Thursday, December 24, 2009


Pamela is right:

For those of you curious as to the legal strategy Rifqa Bary's counsel is pursuing, here is John Stemberger in an interview yesterday with Fox and Friends on the case of Rifqa Bary:

Stemberger was Rifqa's lawyer in Florida before he lost it and she was sent back to Ohio.

On the one hand, he is saying it is all about dependency (so there is no need to bring up Islam, apostasy etc). And Stemberger didn't when he was representing her in Florida. And neither is his Ohio colleague Kourt Gatterdam (whom he had a hand in referring to Rifqa), who is following the same nonsenscal "strategy." It is nonsensical because the case is all about Islam and apostasy, and the parents are imposing shariah law and using every Islamic weapon in their legal jihad against Rifqa.

Stemberger's points are all points I have been making for months (he is new to some of them) but he draws completely different conclusions.

Yes, dependency for Rifqa, but Rifqa can lose. She can lose. So why haven't they filed for apostasy asylum? Why haven't they pursued other avenues simultaneously -- covered their bases? Why haven't they invited leading experts (both legal and academic) to confer?

They put all their eggs in the one basket, dependency, and the parents have make it entirely clear that they will fight it every step of the way -- going so far as pressing charges against her and anyone who helped her.

Stemberger thinks there's a conflict of interest for Omar Tarazi. He is being paid by CAIR and the Noor mosque and is advocating for their interests and not the parents. But I think he's wrong.

There is no conflict.

The goals of the devout Muslim Barys, the extremist mosque, and unindicted co-conspirator CAIR are all the same. What conflict? The apostate must revert to Islam. That is their goal.

The "Christmas card" motion in response to the Atlas Christmas card campaign is a blazing example of the Barys' intention. They claim they would allow her to practice her Christianity in the home, but she can't get Christmas cards. Yes, the motion was withdrawn, but it indicates the lengths they will go to.

And the Barys' and CAIR's and Tarazi's insistence that Rifqa meet with a Muslim counselor demonstrates that once again, it is all about Islam and Rifqa's "misunderstanding" of Islam. It is all about Islam. She cannot fight this with her hands tied behind her back and her mouth gagged. She needs to mount a vigorous offense, not this limpwristed defense, playing catch-up and dodge-ball.

It is Rifqa's legal team's ethical obligation to explain all of the available defenses and legal strategies to her and the consequences of each one, and let her determine the course of the fight, because her parents, CAIR and Noor are using every single formidable legal tool against her.

And, if you don't think it's about Islam and apostasy, then check this out:

The NOOR Mosque Comes Out Publicly Against Rifqa

Have you checked out the website for the Noor mosque lately, Rifqa Bary's old stomping grounds -- or should I say, stomped on her grounds?

On their main page, there is a link to an article called "Nada's World".

The whole article is a whitewash with implicit but subtle cues about advancing Islamic supremacism: "As editor for her teen newsletter published by her mosque, she characterized proms as a 'fruitless purchase, a night of perceived enjoyment when, in actuality, it compromises one's [religion].'"

Nada lives "less than a minute's walk from the Noor mosque".

The article tells the story of a Muslim teen who refuses to dance and does not participate in un-islamic social activities. On the third page of the five page article is a comparison of Nada and Rifqa, containing this quote:

"Her devotion, obedience, and deference to her parents and Muslim faith seem unshakable. Nada is not Bary."

Rifqa's parents still attend this mosque. They are working with the leadership in their legal strategy to take control of Rifqa. The "doting" parents are part of this mosque that is smearing their daughter in front of the whole community. Not only does that speak volumes about them, but it also puts Rifqa in more jeopardy.


Anonymous said...

Why they are obliged to kill her to restore their honor.

Brooke said...

That girl will wind up having an 'accident', mark my words.

I hope she can turn 18 and run as far away from those freaks as she can, and stay safe.

Epaminondas said...

When is she 18?

Anonymous said...

August 10th 2010

Damien said...


I personally don't understand why the defense council will not even bring up the issue of apostasy or Rifqa's safety. Those are the strongest arguments in favor of not sending her back to her parents. They are far stronger than the issue of dependency.

Pastorius said...

I'm guessing it's because they have no hard evidence that her parents have threatened her life.

In other words, such an assertion would be assumption of guilt based upon religion.

Damien said...


Unfortunately even if her claims are true, if Rifqa's defense can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that her parents really wanted to kill her, the judge might be able to legally rule in her defense. So you may be right, as much as we would hate to admit it. Hopefully the worst case scenario will not be realized.