Islam: Political or Religious?

April 11, 2013

Like Muslims pushing for sharia law in the U.S., the courts seem to want to have it both ways when it suits them, via Islam: Political or Religious? | Blog – American Freedom Law Center.

Yesterday, AFLC filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in response to the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s (TTAB) affirmance of the denial of the “Stop Islamisation of America” or “SIOA” trademark application, which was sought by anti-sharia advocates Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and their organization, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI). In a nutshell, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the application, ruling that the trademark disparaged Muslims and linked them to terrorism. (You can read the whole story here.)

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is a highly-specialized federal court in Washington, D.C., that was established to hear, among others, patent/trademark appeals. At this point, it is difficult to determine how the Federal Circuit will treat this case. Generally, the TTAB, which is the last administrative appeal at the USPTO, rubber stamps the director, but in our case, the briefs and oral argument were so one-sided in our favor that there was hope for a favorable ruling. However, that did not happen, but it was no surprise: most judges are quite hostile when these types of cases are argued. Moreover, and perhaps surprisingly, the most hostile judges are typically Republican appointees. For example, in AFLC’s victories in the lower federal courts in New York and Detroit, the judges were liberal appointees, and they ruled on the side of granting First Amendment protection to our clients’ speech. In this case, given the law at work, it should be an easy victory for our clients. But, we shall wait and see.
To explain further, in one case where AFLC had won in the trial court after a full evidentiary hearing at which the transit authority admitted during cross examination that our clients’ advertisement did not convey an impermissible “political” message, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit comprised of 2/3 George W. Bush appointees reversed, holding that the advertisement, “Fatwa on your head? Leaving Islam? Contact,” was not a permissible “religious” ad but, instead, was impermissibly “political” (the rules were meant to preclude political campaign ads from Detroit/Dearborn buses — not what we call in the law “political speech,” which of course is the most protected of all speech under the First Amendment) because “Fatwa” and sharia are political not religious matters. It was a remarkable and somewhat startling admission.
So, in the Sixth Circuit, sharia is now political, and to the USPTO, it is religious. In sum, the federal courts are a laboratory of the studied application of incoherence where words carry no meaning but are used arbitrarily to protect the politically correct mantra that Muslims and Islam constitute a special class that stands above criticism that is otherwise protected speech under the First Amendment.  In short, blasphemy laws are alive and well—we just don’t want to admit it.

The Mona Eltahawy story everyone is missing

October 3, 2012

(EOZ) have mostly stayed away from the silly story of two gigantic egos clashing underneath the streets of New York City, as Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy announced to the world her plans to vandalize a pro-Israel subway poster put up by blogger Pam Geller. Apparently Eltahawy believed that a poster that was clearly against jihadists was insulting to every Arab worldwide, which tells you a little about her mindset.
Perhaps the best commentary on the kerfuffle was written by Petra Marquardt-Bigman in two separate articles. Read them both.
There is one aspect of the story that no one seems to be talking about, though.
Eltahawy is a reporter. And she has done some important work in exposing the sickening sexism in the Arab world (even exposing people who she might call “savage.”)
But journalists are not supposed to become stories. Moreover, they should never actively seek to become stories. Doing a stunt like Eltahawy did is anathema to real journalists. Any journalist that pulls a publicity stunt like Mona did should be branded as utterly unable to maintain even a pretense of objectivity.
In any sane world, Eltahawy’s journalism career should be over.
The question is – is it?
Or are adamantly anti-Israel positions consistent with the types of media Eltahawy usually writes for?

“two gigantic egos clashing underneath the streets of New York City”
Mona Eltahawy was one. Who is it that you were insinuating was the other?
(not busting your balls, just want to know what you mean)

I spent hours on the phone with Pamella Hall. We both had fashion industry jobs till our liberal peers ostracized us at work. I found her attractive… and she kept on telling me I wouldn’t find her attractive. She didn’t want me to like her. I found a kindred spirit until we reached the feminist issue… where I found a radical militant progressive beneath the surface of her Anti-Jihad. When our differences surfaced, she hanged up the phone and blocked me on facebook. It was a very sad moment for me. I realized that what appeared to be Conservative was really feminist. The alarm bells went off. It became apparent to me that she was not a unique phenomenon. Women have lower unemployment numbers. They make money. Pamela might of lost her job, but she survives in NYC. Myself on the contrary after losing my job in fashion advertising, I landed in my parent’s attic. When I saw her on Pamela Geller’s youtube link I was still upset. I don’t hate women. It hurt me to see her being humiliated… by another feminist?

Pam Geller’s new poster vandalized by leftist, so sanctimonious she can’t even see why she was arrested

September 26, 2012

Mona Eltahawy is a darling of the feminist progressive left. She was recently attacked in Egypt’s Tahrir square. …another left wing radical feminist showing her support for censorship (with feminist behavior one can see how the Muslim Brotherhood would be an attractive option)

Cops busted a lone protester — angry with subway ads equating enemies of Israel as “savages” — as she spray-painted over one of the controversial signs today.
A Post camera crew captured the bizarre conflict between suspect Mona Eltahawy, 45, and a woman defending the ads.

(Vlad/Jihad) Here is that same woman describing the Egyptian Muslims as “wild beasts”. So i guess wild beasts is fine but savages are not. OK then.

Hutton Hotel exec lies, smears freedom fighters in explaining why he caved to threats and canceled freedom conference

October 27, 2011

(Jihad Watch) (h/t Docstalk) Pamela Geller has here the actual letter that Steve Eckley, a senior vice president of the management company that runs the Hutton Hotel, sent to Lou Ann Zelenik. He says that “at least two of your speakers have a history of enraging people to the point of violence.” That would be, as is clear from his earlier statements, Geller and me.

Now, in fact, neither Pamela Geller nor I have ever advocated or approved of violent action. So if someone is enraged to the point of violence by what we say, the responsibility lies entirely with him, not with us. And if Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies have threatened violence if we speak, as it appears that they have, the police should be called in and these threats investigated, and the right of free citizens to free speech and freedom of assembly upheld. Instead, Eckley blames us for Islamic supremacist irrational violence and rage, and encourages more of that violence by showing that the threat of it gets results.
“Nashville hotel blocks Zelenik’s anti-Sharia conference,” by Scott Broden for, October 25:
MURFREESBORO — Lou Ann Zelenik started searching for a new place for “The Constitution or Sharia?: Preserving Freedom Conference” Monday after learning a Nashville hotel canceled its Nov. 11 booking.
“It’s ridiculous that they chose to silence our freedom to speak,” said Zelenik, a Murfreesboro resident who came in second in a close Republican primary in 2010 against U.S. Rep. Diane Black of Gallatin. “They canceled it because they got threats. The Islamic extremists won, as far as I’m concerned.”
A company official with oversight of Hutton Hotel contends that Zelenik is wrong.
“This has nothing to do with freedom to speak,” said Steve Eckley, a senior vice president of the management company that runs the Hutton Hotel. “This has everything to do with making sure we are protecting our employees, our guests and our property.
“We were very concerned about protests, and those protests turning ugly. Several of the calls that we received led us to believe there was going to be organized protests,” he said. “We have no issue with the organization whatsoever. But because of two of their very inflammatory speakers, we were concerned about those protests.”
Pamela put it best: “My defense of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience enrages Islamic supremacists to the point of violence, and that is our fault.” Yes it is, in today’s Orwellian society.
Eckley confirmed that Pamela Geller of Stop Islamization of America was one of them and that her involvement is mentioned as a concern on the Anti-Defamation League’s website, which is dedicated to stopping the defamation of the Jewish people and securing justice and fair treatment to all.
“They protect everyone,” Eckley said.
Note how Eckley contradicts himself: he says he has no problem with our message, but is just concerned about violence. Then he cites two hard-Left reports that smear us for our message.
And of course the local Islamic center is pleased by their denial of the freedom of speech:
Islamic Center of Murfreesboro member Saleh Sbenaty said he thinks the hotel did the right thing.
“We as citizens support the First Amendment, whether that be freedom of religion or freedom of speech, but hate speech cannot be called freedom of speech,” said Sbenaty, a 19-year MTSU professor in the Department of Engineering Technology. “The United States does not stand for bigotry or exclusion. The United States is an open country that welcomes people of all faiths and all traditions, including the Muslim tradition.”
The problem with this is that “hate speech” is in the eye of the beholder. Sbenaty would doubtless not characterize a sermon based on Qur’an 9:5 or 9:29 or 4:34 or 5:33 or 4:89 or 47:4, etc., as hate speech, but others would differ. Ultimately hate speech laws are tools in the hands of the powerful to silence dissent. And that’s just what the Islamic supremacists want to do.

Aga Can: All traces of Perry/Aga Khan curriculum removed from web

August 29, 2011
I understand there are some people who have differences with Spencer and Geller. I don’t care about your issues with them if them if you can not prove anything. I don’t want to see a Bush third term. I never want to see a U.S. president call Islam a “religion of peace” again. What was the end result we got from Bush? …Obama. The Republicans do not have to cater to a violent philosophy to get elected. I do not care about any rumors or speculation you have concerning Geller and Spencer. If you have a personal issue then I suggest you take it up with them and not use third parties to create divisions. I am not a member of any pitchfork mob. I did not jump on the Sarah Palin bus and there is no reason to assume that I follow SIOA blindly, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is a whitewash. These are the primaries. To question Perry does not mean a person endorses Obama. It will be very hard (in fact) to put Obama’s actions into question if the Norquist / Perry relationship is as tight as what is being alleged.
What is the Perry camp hiding? And why?

By Robert Spencer:
In this post I included numerous links to the Rick Perry/Aga Khan Islamic curriculum for Texas public schools. The links were to the Google cache of the curriculum material, because several days ago, after we began calling attention to it, the curriculum was taken offline. Accordingly I wrote in that post:

One very odd thing about the Aga Khan/Perry curriculum: since this whole brouhaha started, it has been taken offline. It is now available only in cached formhere. Why was it taken down? Was the Perry camp embarrassed by the material that Pamela Geller published here, showing it to be a whitewash of Islamic teaching and history? Or was it taken down because it really is, as Ace says, so “biased against Muslims it will reinforce perceptions [Perry] is some kind of rootin’-tootin’ six-gun shooting cowboy yahoo”?Is either option favorable to Perry? If it was taken down because it’s a dhimmi whitewash, Perry is tacitly admitting that our criticisms of him were right, and those evaluating Perry should be concerned about his naivete in dealing with the Aga Khan. If it was taken down because it was too honest about Islam and will thus hurt Perry with the dhimmi/Norquist faction of the GOP, Perry is again tacitly admitting that our criticisms of him were right: he is not able or willing to stand up to Norquist and his Islamic supremacist allies. So which is it? What are they hiding? And does it matter? Either way, the deep-sixing of the curriculum proves that we were right about Perry all along.

Now that impression is compounded by the fact that even the cached links no longer work: the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum has been completely wiped from the web. Pamela Geller has screenshots here, however. I suspect that the curriculum has been taken down because it is a whitewash of Islamic texts, teachings and history. After all, as I showed here, it relies on compromised “authorities” such as Carl Ernst, John Esposito, and Michael Sells, among others. The apologists for Perry have not explained and cannot explain why, if this curriculum is as innocuous or even as Islamorealistic as they claim, it has been wiped from the web.
What is the Perry camp hiding? And why? – Sheik Yer Mami