Posts Tagged ‘Sharia Law’

h1

Jihad in Haiti

February 1, 2010

Islamic Relief USA and the Islamic Circle of North America, both groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” are operating in Haiti — ostensibly working in relief efforts, but no doubt doing a good bit of dawah on the side. Creeping Sharia has the story (thanks to herr Oyal) – source: jihadwatch.org

h1

A Study in Muslim Doctrine: Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood

November 24, 2009

Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood: A Study in Muslim Doctrine

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
November 18, 2009

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam’s more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims — such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and “observant Muslim who prayed daily,” who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons — he was “picked on,” he was “mentally unbalanced” — the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.

Wala’ wa Bara’

Perhaps best translated as “loyalty and enmity,” this doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating (e.g., Koran 60:4), all things un-Islamic — including persons (a.k.a. “infidels”). This theme has ample support in the Koran, hadith, and rulings of the ulema, that is, usul al-fiqh (roots of Muslim jurisprudence). In fact, Zawahiri has written a fifty-page treatise entitled “Loyalty and Enmity” (AQR, p. 63-115).

One of the many Koranic verses on which he relies warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them” (Koran 5:51), i.e., he becomes an infidel. The plain meaning of this verse alone — other verses, such as 3:28, 4:144, and 6:40 follow this theme — and its implications for today can hardly be clearer. According to one of the most authoritative Muslim exegetes, al-Tabari (838-923), Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community” (AQR, p. 71).

Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are “obligated to befriend a believer — even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you” (AQR, p. 84).

In ways, Hasan’s life was a testimony to loyalty and enmity. According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan “was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second.” If his being “vocal about the war” is not enough to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him “over the edge” was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country (Afghanistan) — his “worst nightmare.”

According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims,” again, showing where his loyalty lies. Tabari’s exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community,” i.e., he too becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).

Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that “in the Koran, you’re not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”

At any rate, surely none of this should come as a surprise. In April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. According to the AP, “he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

Taqiyya

This doctrine, which revolves around deceiving the infidel, is pivotal to upholding loyalty and enmity wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live among non-Muslim majorities. In fact, the Koran’s primary justification for deception is in the context of loyalty: “Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (Koran 3:28). In other words, when necessary, Muslims are permitted to feign friendship and loyalty to non-Muslims, or, in the words of Abu Darda, a pious companion of Muhammad, “We grin to the faces of some peoples, while our hearts curse them” (AQR, p. 73). Taqiyya’s importance for upholding loyalty and enmity is evidenced by the fact that, just three pages into his treatise, Zawahiri has an entire section called “The Difference Between Befriending and Dissembling.” There he shows that, while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship — whenever beneficial to Muslims — is not.

Again, Zawahiri quotes that standard reference, Tabari, who explains Koran 3:28 as follows: “Only when you are in their [non-Muslims’] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim” (AQR, p. 74).

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims — whom, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty — it is forbidden. As Zawahiri concludes, the Muslim may pretend, so long as he does “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (AQR, p. 75).

Again, we are reminded that the “moment of truth” for Hasan, who seems to have led something of a double life — American major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night — is the fact that he was being deployed to Afghanistan, i.e., he would have been aiding non-Muslim Americans against fellow Muslims (remember, he was “a Muslim first and an American second”). He tried to prevent this, getting a lawyer, to no avail. Thus, since he had taken deceit to its doctrinal limit and was now being placed in a position where he would have to actually demonstrate his loyalty to Americans against Muslims, it appears he decided to take it to the next level (see doctrine below).

Incidentally, we also find that “he [Hasan] was going to be kind of the caretaker for [American] Muslim soldiers. Sometimes Muslim soldiers have a rift between what they’re doing and their faith,” according to Major Khalid Shabazz, an Army Muslim chaplain. “That person who is a leader needs to quell some of those fears and help them through that process.”

This all sounds well and good, but what, precisely, does it mean? If, as we have seen, Islam clearly forbids Muslims from aiding infidels against fellow Muslims, and if being in the U.S. Army requires American Muslims to fight non-American Muslims now and again, how was Hasan — or any other observant Muslim — going to “quell some of those fears and help through that process”? How, if not by merely instructing them in the centuries-old arts of taqiyya?

Jihad

Amongst learned infidels, jihad is the most recognized and notorious of all Muslim doctrines. Literally meaning to “struggle” or “strive,” jihad can take on any form, though its most native and praiseworthy expression revolves around fighting, and killing, the infidel enemy — even if it costs the Muslim fighter (the mujahid) his life: “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the path of Allah; whoever fights in the path of Allah — whether he dies or triumphs — we shall richly reward him” (Koran 4:74). And “Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and possessions, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight in the path of Allah, killing and being killed” (Koran 9:111).

The hadith also has its fair share of anecdotes advocating the “one-man jihad.” Zawahiri’s treatise, “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents,” (AQR p. 137-171), spends much time justifying the desperate solo jihad — otherwise known as the “martyrdom operation” — including by offering the following hadith: “A Muslim asked Muhammad, O Messenger of Allah! If I plunge myself into the ranks of the idolaters and fight till I am killed — what then, to heaven? He [Muhammad] said yes. So the man plunged himself into the ranks of the idolaters, fighting till he was slain” (AQR, p. 153).

The learned ulema agree. According to al-Qurtubi (d. 1273), “There is no wrong for a man to singlehandedly attack a mighty army — if he seeks martyrdom — provided he has the fortitude.” Others indicate that one of the reasons making the one-man jihad permissible is that it serves to “terrify the foe” (AQR, p. 155).

And there it is: When all else failed, when Hasan’s forthcoming deployment into Muslim land forced him to expose where his true loyalty (wala’) lies, pretense (taqiyya) gave way to full-blown struggle (jihad). Hasan, who sacrificed many years to become a psychiatrist and a U.S. Army major, in the clear words of the Koran “exchange[d] the life of this world for the Hereafter.” Evidence also indicates that he believed “martyrdom operations” were not only valid but laudable acts of courage, writing “YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” (capitals in original). Zawahiri puts it more articulately: “The deciding factor is … the intention.” Is the mujahid killing himself “to service Islam [laudable martyrdom], or is it out of depression and despair [forbidden suicide]?” (AQR, p. 157).

(Unfortunately and, no doubt, much to Hasan’s chagrin, infidel medics ensured his failure to achieve martyrdom.)

The greatest proof that, at least in his own mind, Hasan was waging a jihad is the fact that he utilized that immemorial jihadi war cry — Allahu Akbar! — which has served to terrify the infidel denizens of the world for centuries. Here’s an example from Muslim history (circa the early 8th century): “The [non-Muslim] inhabitants of eastern Anatolia were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts. … The [non-Muslim] men were crucified over the course of 24 km” (from Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk).

Indeed, while the takbir (the formal term for “Allahu Akbar”) can be used in various contexts, it is by far primarily used in a jihadi context, past and present. Nearly 1,400 years ago, Muhammad and the early Muslims cried “Allahu Akbar” immediately before attacking their infidel neighbors; eight years before the Fort Hood massacre, Mohamed Atta cried “Allahu Akbar” immediately before crashing a hijacked plane into one of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Even Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith compiler, has an entire chapter titled “The Recitation of Takbir [i.e., Allahu Akbar] in War.”

Yet confusion abides. An AP report writes: “As if going off to war, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan cleaned out his apartment, gave leftover frozen broccoli to one neighbor, and called another to thank him for his friendship — common courtesies and routines of the departing soldier. Instead, authorities say, he went on the killing spree that left thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, dead.” Contrary to the tone of this excerpt, Hasan’s actions were far from contradictory. After all, he was “going off to war.”

Wala’ wa bara, taqiyya, and jihad all help explain Hasan’s actions. Even so, other lesser-known aspects of Islam lend their support to the view that he was acting from an Islamist framework.

Sakina

Several people who encountered Hasan before, and even during, the time he went a-jihading note that he evinced an almost unnatural amount of calmness — certainly for one getting ready to go on a killing spree. No doubt, many will point to this as a sign that he was suffering from some sort of schizophrenic episode.

Yet the fact remains: according to jihadi lore, a feeling of tranquility and calmness is supposed to descend on the mujahid, especially during the most stressful moments of combat (see Koran 9:26 for confirmation). This is known as sakina (calmness, tranquility). Osama bin Laden himself often describes his experience of sakina during the Afghan-Soviet war: “Once I was only thirty meters away from the Russians and they were trying to capture me. I was under bombardment, but I was so peaceful in my heart that I fell asleep. Before a battle, Allah sends us sequina [sakina] — tranquility.” Of course, whether Hasan experienced “true” sakina, or whether he was merely affecting to himself, is irrelevant. Rather, the point here is that, once again, that which appears inexplicable or indicative of “mental instability” can be explained through an Islamic paradigm.

Da’wa

According to Sharia law, Muslims are not permitted to voluntarily reside in non-Muslim nations, such as America, except under certain circumstances. One of these is if the Muslim is actively engaged in da’wa, that is, proselytizing; another is if he fights in the path of Allah, jihad. Both serve the same purpose: empowering Islam by numbers and territory, respectively. Merely living in infidel territory out of choice, however, because it offers a “better life,” is forbidden. (To get an idea of how serious a matter it is for Muslims to reside in non-Muslims nations, see some online fatwas.)

Accordingly, we find that the observant Hasan, prior to his jihadi spree, was engaged in da’wa for years. In fact, he aggressively pursued it to the point that he was reprimanded by the authorities. Nor did he cease trying to proselytize — that is, trying to validate his living with infidels — until the day before he went on his rampage, when he gave his neighbor a copy of the Koran. Of course, many Westerners will project their notions of proselytism onto Hasan and see only a God-fearing man “altruistically” concerned for the souls of others. Unfortunately, even the business card he included with his Koran gifts is indicative of violence, as it stealthily introduces him as a “soldier of Allah.” Moreover, the “altruistic” interpretation fails to take into account the sort of legalism observant Muslims such as Hasan often adhere to: if he literally believed he was “exchanging this life for the Hereafter,” he most likely also believed that he had to justify his voluntary dwelling with infidels, hence the da’wa.

* * *

Soon following the Fort Hood massacre, FBI agent Brad Garrett explained Hasan’s behavior as follows: “It’s one of those things that he obviously went to kill a lot of people [jihad] and commit suicide [martyrdom]. Maybe in his own mind that he’s saving future lives [Muslim loyalty].” Read with the bracketed concepts I supplied, Hasan’s actions become logical and consistent — again, from an doctrinal point of view, that is, from a point of view the West, especially its leaders, are loath to explore and alacritous to ignore.

For example, “U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat who is one of two Muslims serving in Congress, cautioned against focusing on the alleged shooter’s religion [and thus its doctrines] and instead said the discussion should be about mental health issues.”

Read:

U.S. Congressional Representative Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat – (one of the two Muslims in the U.S. Congress) – may have explained a lot more then he intended to when he said the discussion about Nidal Milak Hasan “should be about mental health issues” – Most of us already know that this is the only option.

Killing spree of 14 deaths and 30 wounded.

So, real Muslims are either crazy or they are just acting out their religious obligations.

Flagrant obfuscations aside, the facts remain: loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels (wala’ wa bara’), a secretive double life (taqiyya), violence in the name of Allah (jihad) — all these can easily explain Hasan’s violent rampage in Fort Hood.

The ultimate lesson? So long as Muslim doctrines are downplayed in the West, so long will warning signs, even concrete intelligence, be ignored, so long will such seemingly inexplicable incidents occur, so long will the media continue grasping for straws and Americans be “completely blindsided,” so long will “Muslim grievance” be the default answer, so long will appeasement and concessions (domestically and internationally) be the only solution, so long will jihadis and Islamists grow emboldened and contemptuous, expecting more. Ad infinitum.

Conversely, if the Fort Hood massacre causes Americans to begin taking Islam’s doctrines more seriously, the thirteen slain, while dying tragically, will not have died in vain.

Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nidal-hasan-and-fort-hood-a-study-in-muslim-doctrine-part-1/ and http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nidal-hasan-and-fort-hood-a-study-in-muslim-doctrine-part-2/

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda

Related Topics: Muslims in the United States, Radical Islam, TerrorismRaymond Ibrahim receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

h1

VIDEO: Geert Wilders’ Life Threatened

November 4, 2009

This is from the United Kingdom, London, Great Britain – Muslims openly threatening Geert Wilders’ life. This is Sharia Law.  This is the heart of Islam.  Hate, NOT Peace.

Muslims threaten to kill Geert Wilders in UK.

 

h1

Radio Program: Rifqa Bary

October 14, 2009

RADIO JIHAD SHOW |18 Sept. 2009

This show discusses:

Rifqa Bary and why the Islamists around the world are deathly afraid of what she represents as a living apostate. Ms. Bary is now a Joan of Arc capable of leading thousands of other girls, boys, and women who want to leave Political Islam regardless of the death sentence for doing so.

We discuss how US forces have come to the military aid of Muslims in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc… and for what – we explore the Constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tax protest on Washington DC 1.5 million people declared a non-event by the mainstream press

h1

IBD: Schoolhouse Shariah

September 25, 2009

Schoolhouse Shariah

IBD: 25 Sept. 09

Multiculturalism: California’s educrats have put out new rules for teaching Islamic studies to seventh-graders in public schools, and they are as biased as ever. They’ll also likely spread eastward.

The lesson guidelines adopted by the bellwether state whitewash the violence and oppression of women codified in Islamic law, or Shariah. And they’re loaded with revisionist history about the faith.

For example, the suggested framework glorifies Shariah as a liberal reform movement that “rejected” the mistreatment of women that existed in Arabia before Muhammad and his successors conquered the region, according to Accuracy in Academia. The guidelines claim that Islamic law established for the first time that men and women were entitled to equal “respect.”

Not so, says Islamic scholar and author Nonie Darwish, who grew up Muslim in Egypt.

I am shocked that that is what they teach,” she said. “Women had more rights in Arabia before Shariah.”

In fact, “wife beating is allowed under Shariah” today, she added. “It allows a woman seen without a headdress to be flogged, punishes rape victims, and calls for beheading for adultery.”

California’s course on world religions also omits Islam’s long history of jihadist violence, while portraying Christianity as an intolerant and bloodthirsty faith.

Christianity isn’t given equal time, either. It’s covered in just two days — as opposed to up to two weeks for Islam — and doesn’t involve kids in any role-playing activities like the Islam unit.

Students do get a healthy dose of skepticism about the Christian faith, including a biting history of its persecution of other people.

Islam, in contrast, gets a pass from critical review. Even jihad is presented as an “internal personal struggle to do one’s best to resist temptation,” not waging holy war.

“California schools are pushing an unbalanced religious agenda that favors Islam and minimizes Christianity and Judaism,” Accuracy in Academia warns in its latest Campus Report.

Who helped build the California Education Department’s framework for Islamic studies? Islamist “scholars” with the Council on Islamic Education, or CIE, a Saudi-tied activist group.

The consultancy changed its name after former IBD Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry, author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” exposed that its chief researcher and textbook consultant for years taught social studies at a Saudi madrassa just outside Washington.

The Islamic Saudi Academy is a breeding ground for terrorists, including the valedictorian-turned-al-Qaida agent recently sentenced to life for plotting to assassinate President Bush.

Recently, Fox News reported that the head of CIE — now known as the Institute on Religion and Civic Values — misled California education authorities about his academic credentials. For one, Shabbir Mansuri never received a USC degree in chemical engineering as he has claimed, Fox says.

The group’s Web site no longer includes the claim. These are the folks who are teaching your children about Islam in public schools. Parents have protested, even sued, but to no avail.

For example, parents of seventh-graders in the San Francisco area, who after 9/11 were taught pro-Islamic lessons as part of California’s world history curriculum, sued under the First Amendment ban on religious establishment.

They argued, reasonably, that the government was promoting Islam by mandating that their kids participate in Muslim role-playing exercises such as designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially “becoming a Muslim” for two full weeks.

Children also were told to recite aloud Muslim prayers that begin with “In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful,” and memorize the Muslim profession of faith: “Allah is the only true God, and Muhammad is his messenger.”

But a federal judge appointed by President Clinton told parents in so many words to get over it, that the state was merely teaching kids about another “culture.”

California’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, ruling that it was OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises.

The decision was a major victory for the multiculturalists and Islamic apologists in California and across the country who’ve never met a culture or religion they didn’t like — with the exception of Western civilization and Christianity.

You can’t teach the Ten Commandments in public schools. But teaching the five pillars of Islam is A-OK.

h1

IBD: RIFQA BARY

September 22, 2009

Fathima’s Fears

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 22 Sept. 2009

Islamism: A Muslim teen who fled from Ohio to Florida after becoming Christian swears her father will kill her if she goes back home. Florida authorities appear willing to take that chance.


Read More: Global War On Terror


The state believes her fears are unfounded after talking to the devout Muslim father and his lawyers, who work for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And it’s expected to return her to his care.

Florida conducted a juvenile hearing after the father sued to regain custody of his 17-year-old daughter — Fathima Rifqa Bary — who sought shelter with a Christian family in Orlando after he allegedly threatened to kill her for changing her religion.

In their report, Florida authorities found: “Ms. Bary’s concern that she may be killed because of her conversion from Islam to Christianity remains a subjective and speculative concern.”

Based on the facts of the case — along with prior Muslim father-daughter “honor killings” inside America — we would argue that the concern is, on the contrary, very real. Consider that:

• Bary swore in a court filing that her father confronted her in her bedroom and said: “If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me!” And then, picking up a laptop as if to hit her, he allegedly added: “I will kill you!” A friend reported the incident to local police.

(The father, Mohamed Bary, admits grabbing the computer but says he meant only to throw it. He denies threatening her life.)

• The daughter also swore that her father punched her in the face on the way to mosque one day because she complained about wearing a hijab. (The father denies striking her.)

• Bary also testified her family’s radical mosque told her father to “deal with the situation” of her Christian conversion, a thinly veiled reference, she says, to honor killing.

The CAIR lawyers assured Florida investigators that there’s no such thing as honor killings in Islam. In fact, there is a requirement in Shariah, or Islamic, law for killing publicly declared apostates, and Bary announced leaving Islam on her Facebook page.

CNN and others in the mainstream media have made an issue of Bary’s truthfulness, and some details of her story don’t hold up. Notably, she said she hid her cheerleading because she feared her father’s disapproval.

But investigators say they saw photos of the girl in her cheerleading uniform prominently displayed in the family room of their Ohio home. (It’s not clear when the photos were put up, however, and investigators confirmed that at least the mother had denied her permission to join the squad.)

Bary’s mother told authorities that her husband believes that if their daughter returns home, she should practice Islam as long as she’s underage and living under their roof. What if she doesn’t? What then?

h1

FSC: Rifqa Bary

September 18, 2009

Visit this very important link describing the Rifqa Bary situation:

http://www.floridasecuritycouncil.org/rifqa/

h1

Shariah Takes Precedence over U.S. Constitution

September 4, 2009

Oak Lawn, Illinois – Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the international movement to re-establish an international Islamic state ­ or Caliphate – kicked off a new campaign to win American recruits Sunday afternoon in this Chicago suburb. Nearly 300 people packed the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel for its Khalifah Conference on “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam” to listen to HT ideologues blame capitalism for World War I and World War II; the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown; the current violence in Iraq and Afghanistan; world poverty and malnutrition and inner-city drug use.

A speaker identified as Abu Atallah even blamed capitalism for the late singer Michael Jackson’s decision “to shed his black skin.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir aims to restore the Caliphate that existed during the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk abolished it in 1924 in an effort to create a secular, Europeanized state.

Security at the conference was very tight. Oak Lawn police maintained a checkpoint outside the Hilton, and local police and HT’s own security people had a substantial presence inside the hotel. In the ballroom where the conference took place, men and women were largely segregated, with men in the front and women in the back. This became a significant point of contention between HT supporters and several members of the audience who objected to this arrangement. At one point, an unidentified Hizb ut-Tahrir speaker became flustered over this line of questioning.

“Men and women,” he blurted out, must be kept separate “to prevent people from behaving like animals.”

A woman in the audience responded: “How does intermingling between men and women make you animals?” HT panelists didn’t have a persuasive answer, and soon adjourned that session.

The conference was sometimes poorly organized. There was no list of speakers, forcing reporters to sometimes guess at the spelling of speakers’ names. But HT certainly appeared to be serious about working for the larger goals of the conference: abolishing capitalism and imposing Caliphate rule over the world.

According to Hizb ut-Tahrir, the world’s social and economic problems will not be fixed until the world is governed by Shariah and the government controls all major industries. Lenders would no longer be able to charge interest, which one speaker decried as a “poisonous concept.” Charity, or zakat, was advertised as the way to alleviate “economic inequality.”

“Secular capitalism has made me devalue my skin” and “has kept my family in ghettos,” said one speaker, an African-American who went on to blame it for the fact that he smoked marijuana and his grandmother played the lottery. Capitalism, he added, is a form of economic “terrorism” and “causes us to be sent to mental hospitals.” Barack Obama’s presidency, he said, “is only a scheme or con” to trick people into thinking that things will get better under capitalism.

But time and again on Sunday, Hizb ut-Tahrir officials seemed to be playing slippery rhetorical games of their own – particularly when it came to the behavior of despotic Muslim regimes and terrorists. When a few skeptical audience members pressed speakers over the fact that Islamic governments in Iran and Saudi Arabia are despotic, conference speakers claimed those weren’t “authentic” Muslim governments and that the CIA (and by implication, the capitalist U.S. government) was to blame for the problems in those countries. In an interview with WBBM-TV in Chicago, HT deputy spokesman Mohammad Malkawi refused to specifically condemn Al Qaida and the Taliban.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government and it insists it is only interested in instituting radical change by nonviolent means. But HT’s alumni include 9/ll mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the late Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi and would-be Hamas suicide bombers, and the group’s pro-jihadist rhetoric has led critics to label it a “conveyor belt for terrorists.”

One Muslim American group issued a statement in advance of the conference condemning Hizb ut-Tahrir’s radical ideology and challenging others to follow suit.

“Hizb ut-Tahrir preaches an ideology that calls for the destruction of the principles that America is founded on,” said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy. “While their words are protected by our First Amendment, their actions and movement must not be allowed to take hold. The silence of American Islamist organizations like [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] CAIR and [the Islamic Society of North America] ISNA in condemning the ideologies of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their agenda of insurgency in America speaks volumes to their own, albeit, more camouflaged Islamist agenda.”

HT’s efforts to rehabilitate its image won’t be helped by the menacing tone on display Sunday. One late-afternoon panelist suggested that modern industrial powers could fall to Muslims the way Mecca fell to Mohammed nearly 1,400 years ago.

A speaker identified by conference organizers as Imam Jaleel Abdul Adil said that “if they offer us the sun, or the moon, or a nice raise, or a passport, or a house in the suburbs or even a place to pray at the job, on the condition that we stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life – we should never do that, ever do that – unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt.” (To see the clip, click here.)

Later, the following dialogue ensued between the imam and a member of the audience over whether Shariah or the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land in the United States (click here to see the clip):

Audience member: “Would you get rid of the Constitution for Shariah, yes or no?”

Imam: “Over the Muslim world? Yes, it would be gone.”

Audience Member: And so if the United States was a Muslim world, the Constitution would be gone?”

Imam: “If the United States was in the Muslim world, the Muslims who are here would be calling and happy to see the Shariah applied, yes we would.”

Audience Member: “And the Constitution gone. That’s all.”

Imam: “Yes, as Muslims they would be long gone.”

While Hizb ut-Tahrir’s controversial message attracted demonstrators and some media attention, the group at least is open about its ambitions. It not only is determined to destroy capitalism — it would shred the United States Constitution as well in favor of Shariah law.

h1

Support Your Local Sharia

August 10, 2009

Support Your Local Sharia
David R. Stokes
Sunday, August 02, 2009

It is pretty clear at this point that barring some kind of last minute reality check the Fairfax County (Virginia) Board of Supervisors will approve the Islamic Saudi Academy’s application for a special exemption this Monday, August 3rd. This will enable the Saudi-funded madrasa to expand and plant even deeper roots in America’s backyard, teaching in the anti-democratic traditions of wahhabism.

It will happen despite the fact that neighboring home owners associations are opposed, the land use and legal issues argue against the school and would have been a death knell to any other application, and the academy in question has on many occasions failed to honor previous county agreements, not to mention state law.

Oh, and the wise ones on the panel defiantly refuse to factor in the fact that the Saudi curriculum taught at ISA is filled with hateful things that most Americans would find repugnant – even dangerous. We’re not talking about mere religious ideas. What has been taught there in the past should have caused the powers that be to shut the place down years ago.

Interestingly, just a few days ago one of the academy’s past students – in fact, a former valedictorian and a young man voted “most likely to be martyred” (really) named Ahmed Omar Abu Ali – was resentenced to life in prison for plotting with al-Qaeda and trying to kill President George W. Bush. As the cool song says: “I believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way.” He graduated in 1999, bounced around for a bit and wound up in Saudi Arabia in 2002.

In his written confession, Abu Ali said: “It was decided that I would go [to the United States] and live a normal life [overtly] to keep attention away from me, marry a Christian woman, and at the same time I would prepare as best I could for operations.” If all this seems decidedly inconsistent for someone who practices a religion of virtue and peace, bear in mind that there is an Islamic doctrine called taqiyya. What it basically means is that deceit is a legitimate weapon when dealing with infidels (read: “We the People”).

Grasping the fact that our determined enemies will at times use monumental deceit to further their cause is imperative right now. The members of the Fairfax County panel seem oblivious to this. More than a quarter of a century ago the board of supervisors denied a similar application by a Christian school, citing traffic concerns. Of course, the traffic is much better now. Right.

“I cannot put the safety of the American citizenry at risk,” said U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, when he handed down Abu Ali’s sentence. Good call, your honor. Now, would you ever consider becoming a county supervisor?

Christopher Caldwell, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, has written a book called, Reflections On The Revolution In Europe. In it he notes: “In the middle of the 20th century, there were virtually no Muslims in Western Europe. At the turn of the 21st century, there were between 15 and 17 million.” Now in many major European cities the most common baby names Mohamed, Ayoub, Hamza, etc.

He suggests that these Muslims have not assimilated, but rather have formed “a parallel society.” And they are bringing anti-Semitism back big time.

“Imagine that the West,” Caldwell writes, “at the height of the Cold War, had received a mass inflow of immigrants from Communist countries who were ambivalent about which side they supported. Something similar is taking place now.”

And it’s not just happening over there.

The expansion of the Islamic Saudi Academy may not seem to be that big of a deal to some and certainly the members of the board of supervisors see no threat in allowing them to get a better foothold. But such things are, in fact, part of a pattern of denial and outright stupidity on the part of people who should be intelligent enough to know better.

Convinced, though, of the liberal notion of “enlightened tolerance,” such political leaders are playing a dangerous game of mindless appeasement. There is a growing subculture in this country, a network of nefarious groups sharing a common theo-political vision for taking over everything. Operating under the aegis of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and so many others, they all say one thing, while doing another.

Ignore what they say; watch what they do.

Their unmistakable goal is the dominance of Sharia-law in this country – the world for that matter. In other words, they envision a political overthrow and remaking of everything we know, love, and hold dear as Americans. And they are using the Bill of Rights and opportunities created by a systemic decrease in vigilance to gain ground toward their objective.

I believe in the Christian faith. I therefore do not believe in the tenets of Islam. Nor am I into Buddhist doctrine. I do, though, believe in religious liberty and free speech. But what we are seeing is a case where religious liberty and free speech have become weapons in the hands of would-be terrorists and tyrants.

I will defend with all my heart the right of any Muslim to pray and live according to the precepts of that faith. I will also do all in my power to bear witness about Christianity in the free marketplace of ideas. But if anyone, in the name of religion, or under its cloak, seeks the overthrow of the very system that grants us those freedoms, that’s where the line is drawn.

Free speech ends with the cry of fire in a crowded theater. Religious freedom ends when there is deception en route to coercion that would ultimately lead to an end of liberty for all. And no municipality or government entity should deliberately ignore the toxicity of certain ideas that would undermine the Constitution.

What if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to put a school in Fairfax County? How about if Kim Jong-il decided to put a nice North Korean institution in our backyard – fully funded? I imagine such enterprises would not even get a hearing. Why then the Saudis? The wahhabism taught at the Islamic Saudi Academy should be every bit as objectionable to freedom-loving Americans as what some other enemy might espouse.

But some might ask: What about “moderate” Muslims? Well, as Bruce Bawer points out in his book, Surrender: Appeasing Islam – Sacrificing Freedom, “that while there are such things has moderate and liberal Christianity, there is no such thing as a moderate or liberal Islam. Yes, there are millions of good-hearted individuals who identify themselves as Muslims and who have no enmity in their hearts for their non-Muslim neighbors and coworkers. Some of these Muslims are religiously observant, some are not; but their moderation is not an attribute of the brand of Islam to which they officially subscribed but is, rather, a measure of their own individual character.”

In other words, their moderation comes not from a particular interpretation or variant, but rather “they have chosen to put a certain distance between their own religious thought and practice and the strict tenets of institutional Islam.”

Those of us in Fairfax who oppose the expansion of the Islamic Saudi Academy will likely have to concede defeat this Monday. But in doing so we will long remember – at least until the next county election – where the supervisors stood on the issue. Stay tuned.

It appears that many liberal-minded types want us to be more like Europe and their views may be ascendant these days, but those who see European-socialistic-democracy as a model for our future should pay attention to how it is being threatened by an enemy within.

As Mr. Caldwell says in his new book about what is happening there, “When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture (Europe’s) meets a culture that is anchored, confident, and strengthened by common doctrines (Islam’s) it is generally the former than changes to suit the latter.”

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

h1

The Stoning of Soraya M. Exit Interviews

July 27, 2009

The Stoning of Soraya M. / Exit Interviews / Movie Review

h1

Why the sun is setting on England

July 13, 2009

Nothing new for our readers – but this article reinforces our concern for the United States of America.

Why the sun is setting on England

by Bill Muehlenberg
Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10:56 (BST)

In its heyday it was said of the British Empire that the sun never set on it. Because so many lands across the globe bore the English flag, it was once the world’s great superpower. Of course today that grand empire is no more. And for that matter, England itself is almost no more.

As has been documented here on numerous occasions, the UK is on the verge of giving it all away, renouncing everything that once made it great. Like so much of the rest of the West, it is committed to abandoning its Judeo-Christian heritage, and with it, all that makes for national greatness.

Three more links in a massive chain dragging the UK to its doom can be mentioned here. Each link in itself is not enough to destroy a nation, but when hundreds of such links are joined together, the heaviness of the chain around a nation’s neck is almost impossible to carry.

The three episodes all occurred in the past few days, and simply add to the oppressive burden of national self-destruction. The first concerns the ever widening grip of Islamic fundamentalism. A recent news item has noted that Britain now has 85 sharia law courts. One press report says this:

“At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts. However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.”

It is difficult for any nation to maintain any sort of social cohesion when it effectively has two different law systems in operation. Yet that is what we seem to find here. One Conservative MP, Philip Davies, expressed his concerns:

“Everyone should be deeply concerned about the extent of these courts. They do entrench division in society, and do nothing to entrench integration or community cohesion. It leads to a segregated society. There should be one law, and that should be British law. We can’t have a situation where people can choose which system of law they follow and which they do not. We can’t have a situation where people choose the system of law which they feel gives them the best outcome. Everyone should equal under one law.”

While it is good to hear the Opposition speaking out on this, things in fact get worse. The second episode I wish to highlight in fact concerns the Tory leader in the UK, David Cameron. He has just recently spoken at a major homosexual pride event, and he has been bending over backwards to win homosexuals over to the conservative side of politics.

He apologised for a 1988 law passed under Margaret Thatcher, Section 28, which banned local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light. Cameron said that one of his “proudest” moments as leader of the Conservatives was when he told a party conference in 2006 that they had a duty to support a “commitment to marriage” among men and women, between a “man and a man, and a woman and a woman”.

The real question is, with leaders like this, just how conservative is the Tory opposition going to be? In trying to woo the homosexual vote, he is making the Tories indistinguishable from the Labour Party, and doing his own bit to finally destroy marriage and family in England.

A third episode which also speaks to the decline of Christianity in England is the advent of atheist summer camps. Yes, you heard me right. Concerned atheists are setting up summer camps to help make sure that little Johnny or little Sarah do not get to close to any of that nasty religious stuff.

Here is how one news report describes the story: “Now, an atheist summer camp for children set up in the United Kingdom is to offer a ‘godless alternative’ to religious camps. The 24 places on Camp Quest UK (CQUK), which will be held next month near Bath, Somerset, in England’s West Country, have already been booked up, according to organisers. Organisers said the purpose of the camp was ‘to encourage critical thinking and provide children with a summer camp free of religious dogma.’ The camp, supported by scientist Richard Dawkins, plans to expand after receiving hundreds of inquiries.”

The camp organiser said, “We want to encourage children to think for themselves and to evaluate the world critically and thus draw their own conclusions. However, parents should be aware that we adopt a critical, scientific approach as opposed to a ‘faith-based’ approach. At Camp Quest, children aren’t taught that ‘There is no god,’ Instead, they are taught to come to their own conclusions, but more importantly, that ‘It’s OK not to believe in a god.’”

Hmmm, really? What if, upon examining the evidence (and it all depends on what evidence the kiddies are actually allowed to examine), they come up with the conclusion that God in fact does exist? Will they then say, ‘It’s OK to believe in a god’? Somehow I just don’t think so.

But you have you hand it to our atheist buddies – they are always good for a laugh. They are absolutely sure that God does not exist, yet they are working overtime making sure they can convince everyone of this. Maybe they aren’t so sure after all.

One thing can be said with certainty: they are certainly evangelistic for their cause, on a holy mission to spread the good word. They seem to be one of the more active missionary religions around at the moment. Onward atheist soldiers, marching as to war….

These three recent episodes speak to the slow but steady decline of the UK. By themselves they may seem minor. But when considered with the many other examples produced here and elsewhere, the cumulative case for a nation of the brink is easily made. One simply has to ask how many more links must be added to the chain before the whole nations is dragged down into the abyss.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/5710650/David-Cameron-says-sorry-over-Section-28-gay-law.html
www.assistnews.net/Stories/2009/s09060171.htm

About Bill Muehlenberg:
Bill Muehlenberg is an Australian apologist and ethicist, and head of ministry CultureWatch. He comments regularly on issues of the day from the Christian perspective on his website www.billmuehlenberg.com

h1

Movie: The Stoning of Soraya M.

July 7, 2009

NOTE:  Visit http://www.thestoning.com/ – to view the movie official site and theater locations.

eyes

Soraya’s Warning to the Mullahs
The Stoning of Soraya M. is more than a movie about a wronged Iranian woman. The film’s timing, writes Steven Emerson, can help a nation rally against its iron-fisted Islamic rulers.

by Steven Emerson
Written for The Daily Beast
July 6, 2009

Director Cyrus Nowrasteh’s new release, The Stoning of Soraya M. written by Cyrus and his wife Elizabeth, is one of the most compelling, stirring, and riveting films I have ever seen. Inspired by French journalist Freidoune Sahebjam’s international bestseller of the same name, this compelling story sheds light on Islamist mob rule and the horrific honor killings associated with countries that follow Sharia law.

Most importantly, the timing of the film’s release—amid the largest popular Iranian uprising against the Islamo-fascist mullahs since they took over in 1979—makes it one of the most relevant and important of our time. It, quite simply, serves as a brilliant exposition on the fanatics who control Iran and their willingness to kill their own people to maintain religious political power.

This film should be required viewing not only for every American—nay, every citizen of the world—but for every Obama administration official and member of Congress, if they want to understand what is truly going on Iran and the need to firmly, unequivocally, and unambiguously confront the Islamist thugs, whether they be in Tehran, Gaza, or Lebanon.

Indeed, the unwillingness of the president to aggressively confront, let alone condemn, the existence of “radical Islam” or specifically condemn the anti-human-rights fascism of the Sharia (the system of laws based on the Koran)—and which underlies the evil dramatically exposed in this extraordinary film—may yet earn him recognition as the man who has most endangered the security of West.

The Stoning of Soraya M. is one of those rare films in American cinema history that truly has the potential of eliciting popular demands for changes in our foreign policy by the American public, even by the world public; its power is undeniable.

The film is a story of a courageous Islamic woman fighting a losing battle against a radical religious system rigged against women. The simple premise of the film will anger, enrage, and yet ultimately inspire and mobilize anyone who sees it.

Set in a small Iranian village in the mid-1980s, an innocent woman, Soraya, is caught in a scheme by her cruel husband who conspires against her with trumped-up charges of infidelity. He enlists the local mullah and fellow villagers to conduct an all-male tribunal that declares her guilty. Her sentence is death by public stoning, still employed in Iran and other radical Islamic countries.

This is not a singing-dancing-happy-ending stuff of a Hollywood blockbuster, yet it deserves every Academy Award possible. The tale is told with crisp cinematography and includes mesmerizing performances by Academy Award nominee Shohreh Aghdashloo (House of Sand and Fog) and Jim Caviezel (The Passion of the Christ).

“At its heart, this movie is a human drama filled with tension, peril, and hope,” Nowrasteh says, “but it is also a true story that I felt strongly had to be told, a story the whole world needs to know.” It’s astonishing true story of Zahra, the fearless aunt of Soraya who happens to spot a war correspondent passing through town to get his car fixed as he heads to the border. Soraya had been executed the day before, and her aunt’s raw outrage gives her the courage to demand that the reporter tape-record her story.

The film is so suspenseful, to the point that the viewer might—for just a moment—hope that Soraya might be able to escape before her sentence can be carried out. There is no escape, however, and at the end, tragically, it comes as no surprise.

It also comes as no surprise that women around the world continue to be targeted for this type of shocking injustice. Gathering reliable statistics for such punishment is challenging, but reports suggest there have been at least 1,000 women stoned to death over the past 15 years in countries such as Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

In 2008, a 13-year-old Somali girl was stoned by 50 men in a football stadium in front of a crowd of 1,000 spectators. According to BBC reports, the mob buried her up to her shoulders while she begged for her life, pleading “don’t kill me, don’t kill me.” Eleven people in Iran, nine of them women, were waiting to be stoned to death for adultery last year, according to Amnesty International. The United Nations estimates that 5,000 women each year become victims of “honor crimes” in which family members kill a woman who has allegedly brought dishonor on them.

Within the last year, two suspected cases have made headlines in the U.S. In Jonesboro, Georgia, last July, Chaudhry Rashid was accused of killing his daughter, Sandeela Kanwal, because she wanted out of an arranged marriage. In February, Aasiyah Hassan was stabbed multiple times and decapitated at an upstate New York television station. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, is believed to have become enraged because she filed for divorce days earlier. His trial is expected to begin in January.

The Stoning of Soraya M. is the first film drama to expose the torture of public stoning in the Muslim world. It is a credit to the Nowrastehs the execution scene itself avoids the graphic gore better suited for torture fetish films. Make no mistake, it’s a tough scene to watch but not just because of the implied violence. There’s an devastating emotional punch in the way the twisted judgment is delivered. Soraya must face her rock-wielding, divorce-seeking husband (who wants to be rid of her in order to marry a 14-year-old girl), other family members and neighbors she has known and cared for all her life.

“No one has ever shown a stoning on film before, so I felt a real responsibility to make it something the audience will never forget,” says Nowrasteh. He followed Sahebjam’s description in the book and willed himself to look at covert footage of a real stoning. “All I can tell you is that compared to what I saw and read, the scene in the movie is far less graphic than it could have been. Most of all, I wanted to capture the whole ritual design of it and how it affects the crowd.”

It is also remarkable that parallel stories of brave individuals speaking out against the tyrannical government in Iran are making headlines at the exact time this film hits theaters. Millions of voters believe the election was a fraud, but Iranian authorities have ordered international journalists to remain in their offices and refused to allow them to report on the events on the streets. Still, even state media reports nearly 20 protesters—and in fact perhaps up to 100—have been killed in the crackdown.

“Yes, the film is gripping drama,” Nowrasteh says, “but more than that it is a form of bearing witness, much like Zahra does in the movie. It becomes a liberating story about the power of breaking a silence and hopefully will encourage others to add their voices.”

After living in Iran as a young boy, the director’s family was exiled. “I’m not in a position to change any governments or laws in other countries, but one thing I can do is to really make people aware that this is happening wherever women are still treated as second-class citizens. It is hard to conceive of this still going on, but my obligation was to getting the truth out there—again, so the world will know. My biggest hope is that people will fall in love with these women and their courage.”

With the release of this film, the world will know. This story will haunt you. When I first saw the screening of the film, I sat, along with other members of the audience, in silence and in shock for at least 10 minutes after the film was over. I cried for the first time in years. I have now seen the film more than a dozen times and each viewing has given me a different experience.

At the same time, each has inspired me to keep fighting the Islamist mobsters and Islamic radicals that govern hundreds of millions of people in the Muslim world and have established deceptive and totalitarian strangleholds over Muslim populations in the west.

If there is only one film that you watch this year, or just one that you watch for the rest of your life, this should be the one. It will profoundly change your life.

Steve Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of five books on terrorism. His most recent book is Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.

h1

Lord Tebbit compares Sharia law

June 11, 2009

Lord Tebbit compares Sharia law with Kray twins’ arbitration system

Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative chairman, has compared Sharia law with the system of arbitration run by the Kray brothers in London’s East End.

By Chris Irvine
Published: 7:00AM BST 05 Jun 2009

The former Cabinet minister used the example of the twins – Ronnie and Reggie – who ran an underworld empire in the 1950s and 60s, to highlight the problem of women precluded from access to British law by some cultures.

At question time in the Lords, Lord Bach had told peers that individuals have “the option to use religious councils or any other system of alternative dispute resolution” but that English law would prevail if there was any conflict.

But Lord Tebbit said: “A few years ago in the East End of London there was a system of arbitration of disputes that was run by the Kray brothers.

“Are you not not aware that there is extreme pressure put upon vulnerable women to go through a form of arbitration that results in them being virtually precluded from access to British law?

“That is a difficult matter, I know, but how do you think we can help those who are put in that position?”

Responding, Lord Bach acknowledged that the problem “undoubtedly exists”, but added: “The fact is any decision made by anybody that is in fact outside English law cannot stand against English law. So if consent is sought, for example, for some issue around children or to do with family assets, then the English courts decide. “Other councils – not courts – can, if the parties themselves want to make that agreement, make that agreement and that applies across the board. But always behind that is the fact that those agreements can’t be enforced except by an English court.”

Lord Bach later said that Sharia law is “not part of the law of the United Kingdom” and the Government he “no intention” of changing the position.

Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation said Lord Tebbit’s comments were “out of touch with reality”.

“This system is a way of life,” he said. “If you were to attack Christianity or Judaism in the same way you can imagine the uproar.”

Sharia law in Britain has attracted controversy in the past, most notably when the Archbishop of Canterbury said the adoption of some aspects of the Islamic law were “unavoidable”.

Dr Rowan Williams said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and called for “constructive accommodation” with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes. His remarks sparked a national debate and led to calls for his resignation.

His comments were subsequently backed by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council who said it was “inevitable that Sharia law will become part of British law.”

h1

Video: Muslim Demographics

June 10, 2009

Vitally important 7 minutes.  Please watch.

SHOCKING!!!

Muslim Demographics:

h1

Islamic Law IS Islam

April 24, 2009

From the cover of today’s Investors Business Daily  24 April 09

ISLAMIC LAW IS ISLAM – Wake up folks.  Don

taliban2

Taliban Gunmen stand outside a mosque where tribal elders met with members of the Taliban in Daggar, just 60 miles from Pakistan’s capital in Islamabad.  Residents said Thursday that the meeting yielding a similar truce to one in Pakistan’s Swat Valley that resulted in the imposition of Islamic law just 10 days ago.

h1

Blinded Iranian seeks eye-for-eye justice

March 6, 2009

Blinded Iranian seeks eye-for-eye justice

By CIARAN GILES, Associated Press Writer Ciaran Giles, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 4, 11:04 am ET

MADRID – An Iranian woman living in Spain said Wednesday she welcomed a Tehran court ruling that awards her eye-for-an-eye justice against a suitor who blinded her with acid.

Ameneh Bahrami, 30, told Cadena SER radio, “I am not doing this out of revenge, but rather so that the suffering I went through is not repeated.”

Late last year an Iranian court ruled that the man — identified only as Majid — who blinded Bahrami in 2004 after she spurned him, should also be blinded with acid based on the Islamic law system of “qisas,” or eye for an eye retribution, according to Iranian newspaper reports from November.

But Bahrami, who moved to Spain after the attack to get medical treatment, said Wednesday that under Iranian law, she is entitled to blind him in only one eye, unless she pays euro20,000 ($25,110), because in Iran women are not considered equal to men.

“They have told us that my two eyes are equal to one of his because in my country each man is worth two women. They are not the same,” she told Cadena SER.

Bahrami explained that she was now waiting for a letter from the court to go back to Iran for the punishment to be carried out.

Cadenda SER said that after undergoing treatment in Barcelona, Bahrami recovered 40 percent vision in one eye but since then doctors have not been able to prevent her from going totally blind. She also suffered horrific burns to her face, scalp and body.

She says she now survives on euro400 ($500) a month in aid from the Spanish government.

The woman said Majid would be blinded by having several drops of acid put into one eye, whereas she had acid splashed all over her face and other parts of her body.

It was not immediately possible to make contact with Bahrami on Wednesday. No one at the Iranian Embassy was available for comment either.

h1

Minnesota: Taxpayer-facilitated Sharia-compliant mortgages

March 2, 2009

Minnesota: Taxpayer-facilitated Sharia-compliant mortgages

How does it work? “The state buys a home and resells it to the buyer at a higher price. The down payment and monthly installments are agreed to up front at current mortgage rates.”

The state buys the home and makes the Sharia-compliant arrangements with the Muslim buyer. As Jihad Watch reader Paul, who kindly sent me this story, asks: “Establishment clause, anyone?”

“New Islamic mortgages now available in Minnesota,” by Jessica Mador for Minnesota Public Radio, March 1 (thanks to Paul):

For many Minnesota Muslims, it’s been virtually impossible to buy a home, because Islamic law forbids the paying or charging of interest. To help close the home ownership gap among Muslim immigrants, the state’s housing agency is launching a new program offering Islamic mortgages.Minneapolis, Minn. — Islamic law does make exceptions to the ban on interest, if one’s family is at stake. But the exceptions are open to interpretation and for many observant Muslims, conventional mortgages are strictly taboo….

The program is targeted at low-to-moderate income families. Qualified applicants have to complete first-time home buyer education classes. The goal is to help Muslim home buyers build wealth and reap the benefits of home ownership.

Here’s how the mortgage, known as Murabaha financing or “cost plus sale,” works:

The state buys a home and resells it to the buyer at a higher price. The down payment and monthly installments are agreed to up front at current mortgage rates.

The deal is identical to a thirty-year fixed-rate loan, except there’s no additional interest, because the higher up front price factors in payments that would have been made over the life of a traditional mortgage.

A handful of private banks and lending institutions offer Islamic mortgages in the U.S., but Minnesota Housing is the first state agency to offer such a product. The program is the brainchild of Hussein Samatar, director of the African Development Center in Minneapolis.

“The process is different, but the outcome will look the same,” Samatar says. “We wanted to be as conventional as possible, while respecting the tenets of Islam.

Samatar, who used to work for Wells Fargo, tried for years to launch Islamic financing. He says the fact that Minnesota Housing has agreed to participate is a nod to the Muslim community’s growing economic power….

h1

Sharia Finance : Sharia Law

February 23, 2009

Learn about Sharia Finance. Sharia Law.

Sharia Finance : Sharia Law

Robert Spencer:


h1

Cruel and Usual Punishment

February 6, 2009

excerpts from

CRUEL AND USUAL PUNISHMENT

Nonie Darwish

pgs. 116-122

…In the famous angry Arab Street, filled with feelings of victimhood, anger, restlessness; always ready after a fiery Friday sermon in the mosque to riot, burn, and even kill…

Sharia was created by the powerful to serve powerful males – from Mohammed in the seventh century who had the first pick of war-captive women, to the caliphs who kept endless harems, to Arabian kings and princes and Muslim dictators who satiate their every whim; from Bin Laden with his multiple wives to powerful religious leaders – sheikhs, mullahs, and ayatollahs – who have wives as young as their granddaughters. All of this is at the expense of women, the family unit, and the majority of Muslim men as well. The powerful have managed to protect Sharia and mold their religious system to their best interests for fourteen hundred years to protect their best-kept Islamic secret, their sexual club. They will never, ever give that up easily.

So what do the poor and powerless males get? They get jihad. For the poor, angry young men, their dreams of sexual pleasure must be limited to the seventy-two houris heaven will provide when they do jihad.

Islamic texts are full of calls for jihad. Violence against infidels is central to Islamic scriptures and jurisprudence. This is what the good Muslim man must do to the unbelievers:
“Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers (non-Muslims). Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.’”  Qur’an Sura 8:12

Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” Qur’an Sura 9:5

The above demands from Allah cannot be achieved by happily married Muslim men who live in stable and loving relationships in a relatively peaceful society.

Their deep feelings of guilt and shame as well as their poverty must be the fault of the enemies of Islam, the infidels whom the Qur’an calls apes and pigs and enemies of Allah whom Muslims must never befriend or sign treaties with.

Muslim religious authorities can bluff the ordinary Muslim into believing the convoluted interpretations – which they are not allowed to question anyway – but Muslims cannot hide their texts from the world. Muslims shame comes from the need to explain themselves to infidels. The mere existence of the infidels’ free system causes many Muslim youth and women to ask questions that an obedient, submissive Muslim should never dare to ask. The West is blamed for the Muslim man’s shame, a shame they have managed to live with and have camouflaged and suppressed for centuries. And so the thinking goes: Allah was right when he called infidels apes and pigs and enemies of Islam. He was right when he ordered us to subjugate them and treat them as second-class citizens unworthy of our friendship or respect. Mohammed warned Muslims of the fitna – Arabic for “sedition or schism” – from the enemies of Islam, the part of the world that refuses to abide by Allah’s laws and treats their women equal to men. Those are the same people who occupied Muslims in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – we proud Muslims who once ruled over them. This shameful fitna can only be rectified through jihad. They must also be ruled by Allah’s law.

Angry Muslim preachers in the mosque become poor Muslim men’s inspiration and role models. They curse and blame the world for the Muslims’ failures and deeds. Thus 9/11, the tsunami, and even democracy are blamed on Jews and other infidels. The solution is always retaliation, boycott, violence in the street, or an uprising. The theme of the sermon is always, “Who has wronged us today?”

Consider the sheer number of jihad, war, and violence verses in the Qur’an and Hadith. Muslim scriptures are consumed with promoting extreme violence against non-believers. Jihad against the outside non-Muslim world is the ultimate and holiest objective, more important than women, children, men, the family, and even happiness of Muslim society.

Islam does not tell the Muslim man he is guaranteed heaven if he makes the world a peaceful place, but it does guarantee him heaven if he blues up the marketplaces and houses of worship of non-Muslims, if he sacrifices his life to kill the perceived enemies of Islam. Heaven is at his feet not when he dies protecting his wife and children from imminent danger. Yet if he dies in the process of expanding the power of Islam, he is guaranteed heaven and its infinite rewards. Jihad is the ultimate honor, more important than family.

h1

Sharia Law Threatens America

January 5, 2009

Billboard: Sharia Law Threatens America