Girls Raped Then Hung in Uttar Pradesh, India, Force Focus on Rape Worldwide by Phyllis Chesler Breitbart May 29, 2014 http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/1312/girls-raped-then-hung-in-uttar-pradesh-india Print Send RSS Share: Be the first of your friends to like this. Early Thursday, two teenage Indian girls, aged 14 and 15, cousins, were found dead, hanging from a mango tree, in Uttar Pradesh, where their heartless gang-rapists had left them. Both are Dalits, formerly considered "untouchables." One (or possibly two) men are in custody; two or three more men are being sought. Three police officers have been removed from duty because they did not register the girls as missing when their families first reported it. One or possibly two police officers have, reportedly, been arrested for having sided with the criminals and delayed acting on a report of the missing girls. The superintendent of police said, "We now believe the girls were assaulted for their low caste." A post mortem determined that, indeed, they had been gang-raped and then hung. Despite the fact that India is a constitutional democracy and a modern country, caste still plagues the country. Hindu honor killings are perpetrated mainly for reasons of caste-violation. In general, Dalits may be viewed as even more justifiable prey than other women—even by other Dalit men. One police officer believes this was a Dalit-on-Dalit crime. » CONTINUE READING Related Topics:  Gender, Honor Killings, Rape

To subscribe to the Phyllis Chesler mailing list, go to http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/list_subscribe.php The Phyllis Chesler Organization

Daniel Greenfield's article: The "You Didn't Do That" Society

---

The "You Didn't Do That" Society Posted: 29 May 2014 12:37 PM PDT First Elliot Rodger murdered his three roommates with a knife, hammer and machete. Then he shot eight people, three of them fatally, and tried to run over several others in his car. After the bodies were taken away, everyone on television agreed that it was the fault of the guns. Rodger had been in therapy since he was eight and was seeing therapists every day in high school. He had a history of making violent threats and the police had already gotten involved. He was on multiple prescription medications and had therapists whom he alerted to his plans by sending them his manifesto. A therapist reacted by notifying his mother who drove out personally. By then even more people were dead. In a country where a little boy with a pop tart chewed in the shape of a gun triggers immediate action, the professionals who cashed in on the killer’s wealthy family were in no hurry to call the police. One even reassured his mother while the shootings were going on that it wasn’t him. So it was clearly the fault of the guns. Guns that Elliot Rodger bought with $5,000 from his family. The BMW he used to commit some of the attacks was given to him by his mother. Jenni Rodger, his British aunt, blamed America and guns for her nephew's massacre. "What kind of a society allows this? How can this be allowed to happen? I want to appeal to Americans to do something about this horrific problem." Somehow the parenting failure of her brother is now the fault of an entire foreign country. Rodger's father issued a statement through his lawyer in support of gun control and "staunchly against guns." It might have been a bit more useful if Peter Rodger, instead of opposing a category of manual instruments, had spent more time dealing with his son's problems. Guns did not kill six people. His son did. Maybe Elliot Rodger's family would not have been able to change anything, but it's likely that they could have at least prevented the massacre if they had become more involved instead of delegating the problem that their son had become to therapists and medications. It's the height of cynicism for his father and aunt to take refuge in abstractions about gun control. When a teenager stabbed twenty people at a Pittsburgh-area high school there were no easy answers about gun control to take refuge in. If Rodger had stuck to his knife, hammer and machete, his relatives who coddled him all these years wouldn't be able to shift the blame to an abstract policy. They wouldn't be able to politicize the crime and snip their own involvement out of the picture. Elliot Rodger's parents, communicating through a lawyer and a talent agent, find it convenient to put up another layer of abstraction between themselves and the actions of their son. And the easiest way to do that is to transform it into a widespread social problem. The more that the smiling people on television talk about gun control, the less likely they are to talk about them. Even mental illness reduces a specific crime to the abstraction of a social problem. Expanding an individual act into a social problem manufactures a collective responsibility. The scapegoats are people who had nothing to do with what happened. The killer's family has successfully shifted responsibility to people who live a thousand miles away and never even knew their son existed. Guns have become a convenient cliche. The new villain is no longer the killer, but the 5 million members of the NRA who are unwilling to give up their constitutional rights because Elliot Rodger's family failed at their single most important job. Why is a gun owner in North Carolina more responsible for the Isla Vista killings than Peter Rodger? Does Peter Rodger’s staunch opposition to guns free him from responsibility while dumping it on the majority of Americans who believe in the Bill of Rights? Elliot Rodger was not a social problem. He was not a gun culture. He was not a national anything. He was an individual and individuals bear responsibility for their own actions. The left is expert at removing responsibility from individuals and assigning it to the culture at large. Every murder is a failure of society. And society fails every murderer, they insist. We are all murderers because we own guns or didn't vote for the right politicians who would have allocated more money to mental health treatment, school counseling or midnight basketball. And outlawed guns. The "You didn't build that" society is also the "You didn't do that" society. The flip side of Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama's collectivist rhetoric is that just as no one invents the airplane, creates a company or writes the Great American Novel on their own, no one kills six people on their own. If you killed six people, it's because of the Second Amendment. If you wanted to kill sorority girls, it's because of Seth Rogen movies. If you're a half-Asian who beat and stabbed your Asian roommates to death, it's because of white (or half-white) supremacism. No one does anything good or bad on their own. The good that men do gets taxed away for the purported benefit of society and the evil that they do is blamed on society. In a collectivist system, everyone is responsible for everything collectively and not responsible for anything individually. Everyone but the killer is responsible for his shooting spree. And that means no one is responsible. The problem is tackled with public awareness hashtags and legislation that hurts millions of people who didn't do anything wrong. America's gun owners, like its machete and hammer owners, did not kill anyone. Every day the vast majority of gun owners somehow manage to get through the day without a killing spree. Their tools don't have minds of their own. The gun culture that liberals talk about does not sneak in through their windows at night and urge them to shoot up the neighborhood. Elliot Rodger did not kill because he had guns. He bought guns because he wanted to kill. And he wasn't very good at it, wounding more people than he killed. Like many on the left he believed that guns would make him invincible. They didn't. And it was the same good guys with guns the left sneers at who put a stop to his killing spree. We aren't rethinking the First Amendment because of Rodger's YouTube videos and manifesto. Why are we supposed to rethink the Second Amendment every time some psycho includes guns in his killing spree? The problem was not with Rodger's computer, his smartphone, his hammer, his machete or his handguns. They were only the tools that he used. The problem was with him. The solution to horrifying crimes is not collective guilt, but individual responsibility. Instead of transforming individual acts into a social problem, we should instead remind ourselves that the keystone of morality is individual responsibility. Collectives are not moral. Individuals are. People don't kill because there is a gun shop around the corner. They kill because they make a choice. Elliot Rodger's family doesn't want to deal with their own choices. Elliot Rodger certainly did not want to deal with his. However if we want a moral society, we won't get there by pretending that choice doesn't exist. We won't get there by banning guns. We won't get there through abstractions. A moral society recognizes the power and responsibility of individual choice. A better country doesn't begin with banning guns, but with holding accountable those who kill. Even while liberals were puffing out their chests over gun control, the Supreme Court's liberal justices stepped in to save Freddie Hall who kidnapped, raped and murdered a pregnant woman and shot a deputy. That was in 1978. A decade earlier, he had gone to jail for raping another woman and gouging out her eyes so she wouldn't be able to identify him. Like some of the other monsters on death row, Hall decided to plead retarded. His IQ scores dropped. After a long series of appeals, the Supreme Court finally decided that executing him would be unconstitutional. "Florida’s law contravenes our Nation’s commitment to dignity and its duty to teach human decency as the mark of a civilized world," Justice Kennedy wrote, speaking for the majority. But America was at its best in dignity and decency when it held men, including monsters like Freddie Hall, accountable for their actions. Decency and civilization come from individual choices. Liberals like Kennedy reject individual choices and seek every possible pretext for protecting killers from their moral choices. A society that makes excuses for monsters becomes an amoral cesspool where no one is responsible for anything because everyone is responsible for everything. Instead of offering collectivist excuses and implementing collectivist overreactions, we can restore dignity and decency by rejecting social problems and embracing individual responsibility. Our choice is not between a safe society without guns and a dangerous society with guns. It is between a society of individual responsibility where everyone can be trusted to own a gun and a society of collectivist irresponsibles where no one can be trusted to own a gun. Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

ALAC Protects Constitutional Rights Against Foreign Laws--Including Shariah

Visit our News page AMERICAN LAWS FOR AMERICAN COURTS PROTECTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST FOREIGN LAWS—INCLUDING SHARIAH Recently, there has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation about efforts in Oklahoma to prevent the infiltration and insinuation of Shariah law in the Sooner State. The confusion stems from a ruling earlier this month by Federal Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange requiring the state of Oklahoma to pay the legal fees of a plaintiff who successfully sued the state over the so-called “Save Our State Amendment” from way back in 2010. This was just the latest legal setback for that beleaguered initiative. On 15 August 2013, the same US District Judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, struck down the amendment (also known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma's courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions. SQ755 had overwhelmingly passed a vote of the people in Oklahoma in November 2010. This decision was not a surprise and echoed an earlier ruling by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals also in 2010. As detailed in this article, SQ755 contained several flaws which rendered it counterproductive: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html Fortunately, as ACT! For America members know, there is an effective and constitutional alternative to measures such as SQ755 and, thanks to the foresight and tenacity of State Representative Sally Kern, Oklahoma joined a host of other states last spring in passing it into law. That law is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). Authored by Representative Kern, ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April 2013. The passage of ALAC in Oklahoma was the culmination of a 3-year effort by Representative Kern that she embarked upon when she learned that SQ755 was likely to run into trouble in the courts. ALAC has now been passed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma and North Carolina. A version of ALAC also passed into law for specialty courts in the state of Washington. Moreover, ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly last year as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in their next statewide election in November. ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma's SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755: • ALAC is facially neutral. In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class. • ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755's. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated. If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties' fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process. This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws. • ALAC is not vague. It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights. Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC's wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law – including shariah law – that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy. And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study found 50 cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including some appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law. Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah. It is important to point out that ALAC has been in force since 2010 and has never been challenged in court, simply because there is no basis on which to challenge a law that expressly protects constitutional rights. Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as the HAMAS-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have opposed ALAC, just as they opposed SQ755. This shows their true motivation; they are not interested in freedom, liberty and our constitution that guarantees them. CAIR has another, more sinister, hate-filled agenda. Nevertheless, the states that have passed ALAC, such as Oklahoma, have moved to prevent the kind of “creeping shariah” that has occurred in Western Europe, Great Britain in particular. Despite what you might read from the so-called “mainstream” media, the threat from shariah is real and must be guarded against. It is naïve to think that “it can’t happen here.” Shariah is ALREADY here and groups like CAIR are promoting it actively. Thanks to Representative Kern and her colleagues in the Oklahoma legislature, with the support of ACT! For America’s thousands of members in Oklahoma, we have made sure that the laws applied in Oklahoma courts will be AMERICAN laws. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation.

Rahim Sabadia: Portrait of a Disgraced Defense Contractor :: Rusin in PJ Media

Home   |   Articles   |   Blog   |   About   |   Donate

Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area. Rahim Sabadia: Portrait of a Disgraced Defense Contractor by David J. Rusin PJ Media May 28, 2014 http://www.islamist-watch.org/16557/rahim-sabadia-portrait-of-a-disgraced-defense Print Send RSS Share: Be the first of your friends to like this. Four years after the Pentagon suspended the security clearance of Rahim Sabadia — a South African-born, California-based defense contractor who has bankrolled the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — new discoveries raise questions about how he had been permitted to hold one in the first place. Documents analyzed by Islamist Watch show that Sabadia's foundation donated to an infamous Hamas-funding charity and other radicals, that in 1985 he pleaded guilty to the sale of illegal listening devices, and that immigration officials had ordered him out of the country a decade earlier. Topping off this troubling record, Sabadia recently pleaded guilty to providing false information to a Navy procurement officer in a scheme to recapture an old contract. The Sabadia saga is a warning that Islamists and their sympathizers must be kept away from the sensitive technologies and institutions that protect America. Rahim Sabadia, founder of Sabtech. Concerns about Sabadia initially came to light in a 2011 article by Matt Pearce and Brooke Williams for the Orange County Register. While researching the millions of taxpayer dollars that had been flowing to Sabadia's Sabtech Industries — thanks, in part, to earmarks from Gary Miller, a Republican congressman whose campaign chest was regularly filled by Sabadia and his wife — the journalists learned that Sabadia had lost his secret-level clearance in 2010. As a result, his company had to stop work on a lucrative contract to upgrade the Navy's Aegis combat system, a key component of ballistic missile defense. Federal agencies did not disclose the reason for the suspension, but Pearce and Williams located an internal email citing worries about "charitable contributions." The authors note that Sabadia, via the Sabadia Family Foundation (SFF), distributes money to "many Islamic education, relief, and humanitarian organizations," and "one of the foundation's large beneficiaries — receiving at least $1.2 million since 2002 — is the Council on American-Islamic Relations." CAIR has been on the outs in Washington due to its designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against the Holy Land Foundation, a charity convicted in 2008 of funneling millions to Hamas. In another interesting CAIR–Sabadia link, Omar Zaki, Sabtech's onetime vice president, is CAIR's current national chairman. Sabadia's massive financing of CAIR, which has reached $1.296 million for its Los Angeles chapter based on available SFF tax filings (2001–12), as well as lesser support for similar Islamist pressure groups, certainly should have grabbed the Defense Department's attention. However, there have been far more disturbing recipients of the Sabadia family's largesse. The most notorious SFF grantee was the Holy Land Foundation itself, which collected $3,300 in 2001, the year that federal authorities finally shut it down. Also enjoying Sabadia's generosity in 2001 was the American Muslim Foundation, which pocketed $700. That organization was led by the high-profile Islamist Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is now serving a long prison term following his role in an international assassination plot. Additionally, the SFF has gifted $1.177 million (2001–12) to Islamic Relief USA, which is a subsidiary and funder of Islamic Relief Worldwide, a charity that, according to an Americans for Peace and Tolerance report, "has multiple associations with Hamas fundraising and with the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the U.S., Europe, and Sudan." The SFF's roster of beneficiaries also betrays a fondness for radical mosques and imams. In 2001, the foundation gave $4,500 to Oakland's Masjid Al-Islam, which, in the words of the Anti-Defamation League, is "affiliated with the anti-Semitic Sabiqun movement, which seeks to establish Islamic rule in the U.S." Even the Southern Poverty Law Center, known for vilifying critics of Islamism, calls Masjid Al-Islam and the Sabiqun network "hate groups." In 2002, the SFF sent $100 to defend Jamil al-Amin, an imam convicted that year of the 2000 murder of a Georgia sheriff's deputy. He has since been identified as the head of the Ummah, another entity striving for an Islamic state within U.S. borders. In 2007, the SFF contributed $25,000 to Brooklyn's Masjid At-Taqwa, which the New York Police Department classified among the city's "tier one mosques of concern." That is largely due to the influence of Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who was listed as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the foiled follow-up attacks. Wahhaj, too, dreams of a Shari'a-governed America. Sabadia's run-ins with the law should have raised further red flags for those vetting him. On January 21, 1985, Sabadia was hit with a seven-count federal indictment (Central District of Illinois) for selling electronic devices "primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire or oral communications," contrary to Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2512. Investigators had caught him peddling "telephone drop-in FM transmitters," "ink pen FM transmitters," and "'snooper' contact microphones." Sabadia pleaded guilty to three counts and was sentenced to three years of probation for each, set to run concurrently, and insignificant fines and restitution. Besides outing his past criminality, the 1985 court papers expose Sabadia's former name, Abdur Rahim Noormohamed, which can still be found on various websites. It turns up somewhere else as well: in documents that place Noormohamed/Sabadia at the heart of an immigration dispute during the 1970s. According to a decision from an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) district director dated May 23, 1977, Noormohamed/Sabadia entered the U.S. from Switzerland in January 1976 on a nonimmigrant visa for business in New York on behalf of a textile company. He soon went to Dallas and joined his brother Moosa in a separate venture exporting electronics. When his six-month admission was nearly up, Noormohamed/Sabadia applied for permanent residence based on the claim that he was a qualified investor. The INS official ruled that he did not meet the requirements, rejected his application, and instructed him to leave the country, declaring: "It can only be concluded that you and your brother did not enter the United States in good faith as nonimmigrants without any intention of circumventing the quota restrictions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended." In other words, they had planned to remain in the U.S. from the start. The INS district director dismissed a motion to reconsider his decision, the INS regional commissioner affirmed the denial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas backed the INS, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the ruling. Yet Noormohamed/Sabadia managed to stay. A document from a legal case explored below notes that he married Nafees El Batool in 1979 and became a U.S. citizen in 1989. Sabadia's history prompts a pair of obvious questions: First, if Sabadia's charitable giving had indeed inspired the Pentagon to take a closer look at his security clearance, why did this issue not come to a head until a decade after his foundation had begun supporting Islamic radicals? Second, with a determination that he "did not enter the United States in good faith" and a conviction for selling equipment applicable to espionage, why was he entrusted with a clearance at all? It can now be revealed that Sabadia responded to his lost clearance by breaking the law once again. Pearce and Williams' article sets the stage: On March 3, 2011, they write, "three Sabtech employees created Primary Tech Systems" at "the same address as Sabtech's Virginia office. Sabadia would not discuss the purpose of the new company and said he has no financial stake in it." His involvement was deeper than he let on. But while attempting to deceive a journalist is one thing, attempting to deceive the U.S. government is another. Last year, federal prosecutors charged Sabadia with making "a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States during a [2011] telephone conversation with a civilian procurement officer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, located in Dahlgren, Virginia, in the Eastern District of Virginia, by denying that he exercised control or direction over the activities of Primary Tech Systems (PTS) and its corporate officers." In reality, "the creation of PTS was his idea, he ordered its incorporation, he hand-picked the three officers of the corporation, and he directed the activities of its officers." Sabadia's deliberate untruths violated Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001. He pleaded guilty. "Sabadia devised a plan to create a separate corporation that would contract with the government and outsource some of the actual work to Sabtech," reads the statement of facts accepted by all parties. Sabadia's position "was explained as that of a mere advisor and subcontractor." His "ultimate goal was for PTS to obtain the services contract that Sabtech had lost when it lost its facility clearance. Navy officials made it clear to PTS officers early in the negotiation process that because Sabadia no longer held a security clearance he could have no control of PTS in order for PTS to be eligible to obtain the contract," which apparently was for the Aegis project. A court document divulges that PTS placed a bid worth $10 million in November 2011. Prior to Sabadia's sentencing on March 20, 2014, the government described him as "unafraid to violate the law for personal gain" and branded his actions "intolerable," arguing that "with so much at stake in the way of lives and treasure, the defense procurement system can only function properly if prospective contractors are honest during negotiations." However, prosecutors also applauded him for being "generous to others with his time and money" — a positive spin on those alarming contributions. In line with their soft recommended sentence, Sabadia was handed 24 months of probation, with $6,694.82 in probation costs, and a $25,000 penalty. He could have been imprisoned for five years. Sabadia escaped once more with a wrist slap, but at least the Pentagon seems to be wising up to him. A Navy memorandum lists Sabadia, Sabtech, PTS, and specific PTS officers and owners, including Sabadia's daughter Aisha, among those suspended by the acquisitions bureaucracy in September 2013. Yet will Sabtech and Sabadia live to fight another day? The 2011 article quotes Sabadia speaking of an organizational shakeup to rehabilitate Sabtech's standing with the Defense Department. This has unfolded methodically. Businessman Michael Carter became Sabtech's new president in August 2012; Sabadia switched to chief executive officer and chairman. Sabtech promoted Carter to CEO in July 2013. Finally, on December 5 — just two weeks after Sabadia's signing of the plea agreement, which notably features a pledge not to indict Sabtech, and one day before its filing — a press release making no mention of Sabadia announced that Carter had purchased the company. But is Sabadia's influence truly gone? Given past machinations, skeptics will wonder if he or any family members — such as Yusuf Sabadia, who represented Sabtech at a conference last fall and was referenced on the firm's Twitter account as recently as late January — still hold sway there. Three things, however, are certain: First, it is distressing that a person with Rahim Sabadia's baggage was able to acquire a clearance and maintain it for as long as he did. Second, other than interactions needed to monitor his probation or investigate any further lawbreaking, the government should keep its distance from Sabadia in the future. Third, an Islamist-aligned individual with classified access has the potential to do far greater damage than the chicanery and quest "for personal gain" witnessed above. The nightmare scenario will come to pass unless Washington more robustly recognizes and acts on the dangers posed by Islamist penetration of the security apparatus, both military and civilian, that protects our country from the resurgent jihad. David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. Related Topics:  Government, Interfaith, Islamic Law (Shari'a), Legal, Lobby Groups, Mosques / Imams, Police / FBI, Workplace  |  David J. Rusin This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.islamist-watch.org/list_subscribe.php Islamist Watch