Many in the crowd outside the event said they were concerned about past anti-American statements by the event's two keynote speakers, Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Amir Abdel Malik Ali. Wahhaj is an imam at a mosque in Brooklyn. A U.S. attorney named him and 169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj was never charged and has denied involvement.posted by andoatnp at 9:15 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Malik Ali is a Bay Area Islamic activist who spoke at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at UC Irvine in 2010. There he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group.
Egypt is a better country.Let's not get carried away here. Egypt still has a lot of problems, no country is perfect.
Seriously.
although he did seem to need some help from his good buddy the coke monster every 10 minutes or so.He should try some Charlie Sheen. I hear it gives you the blood of the tiger.
I seem to recall Muslims and Christians standing in solidarity during the revoltYeah, but that was just a couple months after someone bombed a church. It isn't like every single American hates Muslims.
While I was still in Texas, late in 1960, the incident most reported and pictured in the newspapers was the matriculation of a couple of tiny Negro children in a New Orleans school. Behind these small dark mites were the law's majesty and the law's power to enforce -- both the scales and the sword were allied with the infants -- while against them were three hundred years of fear and anger and terror of change in a changing world. . . .Which reminds me of at least one conservative's admission. There's got to be more conservatives in Orange County and elsewhere who recognize dehumanization and demonization for what it is, and would speak up against it to their political colleagues if only they / y'all could connect with each other and feel like they / you aren't the only ones. (Yeah, miraculously, I've still got idealism in me, waiting to have the shit kicked out of it.)
No newspaper had printed the words these women shouted. It was indicated that they were indelicate, some even said obscene. . . . But now I heard the words, bestial and filthy and degenerate. In a long and unprotected life I have seen and heard the vomitings of demoniac humans before. Why then did these screams fill me with a shocked and sickened sorrow?
. . . Here was no spontaneous cry of anger, of insane rage. . . . [They] hungered for attention. . . . Theirs was the demented cruelty of egocentric children, and somehow this made their insensate beastliness much more heartbreaking.
. . . I knew something was wrong and distorted and out of drawing. I knew New Orleans, I have over the years had many friends there, thoughtful, gentle people, with a tradition of kindness and courtesy. . . . Where were the others . . . the ones whose arms would ache to gather up a small, scared, black mite?
I don't know where they were. Perhaps they felt as helpless as I did, but they left New Orleans misrepresented to the world. The crowd, no doubt, rushed home to see themselves on television, and what they saw went out all over the world, unchallenged by the other things I know are there.
For these reasons further steps are needed, aimed not just at stopping and reversing the growth of jihad support in America, but at stopping and reversing the growth of sharia in America. And to reverse the growth of sharia in America means to reverse the growth of Islam in America, through the forcible or voluntary departure of sharia-believing Muslims.Note that this was not some fringe rambling on some dude's blog. It's from a speech delivered to a conference attended by, among others, university professors, national magazine editors, journalists, and (at the time) a sitting UK politician. Not exactly pillars of the conservative movement, but they lend this shit a sheen of scholarly legitimacy and introduce it into the political discourse.
Therefore I shall propose these additional measures:
- Any legal resident alien who advocates or adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the sharia law shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;
- No resident alien who advocates or adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the sharia law, will be naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, Muslims will be required to state under oath that they totally reject the Islamic doctrine of sharia and have no association with pro-sharia activities.
- Any naturalized citizen who violates this oath shall lose his citizenship and be removed from the United States.
- Any mosque or Islamic center in the United States that promotes or seeks to spread the sharia law shall be closed.
This second part of the bill, which deals with sharia, is more far reaching than the first part, which deals with jihad. Removing jihad believers from the United States means removing only the extreme wing of the Muslim community. But since belief in the sharia law, and the obligation to institute and live under the sharia law wherever one lives, and to impose the sharia law on non-Muslims, is the very essence of Islam, removing sharia believers from the United States means removing a large part of the Muslim community from the United States.
But now we need to consider a further problem. The measures enumerated so far will inevitably be attacked as in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, in order for the measures that I've proposed to stand and not be overturned, we must have a further law stating that the First Amendment does not apply to Islam, does not protect the free exercise of the religion of Islam, because Islam is not only a religion, it is a political movement aimed at establishing tyrannical power over non-Muslims, and specifically aimed at overturning our Constitution, laws, and liberties.
However, even such a radical law would not get us out of the woods, because it also could be overturned as in violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, in order for the measures I have proposed to be truly secure and not threatened by constitutional challenge, we must go to the highest level of our political system. We must pass a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the practice of Islam in the United States. Through such an amendment we will be saying that Islam is incompatible with our existence as a society. We will be making a fundamental statement about the kind of society America is.
That might be the single most ugly and offensive thing I have ever read in a Metafilter comment, and I can't believe both the comment and gnossie are not gone by now. Guilt by association much?Eh, I've seen worse. Some of which were deleted.
artof.mulata, if you would stop directing inarticulate, venom-y comments towards me, i'd really appreciate it.What are you talking about? This comment was much less civil then the one you replied too.
At a speaker series titled "Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust," it was no surprise to hear denunciations of Israel. But students who attended the weeklong event this spring at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) were treated to more disturbing rhetoric when two of the speakers trotted out anti-Semitic canards blaming Israeli Jews for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The speakers, Imam Mohammad al-Asi and Amir Abdel Malik Ali, also asserted that Zionist Jews control the media, financial institutions and the U.S. government. ...So this guy has, on more than one occasion, espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. I have no idea if he's still talking like this, or if he's renounced his views and expressed remorse, or if he's done massive good in other areas that may lead some people to shrug off this crap. Can anyone else here fill us in with some info from reliable sources? Fox News, World Net Daily, or anything from Pamela Geller and her peers are not reliable sources in my book.
Ali expresses similar views. As a small group gathered around him after his noon speech at UCI, he said that Carl Cameron of Fox News tried to expose the "truth" about Sept. 11 in a news report. "He named those people who were there celebrating that the buildings were coming down, and how they were Zionist Jews, and how they were arrested and how they were let go. So the story was taken off," Ali said. "The Zionist Jews were behind it. Mossad [the national Israeli intelligence agency] was behind it."
During a speech at UCI last year, Ali told the same the story about Mossad agents rejoicing as the World Trade Center collapsed. He also said Zionist Jews perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 as well as 2001. "They do things to make people think it's Muslims, when it's actually them behind the scenes," he said. ...
Likewise, Ali has said many times during campus visits that Jews control the media. He has falsely identified as Jewish both media mogul Rupert Murdoch and Flemming Rose, the Danish newspaper editor who published controversial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad. In a May 2006 speech at UCI, Ali said: "Rupert Murdoch: Zionist Jew. Zionist Jew owns Fox News. They say that it's anti-Semitic if you say that the Zionists control the media. You better get out of here. Old Rupert is a straight-up Zionist Jew. He is. Put that on Fox News. Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist Jew."
Even when a questioner told him after his most recent UCI speech that he'd gotten his facts wrong about Murdoch and Rose, Ali was undeterred: "They're definitely Jewish. They're Zionist Jews. What's the other question? The media. Yes, Zionists do control the media."
"I just wanted to make sure you're not backtracking," said the questioner.
"No," Ali replied, "I'm not backtracking at all."
Good thing, then, that rabbis never say or do anything which could be construed as scapegoating or stereotyping Arabs, supporting illegal settlements, defending illegal preemptive wars, justifying illegal blockades as tens of thousands suffer from malnutrition, etc.What on earth does that have to do with anything? Are you implying that it's ok for this particular person to be an anti-semite because, what?, some Jews are actually evil? WTF.
You know, if you replace the Muslims with Jews and the Americans with Germans, you get a nice representations of late 1930s Germany.No you fucking well do not. Here, let me google the Nuremberg Laws for you, so you can stop saying stupid shit on the internet.
Americans have a shitty sense of history, and it gives me a migraine whenever pronouncements are made that imply that such things are impossible today.I'm actually a PhD candidate in US history, so I think I've got a pretty good handle on history, thanks.
I think the point is that things are trending badly, and Dee and others are making the point - don't underestimate where things can go.I don't think we'd be having this discussion if anyone had said "things are trending badly and could get much worse." But the original post to which I responded didn't say that.
This might seem callous, but I cannot accept that a person can own a tragedy. Every human tragedy belongs to mankind because the causes are deep and impersonal.I'm not claiming to "own" anything. I don't like casual Holocaust analogies, because they exploit the suffering of people I love, as well as that of people who I might have loved if they'd survived. You can, of course, continue to say anything about it that you want. I'm not actually part of some Jewish cabal that will smite you for saying things that are hurtful to me. All I can do is tell you I don't like it, same as anyone else could do. All I can do is tell you that I think it's cheap and lazy and inaccurate and exploitative. You're free to ignore me, as I'm sure you will.
You can't point out a single passage wherein I "diminish other people's suffering," of course.You posted in support of this statement:
You know, if you replace the Muslims with Jews and the Americans with Germans, you get a nice representations of late 1930s Germany.He did not say "there are historical parallels between the rise of Nazi Germany and what's going on America." He did not say "things are trending badly." He did not even compare the contemporary US to Nazi Germany before 1935, when German Jews were officially declared "state subjects" rather than citizens. He compared the situation of Muslims in America now with the situation of people who were formally, legally stripped of basic rights. That hasn't happened to Muslims in the US. The fact that you can imagine it happening does not make the US analogous to Germany in the late '30s.
He compared the situation of Muslims in America now with the situation of people who were formally, legally stripped of basic rights.No I didn't lol.
No I didn't lol.Yeah you did lol.
« Older What you gonna do with atheists, all those pagan a... | We've had 2 economic super-cyc... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nola at 8:31 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]