text:
Buddha Wild: The Monk In A Hut - An Anna Wilding Documentary
By Janet Walker
Buddha Wild: The Monk In A Hut is the first documentary effort for cinematic narrative director, Anna Wilding, and is a discovery into the life and lifestyles of the contemporary Buddhist Monk in Thailand.
Cultivating the land is a lesson in cultivation of one's soul.
The story telling abilities of Ms. Wilding, who acts as narrator and interviewer, are highlighted by the depth of the subject. She has a warm New Zealand accent, a mix of British with a hint of Aussie, and holds the audience captive with soothing sincerity during the majority of the film.
On the set with Buddha Wild Director, Anna Wilding.
The film offers a glimpse into the monastery world of the Buddhist Monk and the real world of those who follow the precepts and principals of Buddhism. As a follower of Christianity, it was easy to see and understand the relationship that the female sheik shared with Buddha. To her, Buddha and the many faces of Buddha were sweet to her soul. She, at one point, exhibited adoration for Buddha; much like one would exhibit during a description of one's lover.
The ex-patriots who are interviewed reveal that the yearnings of a soul can move in and through one for an entire life until time and place birth change. They, too, show a lover's satisfaction when discussing their life now joined with the teachings of Buddha.
The documentary centers on the life of the Buddhist monks. They are a kind lot of warm hearted and enlightened men who are eager to share their religious doctrines of faith. Buddha Wild is a journey of discovery. The monks are honest in the telling of their lives, hopes, and disappointments. They speak freely about their lifestyle, limitedly about the absence of physical closeness and sexual activity, and in depth about the world challenges faced by a Buddhist.
The lifestyle of Buddhist Monk is captured in "Buddha Wild."
The monks were clearly enamored by Ms. Wilding and their generosity of information regarding taboo subjects exhibits this fact. It appears that being a monk is not so much a calling as a culture. There is a break from the seriousness of the narration with the invitation by one of the Monk's to visit his hut – hence the title "The Monk in a Hut."
The invitation by the monk to visit his hut was expressed with the innocence of a child. It was heartfelt and offered with the openness of sharing the few earthly possessions he possessed. It developed into a Dr. Seuss rhyme and although Ms. Wilding entered with reverence it is not clear as to whether she understood the enormity of the gesture.
The "Monk in the Hut" (r) and a fellow monk.
The home of a monk is simple and oddly technologically advanced. The display of the desktop hardware was off set by an animated child's alarm clock. A small futon style sofa, books, and a choice of elevated bed or floor mattress represents in total the earthly possessions.
The spiritual enlightenment associated with the life of the Buddhist Monk is often portrayed allegorically through the stunning sunsets. The cinematography is breathtaking and the beauty of the countryside is remarkable. It was not clear if the spectacular sunsets and other lush vegetation, were innately captured or a director's choice. Either way, spiritual enlightenment is often, and more so, found in the moments of silence and that message is very present.
The stunning sunsets of the Thailand Countryside.
The 60 minute running time captures your attention with intermittent breaks as Ms. Wilding inserts images of herself instead of opting for a more linear linkage that would add to the over-all informational content of Buddha Wild. And with that Ms. Wilding is engaging on camera, with a warm, pleasant and captivating narrative voice.
Anna Wilding and Carpe Diem films, LLC have certainly seized the day with this informative and engaging film. The film has been in limited released in the United States and in New Zealand with a nod in the Calgary Buddhist Film series 2006. It is not rated. For connoisseurs of culture and religion it is must see.
For more information on Anna Wilding and Buddha Wild: http://www.buddhawild.com
All photos courtesy of Anna Wilding, Carpe Diem Films, LLC


In early 2000, the Forum of Ibn Khaldoun was at its peak of success and so was the Ibn Khaldoun Center. As the moderator, I held the Forum weekly and it openly discussed the difficult issues in Egypt where some of the brightest minds in Egypt and the Arab World participated.
The center also held monthly forums called the Diplomatic Club, where I invited national and foreign ambassadors, diplomats, and they were covered by an array of media and newspapers as well as representatives from some embassies.
The Ibn Khaldoun Forum was a place where minorities, like Egyptian Shias and Quranists, could speak freely. I was second in command to Dr. Saad Eldien Ibrahim, one of Egypt's leading human rights and democracy advocates. The audience also included some informants for the State Security Police. Ibn Khaldoun Center's activities reached its peak with two projects: Reforming the National Curriculum of Education, andTeaching Egyptians Their Democratic and Electoral Rights.
The forum was so influential that Mubarak had enough and decided to arrest some of the Quranists who attended the Forum in early 2000. Subsequently, Saad Eldien Ibrahim and other employees of the center were arrested in June 2000.
Newspapers across Egypt announced the arrest of Dr. Ibrahim and me, although I was not arrested at that particular time, but was expected to be at any minute. A police car, from Almatarya Police Station was regularly parked in front of my house spying on my movements and waiting to arrest me once they got their orders to do so.
The State Security Police called my home more than once to investigate my whereabouts. I also learned that my fellow Quranists who had been arrested had also been tortured to admit that they deny Islam's duties and that I am the one who had taught them to deny such Islamic rituals.
My life became miserable where I forced myself to research the Saudi opposition of Wahhabism to escape the fear of getting arrested.
Nearly two years earlier (in 1999) I was invited to a conference in London about Wahhabi radicalism. I went and met with the organizer, Dr. Khalid Duran, and Canadian human rights lawyer, Alexander Epstein whom I reached out to. Mr. Epstein recommended to me that I get a Canadian visa, but I already had the American visa with Khalid Duran's help and invitation to attend a 2001 conference in NY discussing peace in the Middle East. The invitation covered travel and accommodation arrangements for the duration of the conference from October 19th to the 22nd, 2001.
On the Sunday before, I was contacted by a fellow Quranist saying that he was interrogated by the State Security Police and he knows I was to be arrested on that Wednesday, now that they have the proper confessions. I made a booking to fly out of Egypt on Tuesday, the 16th of October 2001.
I was not relieved until the plane left Egypt's air-space. I took a deep breath and cried.
Dr. Khalid Duran, God bless him, connected me with Immigration lawyer Irving Spitzberg, where we met in Washington and agreed on all the details. I lived for a few days with Dr. Duran until Dr. Boshawar helped me to find a room for rent for three weeks with a few young North African immigrants. I also kept searching and posted an ad looking for a room in a nearby mosque- Dar Al Hijra. I quickly met an Egyptian and moved to live with him. I stayed with him for two years until my wife and my youngest son, Monir, arrived in the US. The three of us moved together to Boston where I lived an important year of my life in the US.
I was running away from the Wahhabi radicalization and Saudi influence that made my life in Egypt a living hell. Almatarya was a center for Wahhabis and still is. Four radical mosques around my apartment back in Matarya used to even curse me and their followers would walk outside my home to intimidate me. They enjoyed safety from the police and I had to suffer from both of them, not to mention the role played by the Saudi ambassador in pushing the Egyptian State Security Police to persecute the Quranists, as well as pushing his media Sheikhs and anchors to declare us infidels on national TV. I escaped hell in Egypt and came to find it in the US. I was surprised to find it in the biggest mosque in Virginia, Dar Al Hijra, and I was also surprised to find it in Boston.
Such a frightening fact was only paralleled by another unexpected fact that defied the culture upon which I was raised: hating Jews. I was surprised to learn that some of the noblest people I dealt with in the US were Jews because of how I was brainwashed in Egypt against the Jews. I learned that one of the best humans I have ever met, Alexander Epstein, was Jewish. This noble man came from Toronto to Washington DC to meet me and he recommended me for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), where I received a three months fellowship, salary and health insurance. Back then I did not even have a bedroom and lived on a couch in the living room of my Egyptian friend with a weekly budget of seven dollars. This changed because of Alexander Epstein.
After working with NED, I was granted another fellowship at Harvard University to research how to reform education in Islamic schools in the US. The Scholars at Risk organization-- an organization that helps persecuted scientists and thinkers--granted me the fellowship. I was also surprised to learn at the conference they organized for hosting me that they were Jewish. I spoke to them about my persecution experience in Egypt and they were moved. Years later, I met some of them again and they still remembered what I said.
The biggest surprise came from my lawyer, Irving Spitzberg who is another one of the best humans I ever knew, along with his Catholic wife Virginia. I was truly amazed by their eagerness to help and their great humanitarian consciousness in how they helped me and others like me. They both became like a family to me in the US and they continued to help me and my children after they arrived to the US after the official approval of my political asylum, when I petitioned to bring my wife and three minor children (Monir, Sameh, and Hossam) to join me. My wife and Monir (11 years at the time) arrived first. Hossam and Sameh were delayed for a few months and caught up with us in Boston.
It was a blessing from Allah (SWT) that Monir and my wife's petition, as well as my one year Harvard fellowship were approved around the same time. I asked my wife to book her flight as soon as possible to DC. In one day, I travelled to Boston, started my new job, and rented an apartment in Boston with Dr. Marlene Tadros' help - God bless her. I travelled back to DC to receive my wife and son, and we took the train from Washington to Boston, where we stayed for one year.
The same surprises happened in Boston also. In the same room I worked at in Harvard, my coworker was a Jewish Israeli from Tel Aviv who also received a fellowship. We became friends quickly. Back then, I still did not have any furniture in the new apartment, so I asked him where I can buy used furniture, and he promised me to drop some furniture by. I told my wife, but she was very scared and asked "How could you give this Israeli our address? He will kill us, no doubt about it." I failed to convince her of his good intentions. When he arrived, she locked herself in the room. My friend came with another Jewish friend of his and they both carried the furniture up the stairs to the third floor where I lived. They refused my help and kept working until they put the furniture in place and left without even having a cup of tea. It was a good lesson for my wife and it changed her. Two years later, we hosted an Israeli lady at my apartment in Virginia, and my wife was happy to have her.
On the other side, there was another cruel surprise awaiting us in Boston. It is a city famous of being the American brain. It is socially liberal and has many great universities. I thought that the Muslim diaspora would be as open minded in Boston, unlike Virginia. But one day, something happened that I will never forget. I was walking in the city with my wife during sunset and I wanted to pray the Sunset prayer. I asked about a mosque, and I was told of the nearest mosque. I was excited to pray in a real mosque after years of being forced to pray in my home. I entered the mosque with more excitement. It was a small green mosque of two floors, where the ground level was for women, and that is where my wife went. I went up to the second level dedicated for men. Near the entrance, there was the washing station with a wide open room for people to wait. I looked around and noticed so many Arabic slogans and ads that are anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and call for Jihad against the West while glorifying many terrorists.
In a second, I glanced through my memories of persecution back in Matarya, Egypt by Wahhabism, the assassination attempts I suffered in their mosques, and I realized I am in real danger. The Wahhabi Imams know my face, as well as my name. I prayed quickly and went down and asked my wife to hurry up. As I was waiting, I overheard the religious lesson given to women at the mosque, which was filled with horrible Wahhabi radicalism. We left the mosque, never to return to that street again.
During the year I spent at Harvard, I applied for jobs in the Arabic/Islamic/Middle Eastern departments; there were plenty of jobs available, some of which were a perfect match with my expertise, like a lecturer in Islamic History or in Tafseer and Hadith. I met with some people of the hiring committee and I was informed that I would never be hired for those jobs because these are grants from the Gulf Wahhabis. Moreover, the Human Rights Program was adjacent to the Islamic Sharia Program that was established by King Fahd of Saudi, and I met the director of the program, who is a Middle East specialist who used to travel to Saudi Arabia a few times a year. One time, I met him and he had a Saudi guest who appeared to be a Saudi Security officer following up on how Harvard is spending the Saudi money. Despite attesting to my unique qualifications in the field, the program director apologized for not being able to write me a recommendation letter or to offer me a job.
Through funding, Wahhabism controlled the Arabic and Islamic departments at Harvard and other universities in the US. During my search for a university job, my suspicion of Wahhabi control over Arabic and Middle Eastern studies departments in American universities - in order to prohibit discussing Wahhabism - was confirmed.
So while Harvard's Scholars at Risk was helping me, the Wahhabi influence was also following me in the US, despite escaping it in Egypt. I lost hope in finding a job in Boston and went back to Northern Virginia.
I then received an email from one of the community leaders in Boston, Charles Jacob. I later learned that he is a human rights advocate, fighting slavery in Africa and defending persecuted Muslimsin Darfur, and that he is a noble Jew too. He mentioned how the Wahhabis secured a prime real estate land in Boston through the Mayor and the Governor and that they are about to build the biggest Wahhabi mosque in the East Coast. In order to face such Wahhabi trend, Jacob and other community leaders decided to establish the Citizens for Peace and Tolerance Organization, which is led by three directors: A Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim. They asked me to be the Muslim director, and I was happy to join.
After the grand announcement of opening the mosque in Boston, Fox news aired reportage about the mosque and discovered that the radical Sheikh, Al Qaradawy, is one of the board members of the mosque. They also discovered that one of the main mosque organizers was sentenced to jail for terrorism activities. Some of these leaders were also later arrested and sentenced to jail on terrorism charges. Fox channel put the mosque under the spot light, and many media outlets reached out for my opinion. I repeatedly said that I am not against building a mosque or those who are building it, but rather I am against Wahhabism that they espouse and see it as a danger to Islam and the US. I told the story about the small mosque in Boston and what I read in it. I also asked the mosque to be open for All Muslims (Shias, Sunnis, Sufis, Ahmedis, and Quranists) in order to represent the Islamic tolerance and the American notion of religious freedom.
I was accused by the plaintiff of receiving money from the Citizens for Peace and Tolerance for participating in the campaign, which the plaintiff presented as totally wrong, and our lawyer requested to present all our legal documents in exchange for their legal documents, which would expose their funding sources. Only then, the plaintiff decided to drop the case.
After the Boston Marathon bombing, the girlfriend of one of the suspects said that he was a normal young man until he started going to the Boston mosque. This reminds me of a crime that happened in 2003 that was reported by American newspapers and by the Saudi newspaper "Middle East," that is based in London. Two Moroccan young men were living together in California, one Muslim and one Jewish. The Muslim guy started going to a Wahhabi mosque, and eventually killed his Jewish friend in the name of Jihad.
When I remember my suffering in Matarya, I fear for Boston.
Back in Matarya, Wahhabi Salafists had no problems with the State Security and both agreed on persecuting me. Matarya is currently a war zone of terrorism, and there are ongoing battles with the security forces after ousting Morsi.
Salafis in Boston could not scare me except through the case that they dropped, but they continue spreading Wahhabism in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, nobody from the administration is paying attention to this threat.
I said in Egypt and in the US that the only peaceful way to confront Wahhabi terrorism is through ideological war from within Islam, just like the Quranists do. This is not allowed in Egypt because of the strong Saudi influence. This is also difficult in the US because of the Saudi funding.
I still fear for my beloved Boston, may Allah keep it and its people safe.


2. Cover your mouth and nose when sneezing and coughing to prevent the spread of germs.
3. Clean your hands often to protect yourself from germs.
5. Practice good health habits, such as getting plenty of sleep, eating nutritious food, drinking plenty of fluids, and remaining active.
As always, if you have a health concern regarding your child, we encourage you to consult with your family physician or pediatrician. The following links provide helpful information and checklists for families on preparing for/handling the flu: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/ the World Health Organization at http://www.who.int/en/ and the American Red Cross at http://www.redcross.org/ .


text:
Archive for JihadWatch
Sheila Musaji: Geller & Spencer Attempt to Turn Congressional Race into a Religious War
Posted in Loon People, Loon Politics with tags Anti-Muslim, Congressional Race, Islam, Islamophobia, Israel, JihadWatch, Pamela Geller, Religious War, Robert Spencer, Sheila Musaji on June 3, 2012 by loonwatch
More religion-baiting and Islamophobic anti-Muslim hate-mongering from the premiere religious bigots of the day, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.
Geller & Spencer attempt to turn Congressional race into a religious war
by Sheila Musaji (TAM)
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are outraged that a political campaign in New Jersey has included the issue of one candidates support for Israel.
Both Spencer and Geller refer their readers to an article in the Washington Free Beacon about the democratic primary race between Reps. Steve Rothman and Bill Pascrell.
That one-sided article noted that "For the first time in recent American political history, we are witnessing a proxy battle between supporters and detractors of Israel, and it's playing out in the Ninth District of New Jersey," said one veteran campaign strategist who is knowledgeable about the district. And, it noted an ad by an Arab group in the community supporting Pascrell that produced an ad urging the "Arab diaspora community" to "elect the friend of the Arabs" and billed the race as "the most important election in the history of the [Arab] community." It also refers to an article by Aref Assaf published in February titled Rothman is Israel's man in District 9. It also included this quote "I don't read Arabic well, but I am pretty sure that the pro-Pascrell posters that have appeared across the district are not calling to elect the candidate who supports a strong relationship between America and the only democracy in the Middle East, one which is rooted in progressive Western values—women's rights, gay rights, tolerance, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.," said Josh Block, a Democratic strategist and former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
It is impossible to believe that Mr. Block was unaware that it was a letter from a group of Rabbis that began this entire discussion. It is also impossible to believe that the author of this article, Adam Kredo, was also unaware of the implications of that letter (since he mentions it later in his article). Nevertheless, Kredo's article was the basis for both Geller and Spencer's posts.
Geller says
A New Jersey congressional race is becoming a referendum on a candidate's Judaism. Muslims are going after a Jewish congressman. Islamic Jew-hatred rears its ugly [be]head for the first time in a congressional race. But believe you me, it won't be the last time. Islamic Jew-Hatred—it's in the quran.
It's very ugly, and the enemedia, self-enforcing the sharia, is not covering it. And the local press is giving the Islamic supremacists all the column inches the haters demand. Aref Assaf, president of the New Jersey-based American Arab Forum, is a vile nazi who has been getting the lion's share of press.
Assaf wrote in an oped in the New Jersey Star Ledger that the Jewish candidate under attack, Steve Rothman, "is using his support of Israel as the centerpiece of his campaign." It is Assaf and his Jew-hating constiuency [sic] that are making it all about Rothman's Judaism and Israel. The Muslim Jew-haters are making it the centerpiece of their campaign. Rothman "has consciously avoided adding fuel to the ethnic fire by focusing instead on his congressional record, note political observers in both New Jersey and Washington, D.C."
Spencer titles his article "We want this Jew out of office": Islamic antisemitism invades New Jersey Congressional primary race and calls this An ugly new development in American politics: Muslim voters lining up to defeat a Jewish candidate.
It would be worthwhile to read the actual article written by Assef that would provoke Geller to call him a "vile nazi" and "Muslim Jew-hater". Here is what Assef wrote
It may be Kosher but is it illegal? As the Record reported on February 17, 2012, several presidents of Orthodox synagogues are urging the Republican-registered members of their respective congregations to switch party affiliation in order to vote for Steve Rothman. Rep. Steve Rothman is battling fellow Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell for the newly redrawn Ninth Congressional District.
The primary elections are set for June 5 and because the district is heavily democratic, the winner will most likely carry the November elections too. The Record's article is based on a letter first posted in the Passaic Clifton Jewish Community News. The Record calls into question the legality of such a letter signed by well-known religious leaders and debates the possible IRS code violations that such a position entails. Skirting the gray line of legality, these letters do carry the weight of the religious institutions the signers represent and when you consider the Orthodox community in Passaic is closely-knit, even when the names are not attached to their religious affiliations, they are still a known entity. While religious institutions may engage in local, state, and even federal elections, there are clear guidelines they must not cross to maintain their tax-exempt status under Section 501 of the IRS code, which governs non-profit and tax exempt entities. Such entities are clearly prohibited from endorsing political candidates and/or contributing to their campaign funds and must provide equal access to all competing candidates.
The question remains when such activities exceed the limit of the law and spill over being a mere informational letter. As quoted in the Record, one of the letter signers, Akiva Hirth, said, "It's a free country," adding that "religious leaders were merely communicating with their congregants, not forcing them to take any action." Yet a closer read tells a different story; and I quote from the original letter: "Our community has the unique opportunity to significantly impact this race. The choice is clear – support the candidate who best understands our needs and interests. Congressman Steve Rothman is the obvious choice in this Primary election." This is clearly a political endorsement. The IRS is called upon to investigate the legal ramifications of such a violation.
It may turn out to be a non-issue, but I am puzzled that so many Jewish Rabbis would and for mere temporary political expediency encourage their congregation to go against their faith and register Democratic. Like observant American Muslims who also favor the Republican Party, Orthodox Jews would choose the Republican platform for strictly religious reasons dealing with abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, and support for Israel. I would not want my Imam to urge me to change my party label so irreverently. It's just plain dishonest.
But if it is Kosher for Orthodox rabbis to preach to their members on political candidates, then it must be Halal for Muslim Imams to do the same. We will soon find out if Muslim religious leaders will reach out to their respective congregations. Imams, like rabbis, wield disproportionate leverage in and uncontested access to their congregations.
American Muslims are said to be evenly split between those registered as Democrat and Republicans. If Republican Muslims in New Jersey emulate the Jewish voters, and assuming their numerical symmetry, they will at least cancel out the 'converted' Jewish votes. Real democratic voters will then decide the election outcome. I will be reporting back on developments.
Unquestionably, this primary election is pitting two otherwise harmoniously coexisting communities: the Muslim and Jewish communities. To what extent the Muslim community will be energized by these developments will have to be determined. As total and blind support for Israel becomes the only reason for choosing Rothman, voters who do not view the elections in this prism will need to take notice. Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America's.
The incident that Assef was responding to was reported on in an article titled Letter asks Orthodox Jews to switch parties and support Rothman. Here is the text of that article:
PASSAIC — The leaders of Orthodox Jewish synagogues in the city are urging their congregants to switch parties from Republican to Democrat so they can vote for Rep. Steve Rothman in the June 5 primary against Rep. Bill Pascrell.
A letter endorsed by 15 presidents of Passaic shuls was mailed last week to the homes of Orthodox Jews in the city's Passaic Park section who are registered Republicans. In the letter, the presidents urge them to register as Democrats by the April 11 deadline so they so they can support Rothman, who is considered more pro-Israel than Pascrell.
"Our community has the unique opportunity to significantly impact this race," the letter reads. "The choice is clear — support the candidate who best understands our needs and interests. Congressman Steve Rothman is the obvious choice in this Primary election."
The letter, which carries the heading "A Message from Passaic's Shul Presidents," was paid for by the Rothman campaign. It notes that the redrawn boundaries of the 9th congressional district heavily favors Democrats. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will likely capture the seat in November.
The letter, which has also been published in the Passaic Clifton Jewish Community News, is an outgrowth of the recent endorsement of Rothman by Gary Schaer, a prominent member of Passaic's Orthodox Jewish community who is also City Council president and a state assemblyman.
Although political leaders are free to endorse anyone they want, the letter raises questions about whether religious leaders violated the IRS guidelines that restrict religious non-profits from endorsing political candidates.
Section 501 of the IRS code says religious non-profits are "absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." The code further prohibits "voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates…"
Marc Owens, a Washington, D.C tax lawyer who headed the IRS' tax exemption unit from 1990 to 2000, said the issue is whether the synagogue leaders were acting as individuals or on behalf of their religious institutions when they wrote the letter. "Is it the religious institution speaking or are they speaking as individuals?" Owens said.
Only one of the 15 synagogue presidents who signed the letter could be reached for comment on Friday. In a brief telephone interview, Akiva Hirth said he signed the letter because he was within his rights to do so. "It's a free country," Hirth said, adding that religious leaders were merely communicating with their congregants, not forcing them to take any action.
The Jewish vote is considered crucial for both Rothman and Pascrell, who are locked in a tight battle in the Democratic primary. Spokesmen for both candidates played down the issue on Friday.
Paul Swibinski, a spokesman for Rothman, defended the letter as a legitimate voter registration tactic. "I don't see anything improper here at all," he said. "There are no names of synagogues or temples listed in the letter. It is clearly a personal endorsement from leaders of these synagogues. It is not an endorsement by the synagogues themselves."
Pascrell wasn't eager to make an issue of it, either. "If anyone is violating tax laws, then we clearly have a concern," he said.
It would seem that simply following the timeline of events clarifies this whole incident. A group of Jewish Rabbis raised the issue of a candidates support for Israel as a reason to vote for that candidate. After they sent out a letter encouraging the Jewish community to support one candidate based on this issue, Aref Assaf wrote his article calling their actions into question on the basis of U.S. law. He also expressed his sadness that such behavior in a local primary election "is pitting two otherwise harmoniously coexisting communities: the Muslim and Jewish communities" against each other.
It is sad to see this being made into a "religious issue" rather than a simple political issue. Who is the best candidate to represent the citizens of the 9th district of New Jersey should be the issue.
Geller and Spencer are old hands at stirring the pot of religious bigotry in political campaigns. This is simply the most recent example.
When Gary Boisclair ran a congressional campaign vs Keith Ellison that was based entirely on hatred of Muslims – Pamela Geller was upset at Youtube for pulling Boisclair's anti-Muslim ad. Geller called it "enforcing Sharia" and she said More sharia (Islamic law): this is enforcement of blasphemy laws, do not insult Islam. How much more of our freedom are we going to allow them to seize?
When there was a furore over Keith Ellison's use of the Qur'an in a photo opportunity after his swearing in as a Congressman – Robert Spencer wrote This is allegedly a political masterstroke by Ellison, but it really just begs the question. Thomas Jefferson, obviously, was not a Muslim. In his famous statement on religious freedom he wrote about whether one's neighbor believed in one god or twelve "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." But what no one is willing to discuss here is whether the Qur'an and Islam really fit into that framework. When I have mentioned that it sanctions lying to unbelievers (3:28 and 16:106, in the mainstream understanding of those verses by Islamic theologians and schools of jurisprudence; cf. Ibn Kathir and many others), people have responded that the Bible is full of nasty stuff as well. But people aren't swearing on the Bible because it is full of nasty stuff, or endorsing any of it that might actually be there. The idea of swearing on the Bible arises from Christian belief and is buttressed by Christian theology—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—that requires honesty and eschews all dishonesty as coming from the "Father of Lies." The permissions to be dishonest in the Qur'an are not mitigated by Islamic belief, tradition, and theology, but are in fact reinforced—by Muhammad's statements that "war is deceit" and that lying is permissible in wartime, and more.
In short, to swear on the Bible is to affirm, among other things, that one is part of a tradition, and to swear on the Qur'an does not amount to an affirmation of the same tradition, no matter how much Glenn Beck or Ed Koch or anyone wishes it does or assumes it does. Islamic teachers daily use the Qur'an to establish principles that differ radically from those of Judeo-Christian tradition. These questions need to be discussed in a forthright and honest manner by Ellison and by the mainstream media, instead of being swept under the rug or condemned as bigotry."
The decent people of the 9th Congressional District of New Jersey don't need such bigoted individuals involving themselves in this election and fueling the fires of mutual distrust and bigotry.
I'm not being seen by that! Businessman's shocking rant at Muslim airport worker
Posted in Loon-at-large with tags Anthony Holt, Anti-Muslim, Businessman, Immigration, Islam, Islamophobia, JihadWatch, Muslim, UK on June 2, 2012 by loonwatch
Anthony Holt
This seems to be a "one-off incident" but individuals such as Anthony Holt seem quite familiar to us. They defend their abusive and bigoted behavior by saying that they are differentiating between "Islam" and "Muslims" but time and again we see them exposed for who they really are.
I wouldn't be surprised if Holt was a regular commenter on JihadWatch, he fits the profile:
Stan Miller and John Scheerhout (Menmedia)
A high-flying businessman was hauled before the court for a tirade of religious abuse at a Muslim immigration official waiting to check his passport.
Anthony Holt, 65, had become wound up after reading an article in the Daily Mail about the 'victimisation of Christianity' on a flight into Manchester.
When he landed, the retired consultant refused to go through a desk where Sayima Mohammed was on duty.
He astonished witnesses by pointing at her and saying: "I don't want to be seen by that. I don't want to be seen by any Muslim in a position of authority. I want to be seen by someone who's English. This is England. This is my country. I'm not into all this Islam."
As Ms Mohammed burst into tears, her colleagues refused to check Mr Holt's documents and ordered him to calm down.
When police arrived, Holt turned his attention to a cop, saying: "That's Islam. I'm not going to that. This is my country."
The 15-minute row only ended when he was arrested.
During a police interview Holt claimed the abuse was not 'personal'.
He said: "The problem I have is with Islam as a whole. It's threat to the British population and the British way of life. I wanted to take a stand."
Holt, of Railway Road, Urmston, pleaded guilty to using religiously aggravated threatening words or behaviour.
He was ordered to pay £100 compensation and a £145 fine.
Trafford magistrates heard he had worked as a consultant advising lawyers about the purchase of railway stock until his retirement earlier this month.
The court heard the outburst took place in front of a queue of witnesses, including children.
In a statement to police, Ms Mohammed said: "I felt threatened, shocked and humiliated to be treated in that manner for no apparent reason."
Praveen Sethi, defending, said Holt had been flying into Manchester at the end of 'a stressful week'.
He had been reading an article in the Mail in which the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey spoke of the 'victimisation of Christians and Christianity'.
Robert Spencer to Debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator
Posted in Feature, Loon-at-large with tags Anjem Choudary, Answering Muslims, Danios, Danios of LoonWatch, David Wood, debate, Islam4UK, Jihad Watch, JihadWatch, LoonWatch, Omar Bakri, Robert Spencer, Robert Spencer is a chicken, Spencer on May 1, 2012 by loonwatch
Sheila Musaji of The American Muslim (TAM) has been keeping a close eye on the loons who write for Jihad Watch. The chief loon of JW, Robert Spencer, had initially been slated to debate David Wood, another Christian loon like himself. Realizing no doubt that they are on the same side of the loony equation, the debate has been scrapped. Instead, both Spencer and Wood have agreed to face off against Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri.
As Musaji presciently noted, "[b]oth Choudary and Bakri are part of the Muslim lunatic fringe." The nefarious duo are very familiar to the Muslim community of the U.K., not because they have a large following (they don't), but because they are routinely trotted out by anti-Muslim right-wingers. The set-up is always the same: a right-winger pundit will invite one of these two clowns onto their show for a "debate." By making the hated Choudary and Bakri the representative for the Muslim side, the debate is of course already won. Muslims are left thinking, "with friends like these, who needs enemies…"
Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri are absolutely despised by the vast majority of the Muslim community, even by the ultra-conservative and radical Muslims they pretend to represent. They are caricatures, just one step away from being Achmed the Dead Terrorist or a character thought up by Sacha Baron Cohen (like Ali G or Admiral General Aladeen, A.K.A. The Dictator). Choudary and Bakri play the part of terrorists and radical Islamists, which is why hateful Islamophobes love giving them ample air time: look at how crazy those Moozlums are!
It's absolutely no surprise then that Robert Spencer and David Wood, two loons in their own right, would debate two even loonier loons. Spencer wastes his time engaging such unserious clowns, because–just as Sheila Musaji noted long time ago–he has a pattern of seeking out complete fools to debate with so that he can then crow in victory afterward. Meanwhile, Spencer will doggedly avoid debating anyone (1) with a serious grasp of knowledge of the topic at hand and (2) the debating skill to back it up. And of course, (3) anyone named Danios. What's interesting is that even Robert Spencer's debating partner, David Wood, seemed to imply on his website that Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri are weak debaters. Wood agrees with Choudary and Bakri's view that Muhammad existed, but he doesn't think that they will be able to make the convincing argument. Why not just debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist or The Dictator? It would certainly be just as enlightening and perhaps a bit more entertaining.
Robert Spencer's homepage boldly declares that he is "the acclaimed scholar of Islam", and yet he has no educational qualifications to validate that lofty claim. In fact, all he has is an M.A. in Christian studies…If I get an M.A. in Buddhist studies, does that mean I get to be "the acclaimed scholar of Judaism"? Spencer has never had his work submitted for peer review in the academic world, and so his arguments–while they certainly might pass off in the non-scholarly world–have never been tested by the real experts in the field. Spencer's version of peer-review is debating the equivalent of Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator.
In any case, let's not beat around the bush. It's me in particular who Robert Spencer fears. One would think that he would want to debate me now that I've won the Brass Crescent Award for Best Writer last year (and was runner-up the year before), in no small part due to my writings against Spencer. I have been refuting his book for a long time now, decimating his arguments one by one. Spencer can't respond intelligently, so of course, he naturally fears facing off in debate. It has now officially been 684 days–that's 1 year, 10 months, and 14 days–since I agreed to have a radio debate with Robert Spencer. In that time, Spencer has furiously been generating excuse after excuse to avoid the debate.
Spencer continues to use my anonymity as an excuse to cover up his cowardice. I'm an anonymous blogger and I have expressed my intent in preserving that anonymity for now. Yet, Spencer repeatedly insists on a public venue–so that I "show my face"–knowing full well that I won't accept such a condition. In this way, Spencer gets out of the debate and can then disingenuously claim that I was the cause of the impasse.
Robert Spencer engages in typical right-winger projection: look how cowardly Danios is that he doesn't show his face. But, it is Spencer who is the coward, at least when it comes to defending his views. What difference does it make who I am or what I look like? The obvious answer is that Spencer wants to engage in ad hominem attacks against me, instead of focusing on the substantive value of his arguments, which my writings have shown to be severely lacking. It's now quite evident to all who want to see it: my refutations of his book are irrefutable. I know it, you know it, he knows it.
And that's why Robert Spencer will keep running away from me. Instead, he'll debate fools and loons. Yawn, what's new?
Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.
Here is Sheila Musaji's article from TAM:
David Wood and Robert Spencer "Debate"?
by Sheila Musaji
David Wood is not as well known as Robert Spencer, so a little background is in order. Wood is an Evangelical pastor and has a series of polemical articles on Answering Islam. His focus seems to be on anti-Muslim polemics.
Kiera Feldman reported on an incident in 2010:
Organized by Stop the Islamization of America, the first rally against the "Ground Zero mosque" was held in a plaza near the site of the Twin Towers on June 6th—D-Day. "We are not hatemongerers!" Pamela Hall proclaimed from the podium. "We just want our families and our future to be safe from the racist, bigoted ideology that murdered 3,000 people." In the crowd, signs ranged from "Everything I need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11" to crude drawings of Mohammed with the label "beast."
Toward the end of the rally, two dark-skinned men were overheard speaking Arabic. The crowd transformed into an angry mob, surrounded the men, and shouted, "go home" and "get out." The Bergen Record reported that the two scared men, Joseph Nasralla and Karam El Masry, had to be extricated by police. It turned out they weren't even Muslim. They were Egyptian Coptic Christians who'd trekked cross-country from California to join the cause against the "Ground Zero mosque." Nasralla later told John Hawkins of Right Wing News that the Record coverage was indeed accurate, adding that he'd been shoved and his camera knocked to the ground. "He said he was worried that things might have really gotten out of hand if the police hadn't escorted him and Karam El Masry away," Hawkins wrote.
"I actually caused that by accident," an evangelical pastor named David Wood told me with a chuckle. He meant the near race riot. Wood is a PhD student in philosophy at a respectable New York institution whose name he didn't want me to use. Passionate about proselytizing to Muslims, Wood's expertise is Christian apologetics, the practice of arguing unbelievers into faith. He is best known as the creator of a viral video "Of Mosques and Men," which argues all Muslims—even those who seem "peaceful," like "good citizens in public"—had an urge to "smile when there were terrorist attacks." But Wood allows himself a little laugh about violence when Muslims are on the receiving end.
As he tells the story of that day, "[The Copts] were complaining about not having anything to hand out. And I said, 'I've got some pamphlets on Islam, specifically on whether Islam is a religion of peace." The pamphlets contained passages of the Qur'an selected to suggest the answer is no. "People thought they were there to defend the mosque and promote Islam," Wood explained. "Lots of people were fired up about that." But it was a goofy case of mistaken identity, a funny little mix-up. "The guys who were doing it were actually Christians," Wood told me as if clearing up the whole matter. "They weren't Muslims." In other words: the mob's anger and actions were justified, but misdirected. Aim better next time?
Garibaldi of Loonwatch has written exposes about Wood in two articles here and here
Wood and Robert Spencer will have a "debate" this coming Sunday on the thesis of Spencer's new book Did Muhammad Exist? This "debate" will be moderated by Pamela Geller. That may be the only time that you will see the combination of Pamela Geller and moderation in the same sentence.
Wood made the "challenge to a debate" by video and Spencer accepted the "challenge".
Spencer is still falsely claiming that Muslims are afraid to debate him, and says in his acceptance: So David Wood will do their work for them. Read my article Danios vs Spencer: 18 months and Spencer still avoiding a debate for the Saga of Spencer's avoidance of a debate with Danios. See The Muslim Communities Useful Idiots for information on some of Spencer's past debates with Muslims, and why I believe that engaging with bigots is not productive.
These are not individuals who hold respectable, if controversial opinions. These are bigots, and engaging them in such a forum only provides them with some veneer of respectability.
Hosts like Hannity, or Bolling can claim that they have been "fair and balanced" because they included a Muslim. And, full time, paid mercenaries in a "holy war" against Islam like Spencer, will claim "victory" no matter what the outcome. If they have no "facts" that will stand up to scrutiny, they will stoop to ridiculous slurs, as they did with Christina Abraham. And, when all else fails, if any Muslim says anything reasonable, they will say that it is taqiyya.
This sort of devious, unethical, and downright childish behavior, is not surprising from individuals who consistently "get it wrong" when it comes to Islam and Muslims, and who see no ethical problem with simply removing articles from a site when they are proven to be inaccurate. Not too surprising for individuals who are co-founders (Spencer & Geller) of a group, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), which has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group is also described by the ADL in the following terms: "Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), created in 2009, promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy "American" values. The organization warns of the encroachment of shari'a, or Islamic law, and encourages Muslims to leave what it describes as the "falsity of Islam."
I believe that it is not "cowardly" to leave these folks alone, just sensible. It is not that their claims cannot be, and have not been answered, but rather that they have proven themselves time and time again to be untrustworthy and dishonorable in both their tactics and their responses to reasoned argument.
Spencer and Wood seem to have a mutual admiration society. Spencer posted a notice about the "debate" with a note to watch Wood's video, and Wood posted a notice with a note to read Spencer's book.
The notice points out that this "debate" will be right after Geller and Spencer's "Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference" (their most recent anti-Muslim hate fest) ends. It is worth noting that David Wood will be a speaker at Spencer and Geller's conference. I'm sure their promotional video will be more exciting than the actual "debate".
It seems pretty obvious that rather than a debate, this is a calculated publicity stunt to gain a little more notoriety for their conference, and to publicize Spencer's book. I'm sure that they will both have an opportunity to get in a few anti-Muslim zingers in the course of this "debate". Let the bigots talk among themselves.
UPDATE 4/30/2012
Just when you thought things couldn't get any more strange. Robert Spencer just posted a new notice about tonights "debate". The debate is now to be between Spencer and Wood (on the same side) versus Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri.
Both Choudary and Bakri are part of the Muslim lunatic fringe. Just type their names or the term lunatic fringe into our TAM search engine for more information on these disreputable folks.
I'm curious as to how Spencer is going to talk to Omar Bakri since the last I heard he had been denied re-entry to England, and arrested in Lebanon.
Dearborn: Muslims and Members of Other Faiths Successfully Counter Anti-Muslim Conference
Posted in Anti-Loons, Loon Blogs, Loon People with tags AAI, AtlasShrugs, Dearborn, Interfaith, Islam, Islamophobia, Jessica Mokdad, JihadWatch, Michigan, Muslims, Pamela Geller, Rejecting Islamophobia, Robert Spencer on April 30, 2012 by loonwatch
MSNBC describes it as "dueling in Dearborn." I think the real story is the rejection of Islamophobia, and the anti-Islam outsiders who arrived only to agitate:
Dueling in Dearborn over murder of a 20-year-old woman
By Kari Huus, msnbc.com
In Dearborn Mich., a Detroit suburb known for its concentration of Muslim Americans, anti-Islam leaders from around the country are gathering to discuss how to rescue women from that faith. The "Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference on Honor Killings" on Sunday is named for a local Muslim woman murdered one year ago.
But Muslims, civil rights groups and other religious leaders say the conference is merely another event put on by well-known bigots to attack the minority religion. Their response was to schedule a town hall meeting just a few miles away on Sunday called "Rejecting Islamophobia: A Community Stand Against Hate."
The honor killing conference, organized by Pamela Geller, who became nationally famous for her vocal opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque, aka Park 51 in Manhattan, is based on the premise that Mokdad, 20 years old when she died in April 2011, was the victim of an honor killing justified by Islam.
Mokdad's family maintains that the killing was a tragedy that has nothing to do with their Islamic beliefs, according to a report in the Detroit Free Press.
"It's not a case based on honor," Macomb County Assistant Prosecutor Bill Cataldo, chief of homicide, told the Free Press on Friday.
In court, prosecutors have said the motive for Mokdad's killing was that her stepfather, Rahim Alfetlawi had "been sexually abusing her," Cataldo said, according to the report. They argue that when she threatened to go public about the abuse he killed her.
Cataldo said the family strongly objects to the conference using Mokdad's killing, which they say was a tragedy that had nothing to do with their faith.
Geller insists this was an honor killing carried out by a devout Muslim because his stepdaughter was not following Islam, and that the family is covering it up. She alleges that law enforcers systematically cover up honor killings here and elsewhere under "stealth enforcement" of Islamic shariah law.
On her web site, Geller says: "Despite pressure from the media and members of Jessica's family who want to cover up the honor killing aspect of her murder, we are not going to change the name of the conference. Unlike those closest to her, we are going to honor Jessica's memory and stand up against the brutal practice that took her life."
The Dearborn conference will feature speeches by Geller and Robert Spencer — author of the blog "Jihad Watch" — as well as several like-minded legal and religious figures. They have also invited a young man who says he was Mokdad's friend to offer "firsthand testimony" that she was a victim of honor killing.
Stop the Islamization of America, which Geller and Spencer founded, has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit civil rights watchdog.
"Pamela Geller is the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead," according to a profile published by SPLC on its web site. "She's relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims."
The Arab American Institute, a decades-old community organization in the Detroit area, discouraged Muslims and their supporters from protesting at the site of Geller's conference. But they organized a competing event, said AAI president Jim Zogby, because Geller and Spencer have become too prominent to ignore.
"Geller and Spencer have thousands of followers, and are given airtime to spew their hate on major American news networks, as if they are respected analysts with just another viewpoint," Zogby said on the AAI announcement for the "Rejecting Islamophobia" town hall in Detroit.
Although many Americans have never encountered a Muslim in person, about 43 percent questioned in a recent Gallup Poll said they felt at least "a little" prejudice against Muslims.
"This group, we cannot ignore. This is the time for our community to take a stand, along with all those who value America's commitment to diversity and freedom of religion, against the politics of division and bigotry promoted by the Islamophobes."
A variety of community, interfaith and religious leaders and Michigan public on their agenda, for a "community conversation about how to respond to these continued attacks," said Zogby.
One participant who was just on his way to the town hall was Dawud Walid, who heads the Michigan office of the Council on American Islamic Relations, a civil rights advocacy group for Muslims.
"I think firstly we have to better expose who these anti-Muslim bigots are as well as their funders," said Walid. "We believe that the Islamophobia that permeates our country is being pushed by a well-organized, highly-funded network."
He says that while Dearborn and Detroit have become a focus for the activities of Geller and others of like mind, the problem is bigger.
"Islamophobia is a national illness," he said.
Egypt 'necrophilia law'? Hooey, utter hooey.
Posted in Loon Media, Loon Politics with tags Anti-Muslim, Egypt, Fatwa, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamophobia, JihadWatch, Necrophilia, Parliament, Robert Spencer on April 27, 2012 by loonwatch
The new myth is that Islam somehow promotes…*drum roll*…necrophilia!
While you can likely find a fatwa for everything, when the recent story claiming that the "Egyptian parliament was considering passing a law that would allow husbands to have sex with their wives after death" went viral, the BS meter shot up pretty high for us.
But not for many mainstream media outlets who ran with the story without fact checking, thereby reinforcing Islamophobic myths and anti-Islam talking points.
Despite the ardent desire on behalf of Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer (he saw it as evidence of Sharia' takeover) for the story to be true it was revealed pretty quickly that it was a hoax.
Spencer still has not updated the story to point out that it was a hoax. Now a lot of the haters have egg on their faces, this is not the first or the last time that such lies will be promoted in the media.(h/t:ZH)
(Christian Science Monitor)
Today, Egypt's state-owned Al Ahram newspaper published an opinion piece by Amr Abdul Samea, a past stalwart supporter of the deposed Hosni Mubarak, that contained a bombshell: Egypt's parliament is considering passing a law that would allow husbands to have sex with their wives after death.
It was soon mentioned in an English language version of Al-Arabiya and immediately started zipping around social-networking sites. By this afternoon it had set news sites and the rest of the Internet on fire. It has every thing: The yuck factor, "those creepy Muslims" factor, the lulz factor for those with a sick sense of humor. The non-fact-checked Daily Mail picked it up and reported it as fact. Then Andrew Sullivan, who has a highly influential blog but is frequently lax about fact-checking, gave it a boost with an uncritical take. TheHuffington Post went there, too.
There's of course one problem: The chances of any such piece of legislation being considered by the Egyptian parliament for a vote is zero. And the chance of it ever passing is less than that. In fact, color me highly skeptical that anyone is even trying to advance a piece of legislation like this through Egypt's parliament. I'm willing to be proven wrong. It's possible that there's one or two lawmakers completely out of step with the rest of parliament. Maybe.
SEE ALSO – IN PICTURES: Behind the veil
But extreme, not to mention inflammatory claims, need at minimum some evidence (and I've read my share of utter nonsense in Al Ahram over the years). The evidence right now? Zero.
There was a Moroccan cleric a few years back who apparently did issue a religious ruling saying that husbands remained married to their wives in the first six hours after death and, so, well, you know. But that guy is far, far out on the nutty fringe. How fringe? He also ruled that pregnant women can drink alcohol. Remember, alcohol is considered haram, forbidden, by the vast majority of the world's Muslim scholars. Putting an unborn child at risk to get drunk? No, that's just not what they do. Whatever the mainstream's unpalatable beliefs (there are plenty from my perspective) this isn't one of them.
It's important to remember that the structure of the Muslim clergy is, by and large, like that of a number of Protestant Christian sects. Anyone can put out a shingle and declare themselves a preacher. The ones to pay attention to are the ones with large followings, or attachment to major institutions of Islamic learning. The preacher in Morocco is like the preacher in Florida who spent so much time and energy publicizing the burning of Qurans.
Stories like this are a reminder of the downside of the Internet. It makes fact-checking and monitoring easier. But the proliferation of aggregation sites, newsy blog sites, and the general erosion of editorial standards (and on-the-ground reporters to do the heavy lifting) also spreads silliness faster than it ever could before.
Rejecting Islamophobia: Town hall counters 'Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference' in Dearborn
Posted in Anti-Loons, Loon People with tags AtlasShrugs, Dearborn, Islam, Islamophobia, Jessica Mokdad, JihadWatch, Michigan, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, The Arab American Institute on April 27, 2012 by loonwatch
Jessica Mokdad "loved Islam" according to her parents.
Striking back and rejecting Islamophobia:
Dearborn, home to one of the nation's largest concentrations of Arab Americans, once again will become a focal point for debate over the practice and persecution of Islam in the west.
Pamela Geller, conservative activist and co-founder of Stop Islamization of America, is scheduled to host the "Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference" from the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Dearborn on Sunday at 5 p.m.
The event is named after a 20-year-old woman fatally shot by her stepfather last year in Warren. Initial reports suggested Rahim Alfetlawi shot Mokdad because he believed she had strayed from Islam, but prosecutors have since said that religion did not play a role.
Despite opposition from family members who say Mokdad's murder has nothing to do with Islam, Geller has refused to rename the conference, suggesting an attempt to cover up what she continues to call an "honor killing."
"Unlike those closest to her, we are going to honor Jessica's memory and stand up against the brutal practice that took her life," Geller said in a statement announcing the conference.
Local leaders say the conference is misleading and argue that Dearborn has become a convenient target for anti-Muslim groups, pointing to recent protests led by activist Pastor Terry Jones.
To counter Geller's conference, The Arab American Institute and partners have scheduled a competing town hall on Sunday titled "Rejecting Islamophobia: A Community Stand Against Hate." It is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. at the Doubletree Hotel in Dearborn.
"This is clearly not the first time our community in Michigan has had to deal with a hate group," AAI President Jim Zogby said in a statement. "Despite repeated efforts to target Arab Americans and American Muslims, the community has remained resilient and poised, sometimes choosing to ignore the fervor.
"This group we cannot ignore and this is the time to stand up and make our voices loud and clear in opposition to the politics of division and bigotry."
LGF: Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer's Friend Freely Admits to Beating and Stabbing Muslims
Posted in Loon Violence, Loon-at-large with tags Anti-Muslim, Islam, Islamophobia, JihadWatch, LGF, Pamela Geller, Pamela Geller Watch, Robert Spencer, Robert Spencer Watch, Rodan, Violence on April 9, 2012 by loonwatch
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer's thugish friend exposed as violent anti-Muslim hate-mongering psychopath, freely admits to targeting, beating, cutting and stabbing Muslims.
Rodan Exposed: The Shocking Audio
by Gus (Little Green Footballs)
CONTENT WARNING: Listener discretion is advised. The following video (audio) contains explicit language, hate speech, racial slurs, and violent rhetoric including descriptions of past incidents of violent crimes as described by the subject.
ADDITIONAL WARNING: Rodan also drops the N-Word towards the end of the audio.
The following is an audio recording of Rodan (real name: Rick Martinez) as described in the captioned text below the audio. The subject is Rodan (aka Trajan 75, Emporer Palpatine, et al). Rodan began as webmaster for Think Progress Watch and is currently the webmaster and primary functionary at The Blogmocracy and The Diary of Daedalus.
The Diary of Daedalus is a site dedicated to the tracking and harassment of Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and members of Little Green Footballs. It has been previously cited in blogs or on Twitter by Andrew Breitbart; Dan Riehl of Riehlworldview; Donald Douglas of American Power; R.S. McCain of The Other McCain; Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch; and others.
Please note that I am not the creator of said video nor am I affiliated with the uploader of said video on Youtube. This is not an endorsement of his or her beliefs whatever they may be. Also note that this is all public information and this video/audio has been present on Youtube since 2009. The purpose of this information herein is to reveal the true nature and background of the creator and webmaster for The Blogmocracy and The Diary of Daedalus most commonly known as Rodan.
The Diary of Daedalus most commonly known as Rodan. (Click here to view the video)
This description is from the original post at YouTube; Rodan and his followers reported the video for "hate speech" and got it pulled from YouTube. (Yes, they reported their own founder for hate speech.) It's now hosted at LGF so they can't make it disappear.
Rodan a.k.a. Emporer Palpatine shares his thoughts on Muslims, and gives anecdotes in regards to the Muslims he "sliced and diced" in the early 90's.
The recording you are about to hear was recorded on the morning of June 6th, 2009 at approximately 3:40 AM.
It was recorded in "Wine Drinkers kick ass"; the room of Emporer Palpatinea.k.a. Rodan.
The following rant given by Rodan is recorded as it was, with the exception of a pause to insert Marlen2008's text.
This, although heard by a select few, is being released after 6 months. We feel that it is time for this recording to be made public.
The subject matter may be shocking. Listener discretion is advised.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Noel presents a unique living option in Cochin for their discerning clientele. Noel Greenature has awarded the Green Homes Gold Certificate by Indian Green Building Council, Kerala's first and India's fourth Green Residential Complex. Unique functional styling combined with lush green aesthetics can truly transform any apartment living equally enjoyable like that in a villa. Spread on a lush green environ, the complex houses over 100 villa apartments each one complete with its private garden, walkway and sky view, located near Infopark, Kakkanad. With Noel Greenature, it's truly owning your piece of sky without losing on your little piece of earth.


text:
Interrogatories in Maryland District Courts
What is an interrogatory?
An "interrogatory" is a written question from one party to the lawsuit to another party to the lawsuit (usually, the opposing party). For example, a plaintiff may send interrogatories to the defendant, and the defendant may send interrogatories to the plaintiff. Written interrogatories are one form of "discovery" in a lawsuit. Discovery is one way in which a party to a lawsuit discovers information from the opposing party that may be useful in the lawsuit – either in winning the lawsuit or defending against the lawsuit.
Read the Rule: Maryland Rule 3-421
Is there a time limit for sending interrogatories to the other party to the lawsuit?
Yes. The plaintiff may serve interrogatories on the defendant no later than 10 days after the date on which the clerk of the court mails notice to the plaintiff that the defendant has filed a notice of intention to defend. The defendant may serve interrogatories on the plaintiff no later than 10 days after the time for filing a notice of intention to defend.
Is there a limit on the number of interrogatories that may be sent to another party to the lawsuit?
Yes, a party may send no more than 15 interrogatories to another party in the lawsuit. If there is more than one defendant, the plaintiff may send 15 interrogatories to each defendant. Similarly, if there is more than one plaintiff, the defendant may send 15 interrogatories to each plaintiff.
Are there sample interrogatories that I may use?
Yes, there are "Form Interrogatories" in the Appendix to the Maryland Rules, Volume 2. These Form Interrogatories are split into multiple subjects including general topics, domestic relations, motor vehicle torts, personal injury, product liability, and medical malpractice.
Form Interrogatories were developed for use in the Circuit Court, but may also be helpful in a case filed in the District Court. Remember, however, in the District Court, there is a maximum limit of 15 interrogatories. Also, remember, that the Form Interrogatories are samples only and may have to be revised to the specific case. A party does not have to use the Form Interrogatories and may draft his or her own interrogatories to use.
How do I serve the other party to the lawsuit the interrogatories?
A party may serve the other party with interrogatories by mailing them to the other party or by hand-delivery.
Is there a time limit for answering interrogatories?
Yes, a written response to the interrogatories must be served on the party sending the interrogatories within 15 days after service of the interrogatories. The written response may be served on the other party by mailing it to the other party or by hand-delivery.
Are interrogatories filed with the District Court?
No, but the party generating the interrogatories must file Notice with the court stating that interrogatories were served, the date and manner of service on the other party, and the name of the party served. Similarly, the party responding to the interrogatories must file Notice with the court stating that a response to the interrogatories was served, the date and manner of service on the other party, and the name of the party served.
How does a party answer interrogatories?
The response or answers to interrogatories must be in writing. The response must first state the interrogatory and then state the answer to the interrogatory or the grounds for refusing to answer the interrogatory. Each interrogatory must be answered separately. Generally, the answer to an interrogatory must include all information available to the party directly or through his or her agents, representatives, or attorneys. See below, "Does a party who is served with interrogatories have to respond to the interrogatories?" The response must be signed by the party making it and under oath. The Maryland Rules explain the forms of acceptable written oath.
Also, a party has the option to produce business records in answering an interrogatory. If an answer to an interrogatory may be found in a business record belonging to the party (or under the control of the party) who is being asked to answer the interrogatory, the party may answer the interrogatory by identifying the business record and allowing the party asking the interrogatory to inspect and make a copy of the record.
If a party who has answered interrogatories later obtains additional information that is responsive to the interrogatories, the party is required to supplement his or her response to the interrogatories.
Does a party who is served with interrogatories have to respond to the interrogatories?
Generally yes, but maybe no. A party served with interrogatories may file with the court a motion for a protective order, asking the court to protect the party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party filing the motion for protective order must serve the party who generated the interrogatories with a copy of the motion. The court may grant or deny the motion for protective order and will issue a written order to the parties. If the party does not obtain a protective order from the court and does not respond to interrogatories, the party generating the interrogatories may ask the court to impose sanctions on the party failing to respond to the interrogatories.
If a party does not respond to interrogatories, is there any way to make the party respond?
The party who generated interrogatories may file, with the court, a motion to compel answers to interrogatories if the party to whom the interrogatories were sent fails or refuses to respond to the interrogatories.
How may answers to interrogatories be used?
The answers to interrogatories may be used as evidence at trial or in a hearing by any party, if permitted by the court.
PLL Contributors
Last Updated: Thu, 01/07/2021 - 5:04 pm
Is this legal advice?
This site offers legal information, not legal advice. We make every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information and to clearly explain your options. However we do not provide legal advice - the application of the law to your individual circumstances. For legal advice, you should consult an attorney. The Maryland Thurgood Marshall State Law Library, a court-related agency of the Maryland Judiciary, sponsors this site. In the absence of file-specific attribution or copyright, the Maryland Thurgood Marshall State Law Library may hold the copyright to parts of this website. You are free to copy the information for your own use or for other non-commercial purposes with the following language "Source: Maryland's People's Law Library – www.peoples-law.org. © Maryland Thurgood Marshall State Law Library, 2021."
ASK A MARYLAND
LAW LIBRARIAN
Submit a legal information question to the Thurgood Marshall State Law Library
Maryland Courts
Self-Help Center
Call or chat with a lawyer about your civil legal matter, at no cost
8:30 am - 8:00 pm, Mon - Fri
Maryland Circuit Court Discovery


I Can't Breathe is an elegy in memoriam of Eric Garner. Eric Garner was one of many victims of wrongful racially fueled police brutality in this country. His death, along with many others sparked the Black Lives Matter movement and this piece is meant to serve a two fold purpose. Firstly, to give recognition to the deplorable act that took Eric's life, and secondly, to provoke thought and action in others to bring justice to those who need it. There is much to be said about this incident, and others like it, but I am a composer so I wrote some music about it instead.


This lovely little white baby blanket is made by Feltman Brothers, a top designer of quality baby garments. Made of a double thickness of cotton blend batiste, it features beautiful lace insertion, delicate white embroidered flowers, and a lace trimmed scalloped edge. It's the ideal take home blanket for bringing your new baby home from the hospital year around. Perfect too as a lovely christening blanket or any dress-up blanket. Makes a thoughtful newborn or baby shower gift!
Note: This sweet blanket is also available in pink with lace edge and in white or blue with scalloped embroidered edge. See below.