Monday, August 25, 2008

ISNA’s “soft jihadist”, Ingrid Mattson, on the record (4 days until ISNA convention in Columbus)

In preparation for ISNA president Ingrid Mattson’s appearance yesterday at the Democratic National Convention’s “interfaith prayer service”, the good folks at the Center for Security Policy prepared a short backgrounder on Mattson’s statements and positions, “Democrats’ Soft Jihadist”.

Since Mattson will be bringing her entire ISNA cultural terrorist crew to Central Ohio later this week for their 2008 annual convention, I thought it appropriate to republish the Center’s analysis here to get a taste of Mattson’s extremist views (Christians are anti-Semitic, Christians are a greater threat than Osama bin Laden, Wahhabism is just a reform movement, praise for jihadist authors, there are no terrorist cells in the US, etc):

  1. Mattson places loyalty to Islam before loyalty to the United States of America:

    If Muslim Americans are to participate in such a critique of American policy, however, they will only be effective if they do it, according to the Prophet’s words, in a “brotherly” fashion. This implies a high degree of loyalty and affection. This does not mean, however, that citizenship and religious community are identical commitments, nor that they demand the same kind of loyalty. People of faith have a certain kind of solidarity with others of their faith community that transcends the basic rights and duties of citizenship.
  2. Mattson on the possibility that Americans may “rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation”:

    The first duty of Muslims in America, therefore, is to help shape American policies so they are in harmony with the essential values of this country. In the realm of foreign policy, this “idealistic” view has been out of fashion for some time. Indeed, the American Constitution, like foundational religious texts, can be read in many different ways. The true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own. There is no guarantee, therefore, that Americans will rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation; nevertheless, given the success of domestic struggles for human dignity and rights in the twentieth century, we can be hopeful.
  3. Mattson denies the existence of terrorist cells in the United States:

    There’s a prejudgment, a collective judgment of Muslims, and a suspicion that well “you may appear nice, but we know there are sleeper cells of Americans,” which of course is not true. There aren’t any sleeper cells.
  4. Mattson defends Wahhabism:

    CHAT PARTICIPANT: What can you tell us about the Wahhabi sect of Islam? Is it true that this is an extremely right wing sect founded and funded by the Saudi royal family, and led by Osama bin Ladin? What is the purpose of the Wahhabi?

    MATTSON: No it’s not true to characterize ‘Wahhabism’ that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation. Because the Wahhabi scholars became integrated into the Saudi state, there has been some difficulty keeping that particular interpretation of religion from being enforced too broadly on the population as a whole. However, the Saudi scholars who are Wahhabi have denounced terrorism and denounced in particular the acts of September 11. Those statements are available publicly.

    This question has arisen because last week there were a number of newspaper reports that were dealing with this. They raised the issue of the role of Saudi Arabia and the ideology there. Frankly, I think in a way it was a reaction to the attempts of many people to look for the roots of terrorism in misguided foreign policy. It’s not helpful, I believe, to create another broad category that that becomes the scapegoat for terrorism.
  5. Mattson on the negative effects of the end of the Islamic Caliphate:

    CHAT PARTICIPANT: Osama bin Laden made a reference that Muslims have been living in humiliation for 80 years. Did he refer to the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that dismantled caliphates and sultanates?

    MATTSON: Yes, he is referring to that, to the overthrowing of the caliphate, which was a plan of European powers for many years. This deprived the Muslim world of a stable and centralized authority, and much of the chaos that we’re living in today is the result of that.
  6. Mattson teaches the jihadists Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abu’l-`Ala Mawdudi in her course at Hartford Seminary — see the syllabus here.

  7. Mattson praises the jihadist Mawdudi (aka Maududi):

    In response to another question, “Please suggest any comprehensive work of Tafseer (Qur’anic commentary) for us Muslim youth,” she said, “There are different kinds of Tafseers. For e.g. there are ones that contain detailed interpretations of grammatical aspects of Qur’anic language. And there are others that serve to explain the general message of Qur’an, coupled with the experiences and insights of the author of the Tafseer. However, there aren’t really any Tafseers that combine the both aspects. So far, probably the best work of Tafseer in English is by Maulana Abul A’la Maududi.’”
    Maududi on jihad (Jihad in Islam, page 9):

    “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic ‘Jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.”
    Maududi on denial of rights to non-Muslims (Jihad in Islam, page 28):

    “Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not recognize their right to administer State affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic ‘Jihad’ also refuses to admit their right to continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the public interest from the viewpoint of Islam.”
    Maududi on Shariah Law’s precedence over any other legal system (Islamic Law and Its Introduction, p. 13):

    “That if an Islamic society consciously resolves not to accept the Sharia, and decides to enact its own constitution and laws or borrow them from any other source in disregard of the Sharia, such a society breaks its contract with God and forfeits its right to be called ‘Islamic.’”
  8. Although she recommends and teaches Abdul ala Maududi, who advocates violent jihad against non-Muslims (see above), Mattson is highly critical of Christians who make the factual statement that texts by Muslims support violent jihad against non-Muslims — and she equates Christian critics of violent jihad with Osama bin Laden, who wages violent jihad. Mattson on critical statements by Christians about Muslims:

    “These kinds of statements are really irresponsible, because they can lead to violence against ordinary people. . . . I don’t see any difference between that and al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden [using] Islamic theology to justify violence against Americans. What’s interesting is if you compare [their] statements about what Islam is and what Muslims believe, you’ll find they are almost identical, and I reject both interpretations — both the non-Muslims who are saying that Islam justifies violence against Christians and Jews, and the Muslims who are saying it. Certainly these statements have a very unnerving effect, especially when they continue, when more than one person says it.”
  9. Mattson is a traditionalist on Shariah law and the legitimacy of Shariah authorities:

    “As a practicing Muslim, I believe that there is a core of fundamental beliefs and practices that distinguish authentic Islam from deviations. I also believe that apart from this essential core, the task of interpreting the application of Islamic norms to human society is an enormously complicated task, which inevitably leads to a broad range of opinion and practice. I agree with “Sunni” Muslims, the majority of the Muslim community worldwide, that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, no one has the right to claim infallibility in the interpretation of sacred law. At the same time, this does not mean that all opinions are equal, nor that everyone has the ability to interpret law. Without the intense study of Islamic texts and traditions under qualified scholars and without the presence of a stable Muslim community through which one can witness the wisdom of the living tradition, the chances of an ordinary believer arriving at a correct judgment about most legal issues are slim.”
  10. Mattson is a leader in Muslim efforts to censor the right to free speech in America and especially in the United States government:

    Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of the Islamic Society of North America, said Friday at the opening of the group’s 43rd annual convention that labeling terrorism as “Islamic” was not helpful to people of her faith.

    “I’m convinced that it is not only inaccurate, but unhelpful. If our major concern is security, security of this country, this is a term that has very bad resonance in the Muslim majority world and makes us feel uncomfortable here,” Mattson said.

    Bush and other Republicans have been using the term “Islamic fascism” in recent speeches. White House aides and outside Republican strategists have said the term is an attempt to more clearly identify the ideology that motivates many organized terrorist groups.

    Mattson said her group would argue for a change in rhetoric away from “Islamic fascism.” U.S. officials are attending the meeting here, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England. . . . As an alternative to “Islamic fascism,” Mattson suggested the words “terrorism, crime, violence,” adding that she and other Muslims don’t understand why the label “Islamic” is included when Bush and other leaders talk about terrorism.

    “The products that are coming from the Muslim world are not being called ‘Islamic products’ or ‘Islamic oil,’” she said.
  11. Mattson denies the actual state of women’s rights under Shariah law:
    1. [Transcribed: quote is in last few minutes]

      “I believe that many Americans believe that Muslim women don’t have any rights in Islam. Perhaps they see images of Muslim women being oppressed in different parts of the Muslim world and believe that that is because of their religion. But in fact we know that Muslim women have the same rights as Muslim men and virtually all the same duties and obligations.”

      “One of the popular misconceptions about Islam is that women are seen as lesser figures, that they don’t have rights.

      “This perception that women in Islam are oppressed is based both on misinformation as well as am amplification of certain unfortunate tendencies in some parts of the Muslim world. It’s true that people have seen some Muslim authorities using Islam as a justification for the oppression or suppression of women. That’s a reality, we can’t deny it. But we have to balance those incidents with what’s going on in the rest of the Muslim world, in which most women are participating in their societies. We’ve seen that within recent times four Muslim-majority nations have had female heads of state. In most countries that I’ve traveled to, Muslim women are involved in all aspects of society.”

      “MATTSON: Muslim women have the same legal rights as Muslim men. The Prophet Mohammed’s wife was a businesswoman. In fact, he met her working for her as her agent. The legal rights of women were enshrined in Islamic law. However, cultural practices in many societies have prevented those rights from being enforced.”
  12. Mattson rationalizes the actions of the Taliban against women:

    CHAT PARTICIPANT: Does the Taliban place blame upon women for the weakness of men in their society? Is that why they place such restriction upon them?

    MATTSON: The Taliban place restrictions on everyone in their society, men and women. They’ve extended their authority over individuals far beyond traditional government in Afghanistan. In their minds, they are protecting women from other men by placing these restrictions on them.
  13. Like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Mattson condemns terrorism in general but avoids criticizing Hamas or Hizballah:

    “That can be frustrating. I want to also make sure people understand that although American Muslims do have a responsibility to clarify their views on terrorism and violence done in the name of Islam, we don’t have control over these situations. We don’t have some sort of magic power over all Muslims in the world.”
  14. Mattson apparently thinks that Evangelical Christians are more of a threat to Jews than Islamic jihadists:

    “‘Right-wing Christians are very risky allies for American Jews,’ Mattson said, ‘because they [the Christians] are really anti-Semitic. They do not like Jews’ and enter into the alliance on the basis of fundamentalist beliefs that it would be desirable for all Jews to return to Israel. She suggested that fundamentalist Christians might turn against Jews or that there could be backlash from ordinary Americans against Jewish and fundamentalist Christian supporters of Israel.”
  15. Mattson is highly critical of Israel:

    “The American government has not criticized sufficiently the brutality of the Israeli government, believing that it needs to be “supportive” of the Jewish state. The result is that oppression, left unchecked, can increase to immense proportions, until the oppressed are smothered with hopelessness and rage.”
  16. Mattson limits dialogue:

    “Thus, it is not permitted for a Muslim to maintain a close friendship with a highly intelligent person who engages him or her in stimulating conversation, if that person continuously derides the sacred (Qur’an 5:57–58). Indeed, since preserving faith is the highest priority, it is important that Muslims avoid demoralizing dependence on other faith communities for their protection and material needs. . . . Clearly there are groups among American Christians and Jews who are so hostile to Muslims that we should not join with them even in shared concerns, lest we lend any credibility to their organizations. There are many other groups within those communities, however, who are eager to work respectfully with Muslims to further just causes.”
  17. Mattson and ISNA have been criticized by those who identify themselves as American Muslim reformers and moderates:

    ISNA, which URJ has accepted, apparently uncritically, as a “partner,” has a long history of association with extremist trends in Islam. ISNA has served as a front group for Wahhabism, the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the jihadist ideologies originating in Pakistan with the writings of a certain Mawdudi and the Deoband schools in that country — the latter of which produced the Afghan Taliban, and the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or Muslim Brotherhood.

    Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA, revealed the style of radical rhetoric with which the organization is saturated when, in addressing the URJ’s recent convention, she declared that in the current U.S. presidential primaries, “we see candidates being asked to prove that they comply with an ever narrower definition of what it means to be a Christian — forget about being a Muslim or a Jew.”

    This is an inexcusably irresponsible, inflammatory charge. Although Christian affiliations have been a topic among some presidential candidates, none has been compelled to “comply” with a Christian religious test and no such criterion is reasonably possible in the American electoral process.

    Many Islamic mosque congregations, Sufi orders, and Muslim personalities have called for intelligent and sincere discussion with Jewish individuals and groups, to further interfaith civility and cooperation. This noble goal, to which we as Muslims are called by our revelation and our traditions, cannot be served by flattery toward groups like ISNA, in which radicals are camouflaged as moderates.

    We therefore appeal to Rabbi Yoffie and other Jewish leaders to conduct a serious and thorough survey of the situation in Western Islam, identifying authentic moderates, and enabling them as interlocutors with Jews and other non-Muslims. We do not believe that ISNA qualifies for such a role. We fear that heedless acceptance of ISNA as an ally of URJ does harm to both our communities, by legitimizing a radicalism that, regardless of ISNA’s rhetorical claims, is fundamentally hostile to Jews and suppresses the intellectual and social development of Muslims.

    Nawab Agha, president, American Muslim Congress
    Omran Salman, director, Aafaq Foundation
    Kemal Silay, president, Center for Islamic Pluralism
    Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
    Salim Mansur, Canadian director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
    Jalal Zuberi, Southern U.S. director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
    Imaad Malik, fellow, Center for Islamic Pluralism
    M. Zuhdi Jasser, president, American Islamic Forum for Democracy
    Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, president, International Quranic Center
More moderate “interfaith” Islam from ISNA!

Be sure to check out some of our other recent ISNA-related posts:
The countdown until ISNA occupation continues . . .

Islamofascist Anisa Abd El Fattah declares Michelle Malkin “an enemy of the people”, incites violence against Jews, Christians

Founding CAIR Board member: Michelle Malkin “an enemy of the people”

When the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded, the HAMAS network leaders in the US turned to one of its own, Anisa Abd El Fattah/Caroline F. Keeble to serve as one of its founding board members. Her two mentors and former employers, HAMAS chief Mousa Abu Marzook and Abdurahman Alamoudi, have respectively been designated a terrorist and convicted of terrorist support. Thus, she is quite familiar with both the overt and more subtle methods of cultural terrorism.

Recently, Anisa Abd El Fattah, a Central Ohio resident, published an editorial inciting violence against her old enemy — “Judeo/Christian fascists”. This time around, however, she put a face with the name: conservative media pundit and blogger Michelle Malkin. Her article, “Michelle Malkin: Enemy of the People and the US Constitutiion [sic]”, was published in a number of places, including her National Association of Muslim American Women blog.

In the article (reprinted below), Fattah encourages her supporters to “fight back”, demanding that they fight “more forcefully”, against her enemy. She also recommends that federal racketeering statutes and criminal charges be used to silence the “Judeo/Christian fascists”.

Those who have been following my reporting on Anisa Abd El Fattah’s local activities might recall that late last year she was publicly defending neo-Nazis in a published interchange with law professor Eugene Volokh. She later came out defending the neo-Nazi website, STORMFRONT. And in December, she spoke to a student group acknowledged by the FBI to be a front group for the Iranian mullahocracy.

Thus, it isn’t hard to catch the irony of her jihad against Malkin.

For those just joining us, here are some of our previous posts on our local HAMAS honey:

Before getting to her article declaring Malkin “an ememy of the state” — a term used by Lenin to designate those dissidents and other innocents who were to be executed or sent to the gulags — it is worth recalling that this is hardly the first time that Anisa Abd El Fattah has come out inciting violence. Take for instance her letter to the editor published last September in the Columbus Dispatch, where she declares that all Israelis, including women and children, are enemy combatants and legitimate targets for HAMAS “military operations”. No doubt she considers Malkin (and presumably, myself) in that same category.

Also worth remembering is how Anisa Abd El Fattah was interviewed for an open position on the Columbus Public School Board, operating under her given name, Caroline F. Keeble, and conventiently excluding troubling items on her resume, such as her tenure with the HAMAS front, the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), and her close association to convicted Al-Qaeda bag man, Abdurahman Alamoudi. The families in Central Ohio dodged a bullet (pardon the pun) when she was not selected for the open school board position.

So without further ado, here is Anisa Abd El Fattah in her own words:

Saturday, May 31, 2008
Michelle Malkin: Enemy of the people and US Constitutiion[sic]?
by Anisa ’Abdel Fattah [Detroit]

After reading several of the right wing blogs, and the comments left mostly by right wing supporters commenting on the Michelle Malkin, Rachel Ray scarf situation, I realized that Michelle Malkin, who poses as a mere conservative columnist and commentator is actually more likely an enemy of the people of this country, that is out to undo our Constitution. I know it sounds far fetched, but when you read the titles of this woman’s books, and her opinions on rights and freedoms, it becomes pretty clear that she is no patriot, and that she has not grasped the importance of individual liberties as essential elements of freedom and self governance, and has no respect for US law and traditions.

Either like, or along with the Judeo/Christian religious right who is almost daily taking actions aimed at limiting, depriving and violating the constitutional rights of US citizens through the use of public censure, and threats, Malkin is out to demonstrate how the Constitution can be forced into obsolescence simply with a flick of the pen, a few wicked and inflammatory lies, and threats. Whereas the law may not necessarily prohibit the right of any person to hold a view such as Malkin’s, such tactics might be criminal if carried out with others like racketeering, according to some readings of the RICOH [sic] Act.

When such tactics and views become the methodology of choice for a number of people and organizations, working in concert, and very obviously acting to overthrow the constitution of this country and to replace it with their unethical, racist and fascist Judeo/Christian ideology, America has a problem and it’s bigger than Dunkin Donuts.

Anyone who remembers the run up to the Iraq war is familiar with these tactics. They were used to shut down, or vilify and silence all voices that opposed the war, or who challenged the lies disguised as intelligence that became the cause for war. We now know that the primary advisors to the President during that time were not military men, or even lawyers and Constitutional experts. The presidential advisers that helped lead us into an unnecessary war based upon lies were the Judeo/Christian movement pastors and political operatives that took over our government after 9/11 through political appointments, or who were granted access through US Congress people who eat from, and are sustained by the garbage in the Judeo/Christian Zionist trough. They are not finished. Bush has until January in office, and they plan to use that time to further their agenda.

Having succeeded in imposing their devilish vision of Judeo/Christian dominance over the world, brought about through the use of US military force and proselytizing in Iraq, they are acting now to lead us into another unnecessary war, this time with Iran. Malkin, who wrote a book, explaining why Muslims, Arabs and other Americans should be held in detention camps as they prosecute these illegal wars, is now at work insuring that everyone is put on notice that there will be no dissent allowed this time either, not even symbolic dissent.

Malkin’s most recent assault against the American people and our US Constitution is her attempt to use public censure as a means to deny us our constitutionally protected rights to hold a dissenting and unpopular view, and also to hold and express a political opinion, and to express that opinion in our dress, or any other way that we and not Malkin chooses. Malkin and the right wing fascists that support her are a danger to the United States, since they threaten to overturn by stealth, everything that our founders and the noble men and women who struggled for freedom from the British Empire fought for without due process. It seems that they plan to take over the country, and in fact the world, by force.

The people of this country have a constitutionally protected right to hold unpopular and dissenting political and even religious views without the threat of organized campaigns designed purely to deny or to deprive us of those rights. American citizens also have the right to express such views, whether it is through our choice of clothing, or speech, or our choice of whom to financially support through financial contributions, etc. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld these rights, and has never wavered in its interpretations.

Malkin or others have no right to organize to deprive us of our rights, or to threaten and intimidate businesses, and other institutions in this country with harm should they act in deference to the US Constitution and citizen’s rights.

Since this most recent effort by the fanatical right to undermine the US Constitution is centered on a scarf and a donut maker’s advertisement for coffee, it may seem to be a trite and unimportant incident. When we consider what is at stake, if every business in the US, every school, or other institution falls in lockstep with Malkin and her fascist cohorts, what we will lose will be the very Constitution that our founders and subsequent generations of patriots have fought and died for. Our freedoms and our rights will be past history. We will all be forced to live by the rules of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, and Joe Lieberman. Our country will be a place where we must all dress the same, think the same and worship the same, sacrifice our lives and treasure for Israel, or be subjected to organized campaigns of defamation and scourging, and censure.

Perhaps as a former soldier who once took an oath to protect the US Constitution and my country, I am particularly sensitive to the ploys of people like Malkin, and her co-conspirators. They claim to be patriots, while they are actually more likely to be subversives who use their rights to deny others the freedoms that God bestowed upon us all equally, regardless of our races, religions, or political affiliations.

If we are smart, we will not let this recent attack on the constitution just go away, and wait quietly for the fascist’s next assault. It’s time that the people of this country wake up, and realize that whether we like it or not, we are involved in a cold war for the very soul of our country, and the Constitution that protects that soul in the same way that Holy Books protect and validate the practice of religion.

We must not surrender to Malkin and those who feel that the US Constitution can be forced into obsolescence or rendered irrelevant by the force of public censure and threats. The United States is a republic that is governed by law, not public opinion.

We, the people, must organize to fight this cold war in defense of our constitution, never failing to speak and to stand for the unbridled constitutional rights of every citizen in this country, and especially the right to hold dissenting views, and to express those views whether it be through our choice of dress, fashion, fundraising, protesting, marching, speaking, etc., etc., etc., that we choose.

Michelle Malkin has proven on more than one occasion that she is a person who has not understood the US Constitution, and its significance. Perhaps she feels that we are all like Dunkin Donuts and the other people and institutions that she has whipped with her fascist tongue and pen, and threatened into conformity. We should let her, and her cohorts know that they have underestimated the American people, and that we also have a pen, and a cause. I pray that every decent American who loves their country will boycott Dunkin Donuts until they restore the Rachel Ray advertisement. I hope that everywhere Michelle Malkin shows up to spread and spew her hateful anti-American venom, crowds of freedom loving people will be there to shout her down.

The luxury of apathy has ended. Malkin fired one of many salvos fired by the Judeo/Christian fascists, when she sought to make the case that American citizens should be denied the right to political freedom and public expression, and that those who refuse to conspire with her and her fellow stooges should be threatened into complicity and conformity. We must respond equally, if not more forcefully, without using the fascist tactics they employ.

Part of this response must be to put US businesses and other institutions on notice. If they think Malkin and her crew are to be feared, imagine a United States run by the likes of Malkin, and the other right wing fascist who have taken over the US airways and blogs in an effort to systematically undermine the US Constitution, and to deny and deprive us of our Constitutional rights. If you want to live by the laws of Hagee, Robertson, Parsley and Malkin, keep kowtowing.

If we want to remain free, we must fight back.
If we truly want to remain free, we must speak out against the threats of violence and the strategy of cultural terrorism advocated by Islamofascists, such as Anisa Abd El Fattah, by continuing to resist and expose her “Final Solution” to the “Judeo/Christian” problem.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Confessed Al-Qaeda terrorist still registered to vote in Ohio — and may be able to legally cast an absentee ballot!!

“That’s not the Christopher Paul I know!”

In 2004, the Columbus Dispatch reported just days before the Bush/Kerry presidential election that two local Al-Qaeda terrorists, Iyman Faris and Nuradin Abdi, were still registered to vote in the state of Ohio.

Following that revelation, Democrats and moonbats nationwide pointed to this as conclusive proof that then-Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, and his office were hopelessly corrupt and trying to rig the election for George W. Bush.

What will those same Democrats and moonbats have to say now that one of Faris and Abdi’s partners in terror, Christopher Paul, who pled guilty this past June to conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against targets in the Europe and the US, is still registered to vote? (See the Statement of Facts Paul agreed to in the case.)

Will the fact that the present Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, is a Democrat now temper their outrage?

And will the fact that Christopher Paul has yet to be sentenced mean that he may still legally get to pull the lever (or more likely, submit his absentee ballot) for his man, Barack Hussein Obama, for President, and his lady, Mary Jo Kilroy, for Congress?

(Psst — you might also want to check out our previous post, “Toledo Terrorist Fundraisers 4 Obama”)

A quick check with the Franklin County Board of Elections finds that Paul is still registered to vote as of today (click below to enlarge screen capture or go directly to Paul’s registration on the BOE website).

A search of the Ohio Secretary of State website also shows Paul still registered to vote.

I spoke with Ben Piscitelli at the Franklin County Board of Elections this afternoon and asked about the process of removing felons from the voter rolls. Piscitelli responded:

In such instances, a court will notify us of a felony conviction about one month after sentencing. We will remove the name of the voter in question immediately thereafter.
But no sentencing date has been announced yet for Christopher Paul, and because of the time it takes to compile the sentencing report it is unlikely that such will occur before the November 4th election. Unless the court suddenly sentences Paul in the next few weeks, it appears he will be legally eligible to vote in the upcoming election by absentee ballot (whether he will, of course, is unknown).

As noted above, the problem of having some of our local Al-Qaeda terrorists on the voting roles is nothing new for the State of Ohio. In late October 2004, Jon Craig of the Dispatch reported:

A dirty tale of duplications, even terrorists, on voter lists

Ohio’s voter-registration rolls are dirty, containing more than 122,000 apparent duplicates as well as the names of people who moved out of state in the 1990s, a local murder victim and even a pair of accused terrorists.

Among supposedly eligible voters in Franklin County are suspected terrorists arrested for alleged plots to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and a local shopping mall. As an imprisoned felon, one is ineligible to vote. The other, from Somalia, is not a U.S. citizen and thus broke state and federal laws when he registered in 1999, officials said. . .

“That’s really disturbing,” said Ohio State University law professor Terri Enns. “There certainly are potential problems, but there are a lot of (Election Day) safeguards to keep it from swaying the election.”

Accused terrorists Nuradin Abdi, 32, and Iyman Faris, 35, are registered to vote in Ohio. An indictment unsealed in U.S. District Court in June said Somali immigrant Abdi and admitted al-Qaida member Faris plotted with a third Columbus man to attack a mall.

Fred Alverson, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, said Abdi’s false registration may violate state and federal law. In fact, the application he signed — swearing he is a U.S. citizen — notes that election falsification is punishable by up to six months in prison, a fine of $1,000 or both.

Faris, a Columbus truck driver, is serving a 20-year sentence after admitting that he scouted the Brooklyn Bridge in New York and other potential targets for al-Qaida as recently as March 2003. As an incarcerated felon, he will not be allowed to vote. Faris, from Kashmir, became a naturalized citizen in 1999. (“Long Gone But Still Registered”, Columbus Dispatch, October 24, 2004)
Faris and Abdi were not eligible to vote in the 2004 election because Faris had already been sentenced (though was still on the rolls); and even though Abdi had only been indicted at that time, he had falsely claimed to be a US citizen when he registered and thus was ineligible (though he too was on the voter rolls). But in Christopher Paul’s case, he’s a natural born US citizen; and even though he has admitted his role in the local Al-Qaeda cell (of which only three members have been charged and at least 10 others are known to have been involved), since he hasn’t been sentenced he may not lose his voting rights until after the election.

Some of our local Islamic leaders will have no problem with Christopher Paul voting since they have publicly declared him innocent notwithstanding his guilty plea. But since Obama is desperate for every vote in the State of Ohio, and Mary Jo Kilroy lost by just over 1,000 votes in 2006, how quickly do you think that Secretary Brunner and fellow Ohio Democrats will move to address this issue? In the absence of sentencing by the court he may be legally eligible to vote in the upcoming election. Will Obama or Kilroy supporters care?

Monday, August 18, 2008

2006 ISNA Convention: wife-beating breakout session (11 days until ISNA convention in Columbus)

Saudi women’s activist Rania Al-Baz received a first-hand lesson in Verse 4:34

With less than two weeks before the Islamic Society of North America lands in Central Ohio for their 2008 national convention, we continue our look at past ISNA conventions to see what brand of Islam they will be bringing to our city.

At their 2006 convention, ISNA hosted a curious breakout session: “And Beat them Lightly. . .” An Analysis and In-Depth Discussion of Verse 4:34.

For the uninitiated, here’s verse 4:34 in the Quran:

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.
You’ll notice immediately that there’s nothing here about beating women “lightly”. One of the speakers in this ISNA breakout session was none other than Muzzamil Siddiqui, former president of ISNA and current ISNA Board of Directors member. Here is the session description taken directly from the ISNA official program (click to enlarge):

Sunday, 11:00–12:30 pm
Room 22
Session 9G: “. . . And Beat them Lightly”: An Analysis and In-Depth Discussion of Verse 4:34

This session will discuss the following: understanding the context of revelation (asbaab al nuzuul) for this verse. Emphasis will be focused on understanding the correct meaning of the verse, with specific attention given to the words qiwamah, nushuz, and daraba as well as to understand how this verse is to be applied as a protection for women, not as an abuse.

Speakers: Muzzamil Siddiqi, Rabia Karim Khan
Moderators: Mohamed Magid Ali
Got that? This verse actually protects women! One of Siddiqui’s partners in explaining how to properly beat your wife according to the Quran is Jamal Badawi, a fellow ISNA Board of Directors member, who has published a book on proper wife beating (see our previous post about Badawi’s last appearance in our area). Siddiqui and Badawi cleared up the matter in a fatwa for Islamonline:

This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word “beating” is used in the verse, but it does not mean “physical abuse”. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it “dharban ghayra mubarrih” which means “a light tap that leaves no mark”. He further said that face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.
Ah, so I see now. If you beat your wife anywhere except her face, and the stick you beat her with is small enough that it doesn’t leave a mark, it really isn’t violence. So glad they cleared that up for us! Both Muzzamil Siddiqui and Jamal Badawi will be speaking again this year at the upcoming ISNA convention in downtown Columbus.

More moderate Islam from ISNA!

Be sure to check out some of our other recent ISNA-related posts:
The countdown until ISNA occupation continues . . .

Monday, August 11, 2008

Will CAIR protest Ohio State Fair prize-winning pig of blasphemy?

Oh, the cultural insensitivity! Rampant Islamophobia in the Buckeye State! From the Columbus Dhimmi Dispatch, nonetheless! The horror!

No doubt this little girl innocently intended to honor world champion boxer Muhammad Ali (which is what the Dispatch article indicates), but will that prevent them from burning Dispatch reporter Braden Lammers and editor Ben Marrison in effigy in Karachi tomorrow? History has proven time and again that extremists need less excuse than this.

CAIR boycott of the Columbus Dispatch and Kroger will commence in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .

[article online]

Friday, August 1, 2008

2008 ISNA speaker Siraj Wahhaj calls for Islamic caliphate in America (4 weeks until ISNA convention in Columbus)

Siraj Wahhaj is a regular visitor to the Central Ohio area, but his next appearance in Columbus will be as a featured speaker at the 2008 Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention held here later this month. One of the unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Wahhaj has been in the news recently for being featured in NY subway ads that have proved controversial in light of his known terrorist ties.

Paul Barrett, an editor for Business Week and author of the recent book, American Islam: Struggle for the Soul of Religion, has spent considerable time with Wahhaj and made him one of the primary subjects in his book (read the introduction to Barrett’s book at the Washington Post). Barrett has previously described the transformation of America into an Islamic state that Wahhaj would like to see:

He has told his followers that a society governed by strict Islamic law, in which adulterers would be stoned to death and thieves would have their hands cut off, would be superior to American democracy. Speaking of unnamed forces in the government and media, he has preached, “These people want the destruction of Islam.” (“One Imam Traces the Path of Islam in Black America”, Wall Street Journal [October 24, 2003])
Barrett also describes how Wahhaj brushes off evidence of Osama bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11, including dismissing bin Laden’s own video pronouncements claiming responsibility for the terror attacks, preferring to remain “neutral” on the subject:

He says the al-Qaeda leader’s videotaped boasting about the attacks may have been a media ruse: “I’m just not so sure I want to be one of the ones who say, ‘Yeah, he did it. He’s a horrible man.’” (Ibid.)
Elsewhere Wahhaj has offered a grotesque convergence of bin Laden’s calls for the revival of the Islamic caliphate with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, “I Have a Dream” speech, envisioning an Islamic supremacist society:

I have a vision in America, Muslims owning property all over, Muslim businesses, factories, halal meat, supermarkets, all these buildings owned by Muslims. Can you see the vision, can you see the Newark International Airport and a John Kennedy Airport and La Guardia having Muslim fleets of planes, Muslim pilots. Can you see our trucks rolling down the highways, Muslim names. Can you imagine walking down the streets of Teaneck, [New Jersey]: three Muslim high schools, five Muslim junior-high schools, fifteen public schools. Can you see the vision, can you see young women walking down the street of Newark, New Jersey, with long flowing hijab and long dresses. Can you see the vision of an area . . . controlled by the Muslims?” (quoted in Daniel Pipes, “The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America”, Commentary [Nov. 2001])
How is this Islamic supremacist society governed by an Islamic caliph supposed to come about? Wahhaj is not shy about laying out his plan for violent revolutionary action by Muslims:

If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. If we were united and strong, we would elect our own emir and give allegiance to him. Take my word if eight million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us. (quoted in Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam [and the Crusades], p. 45)
And in an audiotape message Wahhaj speaks of his love for the kuffar (infidel):

. . . And he [Allah] declared ‘Whoever is at war with my friends, I declare war on them.’ Who is a friend of Allah? [He chants a passage in Arabic] Allah. Your true friend is Allah, the messenger, and those who believe. Americans and Canadians. Hear it well. Hear what I’m telling you well. The Americans are not your friends, hear what I’m telling you, hear it well. The Canadians are not your friends, hear what I’m telling you, hear it well. The Europeans are not your friends. Your friend is Allah, the Messenger and those who believe. These people will never be satisfied with you until you follow their religion. They will never be satisfied with you. . . (audiotape, “The Afghanistan Jihad” [September 28, 1991]; quoted in “UCLA Sponsors of Terrorism”, FrontPage Magazine [April 4, 2003])
More ISNA interfaith moderates!

Be sure to check out some of our other recent ISNA-related posts:
The countdown until ISNA occupation continues . . .