“You are trying to undo accumulation of misperception and mispractice -- misperception by non-Muslims and mispractice by some Muslims.” But more importantly we need to undo the misdirection by people like Rehab. War is deceit after all!

"...and the school has a clear uniform policy..." The above comment is irrelevant as uniform policies in Primary schools in England are unenforceable under the law, so this would have to come under their health and safety policy. Might be easier to just get some Christian band socks! Or stitch the band into the socks or footwear.

When they say 'briefly beaten' maybe they should have put beaten lightly with a toothbrush or twig.

Strange how these execrable muslim brotherhood front groups were demanding that the government stop asking Robert Spencer to train security personnel prior to this abhorrent incident in Norway; it's almost as though CAIR have some kind of agenda... oh hang on!

You'd think by that criteria he'd have to stick the united states on that 'terrorism watch list' too! He obviously thinks it's easier just to give the muslim brotherhood jobs in his administration and make sure that the likes of CAIR don't get prosecuted!

The bit that reads IN HER OWN WORDS basically just lists facts! They're putting the anti-Islam message out themselves without realising it. co-founder of the anti-Muslim hate group Probably should have been written anti Muslim-hate group though of course anti-Islam would be better. They certainly use a lot of weasel words in this hit piece. So many people now are clued in on the use of 'weasel words' that they're really not doing themselves any favors. It's amazing how many times they can use the word hate without anything to back it up, yet the real haters (lefties like the SPLC themselves, Loonwatch, CAIR et al get not a single mention!) See http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/02/-southern-poverty-law-fraud-center.html amongst other posts.

Now Americans are cheering at the Whitehouse, no doubt CAIR and other muslim brotherhood front groups will be telling the press that they're increasing security at Mosques in case there's a backlash.

We don't need racial profiling - it won't really help as Islam isn't a race and anyone of whatever background can be or become a muslim. Admittedly at the moment there is more of a threat from certain quarters (young Pakistani or Somali men for example), so maybe profiling based on 'traditional nationality' and 'ideological characteristics' rather than race (all part of ideological profiling; they should call it ideological profiling rather than racial or religious profiling to keep the PC lot happy - not that they're ever happy about anything of course), but even that is somewhat limited.

"A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble" by Imam Rauf Emphasis on Rubble. This looks like a pile of rubble made up of Pentagons, Crosses and Stars of David, all heaped up in a building that was struck by the landing gear from an aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks. Yet more Islamic Supremacism! It certainly is a reminder of the twisted remains at ground zero - something Islam can be very proud of...

You all may recall that we have quite a few of them over in the Middle East fighting for you. Those are the lives that were put in peril by the idiot in Florida. Nope. Their lives are put in peril by their ludicrous rules of engagement. No sane person can blame some 'idiot in Florida' for the idiotic and dangerous actions of people on the other side of the world; people who need to be educated in those same freedoms, not instead having their preposterous and outrageous world view vindicated by our politicians by them accepting and appeasing a 7th century ideology that in its turn would quite happily, and indeed, is trying, to take your freedom from you.

For someone in the position of being a supreme court judge - that analogy is total nonsense! Man on stage in crowded theatre says he will burn the koran, and has been saying it for months, which is why everyone has turned up (mostly media) to watch him do it. Rioting and murder then ensue in another country by people who are offended - that's a far more accurate analogy. The “crowded theater” benchmark just doesn't do it. It would be like him saying 'To make a political statement as part of free speech I'm going to shout 'Fire' in a moment. You are all free to ignore me or attack me or kill each other.'

Ali Sina writes very coherently about this: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina50502.htm

Geller has already contributed to the phony claim that President Obama is a Muslim (which twenty per cent of the American public now believe is true), by promoting a theory that he is the bastard son of Malcolm X. Ha ha. I laughed so loudly when I read this for the umpteenth time - how many years has Ms. Geller referred back to the original post where she says she does NOT believe that Obama is a the bastard son of MalcomX? How many times over the years have these journalist wannabes claimed that she has said that - even though a cursory search of this site would disprove it utterly? If we can't trust you in the little things Lawrence Wright, then how the American people trust you in the things that really matter or even trust you at all come to that? The simple fact is, they can't. For your edification Mr. Wright... http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html

just like the malformed babies in Fallujah, a place like that has been experienced countless decades of muslim inbreeding, yet suddenly Western cameras are in there after US troops took it, their media being spun tales of chemical weapons and radioactive depleted uranium... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/fallujah-birth-defects-ra_n_571119.html

Yep, the infidel tenants pay the jizya and feel subdued - No wonder Rauf looks so smug in that photograph, he's just doing his bit for Islamic Supremacism.

Yep, given what they've stooped to in the past, they've almost certainly 'engineered' this themselves. I dunno, Islamic supremacists and their big porky pies.

"Cancerous"? That's how Islamic supremacists and jihadists always describe infidels - especially Israel. We definitely know who we're dealing with! This is their tried and tested strategy - it's almost always successful - throw enough mud and some of it sticks. We need to keep throwing their own mud back at them.

Whoever the Pelosi-like paymasters were behind the police investigation it monumentally backfired. The courts found there was no evidence of distortion or incitement and so the West-Midlands police turned to Ofcom who also rejected the claims saying "Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest... On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context." Channel 4 then in turn sued the police for libel in order to clear their reputations. On 15 May 2008 when the matter came to the High Court, West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service publicly apologised to the makers of the documentary for accusing them of distortion and agreed to a payment of £100,000. The statement, released to the media by West Midlands Police, after the High Court hearing, said they now accepted there had been no evidence that Channel 4 or the documentary makers had "misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity". It added that the Ofcom report showed the documentary had "accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context". The police statement concluded: "We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release." The same statement was later posted on the Crown Prosecution Service website. Kevin Sutcliffe, deputy head of current affairs at Channel 4, said the apology was a vindication of the programme team in exposing extreme views. "Channel 4 was fully aware of the sensitivities surrounding the subject matter but recognised the programme's findings were clearly a matter of important public interest. "The authorities should be doing all they can to encourage investigations like this, not attempting to publicly rubbish them for reasons they have never properly explained," he said. Channel 4 boss Julian Bellamy said they had had no choice but to pursue action when the police and CPS refused to withdraw their remarks. So they were aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter - muslim sensitivities of course. (Infidel sensitivities don't matter - just see the ground zero mosque controversy!) Obviously someone within the Islamic community could wield enough power to get the police to make all kinds of claims that couldn't stand up in court and press both the courts and OFCOM to see things their way. Stealth Jihad in the west can be very effective.

Islam isn't a monolith at all! But there are many worrying facets that are taught by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. You keep talking about this 'Moderate' Islam? What is that exactly? Turkey's Prime minister Erdogan said "there is no such thing as a moderate muslim."

Brain scrubbed? I haven't been sold a lie, because I don't just read something and believe it. Lines like that are double edged because they bite you back. I could just as easily accuse you of being brain scrubbed and that you have been sold a lie (Islam is the religion of peace). These days it's difficult enough to prove anything about anything because Hume's scepticism seems to have reared its ugly head again. Everything seems to just be speculation and theory and knowledge outside of mathematics is just for the picking and choosing of what's true and what's not (creationism anyone?). Evidence you say? Well I've studied Islam and Islamic supremacism for some years now and have become attuned, as have many others, to how certain factions behave and respond to different situations. I've found over the years that Islamic supremacists around the world react in all too predictable ways when confronted or even exposed (though in fairness I'm not the only one to have noticed). It's a game organisations like CAIR have been playing for years. The FBI, the Bush Administration, Justice Scalia, and the Obama Administration all gave this guy security clearance. Again, these guys are still motivated by political expediency and political correctness, and their own agendas (yes, government organisations and people in politics do have their own agendas depending on whose running them) - maybe the FBI has just started to catch on as they've begun to invite Robert Spencer to lecture on various training courses. However, the Christmas underwear bomber was on a no fly list - so these kinds of organisations are very, very far from infallible. It might be good enough for you, but its not good enough for me. There were issues appearant about the Ft. Hood guy, the army purposely ignored them to keep another psychologist "on the line" so to speak. The Fort Hood jihadist called himself a jihadist - lectured on Islam, gave out korans and shouted Allahu Ahkbar when gunning down 38 people. Witnesses to his behaviour in the past suggested that he may be trouble, but political correctness is as good as a gag as it's always been and people didn't want to forfeit their careers by being called bigots and Islamophobes - or worse - racists (what race is Islam again?) Anyhow, Imam Rauf has been caught lying numerous times (haven't I already said this?) You can do the research yourself there are certainly enough google links. He is manifestly inconsistent (that is, gives diametrically opposing views) in the views portrayed officially in America in English and in Islamic countries in Arabic. He keeps couching the ground zero mosque in terms of constitutional rights when we know he has every constitutional right to build there (source of funding not withstanding of course), but he says he's there to build bridges but doesn't give a cr@p about offending those who don't want it there (who must all obviously be racists, haters and bigots too - two thirds+ of Americans). (He's even said on record that American foreign policy is responsible for Islamic terrorism and 9/11, yep people do believe that cr@p but that's all it is, cr@p). So there is a real cognitive dissonance going on with him. For me, and sure it's not proof, but for me it all adds up as mounting evidence of his true agenda, an agenda we keep seeing from these organisations. Do google it though, given the issue you might even find some sites that aren't right-wing whacko nut job sites (for the record I don't believe I'm a right wing whacko nutjob. It's a shame people have to be parcelled off into these hugely unhelpful categories that really don't do justice to an individual at all). Islam is a supremacist religion. The evidence for that is there in the Islamic scriptures, is taught by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, can be seen in the behaviour of many if not the majority of active believers around the world, and in its own history. Mainstream Islam is intolerant. Period. You claim he's moderate. Again that has a relative meaning. He may not go around blowing people up, but the supremacists agenda is to spread islam and subdue and convert the unbelievers by whatever means necessary (he did say that all our children would be muslim). Did you read that muslim brotherhood memo about destroying the west's miserable house from 'within'! That really means not announcing your agenda and trying to do things quietly and sneakily. The freedoms that supremacists use to gain a foothold, to instil little bits of sharia here and there, are the freedoms, should they ever be successful, that will certainly be the first to go. Remember, let's not be so tolerant that we end up tolerating the intolerant.

The "other side?" So what "side" are you on? - again just asking out of curiosity. For your records I consider myself quite libertarian; left of centre on some issues and right of centre on other issues; but most importantly I believe in the truth. I believe in freedom of the individual and I'm against oppression and tyranny and big brother societies. I do believe in the rule of law, even if I do not agree with all laws. I think Christianity as a religion has had it's reformation and in today's increasingly secular and scientific society has generally had its day. The numbers are declining and who knows, in another century or two and it may just become another cult. 'Evil'? You're trying to put words in my mouth. Trying to define evil is philosophically very difficult. Back to the new testament again are we - that vitriolic text that compels people to kill unbelievers and subjugate them. Oh no...hang on, that's the other one isn't it. I've heard all these arguments before - they tired and been dealt with so many times on these blogs. I'd be interested to know which verses in the new testament though out of curiosity - usually it's that one about 'I've come to bring a sword' bit - that's been understood for millennia as meaning that what Jesus was saying was controversial and divisive? Anyhow, almost 16000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 and none of them Christian or Hindu or Buddhist, but yes, lets concentrate on one of those and ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room. You say the Imam is moderate, the evidence points to him being a supremacist - I'll go with the evidence at the moment. However, things do change. If 70% of the muslim world is offended over caricatures of mohammed then no one prints them in the msm. If 70% of America is offended by a unknown source of funding mosque in a building hit by the 9/11 attacks then apparently that's tough sh!t as moving it would get in the way of their bridge building and dialogue. Oh yeah, this guy isn't who he says he is. He's been pulling the rug over people's eyes for a decade or so, he's a one-man sleeper cell that will pop out and destroy us at any moment. See how silly that thinking sounds? You saying it sounds silly doesn't actually make it silly (except maybe the bit about him popping out and destroying us - we're not that far down the road yet). This is the kind of thing we see all the time. Literally. Though in some cases they don't even try and pull the wool over our eyes - take the Ford Hood Jihadist - there for all to see, but everyone refused to acknowledge him. Anyway, yep, I'd say he's been pulling the wool over our eyes and still is - he's certainly been caught lying enough times. And why does that make him a one man sleeper cell? If he's an Islamic supremacist - and I think he is - then he's almost certainly linked to the muslim brotherhood. There are many muslim brotherhood fronts in America (The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) amongst others) the brotherhood is dedicated, in its own words, to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." Isn't it weird how we conflate terms: Uber-conservative or radical. In Islam they're pretty much the same thing. Anyway, he claims he's sufi, but some tapes that came to light recently has him actually defending Wahabbism - I've not heard 'em so I'll reserve judgement for now. Yes, a truly moderate form of Islam would be good. But where is it? All Islamic schools of jurisprudence teach the subjugation or death of unbelievers. Those that attempt to reform (who we could argue are the real radicals of Islam) are made apostate and threatened - some killed. But they are the minority. 56 Islamic countries and they all claim to follow mainstream Islam, sharia is implemented - maybe not as fully as some would like - but there can be no arguing that sharia is not good for the individual though it does favour men over women. The problem is of course, is that it is mainstream Islam that rules in these countries not some reformed or moderate version of it. It is the same wherever Islam goes.

Except of course it's not the kind of thing anyone's participating in - the koran is full of hate speech maybe you could go to some Islamic websites and try and persuade them not to engage in 'hate speech'. Hate speech has and always will be used by governments to control dissenters in the population. We've had defamation, libel/slander laws for ages and that should have to do. However, if you research something and find it wanting, then commenting negatively on that subject cannot be hate if it is the truth. If we have true freedom of speech then people will get offended - it's that simple. We're all grown ups aren't we. Are we really so pathetic and fragile that if someone has a go at something we believe in we have to go running to the government to pass laws to stop them?

No you are the one who has to be pitied. I also used to think like you did; seriously. But through research and investigation I came to realise the truth about Islam - morally equivocating about Christianity being more dangerous just puts you in the same fantasy-filled world as Rosie O'Donnell, but political correctness rules, of course it does, I'm sure it seemed like a very good idea at the time. You think that Islam is fine by studying the words of George W Bush or relying on the good sense of the FBI? The FBI used to deal with CAIR even though the blogs have been on to them for years, yet it is only recently that the FBI have cut ties with them. There are more qualified people out there you know. Evidence comes in many forms - the magic of reading is always a good avenue. Yes you have to be discerning but the more you read and the more you investigate and verify the more you know. If that's not true then we can't really know anything can we? I maintain I don't hate muslims. But I do hate (in fact, hate is probably too strong a word), I do find myself very concerned about ideologies that threaten our hard won freedoms. But as I've said - I've already taken the step, it is you, MY FRIEND, that has failed to do so. You make too many assumptions about these blogs and the poeple on them. You assume they are pathological haters - you seem to assume they're Christian? Why do you think I'm a Christian? I've certainly never posted anything that could give anyone that idea. Or is it that all non-muslim westerners are Christians? What is actually funny is that generally the people on these sites KNOW the truth about Islam. For you to come here and say 'There are plenty of actual hate-filled dangers to the US that you could be spending your energy against' is just a little bit hypocritical (and patronising) on your part. Maybe there are plenty of other things you could be doing rather than coming here and suggesting to people that they do something other than come here? If you don't like it here why not go somewhere you do like? If you can answer that question then you've really answered your own question about why we're here.

You try to sound reasonable but it comes across as anything but. Perhaps in World War 2 everyone could have just said, "Your fear of Nazism will do nothing to stop its spread or encourage it. You are just spinning your wheels"? Islam IS a real danger and not just to the US. 1400 years of bloody invasions and subjugation and now it is behind the gates of the west. It IS a real hate-filled danger, and to think anything else and amounts to the usual sticking your hands over your ears, closing your eyes and singing "nah,nah,nah" (or indeed, just trying to distract everyone else away from the truth). You claim the Imam is moderate, but the evidence is that he's anything but. Moderate anyway is just a relative term. He espouses publicly that this is all about interfaith dialogue whilst in Egypt and in a Arabic he claims there is no such thing as interfaith dialogue. He says the funding is coming exclusively from American muslims, yet says in Arabic that he will be getting the money from Islamic nations (Hmm, a ground zero mosque possibly paid for by the same Saudis who paid for 9/11). It isn't enough that you try and speak in someone else's paradigm you need to start thinking in that paradigm as you seem unable and, indeed, unwilling to think outside your own. You say you feel pity but that pity would be better served applied to all those muslims who aren't in the west and who have to bear the oppressive yoke of Islam. In the end though maybe you should pity yourself and your own blinkered views. Try reading the articles on this site and on Jihadwatch amongst others and try freeing yourself from whichever form of ignorance you subscribe to? Go on have a go.

Hear hear! Well said.