FACE

السيسى كسر الهلال و رفع الصليب ملعونه الشيطانه عدوة الله نويره بن غربيط الى جهنم مظاهرات الجزائر يجب ان يكون لها قياده و عشرة مطالب معلنه و محدده مفيش انسان يعيش بجبروت للابد٠ كل واحد مصيره جى وفى الآخره النعيم ام الجحيم٠ عظه للطغاه حيوانات المغرب
داعيه اسلامى باكستانى الى افريقيا دعوه باكستان اسماء البنات فى تركيا لا فاطمه و لا خديجه ملعون المدعو اتا تورك ربنا يجيب اجل السيسى قتل شباب مسلم كثير و المساجد تهدم ٠السيسى سيرسل الجيش المصرى الى اوروبا و امريكا لهدم كل المساجد والجوامع هناك يسوع النصارى ساكن فى كوكب المريخ لا٠ فقط اسلاميه٠ الشريعه المتطوره مع العصر يا خواجه المشكله انهم يسبون ديننا محرف من ايام بولس او شاول يجب ان يكون هنالك فن اسلامى وليس زخرفه و تخطيط فقط لا دستور للجميع
 الكنائس فى مصر دار الكفرموريتانيا

 تهديم المساجد فى الاسكندريه هم يقولون ل اننا لا نؤمن بصلبه

بوسطون كوربوت الرجل اللذى قتل قاتل الرئيس ابراهام لينكولن خصى نفسه اتباعا لتعاليم الانجيل و بولس للذهاب لملكوت السماء

السيسى هو الذى دبر لقتل المسلمين فى نيوزلاند فى مسجدين مثل ما فعل فى مسجد الروضه شمال سيناء السفاح تركيا الواد ال إلاه نايم ربنا يجيب اجل السيسى اللوم على الشعب المصرى عملوه شبه ال لاه ٠ 
السيسى سفاح مصر٠ يتهم قضاء مصر على الإعدامات٠ المسلمون يتفاخرون ان الانسان ده او ده دخل الإسلام لكن هنالك اجيال كامله من المسلمين الذين هاجرو الى بلاد مثل امريكا و غيرها اولادهم الذين ولودو فى 
بلاد الهجره ليسو مسلمين الأن وطبعا كذلك احفادهم

ليس فى القرآن اى كلمة مسيحى فلماذا المسلمين يستخدمون كلمة مسيحى؟

Muhammad Robbalaa SPIRO Oklahoma

Muhammad Robbalaa is 78 years old and was born on 09/16/1941. Muhammad's current home is located at Spiro, OK. In the past, Muhammad has also been known as Muhammad Robbalna, Robbalag L Muhammad, Mukommad Rabbalon, Mahammad L Robballa and Muhammad L Robbalaa. Muhammad's ethnicity is Middle Eastern American, whose political affiliation is currently a registered Democrat; and religious views are listed as Muslim. As of this date, Muhammad is married. Muhammad maintains relationships with many people -- family, friends, associates, & neighbors -- including Muhammed Abdullah, Mattie Robbalaa, Rameera Robbalaa, Rachel Robbalaa and Beverly Muhammad. Muhammad's annual salary is between $30 - 39,999; properties and other assets push Muhammad's net worth over $50,000 - $99,999. View All 

Detailshttps://www.blogtalkradio.com/thecathyharrisshow/2017/08/09/cathy-harris-interviews-muhammad-robbalaa-president-aaaa

Muhammad Robbalaa lives in Leflore County, OK, and he is the President of the African American Agriculturists Association (AAAA), a black farmer's organization. He is a black farmer and he filed his first complaint against USDA in 1983. Muhammad has been a leader for justice on a state and national level.

Bernie Sanders & Ilhan Omar Draw Huge Crowd In Minnesota

The execution of Muslim Domineque Ray in Alabama Supreme Court of the United States

The execution on February 7 of a Muslim on Alabama’s death row raises a number of legal and cultural questions about the religious rights of those condemned to death. The case involved Domineque Ray, who converted to Islam in prison after being sentenced to death for slaying a 15-year-old girl in 1995. His case drew national attention because prison officials refused to allow his spiritual adviser, an imam, into the death chamber for the execution itself. Ray was given the choice—use the prison’s Christian chaplain or face execution alone.

When Ray realized that the prison was not going to allow his adviser to accompany him at death, he petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for a stay of execution. The court denied his request and upheld the prison’s decision to refuse his adviser into the execution chamber, which Ray claimed violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ray appealed the District Court verdict to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted a stay on February 6 to resolve Ray’s religious claims.

The next day, however, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a last-minute application to allow the state to move forward with Ray’s execution. This decision did not speak to the merits of Ray’s religious claims, but instead was a finding that Ray had not met the relevant filing deadline. A bare majority of the court voted to let his execution move forward—such that the state would kill Ray that very evening. A four-member dissent, led by Justice Elena Kagan, expressed dismay since Ray acted within five days of learning that the prison refused to let his adviser accompany him in the death chamber. Justice Kagan chastised the majority for deciding the issue with little briefing and no argument, “just so the State can meet its preferred execution date.”

Quoting Court precedent, the dissent underscored the legal issue surrounding Ray’s Establishment Clause claim and argued that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another: “But the State’s policy does just that. Under that policy, a Christian prisoner may have a minister of his own faith accompany him into the execution chamber to say his last rites. But if an inmate practices a different religion—whether Islam, Judaism, or any other–he may not die with a minister of his own faith by his side.”

Justice Kagan noted that the state failed to show how the prison’s policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. She questioned pointedly whether disallowing Ray’s adviser would result in a security risk, and noted that the State offered no evidence to show that its prohibition on outside advisers was necessary to achieve the prison’s interest in security. She asks, “Why couldn’t Ray’s imam receive whatever training in execution protocol the Christian Chaplain received? The State has no answer. Why wouldn’t it be sufficient for the imam to pledge, under penalty of contempt, that he will not interfere with the State’s ability to perform the execution? The State doesn’t say. … That is not enough to support a denominational preference.”

Of course, the Majority doesn’t argue against these points since it ruled only that Ray missed the relevant deadline for seeking relief. What then, one might wonder, was this ruling really about? As one lawyer with the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty has claimed, the decision carried with it no discrimination toward Muslims since the same conservative justices had ruled in favor of religious liberty in other Muslim cases. So, despite criticism like a ThinkProgress article that described the decision as a “truly shocking attack on Muslims,” such criticism may miss the mark.

Since the Majority decision itself is quite short, it is hard to tell for sure what is motivating the Justices. The article above notes that some commentators think the decision has more to do with the Court’s frustration with anti-death penalty advocates who, in the view of many Conservatives, bring last-minute claims to try to postpone executions. Although this explanation might not be savory, it suggests a non-discriminatory rationale to send a message to death penalty activists and advocates, a warning against eleventh-hour strategies to derail executions. More ominously, the decision has been characterized as the work of a conservative majority, who “will stop at nothing to preserve the death penalty.” From this perspective, the decision has little to do with the fact that he is Muslim at all.

Given what we know about the case, it may be more prudent to think that a little of both may be going on. Without doubt, this case may be about antipathy toward last-minute antics by lawyers and advocacy groups, but it hardly means there is no religious bias guiding some in the judiciary. In fact, it is no stretch to imagine how disdain for such activists can hide disdain for Muslims. When this case is boiled down to its essence, a conservative group of Justices floundered on the opportunity to denounce religious discrimination and uphold religious rights. The Court instead let an arguable, if not bogus, timing issue reinforce a discriminatory prison policy; at worst it outright ignores Justice Kagan’s startling contention that “Ray has put forward a powerful claim that his religious rights will be violated at the moment the State puts him to death.”

While it may be more accurate to say that his religious rights were violated prior to execution, the point is clear—his religious claims should have been adjudicated first because they might have resulted in a different outcome that bears directly on the execution itself. The Court’s decision, then, despite its innocuous grounding in procedure, allowed Alabama to proceed with a killing whose optics suggest religious persecution more than protection of religious liberty.

دافعوا عن الاسلام امام العالم فماذا قالوا ؟

Ruthless Christian Fanatic Donald Trump Like Bull Dog Attacks Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talieb

Ruthless Christian Fanatic

Herman Goering Look Alike

Congressional Democrats, reports the New York Times, find Ilhan Omar a “complicated figure to defend.” Their exhaustion is understandable; tamping down outrage at various Omar statements seems to account for the better part of their job these days. But what is at issue has nothing to do with Ilhan Omar at all but a massive national hate campaign against Muslim-Americans.

The proximate cause of the latest flare-up is a speech Omar delivered to CAIR, a Muslim-American civil-rights group. “CAIR was founded after 9/11,” Omar said, “because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.” The first part of the sentence is false — CAIR was founded in 1994 — but it is the second part of the sentence that has produced outrage. President Trump has circulated a video repeating the sentence fragment, interspersed with images of the 9/11 attack.

Here is another instance of conservatives playing the role of aggrieved snowflakes. They don’t deny the truth of her statement. Her sin is a lack of sensitivity. Omar “minimized the gravity of the deadliest foreign attack on U.S. soil ever,” complains David French.

Omar’s point, of course, was not that 9/11 was a trivial incident, but that the broader Muslim community was targeted as a result. The outrage at her comment has borne out that point. The “rule” she violated is a failure to properly genuflect upon the awfulness of the 9/11 attacks in the course of referencing them, but this is hardly a universal convention. It’s easy to see how ginned up the outrage is if you replace the particulars of the case. Suppose a Jewish person was complaining about Jews as a whole being blamed for some particular human-rights violation carried out by Israelis. Would it really be necessary for them to pause the sentence and linger on the tragedy of the event? Would it be fair to associate them with the event itsel

Anti-Semitism, of course, forms the backdrop for the present controversy, because Omar has made ugly comments questioning the loyalty of American supporters of their country’s alliance with Israel. If, like me, you objected to Omar’s use of a dual-loyalty smear against Jews, you should also object to dual-loyalty smears against Muslims.

Instead, the barrage of attacks on Omar has confirmed the right’s complete indifference to this principle. Trump’s political message vis-à-vis the Jews has followed a paradoxical style on display by far-right parties in Europe. It combines a tight embrace of white Christian nationalists, including a sotto voce outreach to actual Nazis, with deep support for Israel and a war-of-civilizations attack on Muslims writ large. This brand of politics indulges in classic anti-Semitic tropes, such as Trump’s closing campaign ad darkly blaming various Jewish financiers for orchestrating various miseries experienced by the American heartland. But it also dabbles in intense philo-Semitism in cases where Jews are pitted against Muslims. It certainly is not a consistent rejection of bigotry in general or even anti-Semitism in particular.

The right-wing fixation on Omar gives away the game in several respects. It shows that the right’s alleged concern about bigotry is utterly partisan and excludes Muslims altogether. Trump has made a hundred times as many bigoted remarks as Omar, and has a thousand times more power. His attacks on her are a tool in a campaign of vilification and dehumanization which has ranged from fabricating stories of Muslim-Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks to constant, indiscriminate smears of an entire faith (“Islam hates us”).

The Democratic Party’s response has been wholly inadequate to the historic stakes. Democrats have limited the scope of their response to the insensitivity of politicizing 9/11 (“The president shouldn’t use the painful images of 9/11 for a political attack,” suggests House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) or even conceding the legitimacy of the pseudo-outrage against Omar (Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: “As a senator who represents 9/11 victims, I can’t accept any minimizing of that pain”).

It is surely tiresome for Democrats to have to constantly come up with messages about a freshman member of Congress who is careless with facts, constantly wanders off message, and fond of conspiracy theories. In her short time in Congress, in addition to stoking anti-Semitism, she has baselessly insinuated that Senator Lindsey Graham is being sexually blackmailed by Trump and attacked the opposition to Venezuela’s brutal dictatorship as war criminals far right and illegitimate*. Omar is arguably the most counterproductive Democrat in the House of Representatives. Her party should be encouraging a primary challenger to run against her.

Democrats unwilling to frontally challenge the smears of Omar because they don’t like her are making the same mistake as Democrats who refused to condemn her dual-loyalty smears because they do like her. Omar herself is not the issue here. She is not the target of Trump’s hate campaign. The target is all Muslims, as well as the principle that minorities deserve to be treated as full Americans.

*The original post took at face value Omar’s comment describing the Venezuelan opposition as war criminals, following the interpretation in this Bulwark story. It seems more likely Omar was speaking hypothetically about war crimes, so I have removed that description.

f if they failed to do so?

Kathy Zhu, a University of Michigan student Islam Hater

Ardent Donald Trump foot soldier



She was born in Qingdao, Shandong, China in 1999. Kathy grew up in Kissimmee, Florida. At the age of 5 together with her parents they legally migrated to the United States

There’s a “try a hijab on” booth at my college campus. So you’re telling me that it’s now just a fashion accessory and not a religious thing? Or are you just trying to get women used to being oppressed under Islam.”

After she was stripped of the Miss Michigan title in her email to DeJack she addressed the incidence alleging that a woman tried to make her wear a hijab without her permission. She added that what was insensitive was that women in the Middle East were getting stoned to death for refusing to obey their husband’s orders to wear hijabs.

“What’s ‘insensitive’ is that women in the Middle East are getting stoned to death for refusing to obey their husband’s orders to wear hijabs. Are the people in MWA implying that they advocate for the punishment of women who refuse to wear a hijab?”

She had also spoken about the hijab incidence with the Detroit Free Press where she said; “I said that it was (getting women used to) being oppressed because there are so many women in Middle Eastern countries that are being punished and stoned for refusing to wear a hijab. Nobody is talking about that in the West because all they see is everyone being at peace, but that is the beauty of America.”