A gathering of Muslim leaders in Turkey is calling for a “third front” in the worldwide jihad.

The conference, dubbed the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign, also gave impetus to Sunni clerics concerned about the growing power of Hezbollah, the Shia movement backed by Iran, which rose to international prominence in its own war with Israel in 2006.

"Gaza is a gift," the Saudi religious scholar Mohsen al-Awajy told me. He and other delegates repeatedly referred to the Gaza war as "a victory".

"Gaza," he continued, "gives us power, it solves our differences. We are all now in a unified front against Zionism."

In closed meetings after sessions delegates focussed on the creation of a "third Jihadist front" - the first two being Afghanistan and Iraq. The intensity of the Israeli attack had "awakened all Muslims," Mr Awajy claimed.

"Palestine is a legitimate theatre of operations for jihad (holy war)," he added.

Let us clarify – based upon the Quran, history, and the words of those in attendance at this conference, this is nothing less than a call for the extermination of the Israeli people.

The time has come for every person in every free society to pick a side.

The choice is clear,

Side with the one liberal democratic state in the Middle East. Or side with the forces of seventh-century barbarism combined with modern weaponry and terrorist methods.

Because once they are done with the Jews, the next target will be the liberal democratic nations of the West – or at least those which have not submitted to dhimmitude.

So do we in the West stand with Israel – or with the terrorists?

I know which side IÂ’m on.

And you?

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

There have been honor killings by Muslims in this country in the past. They have been few and far between -- and generally involved unassimilated Muslim immigrant parents who have murdered their Americanized daughters for thinking that they had the freedom to live like Americans here in America -- especially daughters born here in the US with US citizenship.

This case is different -- and all the more disturbing because of the differences.

Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.

Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder.

"He came to the police station at 6:20 p.m. [Thursday] and told us that she was dead," Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said late this morning.

Muzzammil Hassan told police that his wife was at his business, Bridges TV, on Thorn Avenue in the village. Officers went to that location and discovered her body.

Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light.

Well, I don't know that I would say that Muzzammil Hassan has managed to portray Muslims in a more positive light -- but I do believe he has managed to portray Islamic culture in a more accurate light. Mrs. Hassan was seeking a divorce, and had already received an order of protection to protect her from further violence by her husband. And so, as happens so often in Muslim communities worldwide, Hassan murdered his wife in an attempt to restore his honor -- something which is sanctioned by sharia law and Muslim religious leaders around the world.

Newsbusters notes this article about the sort of programming common on "moderate" BridgesTV.

BridgesTV might have had the aim of trying to improve the image of Muslims, but over two years ago, Steve Stalinsky of MEMRI outlined in the now-defunct New York Sun that the network featured Wahhabi anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sermons from Saudi TV broadcasts, including English subtitles. Stalinsky also noted that Donald Conover, one of the main hosts on the network, discussed “the power of the ‘Jewish lobby’” and urged Muslims to vote for Democrats during an interview with a Saudi newspaper in 2006.

Sounds like the same old Islamic hatemongering offered up in prettier packaging. Interestingly enough, though, such programming did win BridgesTV and Hassan an award from one "civil rights" organization -- the terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR).

Muzzammil Hassan receives award from CAIR-PA Chairman Iftekhar Hussain and CAIR National Chairman Parvez Ahmed (H/T LGF)

Daniel Pipes offers more information about BridgesTV.

I wonder -- will the MSM cover this story as it deserves? Or will we of the blogosphere have to do it for them?

More at Ace of Spades, Jawa Report, Power Line, LGF, Gateway Pundit, Debbie Schlussel, Jihad Watch, Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 06:56 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 5 kb.

As most folks know, Boston College is a Catholic college founded by and run by Jesuits. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that the school might have something of a Catholic ethos, right? Well, a decision by college officials to publicly express the school's Catholic nature has aroused howls of outrage by those who consider such expressions of the Catholic faith by a Catholic institution to be insensitive to non-Catholics.

Some Boston College professors and students are raising a holy ruckus over the Catholic school’s return to its religious roots by hanging crucifixes in all its classrooms, calling the move “offensive” and a break from the Jesuit tradition of tolerance.

“There is no choice if you don’t think it’s appropriate. You can’t turn it around,” said biology professor Dan Kirschner, faculty adviser for BC’s chapter of Hillel, a Jewish student group. “I think it is being insensitive to the people of other faith traditions here.”

Amir Hoveyda, head of BC’s chemistry department, blasted the school in an e-mail to the Herald for “not being interested in an exchange with its faculty members.”

In an interview with the college newspaper, The Observer, which broke the story, Hoveyda described the crucifixes as “offensive” and the university’s actions as “anti-intellectual.”

“I can hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution,” he is quoted as saying. “The insult is particularly scathing, since such symbols were installed without discussion . . . in a disturbingly surreptitious manner.”

Now wait just one minute. This is, at the end of the day, a Catholic institution run by a Catholic religious order. It is not unreasonable for the school to therefore make some expression of its Catholic identity -- and a crucifix in the classroom is really a pretty minimal intrusion of Catholicism into daily life on campus.

To those who have an objection to crucifixes in classrooms at a Catholic college, I have a suggestion -- try a non-Catholic school instead.

Posted by: Greg at 08:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

And so the light of freedom continues to dim around the world lest the followers of the decidedly no-peaceful “Religion of Peace” become outraged.

The editor and publisher of a top English-language Indian daily have been arrested on charges of "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims.
The Statesman's editor Ravindra Kumar and publisher Anand Sinha were detained in Calcutta after complaints.

Muslims said they were upset with the Statesman for reproducing an article from the UK's Independent daily in its 5 February edition.

The article was entitled: "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?"
It concerns the erosion of the right to criticise religions.

In it, the author, Johann Hari, writes: "I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'Prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him."

Now those are historical facts, attested to by Muslim sources. Why is it that stating that one is unwilling to follow the teachings of such a depraved individual constitutes a criminal offense? I personally think it constitutes common sense, as well as evidence that one adheres to superior system of moral values.

Interestingly enough, there have been no attempts to prosecute those who claim that Jesus was not the Son of God but merely a prophet, that he is inferior to Muhammad, and that he was a follower of the teachings of Muhammad even before the coming of that false prophet. As a Christian I am outraged by such statements, which are part and parcel of Islam and which hurt my religious feelings those of many other followers of Christ around the world. Could it be because we don’t find it necessary to riot and murder when we hear such offensive views expressed, but that we instead respect the basic human right to speak and believe free of government oppression or coercion – or the threat of violence by the followers of a barbaric faith that demands respect that it neither earns nor deserves.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Because if a woman is brutally forced to have sex against her will, she is guilty of a crime under Islamic law. After all – she should never have gotten in a vehicle alone with a man who was not a relative, so the whole thing is really her fault.

A Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.

The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.

He took her to a house to the east of the city of Jeddah where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night.

Of course, this will not make the American media, which is much too cowardly to result on the sort of stuff that constitutes Islamic “civilization”. After all, learning about this atrocity might cause some folks to have lower respect for Islam, and that just won’t do.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the chief exporters of radical fundamentalist Islam has made it quite clear that religious freedom is not an option in within its borders.

A Saudi Arabian official says mosques can be the only places of worship in his country, rejecting pressure to change heavy restrictions on religious besides Islam.

Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites, implements a strict version of Islamic law.

It told a United Nations meeting that the kingdom allows other religions in private.

But the vice president of the Saudi human rights commission said Friday that establishing houses of worship for non-Islamic religions was too sensitive an issue.

Zaid Al-Hussain tells the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva that there could be no debate. Other countries have urged Saudi Arabia to abolish laws that breach basic human rights such as freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.

I guess we should not be too surprised. After all, Saudi Arabia has a piss-poor record on human rights in general – why should anyone expect it to suddenly go against one of the fundamental tenets of the faith that is at the root of that hostility to human rights? After all, Saudi Arabia is also one of those nations seeking to use the UN to curtail freedom of speech internationally when it is used to speak negatively about Islam, seeking to move the world forward into the seventh-century Hijaz.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

We canÂ’t offend the Muslims, can we.

A cricket team has been forced to change its name after angry complaints from Muslims and Jews.

The Middlesex Crusaders, who have played under the name for almost 10 years, will play next season as The Panthers.

Bosses at the county club acted after protests about the name from Jewish and Muslim communities, who said they felt it was a reference to the religious wars waged by Christians in Europe against other faiths.

Let’s be honest here – the Crusades were not against “other faiths”. It was waged – rightly – against one other faith which had engaged in centuries of armed aggression against other faiths and was intent upon denying Christians access to their holy sites.

And we all know what that aggressive religion of non-peace was – and, sadly, remains until this day.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.