Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (2636)	10/26/2006 3:14:45 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20106

PM condemns cleric rape claims....... PRIME Minister John Howard today labelled comments by Australia's mufti likening immodestly dressed women to meat that attracted cats as appalling and reprehensible. "They are quite out of touch with contemporary values in Australia," Mr Howard said while on a drought inspection tour of western New South Wales. "The idea that women are to blame for rapes is preposterous. I not only reject the comments, I condemn them unconditionally." Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly's comments, reportedly made in a Ramadan sermon, compared women who wore make-up and dressed immodestly to meat that attracted cats. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?" the sheik said. Mr Howard said the sheik's remarks clearly related to a "particularly appalling" rape trial in Sydney. Asked if the sheik should resign, Mr Howard replied: "It's not for me to say what position he should hold in the Islamic faith. "But it is for me as prime minister to say I totally reject the notion that the way in which women dress and deport themselves can in any way be used as a semblance of justification for rape." Islamic community joins comdemnation La Di Da Di Da The Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) has called on the cleric to resign with committee member Sherene Hassan saying she was outraged by the comments. "Those comments are extremely offensive, and there is no basis for what he said in Islamic teachings," Ms Hassan said to AAP. "They are a paternal distortion of Islamic teachings. "The ICV is issuing a statement calling for his resignation. "We are calling on him to issue an apology to all Australian people, because his comments are offensive to males and females alike, and we are calling on him to retract those comments. There is no justification for rape." Ms Hassan said she wears a hijab because of her "devotion to God". "It's a form of identification. Men do not enter the equations. I don't do it to hide from men." The Islamic Council of New South Wales dubbed the comments "un-Islamic, un-Australian and unacceptable". A spokesman for the council, Mr Ali Roude, today said he was "astonished" at the comments, saying the sheik "had failed both himself and the Muslim community". NSW Community Relations Commission chairman Stepan Kerkyasharian said that the comments could damage Islam's position in Australian society and disrupt social harmony. Mr Kerkyasharian said he had written to Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly, asking him to retract in writing his comments quoted in The Australian newspaper today. "They denigrate all women regardless of their religion and choice of profession. Nothing justifies rape," Mr Kerkyasharian wrote. Comments 'taken out of context' President of the Islamic Friendship Council of Australia, Keysar Trad, said the sheik's comments had been misrepresented, although he admitted his analogies could have been better. "From what I understand, he was talking about the context of encouraging people to abstinence before getting married," Mr Trad said. "His references to exposed meat etc was a very poor example that was meant to be a reference to both men and women, he wasn't talking about Islamic dress, he wasn't talking about rape." However a former member of the Federal Government's Muslim Advisory board, Iktimal Hage-Ali, said she had listened to a recording of Sheik Hilaly's speech and believed he should be stripped of his position. "I was just flabbergasted," she said on ABC radio. Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward believes the comments are an incitement to crime. "Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man ... their leader in court," she said on Channel 9. "It's time we stopped just saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community did more then say they were horrified. I think it is time he left," Ms Goward said. Politicians condemn comments Senior members of government were also scathing. "Certainly I think if a religious leader in the Catholic Church or the Anglican Church or in Judaism was to make these sorts of statements, they would be getting a very severe rap over the knuckles, at the very least," Health Minister Tony Abbott said on Nine. "He's wrong. He should be reprimanded and it's up to ordinary, decent Australians to make it clear that he is wrong." Treasurer Peter Costello urged other Muslims to pull the sheik into line. "I hope that the moderate Muslim leaders will speak out today and condemn these comments," he said on Channel 7. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said the sheik's comments were offensive and should be corrected by the Islamic community. news.com.au

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (2636)	10/26/2006 5:37:22 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20106

The long march to dhimmitude October 26, 2006 worldnetdaily.com "As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad. By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. As they were forbidden to possess weapons and give testimony against a Muslim, they were put in a position of vulnerability and humility." – Bat Ye'or in interview by John W. Whitehead You probably didn't know it, but in less than two weeks the United States is conducting a nationwide poll on dhimmitude. This will be a very large sample of likely voters. In fact, it will be everyone who votes, legally or not. You may not see the term dhimmitude printed on your ballot, but rest assured – it is there. It will be especially interesting to see the percentage of women who vote for this condition of slavery. Under Islamic law, women return to their pre-Christian, pre-Western status as property; that is to say they are owned by their husbands, brothers or fathers. Any money or property they hold immediately passes to the men in their lives who are held responsible for these women. In my mind, a vote by less than 45 percent of women in America for the dhimmitude referendum will indicate that America has not yet made up its mind about living under an Islamic theocracy. A vote by 30 percent or less of women in favor of dhimmitude would indicate that in the very near future we can expect a broadening of the war against terror, to include the use of serious force against those nations sponsoring terrorism and nuclear proliferation to advance their own interests. But what I'm really waiting for is to see how the militant-feminist vote breaks down. Feminists have not had much to say about the prospects of their fellow women in Muslim nations living under Islamic law. In fact, I haven't heard much feminist objection to Islamic "honor killings," where a wife, sister or daughter is murdered by an Islamic male for unfaithfulness or planning to marry outside the Islamic faith, actions that bring disgrace on an Islamic family. We might say the feminist non-response gives new meaning to the phrase, "Speak now or forever hold your peace." No doubt the choice confronting feminist-leaning women this election is a difficult one: Do they vote for candidates who are unlikely to care much about, say, restrictions on abortion rights – but who will vigorously resist surrender to Islamic jihad? Or do they vote for candidates likely fight for abortion rights – but surrender to the imposition of Islamic law? Goethe's Faust comes to mind (although probably not for those educated within the last 30 years or so). You see, Iraq was not invaded by American forces because we thought they'd perpetrated 9-11, or because an alarm went off in then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's office one morning that said, "Time to democratize Iraq!" Iraq was invaded to destabilize the Islamic terrorist regimes around it with a democratically elected government, greater rights for women and economic hope (all an anathema to Islamic theocracies). Our government believed it was preferable to engage the terrorists on their own soil, as opposed to our shopping malls, sports stadiums, public schools and Starbucks coffee shops. Perhaps the war should be judged on how many of the latter have experienced terrorist bombings. Earlier I said that you might not see the word dhimmitude printed on your ballot. That's true. But you can look for its abbreviation after the various candidate names. With only a handful of exceptions it shows up as a "D" after the candidates name. And while it is true that a few "moderate" (mediaspeak for liberal) Republicans support the dhimmitude agenda, the only Democrat senator I know of who supports a vigorous resistance to dhimmitude is Joe Lieberman. Oops – he's running as an Independent. His party booted him out in the primary election and embraced the dhimmitude "D" candidate.

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (2636)	10/26/2006 8:38:41 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 20106

Controversy erupts after school offers Muslims special room WSYX 6 News ^ \| October 26, 2006 wsyx6.com MASON, Ohio (AP) -- Northeast of Cincinnati, school officials in Mason have taken some heat after two Muslim boys were offered a separate room during the lunch hour. Superintendent Kevin Bright says it was a "fasting room." He says their parents didn't want the two high school students to have to watch classmates eat while they were fasting for Ramadan. But school board member Jennifer Miller calls it a "prayer room." At a board meeting earlier this week, she protested, saying America is a Christian nation, not a Muslim nation. And, a Mason parent said if one group is allowed to pray in school, everyone else should be, too. The superintendent notes that the two students never even used the room but went to the library during lunch.