Peace: It's All How You Look At It.

Islamists in North Mali Stone Couple to Death

By ADAM NOSSITER

New York Times

Published: July 30, 2012

BAMAKO, Mali — Islamists in control of a town in northern Mali stoned a couple to death after accusing them of having children outside of marriage, a local official who was one of several hundred witnesses to the killings said Monday.

The official said the bearded Islamists, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, brought the couple into the center of the town of Aguelhok from about 12 miles away in the countryside. The young man and woman were forced into holes about four feet deep, with their heads protruding, and then stoned to death at about 5 a.m. Sunday, the official said.

“They put them into the holes, and then they started throwing big rocks, until they were dead,” the official said, speaking by satellite phone from the remote desert town near the Algerian border.

“It was horrible,” he said, noting that the woman had moaned and cried out and that her partner had yelled something indistinct during the attack. “It was inhuman. They killed them like they were animals.”

The official insisted that he not to be identified because he said “our lives are in danger here.” The official said many of the 2,000 people in Aguelhok had already begun leaving, crossing the border into Algeria, as a result of Sunday’s stoning.

The stoning was the Islamists’ most brutal reported act of repression so far. Refugees from the north have given numerous accounts of public whippings and beatings for alleged violations of Shariah law in the main towns of Timbuktu and Gao.

All of northern Mali, a vast area larger than France, most of it desert, is in the hands of Islamists linked to Al Qaeda, after a rebellion against the Malian government that began in January. The rebellion began as a new iteration of a decades-long struggle by a nomadic ethnic group, the Tuaregs, to gain autonomy from a central government based in the south that it had long accused of neglect and persecution.

But the Tuaregs were soon overtaken by their de facto allies, a local Islamist movement, the Ansar Dine, or Defenders of the Faith, which itself was allied with Al Qaeda. Ansar Dine now controls the region, in alliance with another radical Islamist splinter group, the Mujao, or the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa. The groups share the goal of imposing an extreme form of Shariah law on the people of northern Mali.

The official in Aguelhok said the rural couple were heard to protest, faintly, that the children — the youngest a baby of 6 months — were not even theirs. But the men who executed them said the couple had been guilty of a serious crime, and deserved punishment.

“All they said was, it was the law of Shariah that prescribed it, that God willed it,” the official recalled. He said the execution had lasted about 15 minutes, but the woman died quickly, after crying out.

In silence, more than 300 people from the town watched. “The people protested, that no law could possibly prescribe such a thing,” the official said. “On the slightest pretext, they execute people.”

Aguelhok drew notoriety early in the rebellion, in January, as the place where dozens of Malian Army soldiers were apparently summarily executed, according to human rights groups. Some had their hands tied behind their backs and their throats cut.

A protest over the executions by angry soldiers’ wives in the capital, Bamako, in early February was an early sign that the government was in trouble. The government was later brought down by a military junta in a coup d’état at the end of March, allowing the Tuaregs and Islamists to overrun the north.

The south is still in disorder, with the junta still active behind an appointed civilian government whose powers remain uncertain. On Friday, the interim president, Dioncounda Traoré, returned to Bamako from Paris after an absence of over two months following an attack by a mob — some said orchestrated by elements in the military — that left him seriously injured.

In a televised speech on Sunday, Mr. Traoré announced a reorganization of the government with the aim of recovering the troubled nation’s unity.

Islam

Pakistan: Our Friend and Ally, Part 2

Rape as Punishment


Washington Post
By Mona Eltahawy
Editorial
Pg B07
July 28, 2002



A Pakistan tribal council's horrific "punishment" by gang rape of a young woman last month was just the tip of a very ugly iceberg called honor.

In the name of that most elusive of concepts, women are shot, beheaded, burned, stoned and beaten. And, in the case of Saleema, raped.

Four men raped Saleema (not her real name) for more than an hour to ruin her honor and avenge that of another woman. (Saleema's 12-year-old brother had been in the company of a woman from a more powerful tribal family, apparently not by his own choice, and been summarily accused of having an affair with her). Hence the tribal council's "verdict" on his sister.

The Pakistan Human Rights Commission estimates that at least eight women, five of them minors, are reported raped every day; more than two-thirds of them are gang-raped.

In Pakistan rape is often used for revenge or punishment against an enemy. A woman is "defiled" to taint her family. What irony that a woman as powerless as Saleema carries the whole family's honor on her shoulders -- a heavy burden indeed.

It is one that is carried by women in countless Muslim countries, yet there is not a single word in the Koran that calls for death in the name of honor. Virginity before marriage and chastity afterward are the bulwarks of honor in societies where such killings prevail.

The mere suspicion that she has jeopardized that honor -- talking to a neighbor, being seen with a strange man, or even asking for a divorce -- can earn a woman a death sentence.

Some conservative Muslim clerics shamefully support honor killings. They accuse activists who fight to eradicate such crimes, often at risk of their own lives, of seeking to impose Western values upon their traditional societies.

What is so Western about wanting to end a barbaric cultural practice that leaves a woman damned if she does and damned if she doesn't?

In Yemen a few years ago, a man shot his daughter dead on her wedding night after her husband claimed she was not a virgin. At the mother's insistence, a doctor examined the young woman's body and found her to have been a virgin. Her husband was impotent and lied to protect his honor because he knew he would not be able to display a bloodied rag as proof of his bride's virginity.

According to UNICEF and Amnesty International statistics, more than 1,000 women were victims of honor killings in Pakistan in 1999. There were up to 400 honor killings in Yemen in 1997. The United Nations says such killings have also occurred in Britain, Norway, Italy, Brazil, Peru and Venezuela. At least one case has been reported in the United States.

One particularly gruesome killing had us dumbfounded as word of what happened came into the Cairo newsroom where I was working at the time. A young woman named Nora Ahmed had eloped. Her father had not approved of her choice of husband. When she returned to Cairo to try to change her father's mind he asked to speak with her privately. He then cut off her head and paraded it down a Cairo street, shouting "Now my family has regained its honor."

In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual figures in all of the countries I've cited are probably much higher because most honor killings go unreported.

What to do if clerics remain perversely silent about an ancient practice that is rooted in culture rather than religion? What to do when men who kill female relatives in the name of honor too often escape punishment or receive atrociously short sentences?

We must acknowledge the brave few who speak out. A village imam courageously condemned Saleema's rape in a Friday sermon, drawing journalists' attention.

A particularly useful weapon is embarrassment. In Saleema's case, local and international outcries led Pakistani authorities to arrest and charge all four suspected rapists. Several other people -- including a police officer -- are also in custody for allegedly failing to prevent the attack or hiding the suspects.

Two of the most courageous activists fighting honor killings are sisters Asma Jehangir and Hina Jilani. They are both lawyers and human rights activists who tirelessly champion women's rights despite death threats and a largely unsympathetic government.

Let's embarrass that government into prosecuting more of those who kill in the name of honor. Let's shame it into doing the honorable thing.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
pakistan

Pakistan: Our Friend and Ally

Just another culture, no better, no worse, just the same, equal ...

A culture and people have the right to decide what is best for them and no one has the right to judge that action.  Stay out of their business!





Pakistan pack rape as reform laws stall


Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent
The Australian September 19, 2006



REPORTS of yet another pack rape in Pakistan emerged over the weekend as plans to amend laws aimed at making it easier to punish rapists stalled in the Islamabad parliament because of opposition from ultra-conservative Islamic parties.

The News International said a mother and daughter in a rural area had been abducted and gang-raped for 12 days because the daughter continued her schooling in defiance of villagers in her home near Multan.

The newspaper said the daughter had recently attained a masters degree in education at the Bahauddin Zahariya University. Precise details of what happened are sketchy, but it appears that the girl's father was also attacked by the assailants and that police took 12 days to act and save the women.

Reports of the rape claimed involvement by "a minister of state" but did not name him.

The case recalls that of Mukhtaran Mai, a woman who was imprisoned after she was raped in June 2002. She was freed only after intervention by the Pakistan Supreme Court.

Her case caused a global outcry at the time and highlighted the injustice of Pakistan's Islamic Hudood Ordinances, which criminalise all sex outside marriage.


Under the ordinances, unless the complainant in a rape case produces four male witnesses to support her claims, she will herself face punishment.

As a result, it has been almost impossible to prosecute rape cases, and thousands of Pakistani victims of rape are languishing in jail.

According to Pakistan's Human Rights Commission, a woman is raped every two hours and there is a gang rape every eight hours in Pakistan.

The Hudood Ordinances were introduced 17 years ago when the then military dictator General Zia ul-Haq was installing shariah law in Pakistan as a way of impressing his conservative Islamic backers at home and abroad.

Successive governments - including civilian administrations headed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawz Sharif - failed to change the Hudood Ordinances, despite persistent pressure from human rights groups.

Meanwhile, in India, more than 100 prominent intellectuals and others have launched a campaign against longstanding laws that outlaw homosexuality.









 
 
 
 
 
Pakistan

Germany: The Constitution NOT Sharia

German Muslims must obey law, not sharia - Merkel


By Stephen Brown
BERLIN
Wed Oct 6, 2010 8:13pm BST



BERLIN (Reuters) - Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday Muslims must obey the constitution and not sharia law if they want to live in Germany, which is debating the integration of its 4 million-strong Muslim population.

In the furore following a German central banker's blunt comments about Muslims failing to integrate, moderate leaders including President Christian Wulff have urged Germans to accept that "Islam also belongs in Germany."

The debate comes against a backdrop of U.S. and British concerns over the threat of terrorist attacks by militant Islamists living in Germany, with Berlin toning down such fears.

Merkel faces corresponding discussions inside her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) about whether she is conservative enough, and the centre-right leader's latest comments seemed directed at those who think Wulff went too far in appeasing the Muslims.

Wulff, who has a largely ceremonial role, used a speech on Sunday celebrating two decades of German reunification to urge harmonious integration of immigrants who until a decade ago were considered "guest workers" who would eventually return home.

But whereas the media stressed Wulff's comments about Islam, Merkel -- the daughter of a Protestant pastor brought up in East Germany, who leads a predominantly Catholic party -- said Wulff had emphasised Germany's "Christian roots and its Jewish roots."

German Christian Democrats often cite shared Judeo-Christian values rooted in the early history of Christianity because of sensitivities about the Holocaust, when the Nazis murdered six million Jews during World War Two.

"Now we obviously also have Muslims in Germany. But it's important in regard to Islam that the values represented by Islam must correspond with our constitution," said Merkel.

"What applies here is the constitution, not sharia."

Merkel said Germany needed imams "educated in Germany and who have their social roots here" and concluded: "Our culture is based on Christian and Jewish values and has been for hundreds of years, not to say thousands."

Opinion polls suggest many Germans sympathise with the views of an outspoken member of Germany's Bundesbank who, in speeches and a book, accused Muslims of sponging off welfare, refusing to integrate and achieving poor levels of education.

Thilo Sarrazin, who also offended Jews with comments about genetics, was forced to quit the central bank. Merkel has tried to accommodate both sides of the debate, saying police should not be afraid of entering immigrant neighbourhoods but also that Germans must accept mosques becoming part of their landscape.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany

Islam: Sharia Courts, UK

November 19, 2008
Britain Grapples With Role for Islamic Justice
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

LONDON — The woman in black wanted an Islamic divorce. She told the religious judge that her husband hit her, cursed her and wanted her dead.

But her husband was opposed, and the Islamic scholar adjudicating the case seemed determined to keep the couple together. So, sensing defeat, she brought our her secret weapon: her father.

In walked a bearded man in long robes who described his son-in-law as a hot-tempered man who had duped his daughter, evaded the police and humiliated his family.

The judge promptly reversed himself and recommended divorce.

This is Islamic justice, British style. Despite a raucous national debate over the limits of religious tolerance and the pre-eminence of British law, the tenets of Shariah, or Islamic law, are increasingly being applied to everyday life in cities across the country.

The Church of England has its own ecclesiastical courts. British Jews have had their own “beth din” courts for more than a century.

But ever since the archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, called in February for aspects of Islamic Shariah to be embraced alongside the traditional legal system, the government has been grappling with a public furor over the issue, assuaging critics while trying to reassure a wary and at times disaffected Muslim population that its traditions have a place in British society.

Boxed between the two, the government has taken a stance both cautious and confusing, a sign of how volatile almost any discussion of the role of Britain’s nearly two million Muslims can become.

“There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Shariah principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law,” the justice minister, Jack Straw, said last month. But he added that British law would “always remain supreme,” and that “regardless of religious belief, we are all equal before the law.”

Conservatives and liberals alike — many of them unaware that the Islamic courts had been functioning at all, much less for years — have repeatedly denounced the courts as poor substitutes for British jurisprudence.

They argue that the Islamic tribunals’ proceedings are secretive, with no accountability and no standards for judges’ training or decisions.

Critics also point to cases of domestic violence in which Islamic scholars have tried to keep marriages together by ordering husbands to take classes in anger management, leaving the wives so intimidated that they have withdrawn their complaints from the police.

“They’re hostages to fortune,” said Parvin Ali, founding director of the Fatima Women’s Network, a women’s help group based in Leicester. Speaking of the courts, she said, “There is no outside monitoring, no protection, no records kept, no guarantee that justice will prevail.”
But as the uproar continues, the popularity of the courts among Muslims has blossomed.

Some of the informal councils, as the courts are known, have been giving advice and handing down judgments to Muslims for more than two decades.

Yet the councils have expanded significantly in number and prominence in recent years, with some Islamic scholars reporting a 50 percent increase in cases since 2005.

Almost all of the cases involve women asking for divorce, and through word of mouth and an ambitious use of the Internet, courts like the small, unadorned building in London where the father stepped in to plead his daughter’s case have become magnets for Muslim women seeking to escape loveless marriages — not only from Britain but sometimes also from Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany.

Other cases involve disputes over property, labor, inheritances and physical injury. The tribunals stay away from criminal cases that might call for the imposition of punishments like lashing or stoning.

Indeed, most of the courts’ judgments have no standing under British civil law. But for the parties who come before them, the courts offer something more important: the imprimatur of God.

“We do not want to give the impression that Muslims are an isolated community seeking a separate legal system in this country,” said Shahid Raza, who adjudicates disputes from an Islamic center in the West London suburb of Ealing.

“We are not asking for criminal Shariah law — chopping of hands or stoning to death,” he continued. “Ninety-nine percent of our cases are divorce cases in which women are seeking relief. We are helping women. We are doing a service.”

Still, there is ample room for clashes with British custom. Three months ago, for example, a wealthy Bangladeshi family asked Dr. Raza’s council to resolve an inheritance dispute. It was resolved according to Shariah, he said. That meant the male heirs received twice as much as the female heirs.

Courts in the United States have endorsed Islamic and other religious tribunals, as in 2003, when a Texas appeals court referred a divorce case to a local council called the Texas Islamic Court.

But Shariah has been rejected in the West as well.

The Canadian province of Ontario had allowed rabbinical courts and Christian courts to resolve some civil and family disputes with binding rulings under a 1991 law. But when the Islamic Institute on Civil Justice there tried to create a Shariah court, it was attacked as a violation of the rights of Muslim women.

As a result, Ontario changed the entire system in 2006 to strip the rulings of any religious arbitration of legal validity or enforceability.

In Britain, beth din courts do not decide whether a Jewish couple’s marriage should end. They simply put their stamp of approval on the dissolution of the marriage when both parties agree to it. The beth din also adheres to the rules of Britain’s 1996 Arbitration Act and can function as an official court of arbitration in the consensual resolution of other civil disputes, like inheritance or business conflicts.

“People often come to us for reasons of speed, cost and secrecy,” said David Frei, registrar of the London Beth Din. “There’s nothing to prevent Muslims from doing the same thing.”

In Britain’s Islamic councils, however, if a wife wants a divorce and the husband does not, the Shariah court can grant her unilateral request to dissolve the marriage.

Most Shariah councils do not recognize the Arbitration Act, although Mr. Straw has been pushing them in recent months to do so. The main reason for their opposition is that they do not want the state involved in what they consider to be matters of religion.

The conflict over British Shariah courts comes at a time when Islamic principles are being extended to other areas of daily life in Britain.

There are now five wholly Islamic banks in the country and a score more that comply with Shariah.

An insurance company last summer began British advertising for “car insurance that’s right for your faith” because it does not violate certain Islamic prohibitions, like the one against gambling.
Britain’s first Shariah-compliant prepaid MasterCard was begun in August.

Here in London, Suhaib Hasan’s “courtroom” is a sparsely furnished office of the Islamic Shariah Council in Leyton, a working-class neighborhood in the eastern corner of the city. It has no lawyers or court stenographer, no recording device or computer, so Dr. Hasan takes partial notes in longhand.

“Please, will you give him another chance?” he asked the woman in black who was seeking divorce — that is, before she brought in the weighty voice of her father.

“No, no!” the woman, a 24-year-old employment consultant who had come seeking justice from 200 miles away, replied. “I gave him too many chances. He is an evil, evil man.”

“I’ll give you one month’s time to try to reconcile,” Dr. Hasan ruled.

Then her father tipped the scales.

“He was not a cucumber that we could cut open to know that he was rotten inside,” the father testified. “The only solution is divorce.”

Apparently convinced, Dr. Hasan said he would recommend divorce at the London Central Mosque, where he and several other religious scholars meet once a month to give final approval to cases like this.

Dr. Hasan, a silver-bearded, Saudi-educated scholar of Pakistani origin, handles the Pakistani community; an Egyptian ministers to the ethnic Arab community, while a Bangladeshi and a Somali work with their own communities.

The council in Leyton is one of the oldest and largest courts in the country. It has been quietly resolving disputes since 1982 and has dealt with more than 7,000 divorce cases.

Under some interpretations of Islamic law, a woman needs the blessing of a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence to be divorced, while a man can simply say three times that he is divorcing his wife.

Dr. Hasan counsels women that they must have their civil marriages dissolved in the British civil system.

“We always try to keep the marriages together, especially when there are children,” said Dr. Hasan’s wife, Shakila Qurashi, who works as an unofficial counselor for women.

If the husband beats her, she should go to the police and have a divorce, Ms. Qurashi said. “But if he’s slapped her only once or something like that,” she said, “and he admits he has made a mistake and promised not to do it again, then we say, ‘You have to forgive.’ ”

One recent afternoon, the waiting room was full of women and their family members.

A Pakistan-born 33-year-old mother of five explained that her husband would beat her and her children. “He threatens to kill us,” she said, as her daughter translated from Urdu. “He calls me a Jew and an infidel.” Dr. Hasan told her to immediately get police protection and request an Islamic divorce.

Another woman, 25, wanted out of a two-year-old arranged marriage with a man who refused to consummate the relationship. Dr. Hasan counseled dialogue.

“Until we see the husband,” he said, “we can’t be sure that what you’re saying is true.”








Islamic sharia

UK - Shari'a and The Dumbest Ideas in the World

Al Qaida wants to destroy Western Civilization. Then again, there are at least a half dozen other groups that would like to see the end of Western Civilization, specifically the end of the US. For several of these groups, our culture-liberalism, personal freedom, liberty - is at the heart of what they loathe. The freedom of women to dress as they choose, walk as they choose, go where they like, drive whenever and with whomever. The right of gays to express themselves, people to live together or not, of women to divorce, of everything that we allow, for better or worse - they want to destroy us because of them.

If you go to Saudi Arabia with one Bible, they will take it from you at the airport and shred it. If you have more than a few Bibles, you will be imprisoned. You should know the laws before you go and you are subject to their laws.

If you go to Thailand, and purchase drugs, you run the risk of life in prison or death (depending on quantity). Laws of that country and while we may whine and cry for our friend/relative who was caught - Thailand has a right to enforce its laws.

China - if you participate in behavior that is counter cultural/social/political, you risk imprisonment, varying from 3 to 14 years. The laws of the country. If you transport and or try to sell heroin - death.

If you go to the US from Somalia and see a woman wearing a halter top and cut off shorts, she must want you to rape her. When you are arrested, you should claim it was all a misunderstanding and it wasn't your fault. The US should require their women to dress modestly.

What if it was done piecemeal - only Muslims would be obliged to abide by certain dress codes and if they fail to, they will be judged by their laws - very nearly in front of us, and we would be unable to intervene for religious reasons. Divorce is another area - why engage in Western divorce when 1/2 is too much for males ... use Islamic law where women are restricted in what they can challenge and ask for. Perhaps a turn back of the clock to an earlier time - say the 1940s, where women were again 2nd class and struggled for what they did receive.

In Britain, the UKs top judge said shari'a law SHOULD be used.
Daily Mail Online, July 3, 2008


One of the worst ideas that has come from Britain. Why not destroy your legal system now Phillips. Of course, I know your response - but already shari'a is used in small villages and councils, communities to settle disputes outside the English legal system. Philips, it is amazing to me that someone so bright misses the difference - the fact something goes on (drug use) does not necessarily argue that it should be legalized. Sodomy goes on, pedophilia goes on - you know it does, but that does not mean we should accept it. Shari'a is used by Muslims to avoid the British system, but that is all unofficial. If one member wished to go to court, their rights would be protected under British law - not so under shari'a. Another reason you will give is - the British system is overworked. This is the stupidest reason. Police are overworked, so we should just decriminalize more things I suppose. Clear up the courts. Throw out frivolous lawsuits. Require all divorce cases and child custody cases to go to mediation first. There are ways Philips, without opening the door to the downfall of your legal system, and ultimately to mine.











Stupid



dumb







fucks

Vive La France

Any sentient being should be able to see the larger puzzle with all the pieces fitting nicely together.

The secular world has long condemned Christianity for its values, ridiculed Christians, and sent them home to their bedrooms to practice their faith. The secular left has long ridiculed the fear many have toward the Islamic march on their values. Why not be more tolerant they scream, see how intolerant you Christians are ... Bridget Bardot was just convicted of writing the following: It is unacceptable to submit to this group of people, which have destructed our country by clinging to their traditions in France.

A few snickers from the left in France, how this aging former sex symbol, will not shut her pie hole, until ........

Outcry after French court rules on virginity

Jun 4 03:22 PM US/Eastern
By ELAINE GANLEYAssociated Press Writer

PARIS (AP) - The bride said she was a virgin. When her new husband discovered that was a lie, he went to court to annul the marriage—and a French judge agreed.

The ruling ending the Muslim couple's union has stunned France and raised concerns the country's much-cherished secular values are losing ground to religious traditions from its fast-growing immigrant communities.

***************************************************

Now the secular left are upset and very worried! They should be. They opened the doors and now they can't close them.

Shut your pie hole.







.

No Problem here

Senator - let's negotiate. Perhaps you'd suggest we leave Senator, which is fine, clearly you were not paying attention those twenty years with Rev. Wright - Jesus did call for people to witness. That is, as far as I know, the one single fact all Christians believe regardless of denomination.

GANG raped Senator. Premediated. Planned. Intentional. You know those words from law school Senator ...



Thursday May 08, 2008

BANGLADESH: PASTOR’S 13-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER GANG-RAPED
Area Muslims bent on driving Christian expansion from northern part of country.

DHAKA, Bangladesh, May 8 (Compass Direct News) – Muslim villagers in Mymensingh district eager to rid the area of the Christian work of a local pastor have gang-raped his 13-year-old daughter, the girl's father said.

Pastor Motilal Das of United Bethany Church said that at around 3 a.m. on Friday (May 2) the villagers sexually assaulted his daughter, Elina Das, and left her unconscious in front of his house in an attempt to drive him and his Christian ministry out of Laksmipur village in Fulbaria sub-district, 120 kilometers (75 miles) north of the capital.

Local residents have long been angry with him for his ministry and evangelism, he said, and he has received death threats.

“I did not pay attention to any of the threats or hindrances – I continued evangelical and pastoral activities with prayer,” Das told Compass. “They targeted me to evict from this area to stop the Christian activities. When nothing stopped me, then they wanted to leave me scarred for life, so that I would be upset and not be able to show my face to the society for shame, and therefore I would leave the village.”

Das, who became the first Christian in the area in 1986 and has been key in an increase to more than 250 Christians and the emergence of 12 churches, said the brutal attack was pre-planned and calculated to stop further expansion of Christianity in northern Bangladesh.

“Otherwise, why would they rape such a minor girl?” he said.

Elina Das is the only Christian student at her school, he said. “Always local boys used to tease her on her way to school,” he said, “and used to tell her filthy words against Christianity and western culture.”

Click on the link on the headline to go to the full story.

**********************************************************

ALGERIA: CHRISTIAN SENTENCED FOR CARRYING BIBLE
Police pressure convert to return to Islam during ‘illegal’ five-day detention.

ALGIERS, Algeria, May 9 (Compass Direct News) – An Algerian Christian detained five days for carrying a Bible and personal Bible study books was handed a 300-euro (US$460) fine and a one-year suspended prison sentence last week, an Algerian church leader said.

Last Tuesday (April 29) a court in Djilfa, 150 miles south of Algiers, charged the 33-year-old Muslim convert to Christianity with “printing, storing and distributing” illegal religious material. A written copy of the verdict has yet to be issued.

The Protestant, who requested anonymity for security reasons, told fellow Christians in his home city of Tiaret that police pressured him to return to Islam while in custody.

The conviction is the latest in a wave of detentions and court cases against Algeria’s Protestants and Catholics. Since January police and provincial officials have ordered the closure of up to half of the country’s 50 estimated Protestant congregations.

Officials in several instances have cited a February 2006 law governing the worship of non-Muslims. Clarified by subsequent decrees in 2007, the law restricts most religious meetings to approved places of worship and forbids any attempt to “shake the faith of a Muslim.”

On the morning of April 25, the Tiaret resident and eight-year convert to Christianity was stopped at a police roadblock in the vicinity of Djilfa while riding in a shared taxi. Officials took the convert into custody upon finding a Bible and several religious study books in his luggage.

Maya Angelou and her touting HRC

From Maya Angelou:

"Dear Friend:

I am writing to tell you about my friend, Hillary Clinton, and why I am standing with her in her campaign for the presidency. I know the kind of president Hillary Clinton will be because I know the person she is.

I am inspired by her courage and her honesty. She is a reliable and trustworthy person. She is someone I not only admire but one for whom I have profound affection.

Hillary does not waver in standing up for those who need a champion. She has always been a passionate protector of families. As a child, she was taught that all God’s children are equal, and as a mother, she understood that her child wasn’t safe unless all children were safe. As I wrote about Hillary recently in a praise song: “She is the prayer of every woman, and every man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools and a balanced economy.”

It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those who would write her off or grind her down. Hillary sees us as we are, black and brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing that fundamentally we are all more alike than we are unalike. She is able to look through complexion and see community.

She has endured great scrutiny, and still she dares greatly. Hillary Clinton will not give up on you, and all she asks is that you do not give up on her. She is a long-distance runner. I am honored to say I am with her for the long run.

I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that she will make the most positive difference in people’s lives and she will help our country become what it can be. Whether you are her supporter, leaning towards her, undecided, or supporting someone else, I believe Hillary Clinton will represent you – she will be a president for all Americans. It is no small thing that along the way we will make history together.

Vote for Hillary Clinton and show your support http://www.hillaryclinton.com/. I know she will make us proud."

My only question - how can Maya Angelou be listened to after this obsequious opening for HRC? Hillary has lied - we have more moments where she has been caught lying than any twenty people combined. Lying about everything from her expanded/limited role in Bill's White House to Whitewater, her role in the education system in Arkansas before Bill ran for president - her being under fire in Bosnia, her supporting NAFTA and her opposing NAFTA all at the same time. She is a walking lie.

Which Americans Maya - 30% who will vote for her. 20-25% of Democrats will not vote for her regardless. The other 50% is probably broken up by 90% who will never and 10% who will because they are passionate about fiscal issues. She does not have the demographics to win and if she did, it would be even more divided than during Bill's administration.

She is as trustworthy as Charles Keating. As loyal as a rabid dog. She cares as much as a mercenary. Your judgment is seriously questioned as a result of your support for her. I have some doubt that you possess very much sense given your miserable judgment with this woman.

Canada the UK and the Archbishop

[Sidenote: I very nearly finished what follows once and was about to post it when it was erased. This is the second time.]

Oh Canada – well sort of. We should sort out terminology in Canada first: Province = state. Premier = Governor. Washington is Ottawa in Canada. And Ottawa is located in the province of Ontario unlike the US capital located in a district. Provinces are very nearly the ideal of what Southern state’s rights partisans argued for in 1860. In Canada, the power is held by the provinces in a very shaky agreement that provides the federal government with major powers of treaties, defense, and medical and leaves most all other powers to the provinces.

In 1991 the province of Ontario passed the Arbitration Act. This law was to permit groups to use the guiding principles of their faith to help settle civil disputes. Disputes such as: property issues, divorce, child custody, family issues, inheritance, disputes over any issue civil. An simpler method of figuring it out – anything not criminal.

So who could use this method – Catholics and Jews to name two groups.

We should suspend further discussion of the serious nature of this act and spend a few sentences sorting out what and how these groups would sort out their issues. Further, what is Canadian law based upon if they need to turn to religious law to remedy their civil issues.

Canadian law is based upon, in LARGE part, almost entirely- British Common Law. British Common Law has at its base, a foundation rooted in Judeo-Christian values / principles.

Back to the Catholics and Jews – they would apply religious principles – Judeo-Christian principles (also very much similar to Canadian legal standards) to their disputes. Would it be any surprise to discover that a majority of cases, if they were reviewed by religious groups would have their decisions nearly mirror those of the Canadian court system. No.

Therefore, extending the opportunity to Catholic and Jews would not inextricably change anything nor would it ever pose a threat to changing anything, except in the entwining of religion and the state (Courts). That however seemed to play a secondary role or was non-existent as an argument in Canada.

The issue arises when the religious group involved are the Muslims and they would like to implement shari’a law in Canada.

I will fast forward to 2003 and sort out the debate. Questions arose about the viability of these religious groups to run their own “court systems” and the premier of Ontario appointed a former attorney general (Marion Boyd) to review the law and its application. She concluded that all was well and to leave well enough alone.

The Canadian Courts intervened and they decided that it was fine.

We have the state in the guise of the political branch (executive) and the Courts (judicial) accepting the premise that it is fine for Canadians to go to their local religious leader for civil deliberations. After all, the Courts are crowded.

First – it is not the same you nit wits. Canadian law, Catholic principles, Jewish principles are all premised on the same system. They are quite familiar and similar. Canadian law does not differ in any noticeable way from Jewish or Catholic teachings. It does however differ greatly from Islamic law, if not in its outward manifestations than in its intent. To a Muslim, all laws have failed but Shari’a. For a Muslim, they are obligated to adhere to shari’a and to follow the laws of the country they are in, always working to change the laws and work toward the full acceptance and incorporation of Islamic life and law in all lands. First we accept as equal, then we move it further from civil to civil and some criminal. By that point, you have no argument as to why they may not go all the way and live under shari’a law exclusively after all, are not tolerant and open societies supposed to be compassionate and understanding.

Muslims in Canada denied they were using shari’a law. They claimed no shari’a courts would dot the landscape and no one was living under divided rule, rather “Muslims simply wish to use Islamic principles to resolve their disputes.” Sounds like shari’a to me.

Man’s laws are fallible and Canadian, American, and British laws have moved quite a distance from God’s laws, BUT that is the point – we have a secular society. If you wish to pretend we are secular and the left so fears the evangelical right (which if it had its way would work to reverse laws that were contrary to God’s) is ironic they accept the argument from the Muslims that they simply wish to live under Islamic principles (which for any idiot – is religious). And for the liberals – Islamic religious law makes the Christian evangelical ideals look downright secular.

Enter the UK.
February 2, 2008, thisislondon.co.uk (The Evening Standard)

Adoption of Islamic Sharia law in Britain is unavoidable says Archbishop of Canterbury.
This fool sees no problem with saying the above statement nor in the realization of such a change. Rather, he sees it as a natural progression to allow accommodation of a system that is not alien to the British nor is it a rival. He said he didn’t believe that the British people “should spring to the conclusion that the whole of the world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights just because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it.”

Give it a try. Why not, it isn’t alien, it isn’t a rival system, and for Muslims, it would allow them a legal system that would be more fair and understanding.

Let’s go back – British and Canadian and American and several other systems of jurisprudence are based upon Biblical teachings. The same teaching he, as the Archbishop, believes and defends. He has stated that the belief system he ascribes to the Savior, Son of God – is not good enough for Muslims, it is not fair enough.

Understandably the interview, given by the fool with the pointy hat, has resulted in a clamor for his job. I admit I am unaware of how he and others get the job they do, but however they get it, it should be undone. He secretly loathes his faith and doubts his belief. He no longer accepts Christ as the lamb of God, but is now just a man, like Mohammad. Islam is incompatible with Christianity. It is a rival. Islam cannot tolerate the blasphemers of the desecrated books. They do tolerate but barely - jizya and verbal taunts and jeers ( laid out reasonably clear in the Koran) are acceptable.

He is correct – sharia law is already being used in Britain. thisislondon.co.uk (The Evening Standard) had an article titled: Sharia court frees London knife youths dated 2/8/08 by Martin Bentham. The Somalia community in Woolwich – Somalia youths were involved in a knife fight, the community told the police they would sort it out.

You cannot have two systems regardless of the benefit to the overburdened court system and in fact for that very reason you must not permit it or you have opened the door and argument to the division that will cripple the system and end what has always been the model of jurisprudence. It is ironic that many Muslims fled countries that had imposed shari'a law only to find that due to multiculturalism, it has taken root here.