And to give you an understanding of why Islam has no place in the 21st Century, much less in the midst of North American society, have a read of the following interview article:Pace University is marching in lockstep with CAIR's domination agenda and creeping sharia law!
If you haven't been following the Koran in a toilet story at Pace University, you need to start now. If you have been following it, you need to fix your eyes on the Islamists' objective: Creeping Sharia ...
After all, as Atlas Shrugs points out from Rabbi Aryeh Spero's article at FrontPageMagazine.com, "When was the last time someone in America was arrested for flushing pages of a book down the toilet?" And as Rabbi Spero notes, "How pitiful it is that the Judeo-Christian community has become so intimidated, insecure, and cuckolded that one of the primary defenders of our culture, a person willing to fight the Islamic propagandists face-to-face and head-on, is Christopher Hitchens, an atheist."
By Rabbi Aryeh Spero
In today's America, you can burn our flag but you can not mistreat the Koran. Burning the flag is freedom of expression, a form of allowable speech our courts tell us, but mistreating the Koran is a criminal felony punishable under hate-crime legislation. If you are a Moslem you can, together with your brothers, wave posters at public protests on college campuses calling for "Killing the Jews", "Destroy Israel" and declare "Jews are Sons of Apes".
This our college administrators tell us is "free speech". However, you have no right, even in private, to demean a book if it is the Koran. If you do, you go to jail. This is a form of expression unallowable -- perhaps America's only remaining prohibition.
Last week, a student at Pace University in New York was formally charged with a felony for stuffing a Koran in a commode. CAIR, a Muslim organization, filed suit, claiming it constituted a hate-crime. Was this hate directed at a person? No. Was it painted on the walls of an institution where people of a specific race congregate? No. Was anyone threatened? No. It was simply one person's rejection, in a physical way, of a philosophy. People do it and have done it, all the time, with the Christian Bible, the Constitution, our flag, the Republican Platform. When was the last time you ever heard of someone in America possibly going to jail because he flushed some pages of a book down a toilet?
This case is important not only because an American is going to be criminally charged for an act that, while not nice, is simply not criminal but because, in the name of political correctness, we are changing centuries of legal definitions in order to appease bullies who are now telling us what we can do and what we can't. Worse, they are making us submit to a double standard where what is allowable for them is not allowable for us. For example, people can burn the Christian Bible but not soak a Koran. While American museums can display depictions of Mary in dung and Jesus in urine, one is prohibited from demonstrating disapproval and horror regarding verses in the Koran.
Continue reading: Academic Prohibition.
So, why is it that it's not a hate crime "when young and middle-aged Muslems publicly call for the deaths of our children and raise signs on our streets threatening a Holocaust, here, against non-believing "infidels"? Because it's not politically incorrect to do so, and because Christians and Jews (as well as truly moderate Muslims) recognize free speech and wouldn't even dream of calling it a hate crime or asking for special treatment. Yet proponents of creeping sharia, the Islamists, have a different agenda.
Gary Bauer offers an additional perspective on this creeping sharia in America:
What do you call a photograph of a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of urine?
If you're part of the liberal establishment, you might call it "modern art" worthy of a generous taxpayer-funded grant.
Or how about the burning of an American flag in a protest? Our courts say that act is protected as freedom of speech.
Now, what do you call a Koran submerged in a toilet? If you were part of the liberal elite, you'd call it a "hate-crime" and a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.
Perhaps you remember my first example. "Piss Christ" was the blasphemous photograph that won an art competition and $15,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts. But you may not yet have heard about the student at Pace University in New York who was arrested last week on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment (both felonies) for twice throwing a Koran into university toilets.
Pace University -- which stands just four blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan and lost four students and over 40 alumni on September 11, 2001 -- initially classified the incidents as vandalism.
But after some prodding by Muslim students and the perpetually outraged Council for American Islamic Relations, university officials capitulated and referred the matter to the New York City Police Department's Hate Crimes Task Force, which, naturally, deemed the student's actions "hate crimes."
Ridiculous as they are, these stories help highlight a perverse double standard that has emerged in recent years, one that elevates Islam to a protected status, while continuing to treat Christianity as the source of all that ails America.
The double standard explains why Kansas City International Airport recently added several foot washing basins in restrooms to accommodate Muslim taxi cab drivers who use them to prepare for daily Islamic prayer. It also makes clear why Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport allows Muslim taxi cab drivers to refuse to carry passengers possessing alcoholic beverages or accompanied by seeing-eye dogs, because in Islam, alcohol is forbidden, and dogs are considered unclean.
Meanwhile, last Christmas the Seattle-Tacoma Airport removed its Christmas trees because of their religious symbolism.
Even worse is the double standard in some of America's public schools, where an intense effort to "Islamicize" curricula and textbooks is underway. In California, groups like the Council on Islamic Education and the Islamic Society of North America have succeeded in integrating the fundamentals of reading and writing with lessons about the life of Muhammad and the finer points of Sharia Law.
Readers would do well to consider the words of Omar M. Ahmad, founder of CAIR: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant." ... "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
Take heed America, CAIR and its Islamist friends have a dangerous agenda for us, and creeping sharia should be one of its most obvious tools - albeit only one of numerous ideological battlefronts we are faced with.
Zuhdi Jasser is a moderate Muslim and the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist.
On the matter of such battlefronts, he writes:
Political Islam's ideological battle fronts are many. They can include the obvious like the liberation of Iraq or the rampant domestic and foreign policy speeches given under the guise of Friday sermons in mosques around America. However, an ideological front which is gaining traction among Islamists is that of religious accommodations (or demands) in our free society. Every week, it seems we are seeing new iterations of the same issue. Soon we must all ask -- at what point do Muslim requests for accommodations to religious practices and beliefs cross the line of the fundamental basis of American liberty and freedom?
In case you've failed to realize it, special treatment for the Koran is indeed a special accommodation for Muslim religious practices and beliefs - and the bible and the Torah receive no such accommodations, nor have they been asked for by Christians and Jews. In fact, it's not even asked for by Muslims that are truly moderate.
Mistreating the religious books of any faith is wrong. But last time I checked we are still, for now, living in America where we have the freedom to be stupid and commit stupid acts.
Sharia will change that, and it can only become the law of our land if we allow it to happen by doing such things like prosecuting students for Koran flushing.
And about the matter of Saudi Arabia, wahabbism and sharia, mentioned in the introduction here. Experts agree that Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Wahhabist belief and its extremist teachings. Unfortunately, there is mounting evidence that Saudi sponsored groups are trying to hijack mainstream Islam here in the United States - in mosques, in schools, and even in prisons and the military - and replace it with Wahhabism and the sharia law it imposes.
Slowly getting Americans to "submit" to special treatment for Islam, is simply part of the process.
Many of you may read this and ask blithely: "Yes, but that's in the States... what does that have to do with us here in Canada? Schools in Québec have had to remove all traces of Catholicism and Christianity, including normally accepted Christmas decorations and nativity scenes. In the meantime, they have also been required to provide 'prayer rooms' for Muslim students...
And I should certainly not need to remind anyone about the following news article from 2005:
And if you want to know what young Muslims in Canada are being taught, you can visit the following website:
And don't think North America is the only continent on which these individuals are intent on making inroads either...
UK Muslims should live under Sharia: Chief Justice - Friday July 4 2008 09:54 IST
Christopher Hope and James Kirkup
LONDON: Muslims in Britain should be able to live according to Sharia law, the country's most senior judge has said.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, strongly backed Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, over his suggestion earlier this year that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in Britain.
The archbishop's remarks sparked a national debate and led to calls for his resignation.
Risking inflaming that controversy again, Lord Phillips has said that Muslims in Britain should be able to use Sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.
The judge did add that only the criminal courts should have the power to decide when a crime has been committed and when to impose punishment.
But his suggestion that different religious groups should run their affairs according to different rules sparked warnings that community cohesion could be undermined.
In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre in east London, Lord Phillips said it was "not very radical" for Dr Williams to argue that Sharia law can be used to help govern issues like family disputes and the sale of financial products.
Lord Phillips said: "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law."
Therefore, he said, he could see no reason why Sharia law should not be used to settle disputes in this country.
He said: "There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."
He added: "It must be recognized however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
Sharia law suffered from "widespread misunderstanding" in Britain, Lord Phillips said.
"Part of the misconception about Sharia law is the belief that Sharia is only about mandating sanctions such as flogging, stoning, the cutting off of hands or death for those fail to comply with the law," he said.
"In some countries the courts interpret Sharia law as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here."
The judge said Dr Williams had been misunderstood when it was reported in February that he said British Muslims could be governed by Sharia law.
Lord Phillips said that the archbishop was saying only that "it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law".
There is already scope in English law for some communities to use their own religious codes to resolve disputes. Orthodox Jews can use the Beth Din rabbinical courts to decide on matters including divorce.
However some critics say that women marrying under Sharia law do not have the same rights as in English law, and could lead to them being treated as second class citizens as far as divorce settlements, custody of children and inheritance go.
Muslim and Christian politicians expressed fears that at a time of heightened tensions, encouraging Muslims to live by their own distinct rules could make it harder for different communities to integrate.
Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar and a practising Muslim, said that allowing Sharia law in parts of the UK would be divisive.
He said: "This would create a two-tier society. It is highly retrograde. It will segregate and alienate the Muslim community from the rest of British society.
"The majority of British Muslims want to live only under British law and they would reject anything that means they are treated differently.
"What Lord Phillips and the archbishop are discussing is something that is completely outside their area of understanding."
Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said Lord Phillips' suggestion was "totally unacceptable."
He said: "It is very unhelpful for community cohesion. This is the sort of thing that builds up tensions in areas like mine, in places like Bradford. Sharia law has got no place in any shape or form in British law."
Andrew Selous, a Tory MP and chairman of the all-party Christians in Parliament group, said calls like those made by Lord Phillips and the archbishop were "worrying."
He said: "As far as people of all faiths are concerned, it is important that we are all equal under one United Kingdom law. It will lead to more community tensions rather than less."
Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer and practicing Muslim, said there was a "big debate" among British Muslims about whether and how Sharia should apply in the UK.
He said: "There is a risk that this would make it harder for communities to integrate -- we all need to do more to integrate, and mainstream society has to do more as well."
"We should have one law for everyone in the UK, but there may be very rare occasions when exceptions have to be made, like for marriage, divorce and food."
A Muslim lawyer said that raising the prospect of allowing people to live under Sharia law in Britain would "alarm" people.
Mahmud Al Rashid, spokesman from the Association of Muslim Lawyers, said: "There is massive misunderstanding about what Sharia is. It is not a single law."
A spokesman for Dr Williams said: "We welcome the speech given by the Lord Chief Justice as a positive and constructive contribution to this important and ongoing debate."
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster and leader of Britain's Catholics, said that people should live under the laws of the UK.
His spokesman said: "As the Cardinal has consistently said and indeed said earlier this year, was that Britons should abide by and be subject to the law of the land."
Downing Street said the Government's position on the issue of Sharia law had been made clear at the time of the controversy over the Archbishop's speech.
"We think that British law should be based on British values and determined by the British Parliament," the Prime Minister's spokesman said.
Baroness Warsi, the Conservative shadow minister for community cohesion, backed the judge.
She said: "The Lord Chief Justice's speech is a very clear and unifying speech for our communities in Britain.
"I specifically endorse the points made by Lord Phillips that with equality of rights come responsibilities. It is absolutely essential that everyone in this country is treated equally by the law but it is important that everyone is equally subject to it, and that the same laws apply equally to everyone."
Sure does make me wonder about the sanity of the World at times... The signs are all around us. Our culture and our very way of life hangs in the balance here. Like it or not, the day is coming where it will come down to them or us. We will have absolutely no choice but to either shed their blood, drive them from our lands, or submit. Knowing the nature of the typical lazy and complacent North American, I'd say we have plenty to be worried about.
I suppose we will have to wait until they start killing us here at home for the light to finally come on.
Pray that by then it will not be too late to stem the tide.