So says Raheel Raza , at any rate:
In two districts (ridings as they are called in Canada) the Muslim candidates who lost were openly hostile to the Islamist agenda. Wajid Khan in Toronto and Rahim Jaffer in Edmonton. It is rumored that the full force of the Islamist establishment and the mosque structure came out to defeat these two Muslims because they were seen, in the words of one cynic 'too good looking to be considered authentic Muslims'.
I'm not buying it. Wajid Khan is plenty ugly.
14 comments:
Man, what a lot of paranoia. These people have to start working on the evidence; after eight years, it's really becoming tedious and, frankly, I'm starting to think of it more as inter-ethnic/interracial (Indo-Pakistanis against Arabs against Persians/Aryans) conflicts that are playing out in Canada.
Put up or shut up, all youse!
My Muslim friend supported Jaffer and worked on his campaign. I heard nothing about some movement to unseat him.
At what point are they going to accept that most of the people in this riding simply do not like him, and did not find a candidate they were certain could defeat him until Linda Duncan came along?
I read that the reason Kahn was unseated was that the Islamic vote was split...the NDP candidate was also Muslim. After the election he faced a great deal of criticism from the community, since with two Muslim candidates, neither one, and there was less representation in the house.
"While a Taliban style overthrow is unlikely, in the short term"
Well that's reassuring.
Another bizzare analysis from the far side.
"after eight years" and a relative lack of islamic terrorism in north america, they are moving the goal posts. Now it's the "soft jihadis" -- ie those who have the nerve to appeal to the law, participate in elections and such like, that are the threat.
Check the author --
"Raheel Raza writes for Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum."
M. J. Murphy wrote:
> So says Tarek Fatah, at any rate:
Could you please share with us the revelation that permitted you to associate the article with my name?
Of course a retraction would suffice, but an apology would work as well.
Tarek
M. J. Murphy wrote:
> So says Tarek Fatah, at any rate:
Tarek wrote:
Could you please share with us the revelation that permitted you to associate the article with my name?
----
Me:
Well, the fact that your name was on it at the Am. Thinker site until not too long ago. It has disappeared from there, but still appears on Google search and at a number of blogs that quoted from the article, favorably or unfavorably. I have kept multiple screen shots. Believe me. Multiple.
Tarek:
Of course a retraction would suffice, but an apology would work as well.
----
Me:
Or you could explain your changing relationship to the article. Otherwise tomorrow I would probably just make note of the fact that your name has disappeared from it. If anyone owes you an apology its American Thinker.
Cheers,
M.J.Murphy
BCL
Wow. You never know when you should screen cap, eh?
FWIW, I saw Tarek's name there as well.
The article still has Tarek attached to it here.
Got that one too, now. Thanks.
Man, the levels of crazy are getting dangerously high. Roy Eappen claims here that Tarek has been fatwa'd.
American bloggers have coined the term "Peak Wingnut." I think there's something to that.
It has him "attached" to it, but not as the author. It makes the claim "Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah write for Islamist Watch" but their own search engine reveals no articles written by him.
I'm strongly inclined to take him at his word on this.
Well, I pulled his name from the post. Still like to know what happened.
You shouldn't have *disappeared" his name, simply updated the post. The name was there.
But I'm quibbling, I guess.
Post a Comment