No Mosques At Ground Zero

BROKEN LINKS HAVE BEEN REPAIRED

January 25, 2012 WATCH THE FILM FREE (Please scroll down) and for more background on the NY Times Holy War on “The Third Jihad”, go to  Pamela Geller .

The New York Times has sharply criticized the New York Police Department for using the critically-acclaimed documentary The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America in counterterrorism training.

The New York Times has published two news articles (http://tinyurl.com/nyt-ttj1,http://tinyurl.com/nyt-ttj2), as well as an editorial entitled “Hateful Film” (http://tinyurl.com/nyt-ttj3) in the past 48 hours.

In response, film producer Raphael Shore has issued the following statement:

“We regret that the film has been taken out of the counterterrorism training program of the NYPD.  The New York Times stories are proof positive that the Clarion Fund’s high-quality and impactful documentaries touch very sensitive nerves.

Those that have blasted the film are attempting to stifle an important debate about the internal state of the Muslim community in America, and whether politicized Islam and indoctrination pose tangible security threats.

We hope that individuals will acknowledge the inaccuracies presented by the New York Times, and the effects that organizations like CAIR have on the fine line between political correctness and honest debate.

We invite the general public to watch and judge the documentary for themselves.  The Third Jihad is now being made available for free viewing online at http://www.thethirdjihad.com.”

According to the New York Times, nearly 1500 officers, “from lieutenants to detectives to patrol officers” reportedly were shown the film during a period of between three months and a year.

The story of the film’s usage by NYPD was first reported by the Village Voice a year earlier, and police stopped using the film when pressure was asserted by local Islamic organizations.  Pressure continued until the New York Times propelled the year-old story to front-page news yesterday.

CAIR is taking credit for the “investigation” which led to the New York Times’ coverage, with a press release (http://tinyurl.com/nypd-cair) demanding that the NYPD install Muslim-sensitive materials in their training curriculum to offset what they consider to be an ‘Islamaphobic’ film.

Innuendo

What CAIR and the New York Times failed to clearly address, is that The Third Jihad is narrated by a devout Muslim, who has a significant record of serving the United States of America, as a medical officer in the US Navy and as an attending physician to the US Congress.

The beginning of the film states in bold letters that, “This is not a film about Islam.  It is about the threat of radical Islam.  Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.”

The film’s message urges the Muslim community to look within itself to root out the indoctrination that affects a minority of Muslims.

The documentary is founded on credible evidence presented by the FBI of a “Manifesto” published by radicals calling for the implementation of extremist ideology-both violent and politicized-within the United States.

It is no surprise that CAIR does not like the content of the film.  CAIR is singled out in the film for its direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, open support for Hamas, and links to terror financing.

CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest ever terror-financing trial in US History.

As a result of these designations, the FBI has formally ceased all ties with CAIR-as should the NYPD and New York Times.

The NYPD is well aware of the threats that emanate from Islamic radicals.

In the preface to a landmark 2007 NYPD Intelligence Division Report entitled “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly writes, “New York City continues to be the one of the top targets of terrorists worldwide.  Consequently, the NYPD places a priority on understanding what drives and defines the radicalization process.”

The Third Jihad takes an in-depth look at the process of radicalization and indoctrination taking place on American soil.

It is clear that senior members of the NYPD saw value in the film, as did employees of the Federal Homeland Security department, who first gave the DVD of the film to the NYPD.

Inaccuracies

The Third Jihad features exclusive interviews with some of the nation’s leading counterterrorism experts including former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

According to the New York Times, Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman said, “that filmmakers had lifted the [Kelly] clip from an old interview.”

This is the first of several inaccuracies to appear in the New York Times’ account.

The makers of The Third Jihad conducted a nearly 90-minute exclusive interview with Commissioner Kelly specifically for the film on March 19, 2007.  Previously unreleased bonus clips of Kelly’s interview are currently available at http://www.thethirdjihad.com.

Responding to a letter by film producer Raphael Shore, Browne then corrected the record in the New York Times follow-up article.  “I recommended in February 2007 that Commissioner Kelly be interviewed,” he said.

Browne recalled that the film’s interviewer, “asked to speak to the commissioner for a cable film on ‘foiled terrorist plots and the current threat matrix.’”

Several other inaccuracies appear in the article.   For example, the New York Times notes that the film includes a doctored photo of the White House with an Islamic flag atop.  But the photo is one of many pieces of documented footage from Islamist sources.  Yet the New York Times implies that the filmmakers were the ones to manipulate the photo.

The New York Times also inaccurately quotes the film by stating: “‘This is the true agenda of Islam in America,’ a narrator intones.”  But the actual quote from the film is: “This document shows the true agenda of much of Muslim leadership here in America.”

The article intentionally omits that this narrator is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim.

The rest of the New York Times’ coverage focuses on character assassination.  While CAIR and others label the film Islamophobic, it is ironic that the film’s detractors continuously point out that the film’s producer has ties to Jewish organizations.  The article inaccurately claims that Raphael Shore simultaneously works for Aish HaTorah.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg questioned the judgment of that those who permitted the usage of the film.  However, Bloomberg’s predecessor Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is also interviewed in the film, has praised the documentary calling The Third Jihad, “a wake up call for America.”

CONTACT:

press@clarionfund.org

646-308-1230 x213

From Atlas Shrugs: “Huge props to Congressional candidate George Demos (who spoke at our 911 Freedom Rally) and Governor Andrew Cuomo.”

9/11 Church to be Rebuilt 

 George Demos, the Conservative Republican candidate for US Congress in New York’s First District, who helped lead the effort to bring national attention to the plight of the 9/11 Church today praised Governor Cuomo for fulfilling Governor Pataki’s pledge to rebuild the only house of worship destroyed on September 11th.

George Demos said, “Fifteen months ago when the ember of hope to rebuild St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was nearly extinguished and our nation was embroiled in a controversy about the propriety of a Mosque at Ground Zero, we stood up and let the nation know that it was our obligation to rebuild the only house of worship destroyed on September 11th.

[...]

Sadly the breakthrough only came after the Port Authority’s Director Christopher Ward, who had been maliciously blocking the rebuilding of the Church, was forced to resign.

Deal Struck to Rebuild NY Church Destroyed on 9/11

It took a decade, but a deal has finally been struck to rebuild a church destroyed on 9/11, the church and a public agency announced Friday.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said they have resolved their long dispute over how to rebuild St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, a small, 85-year-old chapel that stood across the street from the World Trade Center and was destroyed when the towers fell.

The church and the public agency had been at odds over the details of a land swap that will move the church slightly down the street to make way for some of the giant construction projects now under way at ground zero.

The settlement, mediated by the office of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, will end a lawsuit filed by the archdiocese earlier this year. Under the deal, the Port Authority will pay for site-work and below-ground infrastructure. The cost of that work is estimated to be about $25 million, according to the governor’s office. The archdiocese will pay for the construction of the chapel.

The new church will be about 3½ times as large as the old one, and also house a nondenominational bereavement center.

The leader of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, Archbishop Demetrios, said the church’s continued presence at the trade center site will be “an affirmation of the significance of religious freedom and experience for all New Yorkers and all Americans.”

“We will again light many candles in the new St. Nicholas Church and remember those who were lost to us, and those heroes who so nobly sacrificed their lives,” he said.

But, this ad from SIOA and AFDI is an ad that isn’t afraid to tells it like it is. There ARE savages determined to destroy Israel but this ad has been censored. The outrage is not the ad, it’s that it has been censored…. Freedom of Speech DENIED

Part 10 of 10 of an eight hour Symposium at NY Law School Law Review On “Sharia in America: Principle and Prospects”.  (click image to enlarge)

The purpose was to examine the place of Islamic Law in The United States.

The Plenary Panel is the conclusion of the Symposium. Two of the seven panelists, Michael J. Broyde (Emory University School of Law) – Jewish Law and Mohammad Fadel  (University of Toronto, Faculty of Law)  Professor of Religion and the Liberal State: The Case of Islam, were unable to stay for the Plenary, where the audience asked questions of the speakers.

The Panel for this final Q and A was Umar F. Moghul (University of Connecticut School of Law, Murtha Cullina LLP) who spoke on Sharia Finance; Asifa Quraishi (University of Wisconsin Law School) – Family Law; Kristen Stilt (Northwestern University School of Law) – Constitutional Law; Frank E. Vogel , an independent scholar and consultant on Islamic law and the laws of the Muslim world and Sadiq Reza (New York Law School) – Criminal Law.

Next are some written notes from the Plenary Q and A, followed by the audio:

Q - A woman asks Prof. Reza about the punishment and apostasy in the context of treason.

A - Reza refers to the Sunna and the template he used in his slide presentation. Confirms it is a death penalty at a time when renouncing God was seen as a treason, endangering the Muslim Community. Modern Muslims now see this as inconsistent with modern human rights and freedom of religion

Prof. Moghul adds this is not just a modern position. In the Prophetic Era, those leaving the Faith of Islam were left alone; not seen as a threat.

Q – A man asks about problem of marital courts and Islamic legal experts. Can American judges be equipped to perform or is it better to have Muslim Tribunals that are legitimized by American courts.

A- Prof Quraishi replies, problem under our First Amendment. Non-credible people like bin-Laden don’t help. Needs to be a standard. She doesn’t want State to decide, interpret, Muslim Law. She mentions Gov. Christie.and reminds that just because someone is a Muslim does not mean they’ll infiltrate.

 Prof. Vogel (as he and Prof. Quraisha talk back and forth) mentions something about Common-law/Muslim Law in the Academic Community. Quraishi adds that with a theoretical point one can go to a mufti and get a fatwa which is not necessarily a death-threat.

Q – A woman asks who are the progressives. Is it Prof Quraishi?

A - Quraishi says it’s too early to know…

Q – A woman says she has heard a lot about fear. Why isn’t the Muslim Community speaking out to the America Public

A – Prof Moghul says Muslim Community is tiny, it is speaking out, bt it is being drowned out by greater funding. To build bridge, dialogue, quite a bit is being done but voice is being pushed aside.

Prof Reza puts on his ‘scholarly hat’. He rejects notion Muslims  ( any group) has obligation (morally) to address anything said because they are just people going about their jobs as accountants and janitors, with kids; not a duty to refute everything said. ( similar he said to an American Black kid being asked to speak for all Blacks…he’s just a kid.) Those with the job of speaking up for the Community are being drowned out.

Prof. Stilt mentions David Yerushalmi, that he goes after CAIR heavily, when they are supposed to be doing this (as moderates). She admits they don’t always do this well (she may even disagree with them) but claiming they are Stealth Jihadists doesn’t help.

Prof Quraishi continues that it is bad. They are vulnerable to speak out against this level of hate. She was criticized at her campus ( in Wisconsin) for supporting a speaker invited there. She was attacked as an Islamo-Fascist; her tenure was threatened. Community can’t handle such pressure, the tsunami, the burden against reasonable thinking

Q- A very strident man (oddly dressed in high-water pants) goes on-on-on about how ignorant we all are and  takes forever to get to a ‘question’…

In his ‘lecture” he says, “What is the agenda behind and who are those behind it? He is pessimistic . These are Know-Nothings. Rants on about Teddy Roosevelt, a racist. and a Social Idiot. Most people are boobs (he of the odd-attire) Anybody can be an idiot (no kidding!) He proclaims, “It takes TIME to be educated! There are so few (out there) like him .” (says he proudly)

He seems to inspire Prof Stilt who starts in on David Yerushalmi (again). Yerushalmi is not a white-man in North Dakota. He wouldn’t belong either. This hatred of a people or a religion, she asks, “WHY don’t they worry about immigration? The Economy? Why hate? This Ignorance in Oklahoma and Tennessee where there are a lack of Muslims, they should worry about the immigrants taking their jobs.“

The Odd-Fellow responds, “This is a Fashion; a fashionable position to Hate.”

Prof Stilt concludes that it is not insignificant that most of this rhetoric comes from Republicans, without criticism; no Party criticism because it scores points at the polls. It’s a political tool, fear. To be afraid like of Gay Marriage, it’s an elaborate ruse to get people to the polls.

Skipping ahead to other moments in the Q and A that are unrelated ….

Prof Quraishi asked,”Why is the Tea Party worried about Muslims taking over; this Islamo-phobia They should be worried about Economics; things International.”

Prof. Reza mentions Tariq Ramadan and a couple of Iranian writers. He says writing on Criminal and Constitutional law not confined to one country

Prof Vogel says there is a lot of disagreement when scholars interpret Qur’an as there are many interpretations. Not one better than another.

Prof Reza  suggest that critics use stray guys on internet to suit their purposes

Prof Quraishi asks, “What is orthodox?” Changes. Organic relationship with scripture to get to changes.  She mentions Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) is just an understanding of the Law. Fiqh deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation in Islam. With the laws against Sharia, Muslims are afraid to naturally challenge (Sharia).

RE the audio : For the audience questions, I had to reposition the hyper-sensitive recorder when people were not speaking directly into mic (but the rustling noise is usually brief). However, Professor Vogel has a few moments where he, unfortunately, spoke too softly and off-mic. (That too, will pass) The other speakers were always audible.

The VIDEO/AUDIO of the Plenary Panel

I hope you found this series interesting. It has left me with much to ponder and to question.

For more information : www.shariafreeusa.org

REGISTER HERE: www.PreservingFreedomConference.org

Part 9 of 10 - Aug 26, 2011 – This was an 8 hour (2 day) Symposium at NY Law School Law Review On “Sharia in America:Principle and Prospects”. The purpose was to examine the place of Islamic Law in The United States.

On Day 2, Professor Sadiq Reza , is the last speaker of the Symposium. He speaks on Criminal Law (Sharia and Western Law).

Notes from Professor Reza’s presentation

Islamic criminal punishment most feared of Islamic Way; Sharia crimes and punishments. 

Least likely to make way into U.S.

Least favored by moderate Muslims and most understand the fear. Unpleasant doctrines, some are not indigenous to Islam, honor killings and genital mutilations, didn’t originate or and are not limited to Islam.

These pre-date Islam, they are not Islam, even though published by some Imams

Fewer than 50% of women live in Muslim world where cuttings and killings happen. 

Not-tradition. Not Muslim practice or Doctrine. He is sure there are some Imams and jurists who favor these…re dishonor of community and family, this is not a majority opinion in Islam

Mentions in Western Law, catching wife in adultery, is one of first 5 categories of provocation in a partial defense. In U.S., in 1970s, the courts did not consider spousal rape and spouses were exempt from charge of marital rape until 1993. Today all 50 States ( and D.C.) have laws that forbid forcing sex on anyone

Yes marital rape is in Quran. He reads the well-known quote re “woman is like a till” 

Re-interpret scriptures, binding law open to evolution,  fluid. 

Shows us his Qur’an (filled with tabs) If your Qur’an is not filled with tabs, then you aren’t studying/reading your Qur’an

Starts his slides and speaks of three categories of  Islamic Penal Code: Hudud (an eye for an eye), Qisas (retribution) and Ta’zir (chastisement). Represent the Rights of God, the Rights of Person and the Rights of Society. This is the template of Islam; the Crimes and Punishment

Where is this system practical? Shows map of countries, showing their relationship to Islam.  Mentions that Egypt is not a sharia-centric country. Should not be on the list.

Has nothing to say re U.S. and Sharia. Not seen anyone call for Sharia Criminal Court here.  Muslim-Americans are not asking for stoning and whippings. It is repugnant. Moral sensibilities reject that category of crimes.

Ta’zir would offend our Constitution

Mentions NY Times article on David Yerushalmi, Says critics are cherry-picking Sharia

Notes from the Q and A

Q The need for 4 witnesses to Act of Adultery. The Sunna. Pakistan, Saudi  Arabia, do not follow the evidentiary rules.

Q- Sexual Slander. False accusations. Social attitude among Muslims when women make false accusations (as in Sadik-Kahn) 

A- mentions the need for 4 witnesses being a deterrent

Q- Bigger threat to Criminal Law and Islam over-use of material support statute by American  Criminal Courts . The ramifications for the Muslim population in the U.S (Peter Beauchamp)

A- Has to with Civil Rights and the Patriot Act (tried for terrorism). Allows for lower standard of proof of criminal intent

Q- the materials she has read imply. “You can’t pick and choose. Muslims believe in a package of items.  We do want Family Law ( not Criminal Law) It’s just a strategy…”

A – Muslims can pick and choose. If American Muslims are ever in a position to implement any form of Sharia, they will be the measure of what that Sharia is. According to the polls (assuming they are not lying) Muslim Americans have no interest in implementing the Sharia Criminal Law. They have always picked and chosen.   And to be implemented it must be accepted by the people.

Professor Reza spoke for approximately 28 minutes. His Q and A was about 18 minutes. This is the audio of the presentation (with some slides) followed by the Q and A.

 The Symposium concludes next with  (Part 10 ) “The Plenary Panel” and Final Q and A

FINALLY! For those who are interested, the last three speakers of the “Sharia in America” Symposium will be completed and posted .

Notes from Professor Reza’s intro of Professor Umar F. Moghul (Sharia Finance)

Professor Moghul was recruited late for the Symposium. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law and a full-time practitioner from the firm of Murtha Cullina LLP. where he   is Chair of Islamic Law and Investment Practice. Professor Moghul has published articles on how Islamic Finance is practiced here in the U.S.and the legislation that addresses it.

Our speaker, Professor Umar F. Moghul

Notes from Professor Moghul’s 20 minute presentation 

He assumes that by now (in the symposium)we have an understanding of the Social and Political Climate and as to how Sharia Finance is done…

Moghul continues in his opening Statement: 

Among the challenges that have come about to Sharia in this environment of Islamophobia, is a (..unclear…) challenge to Islamic Finance; to Islamic Investment Transactions in the U.S. as far as implementing or enforcing Sharia Finance into the United States. This does not mean that the U.S. not not welcome Sharia Finance…on the contrary, the U.S. has been an important market although perhaps not a large market, globally speaking….

Points he feels need to be addressed in his presentation:

” First, Islamic Finance is part of Islamic Law which is then part of Sharia, a term which he does not translate as  Islamic Law. It’s much more than Law….

If he were to try to translate Sharia, it is the proper balance maintained between religious and temporal  aspects of the religion. The ultimate purpose, the higher purpose of Islam as a religion, thus Islam as Law, is worship of the Divine ….( at this point the slides begin)….

This purpose of Obedience and Worship of the Divine kind of comes in to Islamic Finance as well… Socially Responsible Investing. Gambling, Pornography typically are prohibited as targets of investment. (he mentions riba – interest)

Another misconception is how Islamic Law applies to people of other faiths. He submits it is not wholly applicable to people of other faiths. How this applies to Islamic Law….it comes up if one of the parties is Islamic ( as in multi-family apartment buildings). The problems come up due to lack of information and lack of education….

….within the broad purpose of Sharia Law is to prevent harm, securing benefits, preservation and protection of 5 specific values, that include life and religion ( specific to property) which is one of the 5 objectives of Sharia

He the continues discussing 

• Markets (foreign and retail)
• Sharia seeks fairness Protect Integrity
• Sukuk (Islamic certificate/bond)
• Alternative Investment
• Compatibility and Compliance within the framework of the Law
• Legal tensions- venues and resolution
• Courts and arbitration- who decides
• flexibility with those who have knowledge of Islamic law
  

The Q and A (is about 25 minutes. The first brief question is basically off-mic)

This is just after lunch break and the group didn’t seem focused on asking questions, so those who are asking questions are often Professor Stilt, Professor Reza, Professor Quraishi and Professor Vogel.

Professor Moghul gave long responses in the Q and A (what follows are some of my notes )

AUDIO of Professor Moghuls’s presentation (with slides)and the Q and A: (because the audience microphone wasn’t always used, this caused an occasional rustling noise when I had to reposition the hyper-sensitive audio recorder to catch the questions)

Two slides at 20:32 and 20:44 were actually from Prof. Reza’s presentation that follows this.

.

The Sharia Symposium continues with two more speakers. Professor Sadiq Reza (Criminal Law) then concludes with a Plenary Discussion.

AND please follow link below to a fabulous article on the symposium written by Alyssa Lappen “Sharia Lobby Shifts into Fifth Gear” 

..