Monday, April 21, 2014

MSU Hate Week Coming Back to UC Irvine (April 28-May1)

Gary Fouse

With a little help from their friends

The Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine is bringing their annual silly show devoted to bashing Israel to UC Irvine April 28-May 1. I don't know the speakers yet, but once again, the MSU and their followers (and leaders) will totally neglect the horrors, hate and persecution going on from one end of the Islamic world to the other to focus on Israel-the one democracy in the Middle East. I am sure they will drag in at least one misfit Jewish figure who hates Israel to lend "credence" to the event. That's to refute any charges of anti-Semitism, a result of years of bringing in anti-Semitic speakers like Mohamed al Asi, Abdul Alim Musa and Amir Abdel Malik Ali and putting up images like this on their asinine apartheid wall.


Is It True Department

1 Is it true that the Islamic Center of Orange County, headed by that famous man of peace, Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, is lending its space so the MSU can work on the mock apartheid wall?

2 Is it true that the UCI Irvine Cross Cultural Center is lending its space for the MSU to hold preparatory meetings and practice their famous check point acts? Does this mean that the CCC is putting its imprimatur on the MSU's week of events-and by extension the university itself?

Friday, April 18, 2014

The Alhimidi Verdict: Some Thoughts

Gary Fouse

With the guilty verdict in San Diego yesterday, hopefully we can now put a close on what was a disgraceful episode even beyond the brutal murder of Shaima Alawadi. In 2012 when Alawadi was found bludgeoned to death in her El Cajon home, the family and CAIR rushed to call this a hate crime by someone who hated having Muslims in the community. A faked note was found by the body telling the family to get out of the country. One of the daughters, Fatima, spoke to reporters behind huge sunglasses and lectured the public about Islamophobia calling it a hate crime. The media went along. Coupled with the Treyvon Martin case, activists came up with the phrase, "Hijabs and hoodies" and made it their theme. At one point young Muslims from Orange County were prepared to travel to El Cajon to hold a vigil until abruptly told by San Diego CAIR to hold off until further details came out. Hold off because it appeared it might not be a hate crime rather an honour killing?

Yes, because it began to come out that number one, Fatima was involved in a family problem because she was the object of a planned arranged marriage and she had a boyfriend, which her parents disapproved of. Secondly, because Shaima Alawadi wanted a divorce from Kassim Alhimidi.

In December 2012, I attended the MPAC 2012 annual conference at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, which was generally an exercise in bashing "Islamophobes". There was one exception. A courageous young Muslim social worker from New York, Raja Darakshan, spoke. She told of the horrible torture-murder of a young Muslim boy by his step-father. She also referred to the Alawadi murder case, and recalled how much the Muslim community in the US was involved in the case when the accusation was a hate crime then turned away and went silent when it became apparent that it was an honour killing. Domestic abuse, she told the audience, was the biggest problem in the US Muslim community.

When Alhimidi was charged with the murder, CAIR and the media had egg on their faces. Now we have a verdict based on the evidence. This was an honour killing staged by an enraged husband, and it was staged to look like a hate crime indicting American society in the process for an act that has yet to be carried out. Had this murder been a hate crime, it would have been the first recorded murder of this type against a Muslim woman. Americans, with few exceptions, are not attacking Muslims. Contrast that with what is happening to Christians in Muslim countries as we speak. However, this is not the first case of an honour killing in North America.

Of course, Alhimidi is not the first husband to murder his wife nor the first to kill her over a pending divorce. An Orange County court yesterday convicted a Coptic Christian man of having his wife killed because she was divorcing him, and he didn't want to lose half of his assets. The difference we must ask ourselves is whether Alhimidi thought he could justify his actions according to his own values and why members of the family might have gone along with him-or did they really believe that an intruder committed the crime? I have my doubts. More likely I suspect (cannot prove) that they themselves believed there might be some justification in Alhimidi's actions. I should add here that Shaima's mother and other blood relatives were happy at the verdict and believed that Shaima had achieved justice. Fatima said in a statement that she still loved her father but believed he was guilty (I am paraphrasing).

And what does CAIR San Diego have to say today? Here is their website. Nothing. (I don't know if they have made any statements to the media outside of their website.) Similarly, nothing is on the CAIR national website as of this writing.

As for this hijabs and hoodies refrain, I think it is time we put that to rest.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Kassim Alhimidi Convicted of Murder in San Diego

Gary Fouse

Shaima Alawadi-victim

Iraqi national Kassim Alhimidi was convicted by a jury this afternoon in San Diego for murdering his wife Shaima Alawadi. When the verdict was read, Alhimidi began waving his finger as if to say, No". members of his family rose and began shouting, first expletives in English, then in Arabic. At least one arrest was made. (Alhimidi's son). Alhimidi then began yelling in Arabic as he was handcuffed and taken from the courtroom.

The below CBS News link has a video of the verdict and reaction (viewer warning as to language).

This case raised a furor when it broke because the family claimed an intruder was responsible and that the motive was a hate crime. During the subsequent investigation, it was revealed there was strife in the family, first over an attempted arranged marriage for a daughter, coupled with Alawadi's desire to divorce her husband. It initially became a cause celebe combined with the Treyvon Martin case, and the phrase Hijabs and Hoodies became widely used to refer to both cases.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

A Response to Corey Saylor on Sharia

Gary Fouse

Corey Saylor-CAIR

Corey Saylor is one of CAIR's top officials in Washington. Recently, he spoke before a group in Maine on the topic of sharia law. He has written an almost exact version of that speech on CAIR's website, which is linked in the below text.

Louis Palme has written a critical response to Saylor's assertions that Sharia law is compatible with US democracy. I am posting it below with his permission. The only edits I have made were to put appropriate quotation marks and spacing. I also made two spelling corrections (where in place of were and correct spelling of Mr Saylor's first name.)

CAIR loves democracy – so long as it doesn’t contradict Sharia Law
By Louis Palme

On March 22, Corey Saylor, CAIR’s National Legislative Director, gave a forty-minute speech in Vacationland, Maine, on the topic: Is Sharia Compatible with Democracy?  His dancing between likening Sharia to political democracy and hiding behind “religion” to oppose anything that didn’t fit his premise was enough to make one’s head spin.  See the text at:  But before we get into his devious arguments, let’s define the situation for those who haven’t been exposed to Sharia Law and CAIR.

Sharia -- The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, ‘Umdat al Salik, (better known in English as Reliance of the Traveler), which has been endorsed by the U.S. International Institute of Islamic Thought as well as the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, defines Sharia Law as:

The basic premise of this school of thought is that the good of the acts of those morally responsible is what the Lawgiver (syn. Allah or His messenger) has indicated as good by permitting it or asking it be done. And the bad is what the Lawgiver has indicated is bad by asking it not to be done. The good is not what reason considers good, nor the bad what reason considers bad. The measure of good and bad, according to this school of thought, is the Sacred Law, not reason. (para a1.4) (Note: Shafi’I  jurisprudence is identical with 75% of all four schools of Islamic law.)

Since Muhammad was the only witness to Allah and since Muhammad and Allah are partnered no fewer than sixty-four times in the Quran, the measure of good and bad in Sharia Law is ultimately what Muhammad did or said (plus the Quran, of course).  That is why Muslims keep copious accounts of Muhammad’s life and his pronouncements in the Sira and the Hadith. Only 14 percent of Sharia Law comes from the Quran. Less than one-third of the practices specified in Reliance of the Traveler address religious practices like prayer, charity, and fasting. The bulk of the provisions deal with commerce, inheritance, justice, and of course, jihad which is defined as “war against non-Muslims . . to establish the religion.” (o9.0)  Reliance of the Traveler was compiled in the late 14th Century, and it remains the primary source for Sharia Law for English-speaking Muslims.

Democracy – By its very definition, democracy is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”  Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the individual laws take force unless approved by the people or their elected representatives.  The U.S. Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times to reflect agreed-to changes in the relationship between our government and its citizens over the past 225 years.

Corey Saylor  --  Corey Saylor converted to Islam in 1992, apparently in his first year at George Mason  University.  He earned his stripes suing deep-pocket companies like Burger King and Bell Helicopter-Boeing “when their actions or advertisements negatively impacted the American Muslim community.”  He actively opposed the renewal of the Patriot Act. Currently he is the National Legislative Director for CAIR – the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Readers can draw their own conclusions about Corey Saylor as they read this report.  Suffice it to say that when he called on non-Muslims in his speech to be partners to “work together to establish our shared ideals of justice,” he was blowing smoke.  Note that throughout his speech Mr. Saylor cited provisions of the U.S. Constitution numerous times, but he didn’t mention a single specific provision of Sharia Law.  CAIR is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood’s HAMAS and the Islamic Association of Palestine.  The U.S. has declared HAMAS and Hezbollah to be terrorist organizations.  When Fox News reporter David Lee Miller asked Mr. Saylor to condemn HAMAS and Hezbollah by name in 2011, he refused.  His response was, “Well I recognize that you don’t like my answer to the question, but that’s the answer to the question.”

Sharia is a lot of things – In his Vacationland speech, Mr. Saylor complained that sharia “had been hijacked and turned into something scary.”  From his perspective, sharia was like recipe that has different results depending on who is cooking.  He even went so far as to admit that the actions and decrees of Muhammad have actually been, and continue to be, interpreted by human beings.  The flaw in this reasoning is that the sacred source documents of Sharia Law have not changed (and cannot change) since they were first compiled.

Sayyid Qutb, the ideological father of the Muslim Brotherhood, warned Muslims against losing sight of the final commands of the Quran:

"Some defeatist elements are overwhelmed by the pressures resulting from the desperate situation of present-day Muslims, who have nothing of Islam other than its name, and from the wicked attack by the Orientalists on the concept of jihad. Hence they try to find excuses by relying on provisional rulings and ignoring the true basis of the Islamic approach that moves forward to liberate mankind from the servitude to other human beings, so that they can worship Allah alone. . . This smacks of disrespect for Islam and Allah Almighty, resulting from a feeling of utter defeat. . . If the Muslims today, in their present situation, cannot implement these final rulings [in Surah 9], then they are not, now and for the time being, required to do so.  For Allah does not charge anyone with more than he or she can do. . . Let them fear Allah and not attempt to weaken Allah’s faith under the pretext of showing it to be a religion of peace.  It is certainly the religion of peace, but this must be based on saving all mankind from submission to anyone other than Allah." (Under the Shade of the Quran, Vol. VIII, pg. 25-28)

Muslims respect the law of the land – Mr. Saylor’s next defense of Sharia in America was that Sharia Law mandates that Muslims practice their faith while respecting the law of the land.  This is where Mr. Saylor throws political Islam and religious Islam into the blender.  He observed that sixty-two percent of Americans agreed that it was more important for the government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if it intrudes on personal privacy.  He also cited a Cornell University survey where nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans.  But then he reminded his audience that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office.  What Mr. Saylor glossed over in this defense of Sharia is that most Americans have no issue with the religious practices of Muslims, but rather their concern is over the political excesses of denying basic human rights to Muslims and others and waging eternal warfare on non-Muslims.  The supremacist political ideology of Islam commands in its final major decrees of Quran: “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.  Deal firmly with them.” (Surah 9:123) and “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and Allah’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Surah 8:40)

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about requiring loyalty oaths for American citizens.  They were required after the Civil War and after World War II when Communists threatened to infiltrate our government. While loyalty oaths have been challenged in the courts numerous times, the last major loyalty oath case heard by the Supreme Court, Cole v. Richardson - 405 U.S. 676, was decided in 1972, and it upheld a requirement that the State of Massachusetts employees swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and to "oppose the overthrow of the [government] by force, violence, or by any illegal or unconstitutional method". That is why so many Americans took offense when Denver Nuggets player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand during the National Anthem in 1996.

Mr. Saylor might have trouble explaining what it says in Reliance of the Traveler about respecting the laws of the land:
. . . areas where Muslims reside and there is a remnant of Islam’s rules – even if this is limited to marriages and what pertains to them, for example – are considered Muslim lands.  . . . in the light of which, it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings.  (R of T, w43.5)
Finally, Mr. Saylor might be a bit uneasy about what Reliance of the Traveler says about America’s Christians and Jews:

"Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses of the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam. . . It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judasim,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger to the entire world." (R of T, w4.0)

Sharia is for the good of all humanity -- Mr. Saylor stretched credibility when he asserted that the goal of Sharia Law is to bring good to all humanity. This sounds like equal rights for all, n’est-ce pas?  Unfortunately, the actual provisions of Sharia Law make Mr. Saylor a liar.

· An Arab woman may not marry a non-Arab because Arabs are superior (m4.2(1))
· A virgin can be married off by her guardian without her consent (m3:13(2))
· The value of a woman is one-half that of a man (o4.9)
· The value of a Christian or a Jew is one-third that of a Muslim (o4.9)
· The value of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim (o4.9)
· A woman’s testimony is worth one-half that of a man (Quran Surah 2:282)
· A woman’s inheritance is one-half that of a man (Quran Surah 4:11)

(By the way, Mr. Saylor stated in his speech that men inherit more because they have to pay the funeral expenses.  This is not true.  The deceased’s funeral expenses and debts are settled before the inheritance is divided up. (L4.2))

· A slave is worth ten meals (Quran Surah 5:89)

Look – Muslim scholars wrote a declaration saying there is no conflict between Sharia and the Constitution – Mr. Saylor thinks if he can produce a piece of paper that says there is no conflict between Sharia Law and the Constitution, then the issue will go away.  So he reminded his audience that in 2011 the Fiqh Council of North America issued a resolution saying “We do not see any conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. . . so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God [i.e., Allah].”  This falsehood has been discussed in detail elsewhere: Suffice it to say here that the two systems have very little in common.
Blaming all the evils of Islam on Al Qaeda -- Al Qaeda has become the favorite whipping boy not only of the U.S. government but also of apologists for Islam.  Mr. Saylor tried to stake out common ground with Americans by virtue of our common enemy. He declared: “The world view of violent extremists is a complete distortion of Islam. Islamic teachings clearly state that the killing of one innocent is the moral equivalent to killing all humanity.”  One would think that by now CAIR, of all organizations, would abandon that meme about “killing one innocent” because what is clearly stated in the Quran is that the edict applied only to the Jews, not the Muslims.  See Surah 5:32.  The Muslim punishment for those who oppose Islam is clearly stated in the subsequent verse: “[they] shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

It would be hard to heap on to Al Qaeda all of the blame for such world-wide Sharia Law outrages as Female Genital Mutilation, forced child marriage, wife beating, honor murders, eye-for-eye retaliation, stoning of adulterers, and chopping off hands of petty thieves.  Nice try, Mr. Saylor.

CAIR cranks up the grievance machine --  It wouldn’t be a CAIR speech without ending it with a laundry list of what CAIR perceives as Constitutional violations that have victimized Muslims.  Never mind that everything Mr. Saylor citied is now discredited and forgotten history:

· Oklahoma’s SQ 755 anti-Sharia law, declared unconstitutional in January, 2012.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Herman Cain’s 2011 call for a loyalty oath for Muslim staff.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s 2007 call for Americans to “educate, engage, evangelize, and eradicate” to win against the Islamist enemy.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s 2011 speech in which he feared that future generations would see our country potentially dominated by radical Islamists.

Getting back to the issue of the compatibility of Sharia Law with democracy, Mr. Saylor couldn’t ignore the fact that American Laws for American Courts legislation has proceeded successfully all across the nation.  By his own tally, there have been 37 bills in 16 states and laws have been passed in seven states.  He calls them “Anti-Islam” bills, but the American Laws for American Courts legislation have carefully avoided mention of any religion, and consequently, they have not been successfully challenged as being unconstitutional.  The Constitution actually states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Article VI, Clause 2) There is nothing “Anti-Islam” about the Constitution or about American Laws for American Courts. Instead, Islam and Sharia Law are blatantly and defiantly “anti-Constitutional”-- against the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and our nation’s democratic principles.

Mr. Saylor called on Americans to “debate differences while partnering on ideals.”  He claims that the differences between the ideals of Sharia Law and democracy are relatively minor.  Then why, Mr. Saylor, are states rushing to pass American Laws for American Courts legislation, and why is this effort so “Anti-Islam”?

If anyone is tempted to follow Mr. Saylor’s advice to “work together to establish our shared ideals of justice,” I would recommend that they first take a look at the actual provisions of Sharia Law as contained in Reliance of the Traveler ( and see how many of those provisions, particularly those in Section o on Justice, would help form a peaceful, equal, and humanitarian society.
To that I would like to add a couple of points. There is a section of sharia law called hudud sharia, which deals with so-called crimes against God. Among the offenses are adultery, blasphemy, apostasy and homosexuality. For all of these, the penalty is death. This is affirmed by leading Islamic schools of thought such as Bukhari. If you ask the leading Islamic clerics and leaders in the US ( I have asked a few), you get a lot of confusing answers. However, setting aside the obvious discriminatory language vis-a-vis women and non-Muslims, those four provisions right there would seem to contradict any claim that sharia is compatible with US law.

In addition, as Palme points out, the 2011 statement by the Fiqh Council of North America as to the compatibility of Islam and the American Constitution and Bill of Rights leaves a bit of wiggle room.

" long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God" [i.e., Allah].

It is correct that Muslims are enjoined to follow the law of the country they live in if they are a minority. I assume that includes the above phrase. But I wonder what Mr Saylor would say if asked hypothetically what would or should happen to US law if Muslims became a majority in said country or countries. What about those hudud sharia provisions I listed above?

As always, I invite my Muslim readers to weigh in.

Monday, April 14, 2014

The KC Murders and the Campaign Against Israel: Seems There is a Connection

Gary Fouse

Hat tip PJ Media

"Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment.
Like I’ve been saying, the kikes simply do not trust a lame-duck black president with the name Hussein. Jews fear his re-election, thus this jewish Super PAC to defeat him.
1) Will Ron Paul and his close supporters fight back against this alien super-PAC by telling the truth about jew power in the U.S. ?? It’s insightful and somewhat assuring that the above video news report was posted on
2) How will Hussein and his 45 million black supporters and the tens of millions of other liberals and anti-war Americans react to this jewish attack on their president and commander in chief ??
3) How will the democrat establishment react, and the so-called liberal media ??
4) Does this signal a huge split among jews, and if so how big is the split ??
Like Dr Pierce once said, “the jews have a tiger by the tail, and they dare not turn loose.”
It sure looks to me like their grip is slipping.
Sieg Heil !!!"

More details are coming about about the shooter in yesterday's attack against two Jewish facilities in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, Kansas. It appears that Frazier Glenn Miller was not only motivated by KKK-Nazi sympathies but an animus toward Israel as well. According to the below report by Ron Radosh in PJ Media, Miller posted a reference to writings by anti-Israel activist and writer Max Blumenthal.

Max Blumenthal. Last December, I stood out in the rain in Irvine and protested an event he was speaking at on behalf of some despicable organizations called American Muslims for Palestine, CAIR, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Student Association.

If I wanted to play guilt by association, I could say that Blumenthal has blood on his hands as well as all the others who are stirring up hatred against Israel. I recall how the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik, was found to have read the writings of Robert Spencer, Fjordman, and other critics of extremist Islam. That was used against Spencer et. al. though there was no contact between them and Breivik, and they were all horrified by the killings in Norway. I am sure Blumenthal is similarly horrified by what happened in Kansas and has no connection to Mr Miller.

Having said that, is it not now a time for reflection on the part of those who are carrying out this campaign to destroy Israel? Do they not realize how much this is contributing to the resurgence of Jew hatred worldwide? It matters  little that Blumenthal and many others are Jewish themselves. They are contributing nonetheless to something ugly that goes beyond Israel.

Chances are Miller's anti-Jewish demons are not solely because of what he has been led to think about Israel. Nevertheless, this revelation would indicate that it was a factor, how much I don't know. Chances are Miller could care less about the Palestinians. But this should serve as a cautionary lesson to those who are so determined to destroy Israel.  It should also serve as a cautionary lesson to those of us who  write about extremist Islam. Nobody wants what they write to inspire someone else to violence or to think that all members of a group are bad.

Being a part-time teacher at UC Irvine, I can only hope and pray that we never see a tragedy like this on a college campus. If it happens, however, I will not be shocked.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Hitler Hates Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Answering Muslims

Answering Muslims has adopted the famed Hitler parodies in describing CAIR's reaction to the Brandeis-Ayaan Hirsi Ali saga. This is great stuff. Here, Hitler has his lunch interrupted by the news that Brandeis University has decided to bestow an honorary degree on Ali.

This was, of course, before Brandeis cowardly decided not to bestow the honor on Ali.

"Good news, mein Fuehrer. Brandeis isn't going to give Ali that degree after all."

Wednesday, April 9, 2014



Pastor Stephen Broden, Fair Park Bible Fellowship Church, 1321 Rowan, Dallas. (214-394-0098)

Americans Against the Persecution of Christians in Muslim Countries is a coalition of Christians, and people of other faiths, who are committed to stopping the genocide of Christians in many Moslem countries. Under the leadership of Pastor Stephen Broden, of the Dallas Fair Park Bible Fellowship Church , they will be marching in downtown Dallas on May 17th to protest the ongoing religious cleansing of their brethren. The march will start at  2 p.m. at City Hall Plaza, in front of Dallas City Hall.
Following in the footsteps and spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they take as their core inspiration his words  on  confronting evil  openly, and speaking out against it: “Our lives begin to end on the day that we become silent about things that matter.”
 What matters is that over 100,000 Christians are murdered every year for their faith, and this figure has been substantiated by the Vatican, and the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. Open Doors, the British humanitarian group, has recently stated that  9 out of the 10 countries cited for the worst Christian persecution are Muslim.
What matters is that the persecution of Christians has become so horrific in the Middle East that several ancient Christian sects are in danger of extermination. The Copts are fleeing Egypt in their thousands, their churches burned to the ground, their women and children violated. The Malakite Christians in Syria are facing extinction! According to John Eibner of World Watch: “If things continue as they are in Syria, there will be no more Christians, or other minorities, in the near future.”
Atrocities against Christians, committed by radical Islamists, have been carefully catalogued by Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and many other respected humanitarian organizations.  Americans Against the Persecution of Christians in Moslem Countries will break the politically-correct conspiracy of silence which has concealed this immense crime against humanity. They will call on priests and pastors of all denominations to join in mass protest marches, in Dallas, and all major American cities.
They will challenge the conscience of all Americans to oppose and defeat a murderous religious tyranny, to rally once more to the sacred principles  of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are the birthright of all men and women, and which must now be guaranteed to Christians in the Moslem world.


Americans Against the Persecution of Christians in Muslim Countries is chaired by Pastor Stephen Broden, who is assisted by co-founders Eric Martin, Hiawatha Taylor, William Owens Jr., and others.
Speakers at the March on May 17th will include:
Pastor Broden,Fair Park Friendship Center, Dallas.
 William Owens Jr., Author and Minister.
 Robert Spencer, Author ,Founder of Jihad Watch, Islamic Scholar.
 Walid Shoebat,  Author,Founder of Rescue Christians.
Dave Gaubatz, Author, Counter-Terrorism Expert.

For more information, please contact:
Pastor Stephen Broden at: 214-394-0098, or Eric Martin, at: 817-795-4648.