January 21, 2011 at approximately 12:30 PM. Times Square
Decided to check out the Egyptian Revolution Rally taking place just after
the first light snow of the winter season.
Their stage was late, so sans amplification the rally leaders were chanting
and attempting to kept the crowd busy until their errant truck/stage arrived.
It was a small crowd comprised of familiar Leftists, “Palestinians” and
Usually, I’m called a Zionist, a Racist, a Nazi and a hate-monger but today,
I was lectured, told outright HOW I was to write about the rally or else LEAVE
because (you see) ” I’m an Islamophobe who WORKS for Pamela Geller.”
Policing me was Marxist/Fakestinian agitator, Andy Pollack. Andrew Pollack of
Al-Awda NY who loves to press his hulking mass into my space while proudly
declaring that I had to stop filming.
He kept his little soldiers busy infringing on my freedom of speech and
assembly by attempting to block my camera with flags and bodies.
Nice, huh? The games Lefties play….
Two young women in the rally were ‘alerted’ by Pollack to not speak with
me because I “WORK for Pam Geller”. One of those girls was Micha
(Michelle)Balon of the STAGED #OWS marriage (arranged to please the easily
But, Micha doesn’t seem to be ‘married’ anymore. Her face book page says
she is interested in MEN and makes no mention of a ‘husband’
My other critic was Nada Elmansy (in light blue hijab) She said I can’t be
trusted to write appropriately about Muslims!” However, I appreciate that
she took a moment on camera to actually express why she was there.
Some more pictures of the signs….
Yearning for bread, dignity and ….”Social Justice”!
Socialists…Revolution…. Freedom…Justice For All!
Anti-Israel (lots of kuffeyas ) and Anti-America….
It wasn’t just a rally about those martyred in Tahrir Square…
Facts are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sharia compliant government is
antithetical to a a free society, to a democracy.
“The Islamist parties have won 72 percent of the seats in the lower house…
the revolutionaries of Tahrir Square were disgraced at the polls and exposed
as an insignificant social and political force…The Muslim Brotherhood (and its
fellow jihadists in the Salafist al-Nour party) will control Egypt’s internal affairs.”
Yet there were no signs criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood.
If there were Christians at this rally ( as they claimed) WHERE were the
signs supporting the Copts.
This election is “.. bad news for women and for non-Muslims. Egypt’s Coptic Christians
have been under continuous attack by Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist supporters
since Mubarak was deposed…The military massacred them when they dared to
protest their persecution.”
I heard nothing protesting the attacks and murders of the Copts, martyred
in Egypt because they are CHRISTIANS. Will the Muslim Brotherhood and the
Sharia compliant government be any better? (crickets chirping)
Is Egypt a country on the verge of a real Democracy?
Were those killed in Tahrir Square fighting to live under Sharia?
Leaving no doubt that this was also a protest in opposition of Israel.
Keeping the Revolution alive in Syria, in Libya, in Tunisia, in Yemen (in Egypt)…
and in ‘Fakestine’… FREE FREE etc etc etc etc …. Reminding us that America is:
After all, Ramsey Clark and his International Action Center was promoting,
organizing , supporting this rally. His organization is not just critical of
America it is ANTI- America.
No Old Glory flying along side the flag of Egypt. Just signs, signs and
more signs blaming America and praising Socialism.
Their “Hope and Change” for a democracy is just an excuse to build
another Saudi Arabia; another Iran compliments of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Global Day to support the Egyptian revolution
on Saturday, Jan 21st. 2012
Egyptian & Egyptian Solidarity Groups Rally to Support
Egyptian Revolution’s Demands
Anniversary of the Egyptian Revolution
Global Event: The Struggle Continues
New York City, NY—
During the 18 days from Jan 25th to Feb 11th, 2011,
the whole world witnessed millions of Egyptian protesters marching in the
streets of Egypt and protesting in Tahrir Square, demanding their basic
human rights: dignity, freedom, and social justice. After decades of patience
and suffering, Egyptians finally spoke out loudly and peacefully demanding
the fall of a police-based authoritarian regime, the end of Mubarak’s dictatorship,
and the establishment of a civilian, democratic state.
The protestors in Times Square may protest the SCAF but they say nothing
against the Muslim Brotherhood….
And Anonymous…of course… was there with this pithy thought:
BROKEN LINKS HAVE BEEN REPAIRED
|‘The Third Jihad’ Producers Reply to New York Times ArticlesDocumentary recently pulled from NYPD counterterrorism training;Times articles filled with innuendo and inaccuracies|
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.
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.
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.”
Filed under: Islam and mosques
September 26, 2011.
This panel was presented by The NY City Lawyers Chapter and the International and National Security Law Practice Group and The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies in NYC .
Videos are complete audio with pictures ( in six parts) total is approximately 80 minutes.
PART ONE – opening statements by Marc Schuman, secretary of the NY Chapter of The Federalist Society and the Honorable Richard J. Sullivan, District Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of NY, who was moderator for the evening.
Schuman then introduces the panel.
Prof. David Forte, (Constitutional and Sharia Law). Forte teaches Islamic Law and Originalism in the class-room and Daniel Mach (Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief). He turns the mic over to the moderator, Richard J. Sullivan.
PART TWO – opening presentation of guest speaker, David Forte, Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall School of Law. In the classroom he teaches Constitutional Law and Originalism . He also teaches Islamic Law.
Some excerpts from audio in Part 2:
(Forte) mentions Islamic Law and Constitutional Originalism. Mentions Egypt, Mubarak and Tahrir Square. War on West is from within. Qaradawi and fatwas against Jews. Kill the Jews. Divine punishment (sharia).
( In 2004, 2,500 Muslim academics from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and from the Palestinian territories condemned Qaradawi, and accused him of giving “Islam a bad name.”)
Forte says Qaradawi’s Sharia not Classical Sharia. His Sharia not the REAL Sharia. Discrimination against women was NOT permitted in Classical Sharia. The tyranny of Qaradawi (his ideology).
Qaradawi warns Muslims to not be immigrants, be COLONIZERS. Examples: European NO-GO Zones and the Sharia quasi-legal systems in England, France, Rome; replicated though-out Old Europe. (In England, five formal Sharia Courts and 80 informal) In Belgium, a parallel Legal Court; a SHARIA Court (in Brussels).
In early Islam, they were Rationalists til 55 years later, then Legalists. Sharia formed by Jurists, recognized by Imperialists (Caliphs).
Saladin changed substance of Sharia (there was no torture) Could not torture innocents (now you can) He was an Arabized Kurdish Muslim, who became the first Sultan of Egypt and Syria .
A thousand years of Islamist history enforced only by Caliph. He could enforce or throw anything aside in the entire Islamic Empire. Caliph must support Sharia (STATE LAW) of the Islamic State (Empire).
8th-9th c Sharia: Legalists vs Rationalists (like Greeks)…Sharia was formed by Jurists… an Equity Court. Islam identified with The Law.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are “Perfectly Islamic”. What changed. Torture was not originally part of Islam. They changed Sharia from a system of beliefs for righteous living before god into an ideology. A religion into a POLITICAL ideology.
Warned to practice perfect Islam or else you are an apostate. This form of Islam, this Sharia, is an abomination
Forte says, Radical Islam “changing Believer into Ideologue-Apparatchik of a totalitarian regime.” He concludes, “THAT is what we should oppose as a threat (THAT type of Islam)
PART THREE – opening presentation of guest speaker, Daniel Mach, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Excerpts from Part 3:
Mach’s specialty is First Amendment Law, Church and State. He’s in-the-trenches and litigates in areas of Church and State.
Mach begins with, ” NO, Sharia Law is not ‘Coming-to-America'”
Admits that ,”Dangerous Religious extremists do exist.”
In Sharia, no religious tenets were to be imposed or decided by courts.
There’s NO Take Over by Sharia Law. It’s Just Not Happening..
In Oklahoma, they’ve banned Sharia Law. Something that hasn’t happened ONCE. Lists of Sharia examples don’t withstand scrutiny.
Our courts don’t put the right–to-pray up-for-a-vote
PART FOUR (Forte and Mach respond to Moderator, Richard Sullivan’s questions)
Excerpts from Part 4:
David Forte refers to Wahhabis (is interrupted by audience member) re 80% mosques and Imams under Saudi influence
Judge in NJ upheld a Sharia judgement. NJ judge didn’t ‘get’ difference. Foreign Law (aka Sharia Law) not okay if it violates U.S. Constitution or State Law
Dan Mach stresses Christians have rights to exercise faith so he questions passing laws to isolate Sharia as a specific threat. Asylum cases have been denied to people who fear torture … says a problem in a handful of cases
Forte – Honor killings are tribal custom, NOT Sharia
In parts 5 and 6 – questions from the audience with responses from the speakers. These are just a few excerpts…
PART FIVE ( Questions from audience)
Excerpts from Part 5:
QUESTION: re Sharia Finance: “Is it a cover?”
Forte Re Sharia Finance. Mutual Funds. Check where funds are going. What’s the interest. Too harsh to say no Sharia Finance
WHY “no-interest” loans? Financing (Fiqh )deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation in Islam. (no-interest loans)
Usury ( Middle Ages) was RENTING money ( like a horse) Loans rented. During Ottomans (up to 10 %) always had interest. This prohibition is a 20th-21st century creation. Fundamentalism is a perversion
FORTE claims Classical Sharia is different from what we are criticizing. Women. Minorities. Islamic State Law. It must be in CONTEXT. Classical Sharia women had protections/Radical Islam they do not
Ottoman enforced punishment for theft, apostasy but NO capital punishment in Classical Sharia. There were protections. RADICALS do torture (not in Classical Sharia)
Made a JOKE about the need for the four upright males (false accusation) ; theft (two upright males) Not easy to find as there is also a punishment for false testimony. TRIBAL CUSTOM (culture) has caused the harsh punishments not Islam.
MACH responds. Thought and expression not criminalized in U.S. Defends t-shirts that criticize Islam/burn Koran (he defends these) BUT if you violate … commit a criminal act…then NO defense…
FORTE . Okay with Warrior Prophets. He admires Mohammed . Treatment of women, unbelievers, etc. He continues that Mohammed emancipated women (greater rights in marriage) Mentions the RESPECT Mohammed had for wives. Yes, he married a 6 year old. Not uncommon. It was okay in that culture
Protected monks, freedom of religious beliefs. Says Mohammed was responsible for legal influence of Arabic Society reforms.
What distorted Mohammed’s trajectory? “Law. Tribes. Empire” (The Ottoman Empire.) He is not a believer but admires Mohammed
Q – What has Mohammed done that was extraordinary? Why so violent? Justifying murder/extermination?
Forte: Violence in Bible much worse. in comparison, the Koran is WHIMPY. Islam should have been the FIRST to free slavery, instead it was the LAST. Should have been the first to observe Laws of War.
Forte re violence in O.T. Difference is HOW Jews interpret. What came after. How Muslims handle it (the text) How each dealt with what was written. Re Koran. Contextualize reference to treatment of unbelievers. It’s all in the interpretation. It was the Koresh Tribe Mohammed was referring to.
PART SIX : Final statements from Forte and Mach
Excerpts from Part 6:
Question – People are afraid to speak up because they fear punishment. “See something say something” could place them in jeopardy with mosque (sharia). “Don’t they feel that make the mosques a security risk?”
Forte: We should investigate where money comes from, the newspapers should investigate. The Saudi influence.
Mach: Government should not tell us where or how to worship. Not worried about prisons. There all all types of prison checks to control influence.
Q. What about last 10 years. What’s going on in Europe.. No-Go Zones…
Mach: I’ll defend your right, if denied access to street. (the audience member mentions Dearborn) The moderator and panel do not respond….
Q– How can we think this is a Great Religion based on history?
Forte – Look at what Moderate Muslims are saying about Islam. There is a seed in all religions of recognizing each other as equals.
Mach : Government should not be in business of telling anyone where they can build a house of worship. You own the property, you can build.
Moderator: How to promote the Classical version of Sharia and not the Radical
Forte: STOP multi-cultural baloney in schools that support Radical Version of Islam (which should be minimized) 1910-1930 example: Italian immigrant educators assimilation was encouraged.
Multi-culturalism is GOVERNMENT imposed. The worst thing we can do as far as assimilation.
Mach (ACLU) questions Forte’s criticism of multi-culturalism. Sees great benefits in Public Schools teaching about other cultures.
By coincidence, found this article in American Thinker by Jamie Glazov
“Islamism at UCLA Law School”
” …the belief system and values under girding Sharia Islam are the antithesis of American/Western beliefs and fundamental values, and therefore Dr. Fadl’s scholarship relentlessly sanitizing sharia was “deceptive and dishonest.”…. it is one thing for a legal scholar to cause controversy and debate by taking an unpopular position; it is quite another when the scholar obfuscates rather than clarifies a subject of study by engaging in subpar scholarship and outright deception (known by the sharia as taqqiyah…”