Myth vs Fact

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4413: It has been reported on the authority of Anas b. Malik that (when the enemy got the upper hand) on the day of the Battle of Uhud, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was left with only seven men from the ansar and two men from the Quraish. When the enemy advanced towards him and overwhelmed him, he said: Whoso turns them away from us will attain Paradise or will be my Companion in Paradise. A man from the Ansar came forward and fought (the enemy) until he was killed. The enemy advanced and overwhelmed him again and he repeated the words: Whoso turns them away, from us will attain Paradise or will be my Companion in Paradise. A man from the Arsar came forward and fought until he was killed. This state continued until the seven Ansar were killed (one after the other). Now, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to his two Companions: We have not done justice to our Companions.
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

Colorado Democratic Party Threatens Clinton Delegate For Being Critical Of Obama

Cross posted from Wake up America

Recently a Wisconsin Clinton delegate was stripped of her status for stating that she might vote for John McCain. Taking a page out of the Wisconsin Democratic Party's playbook, the Colorado Democratic Party is now threatening another Clinton Delegate.

Debra Bartoshevich gave a public interview where she announced that she would support John McCain rather than Barack Obama. The Wisconsin Democratic Party wasted no time in voting to strip her delegate status and ban her from the Democratic convention.

Today it is being reported that the Colorado Democratic Party is threatening one of their Clinton national delegates, Sacha Millstone of Boulder, Colorado, for making statements critical of Barack Obama.

The Colorado Democratic Party alleges that Millstone made "disparaging public remarks" about Obama but Millstone asserts that her remarks were not public, they were made to a fellow delegate, in a supposed private e-mail exchange.

Her remark to the fellow delegate was that she was not sure whether she would vote for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention.

After that email exchange, that fellow delegate filed a complaint with the Colorado Democratic Party suggesting that she be stripped of her national delegate status.

That led to William Compton who is the political director of Colorado's Democratic Party. to email Millstone saying, "You are directed to come in to the party headquarters and explain your comments and why you should remain a national delegate ..."

Millstone says she sees this as a threat, stating, "I think that one of the reasons I got this letter was to intimidate me. It sounded very totalitarian. I thought it sounded undemocratic and I was completely shocked." She continues on to say, "Having conversations on the pros and cons of those candidates, I don't think this is an unusual thing at all in the Democratic Party."

The chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, Pat Waak, claims that when a complaint is issued, they are required to hear the complaint and decide whether it should be brought to the rules committee.

When Waak was asked if private correspondence can be used to investigate complaints, her response was, "We have used documents, memos, other things in the past where complaints have been filed. We have used whatever comes to us. That does not mean it goes to the rules committee."

Waak said the investigation and e-mail from Compton was not made public by the Colorado Democratic Party and regrets that it is in the public domain.

Waak concludes by saying that as far as they are concerned the situation with Millstone is over.

Millstone "firmly" believes the email to her was a direct message to Clinton delegates throughout the nation warning them not to criticize Barack Obama if they wish to keep their national delegate status and attend the Democratic convention in August.

Millstone has the last word by saying "I think that it was calculated to have an impact on other delegates and I think this kind of communication does have a very chilling impact on other delegates because people become afraid to speak up. They become afraid to say what they think."

She concludes the interview with "You can't get unity by telling people to shut up."

.

Sphere: Related Content

More Barack Obama Lies Exposed About Born Alive Infants Protection Act

Cross posted from Wake up America

Caught red handed, re: Jill Stanek:

Here is the statement with documentation released by NRLC this morning...

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator [Barack] Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the IL Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Summary and comment by NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson:

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

National Right To Life exposes Barack Obama's lies and his attempt to at a cover-up:

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 -- even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting "infanticide." Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill. As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, "Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion."

During Obama's 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, this June 30, 2008 "factcheck" issued by the Obama campaign, in the form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008. The Obama "cover story" has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media. (Two recent examples: CNN reported on June 30, 2008, "Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the Illinois bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade." The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008 that Obama "said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.")

Stanek takes you through the whole issue from beginning to end, so go read her whole piece, she has been a great resource on the issue of the Born-Alive Infants Protection.

Barack Obama believes as his votes show, that a baby that survives an abortion attempt, is outside the womb, is not considered a person and not entitled to medical treatment.

Lets be clear here... Obama voted against protecting a baby that was born alive after a failed abortion attempt.

Hot Air puts this well:

Clearly, Obama lied about his position. It’s no small rhetorical matter, either. His vote puts him on the extreme of the pro-abortion camp, so extreme in fact that not a single member of Congress would follow his example. Obama voted to allow Christ Hospital and other facilities performing abortions to allow live children to die.

That is infanticide.

Busted, not only on his lies, but his attempt to cover them up.

More from Michelle Malkin and The Corner.


Previous related posts:

Family Research Council Airs New Ad Attacking Barack Obama On Abortion

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4412: It has been narrated by Ibrahim al-Taimi on the authority of his father who said: We were sitting in the company of Hudhaifa. A man said: If I were in the time of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), I would have fought by his side and would have striven hard for his causes. Hudhaifa said: You might have done that, (but you should not make a flourish of your enthusiasm). I was with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the night of the Battle of Abzib and we were gripped by a violent wind and severe cold. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be him) said: Hark, the man who (goes reconnoitring and) brings me the news of the enemy shall be ranked with me on the Day of Judgment by Allah (the Glorious and Exalted). We all kept quiet and none of us responed to him. (Again) he said: Hark, a man who (goes reconnoitring and) brings me the news of the enemy shall be ranked with me on the Day of Judgment by Allah (the Glorious and Exalted). We kept quiet and none of us responded to him. He again said: Hark, a man who (goes reconnoitring and) brings me the news of the enemy shall be ranked with me on the Day of Judgtuent by Allah (the Glorious and Exalted) Then he said: Get up Hudhaifa, bring me the news of the enemy. When he called me by name I had no alternative but to get up. He said: Go and bring me information about the enemy, and do nothing that may provoke them against me. When I left him, I felt warm as if I were walking in a heated bath untill I reached them. I saw Abu Sufyan warming his back against fire I put an arrow in the middle of the bow. intending to shoot at him, when I recalled the words of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)" Do not provoke them against me." Had I shot at him, I would have hit him. But I returned and (felt warm as if) I were walking in a heated bath (hammam). Presenting myself before him, I gave him information about the enemy. When I had done so, I began to feel cold, so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) wrapped me in a blanket that he had in excess to his own requirement and with which he used to cover himself while saying his prayers. So I continued to sleep until it was morning. When it was morning he said: Get up, O heavy sleeper.
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

The Billboard Battles: Islam vs. Everyone Else

Members of Windsor's Lebanese community, Ghina Maawie, left, Aida Mrove, Ayat Choukier and H. Dabaja show their support for the message of the billboard, which is on display at Wyandotte Street and Marion Avenue. The sign has led to a political divide between some.
Photograph by : Ian Willms, The Windsor Star

But some people are starting to fight back...


And now this...

'Sharia law is hate'

Billboards announce: 'Sharia law is hate' Group hopes to spark debate over accepting Islamic rules in U.S.
Posted: August 08, 200811:34 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An organization in Florida plans to educate what it perceives as an increasingly culture-tolerant public about the horrific dictates of Islamic law by purchasing billboard space with a simple, but confrontational message: "Sharia law is hate."
The Central Florida chapter of the United American Committee, a nonprofit group that seeks to educate Americans on the threat of Islamic extremism, is raising money to purchase a six-month contract to display the billboard, which the group hopes will awaken the public to discussing the full extent of Islamic law.
"The UAC's goal in this project is to raise awareness because most people have no idea what Sharia law is," Alan Kornman, director of UAC's Central Florida branch, told WND. "We are confident people will see the billboard and learn on their own what Sharia law is and come to their own conclusions. At the very least, we hope our billboard will spark public debate on this overlooked issue."
The billboards will also include a link to UAC resources where people can learn more about Islam's Sharia law, a set of religious codes – both moral and legal; Sharia law recognizes no separation of church and state – that bind both Muslims and Islamic nations. Read the rest here

Of course, not everyone sees things the same way.
Here's one columnists opinion...

The Chicago Tribune
The Seeker
Manya Brachear
Originally posted: December 13, 2007

Why Islam?
In the past month, I’ve received more than a dozen calls about a billboard erected near O’Hare Airport asking “Why Islam?”

Why drivers have chosen to call me instead of the toll-free number on the sign frankly baffles me.
I decided to let Sabeel Ahmed, a spokesman for the group sponsoring the billboards, address some of the callers’ concerns.

Callers wanted to know why such a billboard was necessary. What did it accomplish? And who was funding such an expensive advertising endeavor? And who calls that number? (I started to wonder myself when my phone kept ringing.)

Most callers to the hotline seek translations of the Quran in English or Spanish or literature about the faith, said Ahmed, a spokesman for the Islamic Circle of North America. A smaller percentage asks specific questions about events in the Middle East. Some are Muslims grateful for the positive publicity. Some have made donations to help fund the campaign.

Some who have dialed 1-877-WHY-ISLAM have converted to the faith, Ahmed said. For them, the Chicago chapter of ICNA has started classes in Chicago and Villa Park.
Then, Ahmd said, there are the angry callers who just want to tell Muslims they’re wrong.

"Usually I listen to what they’re saying because they’re already emotional to begin with,” Ahmed said. “We want them to express their views."
James Gustafson of Chicago was one of those drivers who called me instead of the number. He was indeed angry.

"They’re rubbing it in our face,” he said. “I don’t buy what they’re saying. These people are not standing up like they should against these radical Islamic terrorists.”

Ahmed has heard those sentiments.
"After they slow down, we go about explaining to them in the context. Suicide is forbidden by Islam and killing innocent people is forbidden,” he said. "We recite them words from the Quran that say that. Muslims should not be judged by the actions of a few people, just like Christians and Jews should not be judged by actions of a few.”

A quick glance at comments posted to The Seeker in recent months shows that a number of people harshly judge Islam, and occasionally other faiths.
Instead of asking “Why Islam?” I’d like to ask “Why so much hostility?”

Why so much hostility, The Seeker asks?
Well now, let me see...

There must be some reason for it...

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2007/12/why-islam.html

Cross posted from Radarsite: http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/08/billboard-battles-islam-vs-everyone.html

Sphere: Related Content