Terror-linked CAIR lobby Washington state politicians to pass sharia resolution

January 21, 2013

CAIR(creepingsharia.wordpress.com) Washington State… again?
In past years, they’ve hijacked MLK Jr. day to intimidate elected officials in the state of Washington. This year they’ve changed the date and their objective is no longer hidden – accept Islamic sharia law in America. via 2013 WA Muslim Lobby Day | Events | CAIR-Washington State.

Witness history as our state’s House and Senate become the first in the nation to pass theFaith in Our State and Laws Resolution

Your participation and lobbying will make this happen. This is especially notable as more than 14 states across the country have tried to pass unconstitutional ‘anti-Sharia laws aimed at curbing American Muslims’ religious rights. Our resolution in essence affirms that our state welcomes all religious beliefs, that we have full confidence in our state laws and the US constitution, and that the House of Representatives does not entertain any concern that any religious law offers a threat to our state laws and the US Constitution.Click here to read the draft resolution.
At the event, you will join 500 Muslims from across the state as we enjoy delicious breakfast and lunch, march together to the Capitol Building, rally at the Capitol Steps, meet in groups with our state lawmakers in their offices, and take guided tours of the State Capitol Building and Campus, and learn how Washington State Muslims can build real political power in our communities.

Like their opponents who have stricken the word sharia from legislation to prevent the use of Islamic sharia law in U.S. courts, the ever deceptive Hamas-linked CAIR – who claims America was discovered by Muslims (and is therefore Muslim territory) – they omit the words sharia as well and simply refer to foreign or religious law:

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Washington State [House or Senate], that Washington State welcomes all religious beliefs, traditions and heritages, and
RESOLVED that this body has full confidence in the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the state of Washington and does not entertain any concern that any foreign or religious law offers a threat to the law of the land.

They’ll even be conducting Islamic prayers inside government buildings according to the program:

Duhr prayers may be performed in the Columbia Room in the Legislative Building.


NY Subway Murder Suspect Was ‘Having Bad Day’

January 20, 2013
Doesn’t sound like she knows the difference between Hindus and Muslims: A woman accused of murdering a man by pushing him in front of a New York City subway train has said she did it because she was having a bad day. Erika Menendez, 31, has been charged with murdering Sunando Sen, a (Hindu) Indian immigrant, last month.”My mind was just racing that day. I was mad,” she said in an interview with the New York Post. The interview was conducted at the city jail where she is awaiting trial. “I was homeless. I was hungry. I was fighting with my boyfriend. He came running up the stairs, and I just got up and pushed him.” “He was trying to shake me off,” she said. Menendez, from the Bronx, has told detectives she was motivated by hatred of Muslims and Hindus since the September 11, 2001 attacks. In the interview, she said she had picked her victim because of his ethnicity. Mr Sen, 46, was Hindu. Menendez told the newspaper she has “been beating up Muslims and Hindus for a long time”.

Obama’s Benghazi Investigator Slams America and ‘Islamophobes’

November 5, 2012

Obama had Islamic terrorists guarding the consulate, lied to the world and blamed a virtually unseen movie trailer, and then hires an Islamic apologist to “investigate”. It’s no wonder that the mother of one SEAL and the father of another killed in Benghazi believe that Obama murdered their sons.

Image Source: NIAC

via Benghazi Investigator Slams America and ‘Islamophobes’.

America is a seething hotbed of “Islamophobia,” filled with ignorant racist rubes who irrationally fear the benign Muslim religion, according to the Obama administration’s lead investigator into the Benghazi atrocities.
So said former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering in more polished, diplomatic language during an Oct. 23 panel discussion at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. The talk was on “what role the faith community can play in fighting Islamophobia,” a make-believe mental illness that Islamists would love to have listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Radical Islam’s stateside defenders frequently accuse anti-terrorism hawks of “McCarthyism,” hurling the epithet “Islamophobe” the same way American leftists use the word “racist” to shut down debate.
Pickering’s pontifications came two and a half weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named him to head a State Department “Accountability Review Board” tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding the deaths on Sept. 11, 2012, the 11th anniversary of 9/11, of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith, and security personnel Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
At last week’s panel discussion, Pickering piously but incorrectly invoked the Holocaust to argue that American Muslims were somehow in danger.
“I’m not great at quotations,” he said, foreshadowing a misattribution to come.
“Perhaps it was [German theologian and dissident] Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said of the Nazis, when they came for the Jews, I didn’t speak up. I was not a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I didn’t speak up, I was not a Catholic. When they came for us, no one spoke up. There was no one left to do so,” Pickering said, paraphrasing famous, poignant verses actually spoken by Third Reich-era German pastor Martin Niemoller.
Pickering said that Americans’ lack of familiarity with Islam –and not Islamic terrorist attacks on Americans— fuels hostility toward Muslims.
“Data shows that those Americans who do not know Muslims, who do not know much about Islam, are the ones who harbor the greatest feelings of prejudice,” he said.
There is a “strong, continuing, and perhaps, in an unfortunate way in some areas, growing, prejudice against Muslims and Islam,” he said.
However, he added that veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have so far avoided embracing this anti-Islamic bigotry. “Many of the soldiers are still serving and I think that also is helpful because they understand that as loyal Americans that kind of prejudice is not to be expressed.”
Pickering urged what might amount to a zero-tolerance policy against so-called Islamophobes in American society. “There are strong efforts as well that we must make to deal with opinion leaders who harbor these prejudices, who espouse them and spread them,” he said.
Although the former envoy did not elaborate on what those “strong efforts” might consist of, his statement is worrisome. The Obama administration is openly hostile to the First Amendment.
After the Benghazi debacle, President Obama went before the United Nations General Assembly and apologized for America’s free speech protections. Pushing the false cover story that the attacks on U.S. missions this past Sept. 11 were prompted by an anti-Islam video virtually no one saw, the president said that “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Weeks before that, Department of Justice official Thomas Perez pointedly refused during a congressional hearing to rule out supporting Saudi-style anti-blasphemy laws.
Pickering wasn’t the only panelist last week to describe ordinary Americans as a threat to Muslim inhabitants of the United States.
In a particularly revealing soliloquy, Arab American Institute president James J. Zogby, whose younger brother is renowned pollster John Zogby, passionately inveighed against his fellow Americans, and particularly Tea Party supporters, labeling them dangerous racist Islamophobes:
“I think that there’s a direct correlation between the president of the United States and Islamophobia. As we do our polling, we find that it is not the universal phenomenon. This hatred toward Muslims is largely concentrated with middle class, middle age, white people, and then it overlaps almost identically with the Tea Party. It is not a Republican thing. It’s a generational thing.

And it is a phenomenon born of a simple set of conditions, collapse of home mortgages, foreclosures increasing, pensions in collapse when the stock market went down, unemployment doubling, the decline of the American dream. In our polling we always used, when we’d say, are your children going to be better off than you, that’s the American dream question, we’d get two thirds saying yes. We now get two thirds saying no.
And in the midst of all of that this group of white middle aged, middle class men looked around and saw a young African-American, educated at Harvard with a middle name Hussein, and didn’t like the president of the United States of America. It fueled this phenomenon and it opened the door for the wedge issue to operate and it’s operating simply among that demographic. It’s not a universal phenomenon. It’s not found among African-Americans or Asians or Latinos. It’s not found among young white kids. It’s not found among college educated professional women. It’s found in that one narrow demographic. That’s where the bad numbers come from.

He continued: “And I think that, if, we had, I have a lot of gripes with George Bush, but if he were president, he would be doing what he did, which is put his foot down and say stop. I think we would not be seeing the phenomenon growing as we see it growing. But the problem is is that if Barack Obama says stop they say, you’re just the damn problem to begin with, you’re not one of us anyway,” Zogby said, affecting an accent that might be characterized as “redneck” or “country.”
There is “an overlay between the racism and the Islamophobia” that is “being used as a wedge issue” against President Obama, he said. Zogby also described controversial Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim and an extreme left-winger, as “a gift to America and Congress, an extraordinary person who could not be better than he is.”
Pickering also praised his fellow panelists American Association for Muslim Advancement executive director Daisy Khan, and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, as “wonderful people” whose “hopes and aspirations … we all, I believe, widely share.”
Khan and Rauf are prime movers behind the proposal to build a victory mosque near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. Khan becomes apoplectic when discussing those who question the wisdom of building a Muslim holy site so close to the place where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in an Islamist attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Asked in 2010 if America was “Islamophobic,” Khan replied that “It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia — it’s hate of Muslims.”
Critics say Pickering is unfit to head any probe of what happened in Benghazi because he harbors sympathy for Islamism and is suspiciously cozy with Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The former envoy has ties to the pro-Iran Islamist front group known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). NIAC recently lost an important defamation case in federal court in which it unsuccessfully argued the group was not a tool of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
NIAC is one of several “Jihadist entities hostile to American interests,” according to an influential report by Clare M. Lopez of the Center for Security Policy. NIAC is involved in “a de facto partnership” with its notorious Islamist ally “the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other organizations serving as mouthpieces for the mullahs’ party line.” CAIR is an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood and was named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation trials.

Meanwhile, while the majority of state-run media outlets cover for Obama and are complicit in the Benghazi/Obama coverup, the truth is hard to suppress, Security officials on the ground in Libya challenge CIA account.


Hillary Clinton Condemns Mohammed Movie

September 12, 2012

@StateDept : The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. state.gov

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has confirmed that a State Department officer was killed Tuesday in Libya during an attack on the U.S. consulate.
Clinton said in a statement Tuesday night that she condemned the attack in the strongest terms and has called the Libyan president to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. She says that some are trying to justify — quote — “this vicious behavior” as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. She says the U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

If Clinton is now condemning the movie, then why did the Obama administration disavow this condemnation from the U.S. embassy in Egypt?

Amateur hour. One says one thing, another another thing, then a third condemns their own statements made before that. This is just like their vote at the convention on God and Jerusalem.


U.S., E.U. Spearhead Islamic Bid To Criminalize Free Speech

January 7, 2012
(stonegateinstitute.org /image: save free speech org) The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.
The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.
The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.
Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.
But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.
The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.
Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.
Up until now, the European Union has kept the OIC initiative at arms-length. But Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, says the EU’s offer to host the meeting represents a “qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia,” according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC’s official news/propaganda organ.
According to the IINA, “The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular and in a manner different than that in the US, which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from their previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter ‘defamation of religions’ in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The IINA report continues: “Officials in the Cultural Affairs Department of the OIC said that the European Union’s offer to host the third meeting (the first was in Istanbul in July and the second in Washington, DC in December) is considered a promising new possibility of solving this problem. The ‘Istanbul Process’ will have an added momentum by holding the meeting in Europe, which is more affected by the phenomenon of Islamophobia and hostility towards Islam.”
The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.
According to the IINA, “Ihsanoglu said that the growing role of the extreme right in politics in several European countries has become stronger than the capacity of the Organization [OIC], explaining that the extreme right, who [sic] hates Muslims, became leverage in the hands of politicians. He added that the rise of the extreme right through elections has become an issue that cannot be countered, considering the democratic way in which these extremists reach their positions. He pointed out to the referendum held in Switzerland, as an example, which resulted in suspending the construction of minarets there following a vote by the Swiss people.”
In other words, the OIC is now seeking the support of non-elected bureaucrats at the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels to enact pan-European hate speech legislation to limit by fiat what 500 million European citizens – including democratically elected politicians – can and cannot say about Islam.
To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.
In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.
Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.
In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.
Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.
Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.
Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.
In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.
In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting racial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.
Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.
Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.
In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.
In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.
But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason‘ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.


State Department v. Free Speech

December 6, 2011
…she’s doing her own bidding. She has a thing against Western men and their religion. She just spent the week attacking Israel for being un-“Democratic”. She isn’t just doing Obama’s bidding and she isn’t attacking all religion. She is nothing but bias.
(Carl) Mrs. Clinton gives up whatever principles she might ever have had to suck up to Islam.

You’ve come a LONG WAY BABY!


…Last July in Istanbul, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired a “High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance” with the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Mrs. Clinton invited the OIC to Washington for a conference to build “muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance.” That conference is scheduled for Dec. 12 through Dec. 14.
For more than 20 years, the OIC has pressed Western governments to restrict speech about Islam. Its charter commits it “to combat defamation of Islam,” and its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” by all states to counter purported Islamophobia.

OIC pressure on European countries to ban “negative stereotyping of Islam” has increased since the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh for his film “Submission” and the Danish Muhammad cartoon imbroglio of 2005. Many countries (such as France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland, Italy and Sweden), hoping to ensure social peace, now prosecute people for “vilifying” Islam or insulting Muslims’ religious feelings.
Encouraging a more civil discourse is commendable, and First Amendment freedoms mean the U.S. won’t veer down Europe’s path anytime soon. But if the Obama administration is committed to defending constitutional rights, why is it, as the OIC’s Mr. Ihsanoglu wrote in the Turkish Weekly after the Istanbul meeting, standing “united” on speech issues with an organization trying to undercut our freedoms? Mr. Ihsanoglu celebrates this partnership even while lamenting in his op-ed that America permits “Islamophobia” under “the banner of freedom of expression.”
President Obama should put a stop to this nonsense and declare that in free societies all views and religions are subject to contradiction and critique—and the OIC must learn to tolerate that. The alternative is what the late Indonesian Muslim President Abdurrahman Wahid called “a narrow suffocating chamber of dogmatism.”

The Dhimmi is Forbidden to Read the Koran: Let’s go back to the time of Umar II, a caliph of Islam. Under Sharia law, the Kafir is to be made completely harmless to Islam and there are two parts to this mental castration. Here are two of the many oppressive terms of the dhimmi (a dhimmi is a Kafir who agrees to obey Sharia law) treaty that deal with Kafir knowledge:

The Pact of Umar, 9th Century CE, includes:
We [Christians] will not teach our children the Koran.
We will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it.

…this includes Jews as well… however…. (wikipedia) a treaty concluded between Islamic Caliph Omar ibn Khattab and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius. The treaty outlines the rights and the limitations of Christians as “People of the Book” or “people of protection” to enjoy religious tolerance under Muslim rule, while requiring them to pay the Islamic poll tax (jizya) in return.[1] Some Palestinian Christians and Muslims see the document as having the force of law, even after more than thirteen centuries.

(Covenant of Umar I ) In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate:
This is an assurance of peace and protection given by the servant of Allah, Omar-Commander of the Believers to the people of Ilia’ (Jerusalem). He gave them an assurance of protection for their lives, property, church and crosses as well as the sick and healthy and all its religious community.
Their churches shall not be occupied, demolished nor taken away wholly or in part. None of their crosses nor property shall be seized. They shall not be coerced in their religion nor shall any of them be injured. None of the Jews shall reside with them in Ilia’. (AKA Jerusalem. The Christians conspired against the Jews with the Muslims)
The people of Ilia shall pay Jizia tax (head tax on free non-Muslims living under Muslim rule) as inhabitants of cities do. They shall evict all Romans and thieves.
He whoever gets out shall be guaranteed safety for his life and property until he reach his safe haven. He whoever stays shall be (also) safe, in which case he shall pay as much tax as the people of Ilia’ do. Should any of the people of Ilia wish to move together with his property along with the Romans and to clear out of their churches and crosses, they shall be safe for their lives, churches and crosses, until they have reached then safe haven. He whoever chooses to stay he may do so and he shall pay as much tax as the people of Ilia’ do. He whoever wishes to move along with the Roman, may do so, and whoever wishes to return back home to his kinsfolk, may do so. Nothing shall be taken from them, their crops have been harvested. To the contents of this convent here are given the Covenant of Allah, the guarantees of His Messenger, the Caliphs and the Believers, provided they (the people of Ilia’) pay their due Jizia tax.
Witnesses hereto are:
Khalid Ibn al-Waleed Amr Ibn al-Ass Abdul-Rahman Ibn’Auf Mu’awiya Ibn abi-Sifian Made and executed in the year 15 AH.
The above is the text approved by historians, foremost of whom are Imam al-Tabari. The text appears in his book “Tareekh Al Umam wal Molouk” (History of Nations and Kings), Part III, Page 105, printed in Cairo and collected by a team of scholars and printed in English at Brill Printing Press London.

Allaah Says (what means): {O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allaah has pardoned it [i.e. that which is past]; and Allaah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.} [Quran 5:101-102]

German Multiculturalists Declare War on Critics of Islam

October 4, 2011
(Hudson New York) Spiegel magazine has worked hard to portray all critics of Islam as belonging to the “far right” even though opinion polls overwhelmingly show that voters from across the political spectrum are concerned about the spread of Islam in Germany.….An opinion survey called “Perception and Acceptance of Religious Diversity,” which was conducted by the sociology department of the University of Münster in partnership with the prestigious TNS Emnid political polling firm, shows that the majority of Germans disagree. In an effort to reverse this tide of public opinion, the guardians of German multiculturalism have been working overtime to regain the initiative, mostly by trying to intimidate the critics of Islam into silence.  The media campaign has been led by the Frankfurter Rundschau, a financially troubled daily newspaper based in Frankfurt am Main, the Berliner Zeitung, and the leftwing Spiegel, a newsmagazine based in Hamburg that has long served as the mouthpiece for German multiculturalism. A particular object of wrath is a highly popular German-language Internet website called Politically Incorrect (PI), which over the years has grown into a major information resource for people concerned about the spread of Islam in Germany. PI’s motto reads “Against the Mainstream, Pro-American, Pro-Israel, Against the Islamification of Europe” — which represents everything the German left abhors. Not surprisingly, many German media elites want PI shut down. Over the past several weeks, several German newspapers have used a stock of more than 10,000 stolen private emails to insinuate that the people behind PI are “undemocratic” and pose a threat to the German constitutional order. They are demanding that the PI website, as well as the counter-jihad movement (referred to as “Islamophobes”) more generally, be subject to surveillance by the domestic German intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV).(MORE PAIN)