So that means that the Muslims who pressured these Hindus are Misunderstanders of Islam, right? Not necessarily. The dhimma, after all, mandates discrimination against the "protected" or "guilty" people, the dhimmis. If dhimmis wish to escape the crushing tax burden and the other deprivations of dhimmitude, all they need to do is convert to Islam. If a dhimmi did convert under such circumstances, Islamic law would not regard his conversion as compelled or coerced. When the Muslims in the story below stopped eating food prepared by Hindus, they were simply acting in accord with the Qur'an's labeling of polytheists as "unclean" (9:28). If a Hindu, seeing his business fall off drastically, then converted to Islam to avoid financial ruin, such a conversion would not be regarded as forced at all -- at least by the convert's new Muslim brethren. They would regard the suffering the convert experienced as a Hindu merely as the natural consequence of his rebellion against Allah and Muhammad, and his conversion as a free response to those consequences.

"57 Pakistani Hindus convert to Islam 'under pressure,'" by Amir Mir for DNA, May 28 (thanks to Dolmance):

ISLAMABAD: Over 50 Pakistani Hindus have converted to Islam in the Sialkot district of Punjab within a week (between May 14 and May 19) under pressure from their Muslim employers in a bid to retain their jobs and survive in the Muslim-dominated society.

As many as 35 Hindus converted to Islam on May 14, another 14 on May 17 and eight on May 19, 2010.

All the 57 Hindus who have converted belong to the Pasroor town of Sialkot.

According to some Pakistani electronic media reports, Mangut Ram, a close relative of some of the new converts, who lives in Sialkot, said that these Hindus had to embrace Islam because they were under pressure from their Muslim employers.

He said four Hindu brothers along with their families lived in the village of Nikki Pindi. Mangut Ram said that Hans Raj, Kans Raj, Meena/Kartar and Sardari Lal along with his nephews and sons worked at an eatery in Karachi.

According to Mangut Ram, his co workers often used to speak against Hindus in Karachi where his family worked. "The owner of the shop where I worked said that after a few months of his employing me the sales dropped drastically because people avoided purchasing and eating edibles prepared by Hindus. Many people opposed the large presence of Hindu employees at his shop and my boss felt pressured to change the situation," he added.

Ram said Sardari Lal and his brother Meena/Kartar had worked at the sweets shops for several years and made a decent living that allowed them to support their families.

He said other Muslims employees of the nearby shops discriminated against them and persecuted them. The shop owner was forced to think about their future at his establishment. "That was when the two brothers and their families decided to embrace Islam in order to keep their jobs and be secure," he added.

Ram confirmed that 13 family members of Sardari Lal, 12 members of Meena/ Kartar, their nephew Kans Raj's son Boota Ram along with three adults and several children of these families embraced Islam on May 14, 2010.

He said that Sardari Lal's older brothers Hans Raj and Kans Raj remained Hindus. Hans Raj too has said that he might consider converting to save his job. He said that life was 'just easier if one was Muslim' and he wouldn't be discriminated against.

Ram said that 14 Hindus of the Tapiala village had embraced Islam on May 17 because they were extremely poor and could not get jobs because no one would employ the large Hindu family.

He said that another relative of his, Parkash, who lived in the village of Seowal, along with his eight family members had embraced Islam in order to save their lands.

"After embracing Islam, Parkash Ram told me that Muslim neighbours had been mistreating him and had forced him to convert," Mangut Ram said.

One of the great perks of being associated with the Washington D.C.-based Phillips Foundation is meeting young, enterprising journalists setting out to make their mark in the world. Anna Parashkevova (Anna Moya by marriage), was very much in that category. Born in Bulgaria, she immigrated to the United States with her family, went on to attend Dartmouth College, and began what by all accounts was a promising career as a foreign correspondent. I met Anna just once, and found her an engaging and charming conversationalist. Embarrassingly given my Russian roots, her Russian was perhaps even better than mine. She talked most fondly about her work – she was then a correspondent for Russia’s Russia Today television channel – and about her Cuban husband. It’s doubly tragic then that Anna’s life and career were cut short last week, when she was murdered by her husband in their Brussels home. He has since turned himself in to the authorities. I’m devastated for her family and extend my deepest condolences to them. And I’m sorry to hear that a promising journalistic career has ended much too soon. Requiescat in pace.

To read more about Anna, visit here. To view some of her television work, click here.

An Asian man whose marriage breakdown allegedly led to the murders of his parents and sister may have split up with his wife because he had a love-child with a secret girlfriend.

Kamar Mahmood separated from his wife Nabeela after being married for nine years.

It is understood that the shame of the couple's split - and the news that Mr Mahmood had allegedly cheated on his wife with a white, blonde girl - outraged Nabeela's family so much that they decided to take revenge.

Nabeela's three brothers and two other men are accused of shooting dead Mr Mahmood's father Mohammad Yusaf, 51, his mother Pervaze, 49, and sister Tania, 22, who were in Pakistan for the marriage of their youngest son, Asad, 24.

The victims were sprayed with bullets as they prayed at a relative's graveside in a village in Gujrat province....

Inspector Meraj Baig, a Gujrat officer investigating the murders, said: 'His wife found out he was involved with a British girl and that he was preparing to marry her. She told his parents and other family members and then her own brothers, who were furious.

There were quarrels between the two families and, ultimately, it is alleged, it led to murder.'...

With 10% unemployment, one would think that the government would consider lowering the number of green cards issued to foreign workers until Americans were back on their feet.  Amazingly, recently released data from the Department of Homeland Security shows that we have actually increased immigration.  Far from reflecting supply and demand, our legal immigration numbers continue to climb no matter the state of the national economy.

The latest figures come from fiscal year 2009.  The fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, which is when our economic collapse began and continued through September of 2009.  Over five million Americans lost their jobs over that period.

America issued 1,130,818 permanent green cards, 808,478 of which were given to immigrants of working age.  This is an increase over 2008 and 2007.  Excluding the extra green cards given after the 1986 amnesty, this was the second highest number of green cards issued since 1914.  From 2000 though 2009, we issued 10,299,430—the highest decade in American history.

In addition to the green cards, the government issued 881,840 temporary work visas and gave refugee or asylum status to 96,721 aliens.  The total increase to the American workforce was 1.75 million foreign workers. According to the Census Bureau, 1 out of every 6 workers is foreign born.

What are the possible justifications for this policy?  Are these immigrants taking jobs Americans won’t do?  With the unemployment rate at nearly 10%, no one can say this with a straight face.

Does this create diversity?  The pool of legal immigrants is rather un-diverse. Less than 10% of them come from Europe.

Does this decrease illegal immigration?  If that were the case, you would have expected the illegal immigration numbers to decline as legal immigration increased.  In fact, they have both skyrocketed.

Instead of talking about reducing these numbers, politicians are calling for raising the level of legal immigration.  Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Harry Reid (D-NV) recently released an outline for their ideas for “comprehensive immigration reform.” They call for adding an additional 3.4 million family visas and 550,000 work visas.

In the house, Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Solomon Ortiz’s (D-TX) introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act (H.R. 4321) which makes the same proposals for increasing family and work visas, but one ups them by adding a special new visa category of 100,000 permanent green cards a year to go specifically to Latin American countries.

There are two bills in Congress that will reduce legal immigration.  Rep. Phil Gingrey’s  (R-GA) Nuclear Family Priority Act (H.R.878) will limit family based immigration and reduce 111,800 green cards.  Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s (R-VA) SAFE for America Act (H.R.2305 ) will eliminate the Visa Lottery category that grants 50,000 visas a year.  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is not backing these bills and they only have 30 and 57 co-sponsors, respectively.

These bills are a great start, but even if they passed we’d still issue nearly one million green cards a year. If we really want to put Americans back to work, we need a moratorium across nearly all categories of legal immigration.  A moratorium will free up jobs for American citizens, reduce the stress on social services, and allow the immigrants already here to assimilate.

The only people who will lose out from a moratorium are the ethnic interests who want new constituents and the business lobbies who want cheap labor.  Unfortunately, both political parties are more concerned with the well-being of these special interests than the well-being American citizens.

Virgil Goode represented Virginia’s 5^th Congressional District from 1997 to 2009.

Visit Newsreal

Last week, Newsweek published yet another liberal opinion piece: Superficially but falsely even-handed, optimistic, pro-Arab and Muslim culture, pro-Judeo-Christian Western culture—safely middle-of-the-road. So “middle” that the reader does not really know what road she is on or where she is going. The journalist, Christopher Dickey, is writing about the new winner of the Miss America contest, Rima Fakih, who is an Arab-American Shiite Muslim with family roots in Lebanon.

And they say that Americans are “Islamophobic?”

Speaking out of all sides of his mouth, Dickey tells us that the French Cabinet has drafted an anti-burqa/anti-niqab law; that the new Miss America has been accused both of having “family ties to Hezbollah terrorists”—and of being too-sexy a pole dancer; that in 1985, Lebanon was filled with “bearded radicals holding Americans hostage at the Beirut airport in 1985” and, at the same time, with women “tanning in their bikinis at a beach club just a couple of miles away.”

This continues for another ten-eleven paragraphs. All things are true. Opposites exist. Contradictions abound. Therefore, nothing is true, there are no objective or universally moral truths. What exists is Dickey’s and the mainstream media’s point of view: He writes: “The fact is that most Arab and Muslim women, like people anywhere, are basically just trying to get by in the culture that’s been handed to them, looking to make a little space for their ambitions, take advantage of opportunities, and find freedom where they can.”

Does he include Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Islamic Jihad (in Palestine and Egypt), the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jemaah Islamiya or the Islamist terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, 11/25 in this happy-go-lucky description of Muslims who are just like us? He mentions the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, but he does not seem truly worried about them. Alright, Dickey and his supporters might say: C’mon, these terrorists are national and supra-national players. They have hijacked the true, peaceful Islam and have nothing to do with the large majority of Muslims who are peaceful and pro-modernity. A good point—and I believe in supporting anti-Islamist Muslims: the dissidents, the feminists, the pro-democracy activists, the secularists, etc. Alas, they are an endangered minority both in the West and in their countries of origin.

But really, how can Dickey so totally overlook the local, indigenous, tribal, cultural, and/or religious customs that define Islamic gender apartheid? How about those Islamist men who throw acid into the faces of young Muslim schoolgirls because they are wearing their Islamic Veils improperly? How about those civilians who honor-murder their daughters, sisters, and wives when they refuse to wear the Islamic Veil, who dare to leave a dangerously abusive husband, who are seen as too “Western?”

Dickey avoids these questions entirely. Instead, he focuses upon the false moral equivalence between the burqa and the bikini. He quotes Amal Gandour, a Stanford-educated Shiite (unveiled) woman who says that “the very educated and professional—but veiled—woman in the southern suburbs of Beirut may have a stronger claim on the cosmopolitan vision than the bimbos with bare stomachs, big lips, and fake eyelashes walking downtown on Rue Foche.”

Just a minute. While I may not like the pornographication of the female body that has taken over Western culture, neither my family nor the state will ever force me to wear a bikini—or kill me if when I refuse to do so. Increasingly, the Islamic Veil has become either a life—or a death sentence for Muslim women. The veiling of women is also related to fundamentalism and terrorism. Bin Laden’s wives are all fully veiled. Follow the chador or the burqa, in Muslim lands and in the West, and soon enough, you will stumble upon an anti-infidel, anti-Zionist den of extreme haters or terrorists.

Dickey is right to say that “The real test of modernity, including our own, is tolerance.” But to suggest, as he does, that the more a person is willing to tolerate, the more modern you are, is just as mistaken as suggesting that the more nakedness you reveal, the more liberated you are. Tolerance and liberty without limits will eventually lead to their opposite.

When President Sarkozy calls the Islamic Veil a threat to France and to democracy, he may be exaggerating but he is also taking a legitimate moral stand. Dickey scoffs at French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie who insists that burqa wearers are “a threat to the values of the Republic and democracy.” Dickey finds it hard to “take her seriously.” Two thousand burqas in France (Dickey’s estimate) may not be an epidemic, but what Dickey misses is that this is the just the tip of the iceberg of Islamic misogyny. He also completely misses a larger truth: that burqas are a health hazard to women, a violation of their human and civil rights.

There may be many women like Rima Fakih in the Muslim World, but they are increasingly endangered. The once modern, educated, unveiled women of Turkey and Egypt have been re-veiled. The once emerging women of Afghanistan and Iran have been sent back to the tenth century. The women of Saudi Arabia have not yet left the seventh century—although some women are feminists and are actually fighting back against the dreaded Muttawa’a, the religious “vice and virtue” police. Muslim girls and women in the West are veiling too—as if it’s a form of “resistance” against “Islamophobia” or a statement of jihad. Some are veiling in order to show solidarity with their family or religion and in order to remain marriageable—or simply in order to avoid being beaten or killed.

I am really tired of these politically correct multi-culturally relativist pieces on this important subject. And, I do understand that a) there is absolutely no religious imperative for Muslim girls and women to veil; b) a secular state ban against the burqa is as problematic as a family who forces a girl to veil against her will. And yet—we live in treacherous times. This is not the time to sue for the right to wear this barbaric, anti-woman clothing as if winning such a “lawfare” lawsuit represents a victory for freedom. This is the time to end the practice of veiling women on behalf of women’s freedom.

Clearly, this battle must begin in the West.

Mr. Dickey: You begin your article by asking: “Do clothes make the Muslim?” My answer: Buddhists don’t wear burqas. Mr. Dickey: The ball is now squarely in your court.

Last week, Newsweek published yet another liberal opinion piece: Superficially but falsely even-handed, optimistic, pro-Arab and Muslim culture, pro-Judeo-Christian Western culture—safely middle-of-the-road. So “middle” that the reader does not really know what road she is on or where she is going. The journalist, Christopher Dickey, is writing about the new winner of the Miss America contest, Rima Fakih, who is an Arab-American Shiite Muslim with family roots in Lebanon.

And they say that Americans are “Islamophobic?”

Speaking out of all sides of his mouth, Dickey tells us that the French Cabinet has drafted an anti-burqa/anti-niqab law; that the new Miss America has been accused both of having “family ties to Hezbollah terrorists”—and of being too-sexy a pole dancer; that in 1985, Lebanon was filled with “bearded radicals holding Americans hostage at the Beirut airport in 1985” and, at the same time, with women “tanning in their bikinis at a beach club just a couple of miles away.”

This continues for another ten-eleven paragraphs. All things are true. Opposites exist. Contradictions abound. Therefore, nothing is true, there are no objective or universally moral truths. What exists is Dickey’s and the mainstream media’s point of view: He writes: “The fact is that most Arab and Muslim women, like people anywhere, are basically just trying to get by in the culture that’s been handed to them, looking to make a little space for their ambitions, take advantage of opportunities, and find freedom where they can.”

Does he include Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Islamic Jihad (in Palestine and Egypt), the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jemaah Islamiya or the Islamist terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, 11/25 in this happy-go-lucky description of Muslims who are just like us? He mentions the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, but he does not seem truly worried about them. Alright, Dickey and his supporters might say: C’mon, these terrorists are national and supra-national players. They have hijacked the true, peaceful Islam and have nothing to do with the large majority of Muslims who are peaceful and pro-modernity. A good point—and I believe in supporting anti-Islamist Muslims: the dissidents, the feminists, the pro-democracy activists, the secularists, etc. Alas, they are an endangered minority both in the West and in their countries of origin.

But really, how can Dickey so totally overlook the local, indigenous, tribal, cultural, and/or religious customs that define Islamic gender apartheid? How about those Islamist men who throw acid into the faces of young Muslim schoolgirls because they are wearing their Islamic Veils improperly? How about those civilians who honor-murder their daughters, sisters, and wives when they refuse to wear the Islamic Veil, who dare to leave a dangerously abusive husband, who are seen as too “Western?”

Dickey avoids these questions entirely. Instead, he focuses upon the false moral equivalence between the burqa and the bikini. He quotes Amal Gandour, a Stanford-educated Shiite (unveiled) woman who says that “the very educated and professional—but veiled—woman in the southern suburbs of Beirut may have a stronger claim on the cosmopolitan vision than the bimbos with bare stomachs, big lips, and fake eyelashes walking downtown on Rue Foche.”

Just a minute. While I may not like the pornographication of the female body that has taken over Western culture, neither my family nor the state will ever force me to wear a bikini—or kill me if when I refuse to do so. Increasingly, the Islamic Veil has become either a life—or a death sentence for Muslim women. The veiling of women is also related to fundamentalism and terrorism. Bin Laden’s wives are all fully veiled. Follow the chador or the burqa, in Muslim lands and in the West, and soon enough, you will stumble upon an anti-infidel, anti-Zionist den of extreme haters or terrorists.

Continued reading on Page 2 here.

(Insert awkward silence here.)

Muhammad, actually, according to this hadith:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i. e. the daughter of Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (purbety) [sic] as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared. (Sahih Muslim 3425)

When, per Qur'an 33:21, Muhammad is seen as "a beautiful pattern of conduct" whose every word and action is to be admired and taken seriously, these things have a way of coming back.

"Saudi scholar's fatwa wades into controversy," by Habib Toumi for Gulf News, May 22 (thanks to Twostellas):

Manama: A Saudi scholar has waded into controversy after he said that women could give their milk to men to establish a degree of maternal relations and get around a strict religious ban on mixing between unrelated men and women.

According to Shaikh Abdul Mohsin Al Abaican, a consultant at Saudi Arabia's royal court, a man who often entered a house and came in contact with the womenfolk there should be made symbolically related to the women by drinking milk from one of the women.

Under the fatwa, the act would preclude any sexual relations between the man and the donor woman and her relatives.

However, Al Abaican said that the donor woman should not breastfeed the man directly.

Sorry -- still creepy.

"The man should take the milk, but not directly from the breast of the woman," Al Abaican said. "He should drink it and then becomes a relative of the family, a fact that allows him to come in contact with the women without breaking Islam's rules about mixing," he said, quoted by Kuwaiti and Saudi media on Saturday.

However, the scholar said that his fatwa did not apply to family drivers, explaining that they were not permanent and could be replaced. "The fatwa is only for those who live in the house or need to get in often," he said.

Al Abaican's fatwa was immediately rejected by bloggers as "a decision that is totally unrelated to reality at a time when people are thinking about bold and new space discoveries."

Many wrote that there was no reason for the fatwa to be issued and that scholars should focus instead on "much more significant issues."

The edict is also likely to be resisted by religious scholars keen on promoting a more modern view of Islamic values.

Exactly three years ago, on May 22, 2007, an Egyptian scholar was disciplined by Al Azhar University, one of Islam's most prestigious institutions, after he issued a fatwa calling upon women to breastfeed their male colleagues.

Dr Izzat Attiyah said that his fatwa offered a way around mixing of the sexes in the work place since breast-feeding established a maternal relation even if the beneficiary was not the woman's biological son or daughter.

However, following Islamic scholars' fierce denunciation of the fatwa as defamatory to Islam, Izzat retracted it.

Police knew about abuse by father

Svera was frank: "I'm afraid of my father. He beats me." But for the authorities it wasn't clear enough.

16 year old Svera R. from Zurich-Hongg: A strong person who wanted to live her life- without the bonds of the strict muslim faith which stood above everything for her father. On Monday he killed his fistborn child with an axe. Then he surrendered to the police.

Svera's friends are under shock. And they're in anger: "Svera was a poor girl. In the family there was a lot of confrontation.

Heated arguments", says Daniel A. (20) to BLICK. He lives in the community Rutihof next to family R. "Often the father was beating her so severely that we could see the bruises. She attended school in that condition." In 2007 the school filed a notion/alarm concerning the four kids who received Swiss citizenship. They got a social worker and an Egyptian counselor/mediator.  

"Nonetheless, police and ambulance showed up several times", says Daniel A. "Last time I noticed was two weeks ago, when the father had a heart attack."

That incident was confirmed by Marco Cortesi, spokesman of the police in Zurich. "Scheragha R. was brought into hospital by an ambulance." It was the second time the police got involved with family R. "Three weeks ago we were called for the first time" according to Cortesi. "Svera ran away. Very soon we located her at her boy-friend's home. On the phone she told an officer that things aren't all right at home any longer. That her father beats her and that she is afraid of him."

What does the police do with these information? "We offered her to visit the police station and provide a testimony- or move to a shelter. She didn't do either. That's why the charge of abuse wasn't investigated any further. This is standard procedure", says Cortesi.

The family counselor arranged a mediation between father and daughter. Svera spent a night at her parents' home but then ran away to her boy-friend.

"The third deployment in that case occurred on Monday when Svera and a friend of hers were caught stealing", says Cortesi. "We informed the parents." And Svera? "She said it was ok with her- but she would run away from home instantly."

But why were these cries for help not being paid attention to? Cortesi explains: "She didn't go to the police station in order to provide a testimony, nor did she contact a shelter. That way a case like this does not get on record."

At the Guardianship Authority (I guess: Guardian ad litem) of the city of Zurich father's R. beatings were never an issue.
Spokesman Martin Naef (39): "There were no indications of massive use of violence. It seems like it wasn't more than  skirmishes/fisticuffs and arguments/conflicts." Moreover, family R. had been in care/coached intensively. Naef: "We were under the impression that tension had been in decline since 2007." During the last weeks the family counselor increased visits to the family even more.

Tragic: A meeting with Svera, coaches and family counselor was scheduled for Tuesday morning. Naef: "It was planned to talk about the situation at home and assistance/care." Too late. Svera is dead.

Read it all.

Of course, no Islamic law sanctions the disfiguring of those who besmirch the family honor. But with honor killing broadly tolerated -- its perpetrators given light sentences at best in countries such as Jordan and Syria -- this kind of thing is going to happen.

"Charities fear rise in acid attacks avenging slights on family honour," by Jerome Taylor for The Independent, May 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

When Awais Akram answered his mobile to Sadia Khatoon, a 24-year-old married woman whom he had met on Facebook and had recently started a physical, but not sexual, relationship with, he had little idea of the fate that was about to befall him.

Mrs Khatoon insisted they meet outside his flat in Leytonstone, east London, but as Mr Akram stepped out into the summer sunshine his lover was nowhere to be seen. Instead he was confronted by three masked men wearing gloves, one of whom was carrying a bottle of "Give It One Shot" drain cleaner.

The men, who included Mrs Khatoon's brother Mohammed Vakas, had come to wipe off what they believed was a stain on their family's "izzat" (honour). Beating and stabbing Mr Akram was not enough. As he lay bleeding on the floor, Vakas stepped over his victim and poured the entire bottle of drain cleaner over Mr Akram's face and body.

In parts of the developing world - particularly south-east Asia, the south Asian subcontinent and east Africa - acid attacks are common. The Taliban and fellow extremists have frequently resorted to throwing acid in women's faces for even small transgressions, such as daring to go out unveiled. But there are concerns that such attacks may also be on the increase in the UK.

Hospital admission figures for the past three years show a steady rise in the number of people being treated for acid attacks. According to the NHS information centre, 44 people were admitted to hospital in 2006-07 after they were "assaulted with a corrosive substance". The following year the figure jumped to 67 and last year there were 69 admissions.

The figures only include hospital admissions where a patient had to spend one night or more in hospital and there is no ethnic breakdown. But charity workers fear there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest acid attacks are becoming more common....

Read it all.

You can find background and Safi's full message here.

On April 26, I wrote this to UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp, cc'ing Safi's department head Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, Safi's wali and fellow UNC professor Carl Ernst, and Safi himself:

Dr. Thorp:

Professor Omid Safi has falsely claimed that I threatened to kill him and his family.

Details here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/omid-safi.html

I do not know how far and wide he has spread this claim, or what damage he has thereby done to my reputation.

I request that you reprimand Professor Safi immediately, and dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of North Carolina.

As a UNC alumnus I am ashamed for the university, and hope that you will not allow this trafficker in libel and defamation to continue to spread his lies from his position there.

Robert Spencer

Tuesday I finally received an answer: 

Dear Mr. Spencer:

Chancellor Thorp asked me to respond to your April 26 email message. I have reviewed the materials you provided and obtained from Dr. Safi the November 2008 facebook exchange that you reference.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill respects the rights of individuals to express their views. The University also recognizes that intelligent individuals can and do disagree.

As a graduate of Carolina as well an invited speaker on our campus, you have been welcome here to express your ideas and views. As a member of our faculty, Dr. Safi also has the right to express his ideas and views. Our hope is that, to the extent that you and Dr. Safi disagree -- whether as individuals or as professional speakers or writers -- you do so in an informed and civil manner, in keeping with the University's traditions.

Very truly yours,

Leslie Chambers Strohm
Vice Chancellor and General Counsel
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

I responded in this way, from a taxicab:

Thank you for your reply, but it is beside the point. I didn't write to you because Safi disagrees with me. I wrote to you because Safi claimed that I threatened him with death. I did not do so. That is a seriously defamatory charge. Safi should face disciplinary action from the university, as I am sure that such vicious defamation violates the university's code of conduct. I look forward to your response.

PS: I am assuming that the Facebook message Safi supplied to you contained his claim that I threatened him and his family with death, matching the text I published on my website. If this is not the case, please let me know and I will send you the text of the email as Safi actually sent it. If it is so, do I understand that Chancellor Thorp would endorse Safi's defamatory claim as merely being a matter of "disagreement"?

Leslie Strohm replied:

Dear Mr. Spencer,   The University has expressed its hope that you and Professor Safi can work through any issues between you in an informed and civil manner.   There are no inferences to draw from that beyond what is expressly stated.     Very truly yours,   Leslie Strohm

To that I sent this:

Dear Leslie Strohm:

Thank you for your note. I am asking you a simple question.

Here it is again:

Did the Facebook message that Omid Safi forwarded to you contain the assertion that I had threatened him and his family with death?

That is not a disagreement between Safi and me. That is a lie. It is defamation. It shows that he is a man of extremely low character, and that he should thus not hold a position at your university.

If the Facebook message that Safi forwarded to you did not contain this assertion, then he has altered it before sending it to you. The original text I sent to Chancellor Thorp and the others cc'd here before.

Please answer the question. Thanks very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely
Robert Spencer

I'll let you know if I hear again from Leslie Strohm.

LUCKNOW: Darul Uloom Deoband, the self-appointed guardian for Indian Muslims, in a Talibanesque fatwa that reeked of tribal patriarchy, has decreed that it is "haram" and illegal according to the Sharia for a family to accept a woman's earnings. Clerics at the largest Sunni Muslim seminary after Cairo's Al-Azhar said the decree flowed from the fact that the Sharia prohibited proximity of men and women in the workplace.

"It is unlawful (under the Sharia law) for Muslim women to work in the government or private sector where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without a veil," said the fatwa issued by a bench of three clerics. The decree was issued over the weekend, but became public late on Monday, seminary sources said....

The fatwa, however, drew flak among other clerics.

"Men and women in Sharia are entitled to equal rights. If men follow the Sharia, there is no reason why women can't work with them," said Rasheed, the Naib Imam of Lucknow's main Eidgah Mosque in Aishbagh.

Mufti Maulana Khalid Rasheed of Darul Ifta Firangi Meheli -- another radical Islamic body which also issues fatwas -- criticized the Deoband fatwa as a retrograde restriction on Muslim women.

The fatwa was in response to a question whether Muslim women can take up government or private jobs and whether their salary should be termed as `halal' (permissible under the Sharia) or `haram' (forbidden).

Well-known Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, however, justified the fatwa. "Women in Islam are not supposed to go out and earn a living. It's the responsibility of the males in the family," he said. "If a woman has to go for a job, she must make sure that the Sharia restrictions are not compromised," he added, citing the example of Iran, where Muslim women work in offices but have separate seating areas, away from their male counterparts....

The old Religious Left has long championed virtual open borders and slammed national sovereignty as idolatrous. Now the new Evangelical Left is chiming in with its own sentimentalization of illegal immigration, identifying Jesus Christ Himself as an illegal immigrant.

“We are exiles who follow an alien, undocumented, migrant Messiah,” insisted Debra Dean Murphy, a religion professor at United Methodist affiliated West Virginia Wesleyan College. Her recent column was carried by Jim Wallis’ Sojourners and illustrates the merging thought of old Religious Left and new Evangelical Left.  Murphy cited Edgardo Colón-Emeric, director of Hispanic Studies at Duke University’s Divinity School in North Carolina: “Jesus did not have a valid birth certificate. Mother’s name: Mary; Father’s name: unknown. In fact, Jesus had no papers in his name, no title deed, no rental contract. Nothing. ‘Foxes have dens, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.’” She further quoted Colón-Emeric: “Christians who do not recognize Jesus in the illegal do not know Jesus.”

Probably neither Jesus nor any other ancient Jew, or anybody else in the ancient world, had birth certificates. Jesus did have a legal father, Joseph. The Nativity Story famously reports that Jesus’ family lawfully returned to Bethlehem, the place of Joseph’s birth, to comply with a census. Jesus came from a lawful, Torah following Jewish family that seems to have lived in the same Nazareth except for their sojourn in Egypt to escape King Herod. There is no reason to think Joseph and Mary, with the infant Jesus, were in Egypt illegally. Nor did they remain there as refugees beyond necessity, after which they returned home. So it’s not clear how Jesus could be an “alien, undocumented, migrant Messiah,” except as the contrived icon for Religious and Evangelical Left immigration activists.

All Christians would readily agree that illegal aliens, with all humanity, bear God’s image and merit lawful and decent treatment. But humanitarianism does not necessarily equal anarchically and endlessly open borders nor an automatic amnesty for all who cross the border illegally, much less the glorification of illegal immigration. The Religious and Evangelical Left sometimes practice a form of political antinomianism, asserting that rules are unimportant and only politically correct sentiments and intentions bring salvation.

Christian ethics, rooted in Jewish teaching, have for millennia taught lawful orderliness and warned against social anarchy. With Jews, Christians have traditionally understood their faith in God entailed reasonable obedience to civil authorities, except in the most egregious and idolatrous interference with faithfulness to God. But the Religious and Evangelical Left have decided that civil law should not really matter in cases of immigration. “The dominant narrative–the one about illegality, rule of law, blah, blah, blah–is persuasive because it provokes and exploits the one emotion that has driven American politics since 9/11: fear,” Professor Murphy opined. “We’re told by critics and commentators that Americans have never been so angry, that our public discourse has never been this strident and dangerously uncivil–all the red-faced name-calling, the ugly race-baiting, the shrill, snarky meanness.” Do expectations of border security and immigration law enforcement necessarily equal “shrill, snarky meanness?” For the Religious and Evangelical Left, evidently so.

In contrast, recently I attended a ceremony at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. honoring “righteous gentiles” from the Netherlands who courageously hid Jews and other potential victims of Nazis in their church during the German occupation. The church sexton, Hendrik Pleijsier-van Burden, along with his wife Neeltje Alida, with the pastors and others in the church, were guided by their Christian faith to protect Jews, Dutch resistance fighters and German Army deserters, all of whom faced likely execution if captured. In such an extremity, Christian ethics certainly affirms resistance against a genocidal occupying power. As a child, my own native northern Virginia was filled with thousands of new Vietnamese immigrants who fled communist occupation after Saigon’s 1975 collapse. President Ford had resettled 130,000 Vietnamese who had served the U.S. during the war and who had escaped newly reunified and communist Vietnam, where they faced death or internment. A church in my neighborhood adopted a Vietnamese family. Church and state rightly welcomed refugees who had sided with America and who needed protection from a murderous enemy.

Strangely, the Religious and Evangelical Left give little specific attention to today’s political and religious refugees who flee communist and Islamist regimes. The implied disapproval of such anti-Western governments does not comport with the Religious and Evangelical Left narrative that the U.S. is the world’s most oppressive power and responsible for most political and economic suffering. For the Religious and Evangelical Left, the U.S. is the original cause for global poverty and therefore is obligated to offer automatic sanctuary to any and all who want to move here, legally or illegally.

Traditionally across the centuries, immigrants to America have seen their opportunity as a privilege. Undoubtedly many still do. But the religious U. S. champions of virtual open borders insist that immigration is not a privilege but an entitlement that the U.S. universally owes the world. According to Professor Murphy, any resistance to unlimited immigration just illustrates “Americans’ deep-seated xenophobia,” which was “carefully cultivated since the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” and “crucial in rallying the country to support two insupportable wars.” Darkly, Murphy fears that a “phrase formerly associated with interrogators of the Third Reich–‘let me see your papers’–will now enter the lexicon of law enforcement in Arizona,” thanks to its new immigration law. “Jesus–in the guise of the brown-skinned ‘other’–will be asked for documentation he doesn’t have.”

Adding to this theme of deifying illegal immigration, Professor Colón-Emeric at Duke has preached that “The Church is a van full of illegals crossing the border to travel to the true north, up, the kingdom of God, because as [Saint} Paul says, “our citizenship is in heaven.” Jews and Christians, in the tradition of Abraham, do understand their faith as a pilgrim journey through a strange land. But probably neither the Patriarch nor St. Paul would equate the quest for salvation with celebrating the willful violation of immigration law.

People often say there is nothing worse than losing a child. Yes there is. Losing a child is only the beginning of the grief. How that child died is the other half. That knowledge will either bring a modicum of comfort, or intensify the pain.

While the Left uses their usual tactics to muster feelings of public outrage, pity, and defiance for their new class of victims—illegal immigrants in Arizona—the Shaw family is still mourning the death of their son, a real victim of illegal immigration.

Jamiel Shaw II was murdered two doors down from his home, just minutes after talking to his father. He was shot by an illegal alien who was a known gang member.

His mother, Army Sgt. Anita Shaw was looking forward to coming home from Iraq, that is, until the she got the news she would be going home to bury her son, along with his dreams.

Jamiel was a promising young football player. The very day he was murdered, he spent the morning in an invitation-only football training camp, designed for star players to prepare for college, and become NFL hopefuls.

The man accused of killing Jamiel had been released from jail just the day before on gun charges, he had been in and out of the system, and was on probation. He was here illegally.

Jamiel Shaw Sr. told NewsReal:

If the Arizona law would have been in effect in California, my son would be alive today.

The Shaw family and their supporters are trying to pass Jamiel’s Law. This law would take away “sanctuary city” status for gang members. Los Angeles currently grants “sanctuary” for illegal aliens by way of city policies that prohibit the LAPD from investigating violations of federal immigration laws.

The proposed law reads in part:

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles is unsafe for law-abiding citizens, legal aliens and illegal aliens due to the prevalence of gangs that routinely commit crimes including but not limited to murder, extortion, robbery, rape, theft, drug-trafficking, and vandalism;

WHEREAS, many, if not most, of the members of the gangs in Los Angeles are illegal aliens; and

WHEREAS, there is no legitimate public policy reason for the City to extend “sanctuary city” protection to illegal aliens in the gangs that are ravaging our city…

. . . .

No Sanctuary For Gang Members.  The policy of this City from this point forward is, and shall be, to deny any “sanctuary city” protection to illegal aliens in gangs.  Neither the Mayor, the Chief of the Police nor any other City employee shall prohibit or inhibit Los Angeles Police Department officers from lawfully investigating possible violations of federal immigration laws by gang members.

For this the Shaw family is fielding the typical tactics of the Left. They have been accused of racism, and endured death threats over the Internet. These grieving parents have been told that they should feel sorry for those that are here illegally; after all, they suffer separation.

To which Jamiel Shaw Sr. says:

We’ve been separated—we would love to cross a border to see my son.

“Immigration equality” organizations would have us believe that anyone living within our borders deserves the right to work and to organize, regardless of immigration status.

Mr. Shaw raised his son to obey the laws of the land, to work hard in school.

Everything that they say they’re fighting for—my son was stripped of.

Jamiel Shaw Sr. said he was trying to turn his grief into energy and right this wrong. To learn more about Jamiel’s Law, click here.

Apologists might claim this is "un-Islamic," and possibly suggest that a more rigorous application of Sharia would prevent this sort of thing. But the problem itself emanates from the position of women under Islamic law as fundamentally under the control of male relatives (Qur'an 4:34) -- essentially, possessions. "Sex slave girls face cruel justice in Iraq," by Mohammed Jamjoom for CNN, May 5:

Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- At one of Baghdad's two female juvenile prisons, the young Iraqi girls live in limbo, sadness and desperation permeating every aspect of their interrupted lives.

Some face punishment for prostitution. Others are charged with ties to terrorism. And then there are the victims, also behind bars.

Fifteen-year-old Zeina's sad journey to prison began two years ago when she says was sold into sex slavery. "My father came and took me to go visit my grandfather in Syria," says Zeina, "and I went with him."

The family trip turned out to be a cover story, and Zeina found herself faced with the most horrific possible reality. She says she was then forcefully taken from Syria to the United Arab Emirates and sold into sexual slavery.

But Zeina refused to surrender to such a horrendous fate. And when the opportunity presented itself, she ran away. "I'm proud of myself," explains Zeina. "I turned myself into the police and decided not to stay in that situation."

Authorities in Dubai helped her return to Iraq, but more cruelty awaited her in Baghdad. The only way Zeina could make it home was to travel on a forged passport -- a very serious crime in Iraq.

After escaping her ordeal, Zeina found herself being prosecuted, rather than being comforted. As punishment, she's now serving two years in jail. A prison official confirmed her story.

Iraqi women's rights activists are outraged. "She refused to accept that her body had been sold. So this is how they reward her?" said Dalal Rubaie with the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq, "To put her in jail for two years? Where's the justice?"

Trafficking is a growing problem in Iraq. Some vulnerable women, desperate to support their families, are tricked into it by accepting fake marriage proposals. Many young girls, their parents facing dire economic circumstances, are just sold outright.

"In some ways, their fate is worse than death," explained Samer Muscati from Human Rights Watch. "Once they've been trafficked, there's a stigma even though they're the victims in this horrific situation. They've been exploited and they've been trafficked to another country with no real recourse."

According to Muscati, even if the girls do manage to escape the cruelty of their circumstances, it will be very difficult for them to escape the judgment of their families.

"When they do come back to Iraq, if the family does accept them it's very difficult because they've brought great shame to the family, they're subjected to honor crimes. And we've come across cases where young women have preferred to stay in prison or custody than to be released and to face tribal justice," Muscati said.

Rubaie puts it even more bluntly when discussing what little future awaits trafficked girls who manage to return home.

"I'm sure the girl's family won't take care of her," said Rubaie. "I'm sure that neighbors and relatives and society will judge her, they'll know that the girl had been a prisoner and the family will be ashamed of her.

"I'm sure they won't let her travel. I'm sure she won't be able to complete her education, if she had been studying. Or they will force her to marry a cousin so they can exert control over her. Any cousin. They'll end her life."

A sense of injustice pervaded every story told by the prisoners. Some inmates had actually discovered they were to be trafficked and tried to stop it.

When Fatin found out her father was attempting to sell her, she immediately sought help from the law.

"I ran away from Najaf and escaped to Baghdad where I found my mother and asked her if she knew what my father was planning," says 22-year-old inmate Fatin, "So she took me to court in Baghdad, we got a lawyer and brought a case against my father."

Months passed and the lawsuit was never heard. While awaiting justice, Fatin says her father raped her. After the attack, she killed him, was tried, and is currently serving the fifth year of a 15 year sentence.

Muscati, who's studied trafficking extensively in Iraq, can't understand why Iraqi officials aren't doing more to stop it.

"Why is the Iraqi government not prosecuting the traffickers?" Muscati asked. "There hasn't been a case of prosecution against a trafficker that we're aware of. Why is the Iraqi government not passing a law to make it more difficult for trafficking?"

At 22, Fatin, like several of her fellow inmates, is too old to remain in a juvenile facility. She'll soon have to serve out the rest of her term in a prison for adults, a much harsher environment.

Qassim Abdul Ameer, warden of the juvenile prison, is worried for Fatin and other inmates in the same situation. "Of course she will find it difficult there," Abdul Ameer says about Fatin, "because the environment will be difficult there. In the adult prisons, they usually take advantage of the younger girls."

Fatin does fear the transfer, but it's her eventual release still a decade away that she's even more afraid of.

"Yes, there is freedom outside," says Fatin, "but people don't forgive. They don't have mercy."

]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/06/iraq-girls-sold-as-sex-slaves-then-prosecuted-for-prostitution-and-other-crimes/feed/ 0 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/latest-non-jihad-explanation-for-times-square-jihad-shahzad-was-the-runt-of-the-litter-the-child-who.html http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/latest-non-jihad-explanation-for-times-square-jihad-shahzad-was-the-runt-of-the-litter-the-child-who.html#comments Wed, 05 May 2010 16:46:32 +0000 Robert Nerd jihad! Shades of Adam Gadahn, the Al-Qaeda traitor and self-described "revolting geek of mass proportions"!

"Who is Faisal Shahzad?: 'Unremarkable': American dream faded quickly for accused terrorist," by Michael P. Mayko for the Connecticut Post, May 5 (thanks to Tom):

Faisal Shahzad was never one to draw attention to himself.

An average student in college, an average employee in the workplace, an average neighbor in suburbia.

Shahzad parlayed this into jobs crunching data for corporate America's elite like Elizabeth Arden, which enabled him to buy a single-family home for his wife and children in Shelton.

But quicker than the rise came the fall. Last June, Shahzad stopped making payments on his $218,400 mortgage, quit his job at Affinion Group in Norwalk and moved his family back to Pakistan.

Then it happened -- on May Day, a national workers' holiday in Pakistan and often a celebration for socialism, communism and anarchy elsewhere.

On this May 1, the Pakistani-born Shahzad, who only returned to the U.S. in February, allegedly loaded his recently purchased Nissan Pathfinder with explosives and drove it to the meeting place of the world -- New York's Times Square.

From that moment on, Shahzad, left the world of anonymity and stepped into one of worldwide attention.

What caused him to change?

There are many possibilities for such a dramatic change, said James Monahan, a clinical psychologist and associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven.

"Maybe he was the runt of the litter; the child who couldn't meet his parents' expectations," said Monahan.

His father, Bahar ul-Haq, is a retired Pakistani Air Force official. He was able to provide an upper middle-class lifestyle for his family, sending his boys to school in the U.S....

But...but...I thought poverty caused terrorism!

By June, Shahzad stopped paying the mortgage and other bills. He began selling off the furnishings. He packed his family and left behind a second floor filled with toys, clothing and DVDs.

"Maybe he was starting to see the hopes of living the good life in America die and he began feeling like a failure," said Monahan. "Maybe he wanted the satisfaction of going out with a bang."...

Maybe he was on his way to Paradise and the houris.

"They need to be grilling him in an attempt to determine his connections and his associations to radical groups," Monahan said. "His wife is someone who they should want to talk to."

One would think, but you never know: to do so might be "Islamophobic."

Despite his eight months away, once again Shahzad was allowed entry into the U.S.

Correction: "Despite his apparent presence at a jihad training camp in Pakistan, Shahzad was allowed entry into the U.S."

]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/05/latest-non-jihad-explanation-for-times-square-jihad-shahzad-was-the-runt-of-the-litter-the-child-who-couldnt-meet-his-parents-expectations/feed/ 0 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/04/perky-katie-worries-that-illegal-aliens-%e2%80%9cno-longer-feel-welcome%e2%80%9d-in-arizona/ http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/04/perky-katie-worries-that-illegal-aliens-%e2%80%9cno-longer-feel-welcome%e2%80%9d-in-arizona/#comments Tue, 04 May 2010 22:00:17 +0000 David Forsmark http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=51737

Katie Couric may have hit a new low on Monday night’s CBS Evening News—though I’m sure there are plenty of other broadcasts of hers that could be nominated.

In a story designed to evoke sympathy for an  “undocumented” husband and wife who have given birth to 10 US citizens since they came here illegally, and who are now heading to Colorado before they get caught, Couric lamented:

Nearly two out of three Americans see illegal immigration as a very serious problem. More than three quarters say the U.S. should do more to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the border. Hundreds of thousands of them now live in Arizona. But as Kelly Cobiella reports, many no longer feel welcome.

What?  Isn’t that the point?  Arizona had the Welcome mat out for a generation, and now the actual CITIZENS of Arizona feel like doormats.

But check out the tone of the report filed by Kelly Cobella.  Why, people who do business with illegals are hurt by this too—and they are citizens!  Boo hoo!

COBIELLA: Two years ago, this park was filled with families like the Quintanas every weekend. Arizona was home to more than half a million illegal immigrants. Since then, at least 100,000 have left.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On this block alone, we have 20 vacancies at least.

COBIELLA: Kyle Kester (ph) is the Quintana`s landlord. He`s lost seven tenants in the past week.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is hurting not just illegals. I was born and raised in the United States, and it`s hurting me now.

COBIELLA: Graciela`s best friend left to California with her family on Saturday.

Did you get to see her yesterday before she left, Graciela? No?

Manuela knows she broke the law when she came here 15 years ago.

Do you see yourself as a criminal?

“No,” she says. “A criminal is someone who kills. I just want to work.”

The family packed up before dawn today and headed north to Colorado. Manuela says she`s lost hope in this state. She thinks she`ll find it again in another.

Kelly Cobiella, CBS News, Phoenix.

This is too ham-handed and obvious to even be labeled propaganda.

]]> http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/04/perky-katie-worries-that-illegal-aliens-%e2%80%9cno-longer-feel-welcome%e2%80%9d-in-arizona/feed/ 0 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/pakistan-air-force-police-torture-christian-housemaid.html http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/pakistan-air-force-police-torture-christian-housemaid.html#comments Sun, 02 May 2010 01:49:45 +0000 Robert Just another kuffar. Islamic Tolerance Alert: "A Christian housemaid tortured by Pakistan Air Force Police," from Pakistan Christian Post, April 28 (thanks to C. Cantini):

(PCP) Sumera Pervaiz, 14 years old Christian girl was working as housemaid in Wing Commander Faheem Cheema house in Pakistan Air Force Islamabad base colony while his family was also living in servants quarters area.

Wing Commander Pakistan Air Force lodged a report against unidentified persons on a theft in his house claiming that thieves took away valuables and more than 900 grams of gold ornaments on April 15, 2010. The Marglla Police Station Islamabad was investigation the case when PAF Police allegedly picked up Sumera Pervaiz and other members of his family and tortured to third degree.

Teenage Sumera Pervaiz was tortured for 5 days to accept theft from his employer PAF Wing Commander Faheem Cheema but she claimed he innocence. She was so brutally tortured by PAF Police that admitted to Pakistan Air Force Hospital for medical aid to save her life. The PAF police not bothered to inform Margalla Police Station that they were picking civilian Sumera Pervaiz and others for investigation....

Sumera is barely able to walk, according to the doctors she might not be able to walk for the rest of her life. Her whole family has been severely tortured by the police....

]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/01/pakistan-air-force-police-torture-christian-housemaid/feed/ 0 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/pakistan-christian-barber-beaten-sodomized-for-trimming-a-muslims-beard.html http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/pakistan-christian-barber-beaten-sodomized-for-trimming-a-muslims-beard.html#comments Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:03:00 +0000 Marisol An elaborate set-up, as detailed below. Police have taken no action, and the family is still receiving threats. Over a beard. "Pakistani Muslims Severely Beat, Sodomize Christian Barber," from Compass Direct, April 28:

SARGODHA, Pakistan, April 28 (CDN) -- A Christian barber in this Punjab Province city is still recovering from broken bones and other injuries sustained earlier this month after eight Muslims allegedly beat and sodomized him for cutting the beard of a Muslim.

Marwat Masih, 29, initially refused the request of 19-year-old Qandeel Cheema to cut his beard in Sargodha's Gulshan-e-Bashir town on April 13, knowing that area Sunni Muslims believe the Quran prohibits it. But Cheema, a high school student, told Masih that he had lived and studied in Lahore and therefore wanted a more modern look, the bed-ridden and feeble Masih told Compass.

"I refused to shave his beard, but he showed me his packed bags and said that he would leave the town straight after the shave, and so no one would ever know that I had shaved his beard," Masih said.

Eyewitnesses told Compass that as Masih was cutting Cheema's beard, the client's older brother - local radical Muslim land owner Shakeel Cheema - was returning by tractor from his fields and, noting the family Jeep in front of the Marwat Hair Stylist shop, stopped in.

"When Shakeel Cheema saw me shaving his younger brother's beard, he became angry and started vandalizing mirrors, the sound system and chairs, and he desecrated a wooden cross perched on the top of the front mirrors," Masih said. "He also started beating my head with his shoes."

Eyewitnesses told Compass that Shakeel Cheema shouted orders to his companions to tie Masih up and throw him into the wagon attached to his tractor, and that he ordered his younger brother to leave for Lahore at once.

Masih said that he was blindfolded with a black cloth and taken to an unknown place where he was locked in a room. An hour later, Shakeel Cheema and seven others arrived and began striking him with clubs, breaking his ribs, a wrist and leg bones.

"Shakeel Cheema said, 'Now we are going to teach you a real lesson for shaving the beard of a Muslim man," Masih said, and after a long, pained pause he related how Cheema and the seven others sodomized him. "I started bleeding and fell unconscious."

His father, Laal Masih, older brother Hassrat Masih and other relatives had begun searching for him, and after midnight that night they found him lying half-naked and unconscious off the main street of Gulshan-e-Bashir town, his father told Compass. They immediately took him to Rural Health Centre, where doctors kept him under observation for two days and treated him for internal bleeding and the broken ribs, leg bones and wrist.

"We submitted an application to the Saddr police twice, but they took no action against Shakeel Cheema and his accomplices," Laal Masih said. The family is appealing to Christian ministers and parliamentarians for assistance.

Still receiving threats of harm if they do not leave the area, family members also said they cannot afford the fees of a standard physician and have resorted to help from lesser trained doctors.

Police have refused to file a First Information Report against Cheema and his accomplices, who all remained at large at press time.

A shopkeeper next to Masih's barbershop told Compass that the barber deserved the abuse.

"He deserves such punishment, as he did something that is forbidden according to the teaching of the Quran and the sunna [arabic word for the sayings or habits of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam]," said Muhammad Maqsood, who has a long, white beard. "Marwat Masih paid for his crime."...

]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/29/pakistan-christian-barber-beaten-sodomized-for-trimming-a-muslims-beard/feed/ 0 http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/29/prison-convert-cases/ http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/29/prison-convert-cases/#comments Thu, 29 Apr 2010 04:20:08 +0000 Ryan Mauro http://frontpagemag.com/?p=59174

New extremists are being created in our prisons, the very institution meant to deter crime. Two stories recently broke about people who converted to Islam in prison that acted in violent compliance with their new ideology. The media, for the most part, dropped the stories, leaving the American people unaware of the growing trend.

The October arrest of a man in Ohio named Abdullah Mohammed Muslim, formerly known as Johnnie Clagg, has now come to light. He was pulled over and arrested by a police officer for identity theft in order to get a passport so he could leave the country. Law enforcement searched his house and found a large stockpile of weapons.

The arsenal included the material for five pipe bombs, two AK-47s, smoke canisters, an assault rifle, a ballistic vest and ballistic face mask, a semiautomatic rifle, a flak jacket and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Additional facts help to identify the intent behind this collection. The police found a CD containing parts of “The Anarchist Cookbook,” a well-known guide to making explosives, and a CD with photos of the crash site of a small plane in the state. And as CBN’s Erick Stakelback has found out, the purpose behind the attempted passport fraud was so he could flee the U.S. before being sentenced for previous weapons-related charges.

Muslim’s attorney has confirmed that he had spent time on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan, the exact spot that radical Islamic militants have found safe haven, have constructed terrorist camps, and are recruiting Westerners to come for training and deployment. To any rational observer, Muslim would appear to be involved in terrorism, but federal authorities told Ohio’s Channel 10 News when the story broke that there was no connection to terrorism. As a result, the story failed to gain traction in the media outside of the local news and a follow-up report by CBN. At the time of this writing, a Google News search of the suspect’s name only brings up two results.

On April 14, a prison convert named James Larry slaughtered his family in Chicago. His brother says that in the days prior to the attack, he was acting differently, carrying around a Koran and saying it called for killing. The sister of his wife said he had begun talking about “going to Allah” and was fighting with his wife because she refused to wear a hijab. An apparent act of mass honor killing followed.

Larry shot and murdered his family. His pregnant wife, 7-year old son named Jihad, and two of his nieces, including one who was pregnant, were killed. His mother and nephew suffered severe injuries and went to the hospital. His 12-year old niece escaped as Larry shot at her as she fled. She managed to run into a gas station and have a worker call her mom. When the police arrived, Larry said he was bringing his family to Allah and said, “I wish I had more bullets. I wish I had more bullets.” His attorney says he is mentally ill and “suffering greatly” over his actions.

This just continues the pattern of the media failing to bring proper emphasis to worthy reports and the government steering the country into complacency by automatically downplaying suggestions that nearly any incident is connected to terrorism or radical Islam.

Last September, another American who converted to Islam while in prison named Michael C. Finton, who also went by the name of Talib Islam, was arrested in Illinois. He was a fan of Anwar al-Awlaki and traveled to Saudi Arabia in April 2008 using $1,375 sent to him from someone inside that country. Upon his return, he told an undercover FBI agent that he desired to go to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip to fight Israel, but he also wanted to attack the United States. The FBI gave him fake explosives which he loaded into his truck so he could destroy the Paul Findley Federal Building in Springfield. After he tried to detonate the bombs with his cell phone and nothing happened, he found himself in handcuffs and in federal custody.

This is just an accounting of some recent incidents involving prison converts that didn’t receive the attention they are due. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee says that up to 36 American-Muslims who have served time in prison have recently gone to Yemen, claiming they are learning Arabic. Al-Qaeda has a vibrant branch there that may have recruited some of these so-called students. U.S. forces are trying to stop the next generation of terrorists from being bred overseas, but plenty are being born among Westerners who converted to Islam while serving time or shortly thereafter.

]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/29/prison-convert-cases/feed/ 17 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/recipient-of-omid-safis-defamatory-email-has-her-facebook-account-suddenly-disabled.html http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/recipient-of-omid-safis-defamatory-email-has-her-facebook-account-suddenly-disabled.html#comments Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:36:31 +0000 Robert Yesterday I posted here about how lowlife UNC professor Omid Safi falsely claimed that I threatened to kill him and family. I also wrote this email to UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp, cc'ing Safi's department head Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, Safi's wali and fellow UNC professor Carl Ernst, and Safi himself:

Dr. Thorp:

Professor Omid Safi has falsely claimed that I threatened to kill him and his family.

Details here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/omid-safi.html

I do not know how far and wide he has spread this claim, or what damage he has thereby done to my reputation.

I request that you reprimand Professor Safi immediately, and dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of North Carolina.

As a UNC alumnus I am ashamed for the university, and hope that you will not allow this trafficker in libel and defamation to continue to spread his lies from his position there.

Robert Spencer

I got no answer from any of the addressees. Or at least no direct answer. I just received word from the person to whom Safi sent his libelous message that her Facebook account has been suddenly disabled, without explanation. It was on Facebook that Safi sent her his message.

I question the timing. Don't you?

American university education is in a sorry state, but Omid Safi's behavior here is a particularly egregious example. If you think it is outrageous that a liar and smear artist like Omid Safi holds a professorship at a major university, please write, courteously and respectfully, to UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp: chancellor@unc.edu. Write also to UNC Department of Religious Studies chair Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp: maffly@email.unc.edu.

Ask that Safi be reprimanded and/or fired, for the sake of the integrity of the University of North Carolina and American academia in general.

]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/27/recipient-of-omid-safis-defamatory-email-has-her-facebook-account-suddenly-disabled/feed/ 0