Muslim Judge In Brooklyn Swears In Using Qu'ran - And Why It's A Problem

Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo, who was elected as a judge in Brooklyn's 7th Municipal District was sworn in today. She insisted on swearing her oath of office on the Qu'ran.

She's certainly not the first Muslim office holder in America to do so. Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) did it in 2006. She's not even the first Muslim judge. In 2013, Sheila Abdus-Salaam became the first black woman and first Muslim ever to sit on the Court of Appeals, New York's highest judicial body.

And Ms. Walker-Diallo is obviously a very devout Muslim.

So why is this problematic?

Swearing on the Qu'ran, the Bible or any religious text isn't a requirement to serve. The applicable law says only that someone elected to office must “swear or affirm” an oath, and it need not have any religious connotation at all. So Walker-Diallo was making a statement, one that bears thinking about.

Islam is unique in that it is a political ideology hidden inside a religion. And it mandates two codes of conduct,one towards Muslims and another towards everyone else. This is spelled out many places in the Qu'ran, for instance here: "Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another." - 48:25.

It likewise demonizes non-Muslims:

Qu'ran 4:101 - The unbelievers are your inveterate foe.
 Qu'ran 9: 73 - Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
Qu'ran 33:60 - Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell.
Qu'ran 98:51 - The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
Qu'ran 9:123 - O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard against evil.
Qu'ran 8:12 - I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips.
Qu'ran 5:15 - O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as friends and protectors. Whoever turns to them as friends and protectors is one of them.


There's a lot more of this sort of thing throughout the Qu'ran, to the point where demonizing non-believers and exhortations of violence against them could even be called a main theme of the book. The Hadiths, containing the deeds and sayings of Mohammed according to his followers have even more of this type of material.

And these scriptures are the basis for sharia, a code that almost 60% of US Muslims say they would prefer to live under here in America according to the latest Pew poll. Sharia mandates death for homosexuals, inequality for women, and allows wife beating and clitorectomies according to the interpretation by all four Muslim fiqhs. It makes non-Muslims into dhimmis ('protected people') with no rights except to pay exorbitant taxes for the privilege of being allowed to live among Muslims as second class citizens. Dhimmis do not even have the right to testify in a court of law. Their entire existence is subject to the whim of their Muslim conquerors.

More importantly, sharia is not some dusty scriptural antique. Sharia and laws based on Sharia are being practiced in a large part of the world today.

But wait, there's more. The Qu'ran allows taqiyyah, which allows Muslims to lie to infidels to advance Islam.

Given these realities, is a Muslim judge - or any Muslim public official - whom swears an oath on a book that is diametrically opposed to our laws and the Constitution to be taken seriously? Could a judge who swears on the Qu'ran be expected to rule fairly in a case involving a Muslim defendant and say, a Jewish plaintiff? Or in one involving a custody case between a Muslim man and an infidel woman? Could a congressman who swears an oath on a Qu'ran be expected to adhere to that oath in the event of a conflict or disagreement with an Islamic nation? Or when it comes to voting on security policies designed to protect America from terrorist attacks emanating from Muslim nations? Which comes first, the Muslim umma or their oath of office?

In the case of Judge Walker-Diallo I would much have preferred an oath or affirmation without any religious book in preference to the Qu'ran. She was certainly within her rights to use a Qu'ran and at this point I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. There is and should be no test of faith in America to hold office. But as I've noted, Islam is unique among religions. Simply speaking, Islam does not play well with others.

And thus, this sort of thing bears very very careful watching.

Sharia Rears Its Head In Pennsylvania

This one caught my eye (h/t, This Ain't Hell).

In Mechanicsburg, PA, there was a Halloween parade. And a group calling themselves 'The Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania' decided it would be a hoot to dress up as the Pope, Jesus, Mohammed, and other religious figures and portray them as zombies.

A Muslim watching the parade with his family became livid over what he saw as blasphemy and there was a confrontation. What it consisted of depends on whom you believe. The plaintiff/victim Ernest Perce V,
whom just happens to be the Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc.,claims he was physically assaulted, choked from behind by the defendant, Taaliq Elbayomy, that the defendant attempted to smash the sign over his head and pull his costume beard off. In addition, the atheists caught the entire episode on video.

The police were summoned, and in their interview with Taaliq Elbayomy, he admitted there had been physical contact.There's a Pennsylvania law against this sort of thing, so the police and the DA took it to court, which is when things got strange.

The trial was presided over by Judge Mark W. Martin. The first thing he did was to refuse to allow the video of the altercation taken by the plaintiff to be used as evidence. And he allowed Elbayomy to testify without challenge, saying that there was no physical contact, thus changing the story he told the police. That in itself is a crime since its illegal to lie to an officer of the law. Elbayomy also told the court that he was under the impression that to parade around dressed as Mohammed was against the law here in America (which it isn't) and that he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

In delivering his verdict, Judge Martin then proceeded to give Ernest Perce V a tongue lashing, lecturing him on the Qu'ran, sharia law and Muslim culture. The judge's rant starts at about 27:00:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else's religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. It makes you look like a doofus and Mr.Elbayomy is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

“Islam is not just a religion, it's their culture, their culture. It's their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-salaam (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it's very common when speaking to each other it”s very common for them to say uh, this will happen if it's Allah's will, they are so immersed in it.”

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive *. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans..this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don't care about other people”s rights as long as we get our say but we don't care about the other people's say.”

The judge than said that what he basically had here was a he said, she said situation, that the burden of proof was on the defendant and that it was not "proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

(* First, before we go further, let's discuss at that asterisk. In the video linked above,which is a recording of the trial Judge Martin appears to clearly say "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." However, the judge claims what he actually said is 'I'm not a Muslim, I find it offensive.' You can take your pick, although I will say for a non-Muslim, it's interesting that he had a Qu'ran so handy, claimed such authoritative knowledge of it, seemed so enamored of sharia, seems to not understand the First Amendment and seems to somewhat regret that our atheist friend isn't being beheaded for blasphemy.)

I actually understand Judge Martin's verdict. The selfie video doesn't show things all that clearly,mainly a lot of shouting. Not allowing it as evidence in a non-jury trial is not how I would have proceeded,but Judge Martin was within his rights to do so.

It's also true that when the atheists chose to dress up as religious figures, they were obviously looking to provoke a confrontation. To do something like that and then claim 'oh, I'm such a victim' is pretty typical in Obama's America, but that doesn't make it right. Personally, whenever I hear a militant atheist like Mikey Weinstein pule on about those 'evil Christianists' and how we have to get G-d out of our military, I admit to experiencing a pretty disgusted reaction myself. But I also recognize that he's entitled.

Since there wasn't any clear evidence of an actual physical assault, I think Judge Martin was entitled to dismiss the case.

But that's where it stops.

There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for Judge Martin to use the bully pulpit of the bench to deliver a one sided rebuke to an American clearly exercising his First Amendment rights. If someone wants to burn a Qu'ran or a Bible or an American flag, that is both stupid, disrespectful and unkind, but it is not illegal.At least not in America, not yet.

Here Judge Martin had a defendant who is an immigrant and plainly admitted in court he wasn't aware of how the First Amendment works. Did Judge Martin engage in what was obviously called for, a rebuke that explained Mr.Elbayomy's mistake to him and included some basic information on how our Bill of Rights works? Nope. In fact, the way he ruled and his subsequent remarks obviously left Mr.Elbayomy feeling like what he did was entirely correct behavior, as well as providing an interesting model of conduct to his children.

Must.not.offend.Islam.or Muslims.ever.

You see, that's where sharia kicks in.In his off the wall rant, Judge Martin essentially honored the Muslim blasphemy laws, implying that anyone could understand what Mr.Elbayomy did. Why, his essence was being attacked!

This is unfortunately symptomatic of a trend in some American legal circles that seek to legitimize a legal code totally incompatible with America's Constitution and our freedoms. No less than Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has weighed in about how foreign law and sharia needs to be considered in U.S. jurisprudence, and how respect for a Qu'ran should trump the First Amendment. And President Obama's new Justice Elena Kagan who lied openly during her confirmation hearings is also very sharia friendly as evidenced by her conduct while on the Harvard faculty.

 Here's a list and evaluation of about fifty  cases where sharia law has figured in American judicial proceedings, and it's by no means all inclusive.While many of these cases were overturned at the appellate level, the fact that sharia was considered at all even as a legal argument is cause for concern. Britain, where sharia is now mandatory for Muslims in family matters has proved a disaster for women's rights and is a clear warning to other countries about what a slippery slope this can be.

It's quite obvious that for whatever reason, whether he is a Muslim or not, Judge Martin holds certain very positive views on Islam and sharia and accords sharia an equal status with U.S. law, and he went out of his way to express them. It's also obvious that it affected how he treated the case and the plaintiff and that his bias would affect how he would treat future cases, future lawyers and plaintiffs whose fate he might be deciding.

This is clear judicial misconduct, and Judge Martin should be removed for it.

To Go Where Germans Live

An interesting video courtesy of that great site Gates of Vienna and Vlad Tepes. It shows an example of how German children are harassed and assaulted in schools where the population is predominantly Muslim.

80 years ago, these children could have been German Jews.

How The West Lets Jihad Stifle it's Freedom

Ace has a superb post on the subject, entitled 'The Normative Power of Law and the Emotional Power of Drama'. It expresses exactly how the west is cooperating in sabotaging its own freedom.

Here's a slice:

Suppose you accidentally click on a link and wind up seeing the raunchiest, most grotesque pornography imaginable.

What do you do?

You probably close the link and perhaps bark at whoever linked you to it.

But do you attempt to have the site shut down?

In all likelihood you do not. And that doesn't mean you approve of the pornography, or even tolerate it.

You don't attempt to have the site shut down, or stir up a rage, because you know it will be futile. The law has spoken on this point; and where the letter of the law hasn't spoken, the actions of thousands of LEO's and politicians have. There will be virtually no action taken against pornography, ever.

So you don't attempt to get the site shut down because the letter of the law, and the actions of those enforcing it, have informed you that it is a situation you'll just have to live with.

The law has become normative. You may not agree with it (or, of course, you might). But you have internalized the teaching of the law, just as a student internalizes the real rules of his school, what he can get away with, what he can't.

The law has taught you what you will have to accept, what you will have to work around, what you will have to teach yourself to ignore and come to peace with.

The law is normative. It establishes our norms.

The law is currently establishing a new norm. Some -- liberals, chiefly, are quick to line up to embrace the new norm.

The new norm is that certain religions -- oh, why be coy with the plural? One religion -- shall have the protection and sanctification of state power.

One religion, and one religion only.

Piss Christ is being shown in New York City again. There are few calls for the exhibit to be banned, and none for the artist to be arrested -- or vigorously investigated to find if there are any breaches in his past to be arrested for.

Because we know the law and the action of government in executing the law would not be responsive. Not even a little bit.

The law is normative. We have learned there is no point protesting Piss Christ, or any thousand "slanders" against the Prophet of Christianity. We have learned that we will just have to live with it, and, if such things offend us, learn to control our tempers, and learn to avoid certain things that might otherwise give us pleasure, like museums.

What norms are the laws currently teaching the most extreme and intolerant members of Islam?
That they must respect other people's rights to engage in free speech? That they must accept that their religion, like any other, is subject to critique, disrespect, and even hate?

No. They are learning that threatening violence, or actually engaging in violence, is not futile at all, but rather achieves the precise goals they seek (a de facto prohibition against Islam or Mohammad, and no other religion).

The law is normative. This is what it is teaching. This is the lesson it is currently filling minds with.

Violence works. Intolerance -- at least intolerance with a brown face -- is justified and even noble.

And Islamic values are superior to American ones. After all, when the two come into conflict, which values win out?

Read the rest here. We have been teaching this lesson to the Muslim world since the formation of OPEC and the takeover of our embassy in Iran, that we can be rolled and will submit to them. Unfortunately, while the Bush Administration certainly did its part to show Islamists there was no penalty for their violence and savagery, the Obama Administration has doubled down on the matter to the point of sheer cravenness. Appeasement of this kind doesn't end violence, it only make an aggressor reach for more. That's the situation we find ourselves in today.

Islamists Win One - NYC Transit To Prohibit Ads That Could 'Incite Violence'

 

You'll remember that self described 'proud savage' Mona Eltahawy was arrested in New York City for vandalizing an anti-jihad, pro Israel ad in a New York subway station and spray painting a woman who tried to stop her.

Well,  New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority met hurriedly to change its guidelines on advertising and ruled 8-0 that it will henceforth prohibit any advertisements that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

In other words, anti-Israel or anti-Semitic ads, or advertisements for New York City's Piss Christ exhibit  are perfectly acceptable, because the MTA feels there's no danger of Jews or Christians rioting or committing violence over them. An ad like the one above that is merely perceived as being critical of Islam by its adherents is going to be banned.

Essentially, New York City's transit authority is rewarding criminal behavior based on its own laws,  cringing into dhimmitude and obeying the sharia guidelines for the anti-blasphemy laws the Islamists world wide are pushing for.

Pam Geller, whose organization is behind the pro-Israel, anti-jihad ads remains optimistic that her ads are not going to be affected.As she writes, if the MTA bans her ads, 'we'll just sue again.'

Stay tuned.

'Liberal' Media Talking Head Arrested in NYC For Defacing Anti-Jihad Ads

Whenever CNN and MSNBC want to drag out a self-proclaimed moderate Muslim to try and disguise what the Arab Spring actually is, a frequent choice is Mona Eltahawy, 45, an Egyptian-born Muslim columnist and pundit who now lives here in America.

 She made the news today by getting arrested for defacing what she referred to as an 'anti-Muslim' ad now posted in New York City subways, thanks to the legal efforts of Pam Geller of the blog Atlas Shrugs. Here's the ad:



Ms. Eltahawy took exception to the ad,( which, you'll notice, does not mention Islam at all) She tweeted as follows, grabbed some paint and went out to find a sign to deface.

 

You can see for yourself what occurred next.As she began defacing the ad, one Pamela Hall, who apparently supports the ads tried to stop her.

“Do you have a right to do this?” demanded Hall. “I do actually,” replied Eltahawy. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this [the ad] is freedom of expression.”

Hall tried to physically block Eltahawy, who shot bursts of paint around her. “If you don’t want paint, you should get out of my way,” Eltahawy said and then sprayed Hall. Eltahawy was then arrested by a NYPD officer and an MTA cop, who put the cuffs on her and led her away. She's been charged with criminal mischief, making graffiti and possession of a graffiti instrument, all misdemeanor crimes in New York City. Ms. Hall has also said she's going to press assault charges against Eltahawy.

 This is pitiable on a number of levels.

 Mona Eltahawy is no jihadist or Islamist.She could best be described by as a fairly clueless left winger. Yet, she's doing exactly what the Islamists want...trying to demonize anything that could be construed as criticism of Islam, and no other faith.I don't recall seeing her protesting the show 'The Book of Mormon' or defacing those ads, and believe me, that show is equally offensive to a lot of members of the Latter Day Saints.They just aren't murdering people or bombing buildings over it.

Mona Eltahawy's bread and butter for the last two years or so has been to be the U.S. apologist for an idealized version of the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt,  when liberty, liberalism and democracy were supposed to triumph.Unfortunately, as we now know, Islam, which doesn't  have much if any regard for  these characteristics won out instead. I can recall when Ms. Eltahawy was on CNN telling America and the world that the Egyptian people weren't going to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to 'steal their revolution'. Unfortunately, she still appears to remain clueless that not only did the majority of Egyptians allow it, they really, really liked the idea.

It's an amazing bit of cognitive dissonance for someone like Mona Eltahawy  to refer to herself as a 'proud savage' and take a pro-jihad stance, but that's exactly what she's done.

As for the free expression argument she used as her excuse for toeing the Islamist line, I wonder - if defacing an anti-Jihad ad as 'hate speech' is her idea of free expression, what would she think about someone  spray painting a number of pages in the Qu'ran that are a lot more explicit  than the ad she attacked when it comes to expressing out and out hatred. misogyny  and racism?

I have a feeling she might have different rules of what free expression is allowed  in that particular instance.

CAIR Sues Oklahoma After Anti-Sharia Ballot Measure Passes

The people of Oklahoma had a measure on the ballot, State Question 755 that altered the state Constitution to ban Oklahoma's courts from considering Islamic or international law when making judicial rulings.

It passed by over 70%.

Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma promptly filed a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional.

Awad gave a press conference and was joined by Chuck Thornton, deputy director of ACLU-Oklahoma; Imad Enchassi, imam of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (who famously referred to the Tea Party as 'the KKK in drag'); and Nathaniel Batchelder, director of the Central Oklahoma Human Rights Association.

Awad's basis for the suit? He claims SQ755 violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam.According to Awad, there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts, and the law is designed to unfairly single out Islam.

Thornton referred to the law as an "ugly piece of legislation that was used to inflame passions against the Islamic community."

Since sharia law directly mandates an inferior status for women, and non-Muslims and the death penalty for adulterers, homosexuals and those who attempt to leave Islam, all of which violates our Constitution, one would think there would be no question of it getting a foothold here.

Really?

Just recently a judge in New Jersey denied a Muslim woman's case against her husband and ruled that a Muslim husband's right to rape his wife was covered under religious freedom because it did not violate his Islamic beliefs.

While his decision was overturned on appeal, this judge is still sitting on the bench, and there are undoubtedly others like him.Recently, we even had the obscene spectacle of a Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer opining that the Qu'ran might be covered by 'special rights' and that criticism or desecration might not be covered by the First Amendment.

For CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Federation terrorism trial who our own FBI recently cut all ties with, the advantages of the lawsuit are easily seen.

As an Islamist group, their goal is exactly what SQ755 was designed to prevent - the gradual perversion of our justice system to allow sharia law to become an accepted norm here in America - as it already is in Britain, where sharia courts are mandatory in civil matters for Muslims.

So they filed suit as a warning to other states not to allow Americans to vote on similar measures unless they want to be faced with expensive litigation.

It was quite acceptable and proper for the people of Oklahoma by a vast majority to enjoin judges legally not to consider sharia in bench rulings to avoid any confusion, especially in light of the instances mentioned above. And it has nothing to do with fear of an Islamist 'takeover'.

Quite simply, sharia and our Constitution are not compatible, and it has no place in American jurisprudence unless one feels that Muslims - women in particular - do not deserve Constitutional protection simply because they are Muslim.

The people of Oklahoma took a good look at that and decided 'no thank you'.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

New Jersey Judge Rules Muslim Man's Right to Rape is Religious Freedom

Think sharia law isn't making inroads here in America? Think it's no big deal? Guess again.

In a recent New Jersey case, a judge denied a Muslim woman an Order of Protection from her abusive husband not because the rapes and domestic violence she detailed were not committed, but because the judge accepted a defense from the man that he was acting on his Islamic beliefs! In denying the woman's request, the judge stated:

“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

The judge then vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed the plaintiff’s domestic violence action.

The rapes and domestic violence took place in 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009. While raping the woman, the Muslim man said “You are my wife, I can do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”

Here are the actual facts of what occurred, as per the court records and transcript from the appellate court of New Jersey where the abused victim successfully appealed the lower court decision. As you'll see, rape was only part of the brutal abuse this woman suffered.

Note that the woman was only 17, she was imported from Morocco as a teenage bride in an arranged marriage having never seen her husband prior to the wedding and that the husband was not some immigrant day laborer but an accountant fully familiar with American customs.

As far as Islamic law goes, the original justice was totally correct. Rape is essentially a non-crime in Islamic law , since it takes four male witnesses to prove it ( Sura 24:4 and 24:13). A raped woman is unable to get justice anywhere sharia prevails, and her testimony is basically considered worthless.

The Quran gives a husband supreme authority over a woman and makes her his property, to do with as he will.

Muhammad is quoted as saying: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460). He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).

As a matter of fact, in response to the appellate judge's questions, an imam called as a witness who was involved in the case would not definitively answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his advances if his wife said "no." However, the imam did acknowledge that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape, something he was apparently unable to concede in the original trial.

Fortunately the appellate court reversed this decision, and the sharia-friendly ruling was not allowed to stand - for now.

Rest assured, there will be more of these.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

US DOJ Inserts Itself Into Tennessee Mosque Controversy

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers." - Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan

Our Department of Justice is trying to intimidate a local jurisdiction in favor of the building of a mega-mosque in Murfeesboo Tennessee.

Muslims are only a small contingent of the population of Murfreesboro and its vicinity, but they are planning to build a 52,000 square foot mega-mosque in the area. The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (ICM) claims the space in needed because they have over 1,000 worshipers, although the 2009 ICM annual report shows only 45 active members.

A number of questions about the people involved in the proposed Islamic Center Of Murfreesboro, the murky sources of funding, the process by which permits were issued and the zoning considerations have led to controversy and opposition by many of the local residents.

That led to Thomas Perez, the assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, descending with his staff and spending the day making house calls in this part of Tennessee, assuring Muslim leaders — including the imams of the Murfreesboro mosque and the Islamic Center of Nashville — that the Obama DOJ is more than willing to assist them if the court case involved doesn't go their way.

"Basically, what we're being told is that if there's any civil violation of the rights of the Muslim community here, they'll step in," says Abdou Kattih, vice president of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (ICM), who also met with government officials.

Perez, by the way is intimately involved in the brewing scandal surrounding the Department of Justice's policy of not pursuing violations of the voting rights laws when non-whites like the New Black Panther Party were the perpetrators..and the ensuing attempt at a cover up.

The mosque itself and the cast of characters involved in trying to get it built has a number of details reminiscent of the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque.

Sheikh Osama Bahloul, the prospective imam of the ICM has refused to address a number of issues that cast significant doubt on whether he will be a voice combating radical Islam and shariah in America.

For instance, the Islamic Center’s reading list includes a number of authors who trumpet the cause of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood like Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi.

Al-Qaradawi has written that Hitler was Allah’s method of judging the Jews and that “Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of believers.” He has a long history of Jew hatred and support of sharia and Islamist terrorism. He supports Hamas, the destruction of Israel, and the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he also signed a letter saying that the 9/11 attacks were a “fabricated drama by some influential forces in America in co-ordination with Israeli Mossad.”

That Imam Bahloul would consider al-Qaradawi and other Muslim Brotherhood figures must read material is hardly surprising, since Bahloul received his theological training at Egypt's Al-Azhar University, a veritable petri dish of Muslim Brotherhood jihad ideology.

Bahloul has also yet to explicitly condemn Hamas or Hezbollah publicly.

The ICM's board members are also of interest. Abdou Kattih, the vice president quoted above has issued a number of Islamist pamphlets on subjects extolling the virtues of sharia law, another board member, ICM spokesperson Camie Ayash is a convicted felon with a dubious background who did time in Florida for grand theft and forgery and Mosaad Rawash is an active Hamas and Hezbollah supporter.

Rawash’s MySpace page called for Muslims to wage violent jihad against Israel and support 'resistance fighters' in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. His page also featured a 'shrine' to Hamas founders Ahmed Yassin and Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi.

Rawash was temporarily suspended when all this was unearthed, but was reinstated and is back as a board member of the ICM in good standing.

Sources of funding for the ICM is also a murky issue, and inquiries into it have been met with the same sort of dissembling familiar to people who have been following the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. It's a pretty good bet that the majority of the funds for the ICM and for other massive Islamic complexes in this part of Tennessee planned for Bridgeport and Antioch will be coming from the Saudis and the UAE - most likely via unindicted terrorism co-conspirator and Muslim Brotherhood front group The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which now controls an estimated 80% of American mosques.

Since these mega-mosques are far in excess of the needs of the present Muslim population in central Tennessee, this has the feel of conquest, of staking out territory rather than any legitimate construction for religious purposes.

And as the legal challenges to the ICM unfold, I don't doubt that more questionable affiliations will come to light.

One thing that should surprise no one is that our president, who self-described as one of his main duties 'defending Islam' sent our Justice Department to Tennessee in an attempt to support the building of the Murfreesboro mega mosque and intimidate what more and more looks like prudent opposition to it.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Come And Get Me, al-Awlaki!

A little raw courage in the face of Islamist terrorism...from someone who apparently has more stones than the current occupant of the White House.

You go, Zinnia Jones!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!