campuses across community colleges in Maryland. Dr. Younus has represented Islam on FOX News, ABC News and NPR. His Op-Ed pieces have been published in National Media outlets and newspapers such as The Christian Science Monitor, The Huffington Post, AOL News, The Baltimore Sun, Orlando Sentinel, Express Tribune, The Asbury Park Press, The Star Press and others. His short pieces have been published in prestigious newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Boston Globe, and The Economist.

Dr. Younus is a respected physician, currently in the practice of Infectious Diseases at a Maryland Hospital, who remains committed to the spirit of volunteerism. He was awarded a Governor’s Citation by Robert Ehrlich for his humanitarian services in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

Ahmadiyya Islam is a peaceful religion, but Ahmadis passing themselves off in the West as "Muslims" is thoroughly dishonest.

Ahmadiyya Islam has an additional Prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and additional religious texts (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's writings). So they are as different to mainstream Islam as Islam is to Christianity. After all, Islam is simply an additional Prophet (Muhammad) and some additional religious texts (Qur'an and Sunnah). But do you ever hear Muslims claim they are Christians? And if Muslims did claim to be Christians, then they would not fool anyone.

Accordingly, Ahmadis are widely persecuted in Islamic countries because they are viewed as infidels by Muslims. In fact, they are often viewed as less Muslim than Christians and Jews.

From WikiIslam (visit the original page for references):

Ahmadiyya (sometimes referred to as Qadiani) is a religious movement founded towards the end of the 19th century. Central to the Ahmadiyya is the belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi.

Ghulam Ahmad was a religious figure who claimed to have fulfilled the prophecies about the world reformer of the end times, who was to herald the Eschaton as predicted in the traditions of various world religions and bring about the final triumph of Islam as per Islamic prophecy. He claimed that he was the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century.

Orthodox followers of Islam do not consider the Ahmadis to be Muslims, due to their beliefs, as with the beliefs of the Baha'is and Qur'anists, differing vastly from those of mainstream Islam. This has lead to the widespread persecution and killing of Ahmadis around the world.

At the 1974 annual World Muslim League conference held in Mecca and attended by 140 delegations of Muslim countries and organizations from all over the world, it was unanimously agreed that the Ahmadiyya are "a subversive movement against Islam and the Muslim world, which falsely and deceitfully claims to be an Islamic sect; who under the guise of Islam and for the sake of mundane interests contrives and plans to damage the very foundations of Islam."

The sale, publication and distribution of Ahmadiyya litriture has also been banned in Bangladesh, the Muslim Council of Britain have stated that members of the Ahmadiyya faith are "outside the fold of Islam", they have been banned from practicing their religion publicly in Indonesia's East Java, West Java, and South Sulawesi provinces, and Pakistan has officially declared them to be non-Muslims.

Likewise, according to Ahmadi beliefs, only those who accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's prophethood are considered Muslims.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died of diarrhea in Lahore on the 26th of May, 1908. There are numerous unflattering accounts which claim he died in a public toilet.

Whilst they often claim to have up to 200 million adherents worldwide, in reality the Ahmadiyya faith has only 10 million adherents.

Ahmadiyya Islam puts particular emphasis on  missionary work. Many western converts to Islam, being fooled by Ahmadi missionaries into believing Islam is pacifistic, actually begin their religious lives as Ahmadis before moving on to the less tolerant mainstream Sunni Islam. Dr. Faheem Younus' articles have a clear goal in converting Westerners, whether atheists, Jews or Christians:

I don't know how, but people say this all the time: "He cannot go to heaven because he does not believe in [insert your Prophet or God's name here]." According to a 2008 Pew survey, one in five Christians in America believe that non-Christian faiths cannot lead to salvation. That number soared to 60 percent for white evangelical Protestants who attend church once a weak.

Frankly, I would have checked out of my faith, Islam, if it took such a position. Thank God (or Allah) that it doesn't.

Conclusion  

Maybe it's time that Dr. Faheem Younus "checked out" of being a Muslim....

Oh wait, what he believes in is heretical to Muslims, has been universally condemned by mainstream Islamic scholars, and would certainly get him killed in some Muslim countries, so he was hardly a “Muslim” to begin with.

US Turns Blind Eye to Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Member with Child-Porn Past

This is absolutely disgusting.

From Bikya Masr:

The US State Department broke with procedure last week when it ordered US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) not to conduct a secondary inspection on members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) on their way to visit government officials in the US.

It is not clear where the order was issued from.

This happened despite the fact that one member of the delegation had been implicated – though not charged – in a US child pornography investigation, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

The person of interest to the US State Department was Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, who was part of a pornography investigation in Pennsylvania. He was the senior member in the four-person FJP delegation, which held court with academic groups and met with senior officials at the White House and State Department.here

Dardery had lived in the United States long enough to attain legal permanent residency, known as a Green Card. That status lapsed after he left the country for more than six months. The child pornography investigation took place during Dardery’s time in the US and was so noted in his immigration file. It surfaced when CBP officials learned of his pending visit.

A US official said that extra inspection is standard operating procedure when a foreign visitor has been tied to criminal or terrorist activities. “Secondary inspections” involve going through the visitor’s baggage and viewing the contents of computers and other electronic devices to search for evidence of illicit activity. Agents would typically search other members of the party to ensure Dardery did not hand off his computer equipment to an associate to avoid detection.

In addition, the Brotherhood’s relationship with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas would have triggered extra scrutiny for the incoming delegation. But that “secondary inspection” never happened, a law enforcement source said. The State Department ordered CBP not to do it.

The State Department issued a cable specifically barring customs officials from carrying out any inspections of Dardery and the other members of the delegation on their arrival at New York’s JFK Airport.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 with the goal of establishing a worldwide Islamic state, and for decades advocated the violent overthrow of nations to accomplish this goal. They were officially banned, but tolerated under Mubarak, and ran as independents before Mubarak was toppled. The Brotherhood is considered by many analysts as the parent organization of all Sunni terrorist groups, including Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Former ideologues of the Brotherhood, like Sayyid Qutb, are considered immensely influential in the thought of Osama bin Laden, and the current head of al-Qaeda, Ayman Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor from the Cairo suburb of Maadi.

The Brotherhood recently won a near majority in parliamentary elections – a sweep by any evaluation.

Ironically, they are keen on introducing legislation to block Internet access to pornography in Egypt.

How and Why the Farcical Neologism "Islamophobia" was Created

Well, we already know "Islamophobia" is a ridiculous concept that means we have to class many Muslims as Islamophobes too, but nothing can compare to how the neologism was created. This is an extract from an old but very important piece written by Claire Berlinski.

From Ricochet.com:

[...] Now here's a point you might deeply consider: The neologism "Islamophobia" did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. If that name dimly rings a bell, it should: I've mentioned it before, and it's particularly important because it was co-founded by Anwar Ibrahim--the hero of Moderate Islam who is now trotting around the globe comparing his plight to that of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. "This loathsome term," he writes,

is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.

In another article concerning the many moderate Muslims whose voices have been drowned out by Saudi-financed Muslim Brotherhood front groups, Muhammad describes the strategy behind the word's invention:

In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then-allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term "Islamophobia."

Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw "Islamophobia" as a way to "beat up their critics."

Really imagine that scene: a bunch of Islamists admiring how astutely the queers--people who in their ideal world would be served with the lash or hanged--had portrayed their critics as mentally disturbed. Brilliant. Let's take a leaf from them and then kill them. The association of anti-Islamism--the noblest form of liberal anti-totalitarianism--with gay-bashing rednecks in the grip of a psychosexual panic was not just one of those linguistic accidents of history, in other words. These guys were sitting there in Virginia and really thinking about the best way to exploit the weaknesses of the Western psyche. They came up with this word--and admit it, it's clever; I challenge you to find a better one if you want to yank the West's chain--and they marketed it with petrodollars, and now it truly does drive public discourse and policy the world over. I was asked when I was recently on a Turkish television news show whether the Tea Party was "Islamophobic." That's what they're hearing here in Turkey, thanks to the IIIT. It's not an indigenous Turkish concept, I assure you.[...]

CAIR Angered by Moderate Muslim’s Appointment to Religious Freedom Commission

Well, this is hardly a surprise, considering they're a "terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, founded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in America."

From Algemeiner:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), an organization that seeks to fight radical Islamic ideology—on Monday was appointed to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said the appointment was “farcical” and distributed a petition “calling on community members and people of conscience” to protest the move. Additionally, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) called the appointment “an affront to all Muslims.”

In an interview with JointMedia News Service last November, Jasser said, “operationally, Islam is not peaceful.” He said “the silent majority of Muslims who believe that Islam is peaceful, that Sharia is a personal decision which should not be part of government, can’t sit back and be in denial.”

McVeigh, Breivik, and Abortion Clinic Bombings: The Islamists “Smoking Gun”

This page uses material from Murder Has A Religion, WikiIslam's response to Arsalan Iftikhar's "Murder has no religion".

Christian terrorism against abortion providers

Ignoring the perpetrators possible religious affiliations, the number of individuals killed in connection with abortion providers over a period of almost 4 decades does not even reach double figures. In case the reader is interested, the exact figure is 9. 

If we look to other faiths, in the U.K., 92 per cent of terrorist-related prisoners unsurprisingly describe themselves as Muslim, while five are Buddhist, one is a self-described Pagan, and none are Christian.

Does this mean Buddhism is a violent religion? Of course not. It is only natural that there are a few hateful adherents in any religion; it's human nature and you will find this in all groups no matter what world-view they adhere to.

If violent acts perpetrated by Muslims were as rare as it is among adherents of other faiths, then Iftikhar may have a point. Sadly this is not the case.

The number of individuals killed in religiously motivated attacks by the hands of Muslims in 2008 alone numbers 10,779. That's more people killed by Islamists in 2008 than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. These shocking figures were followed by 9,159 killed in 2009 and 9,175 in 2010.[...] 

There have been several terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 and, with little to no help from American Muslims, more than 30 foiled attempts between October 2001 and May 2010. In fact, whilst Muslims represent less than 1 percent of the American population, they constitute more than 80 percent of all US terror convictions. [...] 

Furthermore, no one is arguing that there are no Christian terrorists. Every ideology known to man has had its fair share of extremists, but in the case of Islamic terrorism, the "extremism" is almost always carried out by individuals who hold very orthodox and mainstream Islamic view-points.

Timothy McVeigh, a Christian terrorist?

This is possibly one of the most widely perpetuated myths in the West. Whilst his parents were Catholics, Timothy McVeigh was a self-described Agnostic who said he would "improvise" if it turned out there was an afterlife. He even joked, "If I'm going to hell, I'm gonna have a lot of company."

So unless we are to determine religious affiliation through genetic ties, to describe him as a "Christian terrorist" would be quite a stretch for anyones imagination.

Unlike Nidal Malik Hasan, McVeigh did not cry "Jesus is Greater," or "Buddha is Greater," because he was motivated by his hatred of the federal government, and not by his non-existent religious beliefs.

Anders Behring Breivik, a Christian terrorist?

Today, no-doubt, Iftikhar would also mention Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks which left 76 dead. However, in addition to the fact that he was declared insane and in a psychotic state both during and after the twin attacks, Breivik's definition of what makes a person "100% Christian" is a very novel one to say the least, so even this comparison would be faulty. 

The most basic requirement which defines a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the Christ and accepts him as their "Lord and Savior". This is universal accepted by every denomination of Christianity, but not by Breivik [2083: A European Declaration of Independence (p. 1308)]. 

In his 1,500 page manifesto, "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", Breivik refers to people who are culturally Christian but have no belief in Christ, as "Christian atheists", and goes on to describe himself as a "cultural Christian". Thus his motivations were not religious but cultural [2083: A European Declaration of Independence (p. 1360-on)].

If an Arab Nationalist accepts Islam as a unifying symbol for the Arab states but does not accept Muhammad as a prophet, then he, by the very definition of the word, is not a Muslim and any negative actions by him cannot in anyway be attributed to Islam.

Likewise, the same applies to Breivik, Christianity, and Europe. There is no need to invoke the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, because by the very definition of the word, he is not a Christian.

It could be argued that beliefs do not matter and that self-identification is enough, but then that would by akin to arguing that "The God Delusion" is pro-Christian literature, because even Professor Dawkins has referred to himself as a "cultural Christian".

Furthermore, no one is arguing that there are no Christian terrorists. Every ideology known to man has had its fair share of extremists, but in the case of Islamic terrorism, the "extremism" is almost always carried out by individuals who hold very orthodox and mainstream Islamic view-points.

Further Reading

“Other religions kill, too.” , from TheReligionOfPeace.com:

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

Keep reading....  

Assimilated Moderate Muslim Nightclub Owners?

At first glance, they are a perfect example of US Muslims who have managed to integrate into non-Muslim society. They are successful businessmen owning multiple nightclubs selling alcohol, and, just like many of the Muslims in the UK who belong to pedophile rings that prey on non-Muslim children, they even have Western nicknames. But scratch beyond the surface and you find links to drug dealing, murder, sexual assault, and financial support for Islamic terrorist groups. And just in case you assume drug dealing could never be motivated by faith in Islam, you'd be wrong.

From the American-Statesman:

Drug deals. Weapons purchases. Ties to a prison gang and a militant Islamic group and even a potential link to an unsolved homicide.

That was the list of allegations federal officials laid out against an Austin nightclub owner and nine of his associates in a dramatic hearing Tuesday.

Arrested last week on money laundering and drug charges, Yassine Enterprises owner Hussein Ali "Mike" Yassine, his brother, Mohammed Ali "Steve" Yassine, and eight others appeared in federal court and heard more details about the cases against them.

Mike Yassine, who owns eight Austin nightclubs, and the other suspects in the case face a variety of charges. Some are accused of cocaine distribution, purchases of guns to be used during drug deals and money laundering dating back to 2007.

Officials linked one suspect to the Texas Syndicate prison gang. They also said thousands of dollars were transferred to a Yassine relative in Lebanon who is reportedly connected to the militant group Hezbollah, considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

Prosecutors for the first time also revealed that Mike Yassine is a "person of interest" in a case being investigated by the Austin Police Department's homicide cold case unit. Austin police declined to provide additional details Tuesday, including the name of the alleged victim.

Mike Yassine might have also threatened witnesses, officials said, and is being investigated as part of a sexual assault case.

Judge Dennis Green denied bail for Mike Yassine and Steve Yassine. Bail for four others — including a third Yassine brother, Hadi Ali Yassine — ranged from $10,000 to $25,000. Bail rulings for the other suspects will be made at a later date, officials said.

Outside the courtroom on Tuesday, their father, Ali Yassine, said his sons are not guilty of the charges against them. "My boys ... everybody's innocent," he said. "They're very good boys."

Also charged in the case are Marisse Marthe "Madi" Ruales, Karim Faiq, Alejandro "Cueta" Melendrez, Edgar Orsini, Nizar "Nino" Hakiki, Amar Thabet Araf and Sami Derder, all Central Texas residents who authorities say have various levels of involvement with the purported crimes.

During raids on the suspects' homes and businesses last week, investigators said they seized more than 400 boxes of evidence.

They also report finding $200,000 in cash in a safe at the Yassine Enterprises offices on West Fourth Street, as well as cashier's checks totaling $45,000 made out to a member of the Yassine family in Lebanon. That man is associated with Hezbollah, IRS agent James Neff testified.

The searches also turned up a bogus University of Texas diploma with Mike Yassine's name, prosecutors said.

The American-Statesman has learned that businesses linked to Mike Yassine currently owe almost $600,000 in state sales and mixed-beverage taxes. His bank accounts have been frozen by the state comptroller's office, his attorney said in court.

Yassine Enterprises, owns eight Austin bars: Pure, Spill, Kiss & Fly, Treasure Island, Hyde, Fuel, Malaia and Roial. They've remained closed since last week's arrests and, officials said, will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future after the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission obtained a court order that blocks all eight nightclubs from selling or serving alcohol.

Mike Yassine is also part owner of Stack Burger Bar, which is still open for business. Its liquor license remains intact, according to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

Randel Gillette, an agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, testified Tuesday that an informant who worked for the FBI became involved with the Yassines and their associates in 2007.

Investigators testified that Mike Yassine told the informant, who posed as a drug dealer — and whose accounts have driven much of the case — that he wanted to launder $200,000 to $1 million in narcotics money through his clubs. The informant's name was not released.

Initially, Mike Yassine and Steve Yassine cut the informant checks from Yassine Enterprises for the drugs, but Mike Yassine later wanted the informant to pose as a cleaning service instead to appear more legitimate, investigators said.

The government's evidence against the suspects, Gillette said, includes numerous recorded conversations, videos and surveillance of Steve Yassine and the informant arranging drug transactions, gun purchases and various other illegal activities.

"Steve was very interested in gaining profit from the drug trade," Gillette said. "He seemed very eager to get involved with that."

Steve Yassine first bought 30 grams of marijuana from the informant in late 2007, Gillette said.

The two also tried to buy cocaine from Orsini, a proposition that made the informant nervous because he did not know the man, Gillette said. He said the informant claimed he would disappear if anything went wrong during the deal.

"Steve responded, ‘If that happens, I'll make (Orsini) disappear,' " Gillette said.

Steve Yassine, a legal permanent U.S. resident originally from Lebanon, has not filed a tax return in four years, Gillette said. His income came from doing work for his brother Mike Yassine. He also falsified loan documents on which he said he was a citizen, Gillette said.

Steve Yassine's defense attorney Stephen Orr questioned the charges, saying his client was led on by the FBI informant.

"Every single act he is accused of was initiated by your source," Orr said.

He also asked why his client was not arrested sooner.

"If he's such a dangerous criminal, why not get him off the streets in 2008?" Orr said.

Attorneys for several other defendants, including Mike Yassine, made similar arguments, but Gillette said making the arrests earlier would have jeopardized the investigation.

Neff, the IRS agent, testified that middle brother Hadi Yassine was present during conversations between the informant and his brothers. Hadi Yassine was starting a beverage company called Famous Vodka for which Mike Yassine gave him $100,000 in drug money, Neff said. Hadi Yassine is not a U.S. citizen, Neff said.

Neff testified that Ruales was employed in Yassine Enterprises' corporate office. She had an on-again, off-again romantic relationship with Mike Yassine, Neff said.

Neff said Ruales would cut checks from the company to the informant as payment for drug purchases.

"The cash brought in by the confidential source was being laundered through Yassine Enterprises," Neff said.

When arrested, she said that "all she did was take orders from Mike Yassine," Neff said, although investigators reportedly have video evidence that shows Ruales knew what was going on. She hasn't reported any income from Yassine Enterprises in at least a decade, according to the IRS.

Neff said that when the company's "do-everything guy," Rommel Gomez, faced domestic violence charges, Ruales, on behalf of Mike Yassine, offered Gomez's wife as much as $250,000 to drop the charges — an act that investigators called witness tampering.

Gomez is in custody in Williamson County on unrelated charges, officials said.

Recordings show that the informant, Hakiki and Steve Yassine were involved in purchasing large amounts of narcotics, Gillette said. Steve Yassine introduced the informant to Hakiki because the informant said he wanted to buy a gun to protect himself. He told the informant that Hakiki previously sold him some hashish and would also sell guns, Gillette said.

The informant purchased a .22-caliber pistol and later a 9 mm Taurus handgun from Hakiki, and transactions were made at Steve Yassine's office and home, Gillette said.

Gillette testified that the informant met Melendrez, who goes by "Alex" or "Cueta," at a Yassine nightclub. The informant purchased cocaine from Melendrez there, and during the transaction, Melendrez put some of the drug on his finger, shoved it in the informant's mouth and said, "If you snitch on me, I'll kill you and your family," Gillette said.

Gillette said Melendrez "has history" with the Texas Syndicate prison gang. During the hearing, Melendrez stood up and told the judge he was not a member of the gang, which has been linked to murders and drug trafficking.