The Support for Sharia Law Around the World

Sharia_dominate1-450x299By Rachel Molschky:

Sharia law is gaining ground across the world. An overwhelming majority of Muslims support the implementation of Islamic law in Muslim countries, in non-Muslim countries- in any country where they live.

The mainstream media wants us to believe that Muslims are well integrated, and only jihadists go around terrorizing people and subjugating them to Sharia law, like the new report of a jihadist group in Libya which now hopes to take over the town of Derna and enforce Sharia.“We also declare our hostility towards the enemies of G-d and His prophet — Jews, Christians and Taghouts.” (“Taghouts” are apparently non-Sharia compliant state institutions.)

While groups like this one and the Sharia-based Taliban are viewed as dangerous and militant, in varying degrees, Sharia law is the norm in nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. Many other Islamic nations implement at least part of Sharia law in their governments, and more are following suit.

This past fall, Brunei became the first East Asian State to fully adopt Sharia law and begin following a Saudi Arabia-style penal code. Ankit Panda of The Diplomat writes, “… some commentators have suggested that such strict Sharia law may be in conflict with Malay culture, and Brunei’s peaceful nature. Brunei, officially known as the Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace, might find itself hard-pressed to retain that moniker with its foray into such a draconian legal system.” Funny how implementing the laws of the “Religion of Peace” onto the “Abode of Peace” is not very peaceful!

The adherents of this supposed “Religion of Peace” have declared their full support of Sharia on a global scale. A Pew study done in 2013, asked Muslims from 23 countries across Southeastern Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, their views on Sharia. The study found that “in 17 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say sharia is the revealed word of G-d.” The top four in this group were Pakistan, where 81% believe this, Jordan which tied with Pakistan, and Egypt and the Palestinian territories, each with 75%.

Yet nearly all the Muslims surveyed either believe that it is the revealed word of G-d, or was developed by men but based on the word of G-d. There really is not much distinction between the two. Either way, they believe it is inspired by G-d. Looking at the complete numbers this way, the percent of Sharia supporters in the very same countries are 89% in Pakistan, 99% in Jordan, 95% in Egypt and 91% in the Palestinian territories.

In Afghanistan where Western countries have fought hard against the Taliban, which “inflicts” its strict Sharia rules onto the “poor, non-extremist” Muslim population, it turns out that 94% of Muslims there support Sharia law after all.

But who wants to make Sharia the official law of their country? According to the survey results, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Southeast Asia (like Malaysia at 86%), South Asia (Afghanistan 99% and Pakistan 84%), the Middle East and North Africa (the highest being Iraq at 91% and the Palestinian territories at 89%), and Sub-Saharan Africa (with the biggest supporter being the Muslims of Niger.)

So what’s the big deal over Sharia law anyway? Shouldn’t every religion have the right to follow its own laws? Well, not exactly. Not when the laws of the religion conflict dramatically with the laws of the land.

In the case of Sharia, the laws are incompatible with Western society, which is largely based on a common Judeo-Christian culture. Other religions besides Judaism and Christianity often share a similar moral foundation, making it easier for their adherents to assimilate. Islam, however, fails miserably. Most Muslims who integrate well into our Western culture are secular, but fundamentalism is a growing trend and is more of a normality among Muslims than among other religious groups. This explains why the global support for Sharia among Muslims is so high.

What is Sharia?

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Also see:

The Reliance of the Traveller

On the 100th Anniversary of International Women’s Day — What Are Feminists Doing About Honor Killings?

Phyllis Chesler

Phyllis Chesler

By :

Editor’s note: The following is adapted from a speech delivered on March 8 by the author in observance of  Women’s History Month to theGender Fairness Committee of the New York City Supreme Court.

When my Second Wave generation of feminists started out, Gender Fairness committees did not exist nor did as many women lawyers and judges or the number of feminist lawyers, both male and female, whom I see here today. As many of you know, my or should I say, our generation had the privilege of changing all that.

We also named and exposed the hidden epidemic of physical and sexual violence towards women and children.

Second Wave feminists challenged sexism in advertising, (we still do), the pornography industry, (which has grown), and prostitution which now includes human sexual trafficking.

We also challenged corporations for economically discriminating against women; that work continues. We took on drug companies whose medications caused women to die from cancer. We championed women’s reproductive and sexual rights but we also challenged birth control. We waged a war to save women’s lives. The work continues.

Courtesy of Second Wave feminist activism, more women entered previously all-male professions, and some men became feminists.

Before the Second Wave began making waves, mothers received little child support and less alimony—that has improved although custody battles have, in some ways, gotten harder, more terrible. The 25th anniversary edition of “Mothers on Trial” will be published this summer with eight new chapters.

Our generation had a universalist vision of human rights—one standard for all. I still do. While I believe in cultural diversity, I am not a multi-cultural relativist. Therefore, I have taken a strong stand against the persecution of Muslim women and dissidents. Thus, I now submit expert courtroom affidavits on behalf of Muslim girls and women who have fled being honor murdered and are seeking asylum here.

Those of us who expose the plight of such women, and this includes Somali-born feminist hero Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as well as myself, have been demonized as “Islamophobes” and racists because we do not, in the same breath, blame America, the West, or Israel for their suffering.

In my view, western academic feminists, including gay liberationists, are so afraid of being condemned as “colonialists” or “racists” that this fear trumps their concern for women’s rights in the Arab and Muslim world.

What is Islamic Gender Apartheid? Islamic gender apartheid is characterized by normalized daughter- and wife-battering, forced veiling, female genital mutilation, polygamy, purdah, (the segregation or sequestration of women), arranged marriage, child marriage, first cousin marriage; girls and women are honor murdered if they resist such practices, if they wish to divorce a dangerously abusive husband, and if they are viewed as too independent, too modern.

Today, at its most extreme, Islamic gender apartheid is characterized by acid attacks, public stonings, hangings, and beheading of women in Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia—countries in which girls and women who are raped are further victimized: jailed, tortured, and executed.

Feminists should be crying out from the rooftops against these practices. Some are. I am. Yet, many Muslim men and women, as well as many intellectually “progressive” western infidels, are not. They are demanding or welcoming the imposition of Islamic religious law, Sharia law, not only in Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also in the West.

I have published two academic studies and nearly 100 articles about honor killings both in the West and in the Islamic world. How is an honor killing defined? An honor killing is a collaborative conspiracy carried out against one victim, usually a young girl, by her family of origin. Both her male and female relatives believe that their “honor” demands her death; that her “impure” behavior has shamed and destroyed her family’s reputation and community status. A battered wife—or one who dares leave her tormentor—may also be “honor murdered” by both her husband, assisted by his relatives, and to an extent, the wife’s relatives as well.

In the West, honor killings are a mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crime. Hindus and Sikhs perpetrate such killings but mainly in India, not in the West.

An honor killing is not the same as western domestic violence or western domestically violent femicide. Many honorable feminists disagree with me. They believe that honor killings are the same as western domestic violence. Understandably, such feminists fear that by singling out one group for behavior which may be common to all groups they will stigmatize the token group and minimize the suffering of all the other groups. They have a legitimate fear—and yet if, for reasons of “political correctness,” we fail to understand a crime, we will never be able to prevent or to prosecute it.

Honor killings are shameful, secretive; they are allowed to flourish and fester precisely because the perpetrators and their collaborators do not want them exposed. Instead, they blame the victim, and they blame those who expose it.

I began writing about honor killings in the United States, Canada, and Europe in 2004. My first study about such honor killings first appeared in 2009 in Middle East Quarterly, the second appeared there as well in 2010. In the most recent publication, I studied 230 victims who were honor—or “horror” murdered on five continents over a twenty year period in 172 separate incidents. (More than one person was murdered in some of the incidents).

A murder is a murder and must be treated as such. However, honor killings are not like western domestic violence or domestically violent femicide.

Read more at Fox News

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, the author of thousands of articles and of fifteen books, including “Women and Madness,” and “An American Bride in Kabul.” She archives her articles and may be reached through her website:www.phyllis-chesler.com

When Women’s Issues Hide Humanity’s Problem

20080404_niqabBy Diana West:

You may have missed it, but March 8 was International Women’s Day, a holiday unconnected to a religious rite or person, and with no national or even seasonal significance. It is socialist in origin, and it was Lenin himself who made it an official holiday in the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, it is now a rite of the United Nations.

In these origins lie the day’s basic fallacy: that womanhood is an international — global — political state of being; that there is a universal female political condition, which urges, a la Marx, “Women of the world, unite!” Against what? The common foe — men.

As with Marxism itself, for such a sisterhood to coalesce, even on paper or in elite committees and multinational organizations, the profound cultural and religious differences that shape and guide people’s lives have to be minimized, denied or actually destroyed. In real life, however, culture and religion will out, as they did on this year’s International Women’s Day.

In post-U.S. Iraq, Reuters reported on the International Women’s Day activities of “about two dozen” women — a brave handful — who demonstrated in Baghdad against new, sharia-based legislation now before Iraq’s parliament. Known as the Ja’afari Law after an early Shiite imam, the legislation would allow Iraq’s Shiite Islamic clergy to control marriage, divorce and inheritance. Among other things, this would permit marriage between a man and a 9-year-old girl, according to the marital example of Islam’s prophet Mohammed. Indeed, by the Gregorian calendar, as The Associated Press pointed out, such legislation would apply to girls who are 8 years and 8 months old. (The Islamic calendar year is 10 or 11 days shorter than the Gregorian calendar year.)

Guess who has approved of this child rape legislation — some den of social outcasts? No, the ministers of Iraq’s cabinet. They preside, of course, over a government created in large measure by great expenditures of U.S. blood and treasure. The draft law now awaits a parliamentary vote.

The Baghdad protesters shouted: “On this day of women, women of Iraq are in mourning.” At least two dozen of them are, anyway. But more than Iraq’s women should be in mourning. After all, child rape — not to mention marital rape and discriminatory divorce and inheritance practices also legalized in the draft legislation — shouldn’t be defined as “women’s” issues alone. If they are so pigeon-holed, by feminist implication, the modification of “male” behavior will ameliorate all. What these women are protesting, however, aren’t men or the “patriarchy” generally, but rather the brutal impact of Islam and its law on women, on children, on the family itself — the basis of civilization. It is here, in the treatment of the weak and the young, of motherhood, marriage and childhood, where core, existential differences between Islam and most of the world’s religions and cultures emerge. They are obscured as “women’s” issues.

In pre-withdrawal Afghanistan, the celebration of International Women’s Day took place inside the heavily guarded New Kabul Compound. It was an upbeat event, at least according to a Defense Department report, featuring several laudable and prominent Afghan women doctors, who naturally talked up education and the need to retain post-Taliban gains made on behalf of women in Afghanistan. Tragically, the State Department’s most recent report on the shockingly low state of human rights in Afghanistan reveals that such gains for women — not to mention children, boys and girls alike — are already mainly on paper only. As the armed utopians withdraw, the dust of tribal Islam settles.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Also see:

American Muslim Women Not Immune to Islamist Abuse

Muslim women2BY RYAN MAURO:

The women’s rights catastrophe in the Muslim world has reached America. Islamist groups and preachers in the U.S. are directly legitimizing the abuse of women or indirectly through advocacy of sharia law, and Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, must hold them accountable.

Exhibit A is the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), a group based in California that fashions itself as an authoritative voice of matters of Islamic law. It issues fatwas, or religious declarations, in response to questions from Muslims seeking guidance. Its website has a fatwa bank that will shock anyone concerned about women’s rights.

fatwa published in 2010 justifies the practice of female genital mutilation:

“Some extremists from the West and their devout followers in the Muslim world would like to brand all circumcision as female genital mutilation (FGM) … all of their propaganda about female circumcision is no more than bigotry.”

One fatwa published in 2007 justifies marital rape:

“As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses.”

One reason AMJA advises Muslims against joining law enforcement is because they “might have to arrest a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her or forced her.” Another reason is the possibility of “gender mixing.”

AMJA is not a fringe organization whose influence is limited to the walls of its headquarters.

Its Secretary-General is Salah As-Sawy. He is also a co-founder ofAmerican Open University and was its Vice President from 1995 to 2004. He is also a co-founder and President of Mishkah Islamic University of North America.

AMJA’s Fatwa Committee includes Dr. Muwaffak Al-Ghaylany, the President of the League of Imams in North America and Imam of the Islamic Center of Grand Blank City in Michigan.

Another AMJA Fatwa Committee member is Dr. Waleed Al-Maneese, Vice President of the Islamic University of Minnesota and president of the board of trustees of Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center. He is also on the board of trustees of the North American Imams Federation.

These are just four AMJA officials. Its website’s “Our Experts” section lists 47 preachers around the world, mostly residing in America. It also separately lists 41 AMJA members.

Then there are the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in America.

An online article titled “Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?” utilizes the wisdom of Muzammil Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America.

“[I]n some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely,” Siddiqi is quoted as saying.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Video: Sharia and the Threat to American Freedom

American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise gave a presentation in Cincinnati to a standing-room-only crowd entitled, “Sharia: Threat to American Freedom.”  Yerushalmi explains sharia as “the enemy threat doctrine”. A highlight of Muise’s presentation is his discussion of American Freedom Defense Initiative’s freedom of speech cases. Watch this very informative video.

“Civilization Jihad” Comes to Court

shariah-will-dominate-AFPBreitbart, By Frank Gaffney:

Want to know what our Islamist enemies have in mind for America? Look at Europe.

Virtually every country there has found itself under siege from Muslims seeking to impose the supremacist Islamic doctrine they call shariah on everyone else. The preeminent organization promoting this agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood, now banned as a terrorist group in its home country of Egypt but prospering in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in what has been known as the Free World. In fact, as Egyptian courts hand down death sentences to those engaged with the Brotherhood’s violent efforts to overthrow the government there, ours is opening the door to asylum for those who have only engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism.

More insidious than the Muslim Brotherhood’s violence, however, is its stealthy subversion. In a 1991 strategic plan introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a senior member named Mohammed Akram described this form of warfare as “civilization jihad.”

In Akram’s words, the goal of the Brotherhood’s civilization jihadists is “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within… so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” His “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” lays out how this ambitious goal is to be achieved under our noses by penetrating and subverting “from within” the West’s civil society and governing institutions.

The London Telegraph reports that this campaign has just scored a major success in Great Britain. The country’s trade association for lawyers, the Law Society, has declared its members can begin drawing up shariah-compliant wills that will be enforceable in British common law courts.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognized by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Shariah principles, which recognize only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Such inroads are coming on top of the presence of something on the order of 87 shariah courts that operate side-by-side with Britain’s own judiciary. One of the U.K.’s most courageous opponents of such practices, Baroness Caroline Cox, said: “No longer do we have a single legal code in our society. Instead, alongside our own law, there is now effectively a parallel quasi-legal system operating within some Muslim communities.”

Think that cannot happen here? Think again. The Muslim Brotherhood’s largest front group in this country, the Islamic Society of North America, requires each of its chapters to maintain arbitration panels that serve as proto-shariah courts. It is a matter of time before Islamists and their apologists begin demanding that such courts be allowed to adjudicate disputes not just between willing parties but in cases where one party – most likely women and/or children – would prefer to have the protections of our Constitution.

Worse yet, as a study published by the Center for Security Policy in 2011 has documented, there have been at least 27 different instances in which U.S. courts have allowed the use of shariah law to govern – even where doing so has violated constitutional rights of the plaintiffs or defendants. (An updated version of this study now nearing completion indicates that, as of today, there are many more such cases.)

As a corrective to this civilization jihadist incursion into American jurisprudence, seven states have adopted legislation known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). If they wish to avoid the fate now facing British citizens who are likely to be denied their rightful inheritances and, in due course, other privations at the hands of shariah, every state in the country should adopt ALAC.

Of course, our Constitution’s Article VI declares that it is the supreme law of the land. But that will not long be the case if the civilization jihadists have their way. We must ensure that shariah is not allowed to undermine that constitutional precept – to the detriment of women, children, and the rest of us.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network, and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio. 

Michael Coren – Islamic Sharia law adopted by British legal chiefs

 

Arutz Sheva, Expert: Not All Muslims Happy Over UK’s Sharia Acceptance

In the wake of a decision by Britain to accept the rulings ofIslamic sharia law in matters of inheritance, Arutz Sheva spoke with Ari Soffer, the Managing Editor of Arutz Sheva English and a former resident of London who is familiar with the on-the-ground political situation in the United Kingdom.

According to Soffer, not all British Muslims support the “creeping Islamization” that the UK has been undergoing, in which Islamic law takes its place among the laws of the land. That process is being pushed by Muslim organizations in Britain, but a large number of Muslims in the country would prefer to keep such laws as a private matter between themselves.

UK law already has provisions for the implementation of Sharia law on an individual basis, with decisions handed down by Islamic courts enforced in the country’s courts. Thus, the only purpose for the legislation, he said, was for Islamist radicals to promote their agenda of installing Islamic law in the daily life of Britons.

Soffer added that the British government has only itself to blame for the situation. It was the government that promoted the idea of a “dialog” with what turned out to be a set of radical groups, convinced they were a positive alternative to Al Qaeda. There was a need to create such a dialog in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it was felt.

The groups encouraged the government to see them as an “Islamic alternative” to Al Qaeda, even though theologically they had much in common. “This was the main reason the governments of Europe enhanced the status of these groups, and now their agenda is clear,” he said. However, he added, most Britons were puzzled at what to do about the situation. “They do not to deal with the new reality because they don’t know how to,” he added.

 

Also see

 

The Rising Sex Traffic in Forced Islamic Marriage

tearsBy Mark Durie:

Western nations are facing what has been called an “epidemic” of forced marriages of their young Muslim women. While those who compel young Muslim women and girls into marriages could be charged with human trafficking offences and also in some cases placed on the national register of sex offenders, governments also should target for prosecution all those who are involved in the solemnisation of these illegal marriages.

This article first appeared in the March 2014 edition of Quadrant. 


In 2008, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, (here) and Nicholas Phillips, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (here), both suggested that the UK could consider, in Lord Phillips’s words, “embracing Sharia law” because “there is no reason why Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution”. Williams commented: “it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system”.

However, two recent widely reported cases of marriage between Muslim men and under-age girls raise troubling questions about these assumptions. One case in New South Wales where an imam married a twelve-year-old girl to a twenty-six-year-old man with her father’s consent is before the court.

In another case involving a custody battle, however, a judgment has been made that questions the way Western jurisdictions interact with sharia marriage regulations, specifically in relation to the widespread practice of conducting private, unregistered religious marriages. A Sydney Muslim girl aged fourteen was forced by her parents to become the child “bride” of a twenty-one-year-old man. Her mother had told her she would “get to attend theme parks and movies and eat lollies and ice-cream with her new husband”. Instead she endured years of sexual and physical abuse and intimidation before fleeing with her young daughter. Her story only saw the light of day ten years after her wedding when she pursued custody of her daughter through the courts.

This “marriage” was never registered with the state: it would have been impossible to do so because the girl was too young to marry under Australian law. A particularly troubling aspect of her story is that she reported her predicament to her school teacher, who under Australian law was a mandatory reporter of child sex abuse, but it seems no report was made, and no intervention attempted.

In passing judgment in favour of the woman, Judge Harman invited the authorities to take matters further: the “groom” could be presumably be charged by the police with sexual offences against a child and placed on the sex offenders register. He and the girl’s father—who in accordance with Islamic tradition would have been the two parties to the marriage contract—could also be charged with trafficking offences. There would also almost certainly have been an exchange of money—the mahr—handed over by the man to the girl or her father in accordance with Islamic law.

The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, defines people-trafficking as:

the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, [or] servitude … The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth [above] shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth [above] have been used.

The forced marriage of a fourteen-year-old girl, as reported in this Australian case, fits the definition of trafficking. The girl was transferred from the custody of parents to that of her “husband” by use of deception, and he then kept her for the purpose of sexual exploitation and servitude, controlling her by violence and threats.

Pru Goward, the New South Wales Minister for Community Services and Women, has reported that there are around a thousand cases a year across Australia of women and girls being trafficked into forced marriages. She stated, “No ethnic group has a monopoly on violence against women, but some groups experience violence against women disproportionately.” Indeed. Some groups also perpetrate violence against women “disproportionately”, and it might be more accurate to speak of “religious groups” rather than “ethnic groups”. While there have been no official statistics reported on the religious affiliation of these victims of trafficking, it seems that a great many of the victims and the perpetrators involving in “marriage” trafficking have been Muslims.

Recent reports of a link between trafficking-for-marriage and Islamic marriages have not been limited to Australia. An investigation by ITV in the UK identified eighteen mosques—around one third of those approached by the reporter—where clerics were willing to conduct a wedding of a fourteen-year-old girl against her will.

Nazir Afal, Crown Prosecutor in the North of England, has reported that there are estimated to be 8000 to 10,000 forced marriages or threats of forced marriages of people against their will in the UK each year. Britain’s Forced Marriage Unit (see here) handled 1485 cases in 2012, 35 per cent of which involved girls aged seventeen or younger, and 13 per cent where the girls were under fifteen. A British government survey found that hundreds of girls aged eleven to thirteen had simply disappeared from school rolls.

Governments have been very slow to tackle the trafficking of women and girls for the purpose of forced marriage. Kaye Quek, in a recent article in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations, argues that multicultural ideals prevalent in UK society have made the authorities reluctant to criminalise this practice: they have preferred instead to treat these liaisons as violations of the women’s choice. Quek challenges the government’s preference for seeking civil remedies to forced marriages, and suggests that this is giving rise to a two-tier system of rights, in which it is acceptable for Muslim women to be sexually assaulted through forced marriage.

Read more 

Mark Durie is an Anglican Vicar in Melbourne and a Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, Philadelphia. He is an authorised marriage celebrant.

Jihadi Group in Syria Amputates Alleged Thief’s Hand

hand amputationClarion Project:

In the first of its kind, a hard-line Islamist group vying for power in Syria, live “tweeted” the amputation of an accused thief’s hand on Twitter.

The gruesome photos released by the group ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) on a live internet feed came in a series: The first one showed a blind-folded man being held next to a table with one man dressed in a traditional white robe reading a statement. Standing next to him is a man in a traditional black balaclava holding a large sword.

The second shot shows the man being retrained while the sword comes down on his hand. The last shot shows the man looking like he has fainted with his severed hand lying bloodied on the table.

ISI claimed that the man asked for the punishment “in order to cleanse his sins.”

Twitter subsequently suspended the account from its website.

ISIS, an outgrowth of the Al Qaeda-linked ISI (Islamic State in Iraq) was formed in Iraq nearly a year ago but was disowned by Al Qaeda Feb. 3 for being too extreme. The group, composed of mainly foreign jihadis, has become a major player in the war against Syrian President Bashar Al Assad.

After gaining control of Raqqa in northern Syria, ISIS recently imposed dhimma status (second-class) status on the Christian population according to sharia law in exchange for protection. According to ISIS, 20 Christian leaders accepted the terms, which were: payment of 17 kilos of gold as jizya [tax on non-Muslims], refraining from any public expression of Christianity and no renovation of churches, ringing church bells or Christian prayer in public. ISIS also forbade Christians to possess weapons and to sell pork or alcohol to Muslims.

In related news, ISIS agreed to withdraw from the border town of Azaz in northern Syria on Friday, handing the city over to the Free Syrian Army. The first-time-ever retreat followed a threat by a rival jihadi group, the Al-Nusra Front, who demanded that ISIS leave Syria.

“I swear by God, if you again refuse God’s judgment, and do not stop your plague and pushing your ignorant ideology on the Muslim nation then you will be expelled, even from Iraq,” Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, head of Al-Nusra Front, is quoted as saying said in an internet message.

Residents had reported that a 16-year-old commander of ISIS had ruled the town with strict sharia law.

“Honor Diaries” is a Good Recruiting Tool

honor-diariesCitizen Warrior:

Many of us find it difficult to talk to people about Islamic doctrine and Sharia law. Some people resist listening to us or accepting what we say. A new film, first screened last fall at the Chicago International Film Festival — Honor Diaries — can help us reach more people by showing the viewer what’s being done in the Muslim world without creating resistance to the information.

The film doesn’t focus on Islam. Instead, it exposes what the “honor” system does.

The film profiles and interviews nine women who have been victims of an honor culture. The film is deliberately not anti-Muslim. It won’t cause your multicultural friends to turn away from the message. It will reach them where they can be reached: On the topic of the oppression and victimization of women. It’s a brilliant approach, and could help recruit more people into pushing back the spread of Sharia. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the Executive Producer of the film.

 

We urge you to share the movie — have a screening, and when it’s available on DVD, buy it and share it with your friends. Share the trailer on your Facebook page. Help this film become popular. Click here for a video about the film’s Global Screening Campaign. They are officially launching the film in March of this year (2014). March 8th is International Women’s Day and the Honor Diaries promoters are partnering with several organizations at events in New York, Los Angeles, London, etc.

The main website for the film is HonorDiaries.com. Watch a trailer, learn more about the film, and sign up for updates. The website describes the film this way: Honor Diaries is the first film to break the silence on “honor violence” against women and girls. Honor Diaries is more than a movie, it is a movement to save women and girls from human rights abuses — around the world and here in America.

The film features nine courageous women’s rights advocates with connections to Muslim-majority societies who are engaged in a dialogue about gender inequality.

These women, who have witnessed firsthand the hardships women endure, are profiled in their efforts to effect change, both in their communities and beyond.

The film gives a platform to exclusively female voices and seeks to expose the paralyzing political correctness that prevents many from identifying, understanding and addressing this international human rights disaster. Freedom of movement, the right to education, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation are some of the systematic abuses explored in depth.

Spurred by the Arab Spring, women who were once silent are starting to speak out about gender inequality and are bringing visibility to a long history of oppression. This project draws together leading women’s rights activists and provides a platform where their voices can be heard and serves as inspiration to motivate others to speak out.

In the Oregon Independent, Catherine DeRego says this about Honor Diaries:

Executive Producer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia, is an outspoken defender of women’s rights in Islamic societies. She is also the founder of the AHA Foundation created to “help protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture.”

Here’s what she says about the film:

“In male-dominated cultures, like Saudi Arabia, women and girls are treated like property, forced into marriage, and suffer female genital mutilation. In Honor Diaries, I am proud to join a courageous cast of female human rights activists to speak the truth; that culture is no excuse for abuse.”

The filmmakers are asking everyone in the community to host a screening of Honor Diaries on March 8, 2014, or any time this spring to “Celebrate the stories of 9 amazing women’s rights activists,” and to bring awareness to these crimes against Muslim women. In the United States, all women are entitled to the same liberties and freedoms as men have irrespective of religion. There is no gender inequality under our Constitution, nor should there be in any other nation. Violence hidden behind the veil of one’s religious teachings is a crime against all humanity under God. Let the American people stand for freedom as we always have and join this movement to help end the violence against Muslim women in this country and across the world.

The Effect of Muslim Appeasement on Women

By Rachel Molschky and Y.K. Cherson:

Though Islam is the self-proclaimed religion of peace, the Muslim community has done little to promote that assertion through their treatment of women. With a clear record of domestic abuse and localized proclamations targeting women in particular, these existing issues in their native lands are being brought with the immigrants to their newly adopted Western homes. As these immigrants remain tied to their countries of origin and their religion and cultures, many continue to support their native lands more passionately than the nations which accepted them as residents.

Keeping that in mind, the Muslim woman’s station in life is under constant attack, whether she lives in Africa or Europe or anywhere else. In order to understand the impact of Muslim immigrants on Western society, it is important to understand how certain aspects of their culture greatly differ from our own.

In May 2012, Islamic cleric Maulana Abdul Haleem preached to his jama’ah, or congregation, in a Kamila, Pakistani mosque, that women who choose a secular education are so disobedient, that murdering them in so-called honor killings is not only applicable but condoned.  If it is not Islamic, it is not acceptable and to such a degree, that he threatened to marry off the female employees of secular non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, who come into small towns to help. They are defenders of women’s human rights, and they work for the welfare of other women in the categories of education, health and overall well-being.

Rape victim receiving 100 lashes for her “crime.”

Rape victim receiving 100 lashes for her “crime.”

And why should a secular education be forbidden?  According to Haleem, it is because such an education would lead to a job which encourages the mixing of women and men who are neither their husbands nor their relatives. It is his view that this goes against Islamic Shariah, and thus, in following Shariah law, it would be acceptable for an honor killing in such circumstances, and no witnesses are required. The vigilante attacker would be granted carte blanche.

These decrees the cleric made are fatwas, or legal pronouncements, in Islam. They are sometimes considered binding and other times are nonbinding depending on whether or not the person who issued the fatwa is authorized to do so and also depending on what denomination of Islam interprets it. The fatwas are issued on the local level.

In technical terms they are considered formal juristic rulings and can only be made by scholars. However, the word, fatwa, seems to have expanded as many, authorized or not, have been making them. And whenever someone of religious authority makes such a decree, there will always be people who take it very seriously. Whether or not these fatwas are enforceable or hold any weight is debatable and varies on a case by case basis. However, the fact that these sometimes renegade statements are more and more prevalent in Muslim society is disturbing upon analysis of what some of them entail.

Acid_attack-300x199For example, another recent fatwa was made in May 2012 as well, again in Pakistan, stating that cell phone use by women is so forbidden that any woman caught using one will have acid thrown in her face as a punishment. Though unrelated to this decree about cell phones, there are around 150 female victims of acid attacks each year in Pakistan, often as a result of domestic violence. This is the topic of a 2012 documentary entitled, Saving Face. Unfortunately, some of the victims featured in the film are now afraid of a backlash in their country for having taken part in it. They are fearful of future repeat attacks. And so acid attacks in the Muslim community, not only in Pakistan but in other countries as well such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, and even in the Muslim-populated areas of India, are on the rise, disfiguring many women.

But these things do not only occur in Muslim countries like Pakistan. The West is not immune. In 2008, after many years of existence, Shariah courts in the UK were legitimized in several cities.These courts’ decisions are made legally binding due to the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are then supported by the county courts and even the High Court. While some of the cases arbitrated in this way are minor, others include divorce and domestic violence. If these domestic violence cases are being handled within the Muslim community, the female victims’ chances for a fair hearing are greatly minimized and probably even nonexistent.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Also see:

Academia Legitimizes Extremist Speakers

by Samuel Westrop:

What chance do Muslim and non-Muslim students — who oppose the incitement to hatred against non-Muslims and the subjugation of women — have of exposing extremists such as Al-Kawthari, if he is pronounced a “representative voice of Islam” by academics who claim to be experts on the British Muslim community?

Extreme Islamic preachers do not only appear on university campuses at the request of radicalized students; increasingly, extremists are afforded a university platform, with all the credibility that comes with it, by the academics themselves.

The Centre for the Study of Islam, based at the University of Cardiff in Wales, for instance, has recently announced a lecture series starting this February. The Centre was opened in 2005 by Yusuf Islam, the former musician known as Cat Stevens who has called for apostates and adulterous women to be stoned to death. In keeping with that spirit, one of the presentations this February is to be delivered by Muhammad ibn Adam Al-Kawthari, who will be discussing “The Role of a Mufti in Modern Society.”

 

Muhammad ibn Adam Al-Kawthari. (Image source: YouTube video screenshot)

Speaking to Wales Online, the Centre’s Director, Dr Sophie Gilliat-Ray, said, “We’ve managed to attract some of the leading experts to offer thought-provoking insights into various aspects of Muslim life in the UK.”

In 2011 several student societies at the University of York actually organized a campaign against a proposed visit by Al-Kawthari to the University; they claimed he promoted intolerant and violent ideas

It seems he supports the killing of adulterers:

“If the crime of fornication is carried out by an individual who is sane, mature, Muslim and is married to a spouse who is also sane, mature, Muslim, and that their marriage is consummated, then the legal punishment is that he/she will be stoned to death (rajm). The Imam, witnesses and other Muslims would take part in the stoning. … If the crime of fornication is carried out by an individual who does not qualify to be in the above category, then the punishment is that he/she will be given 100 lashes. These whips and lashes will be spread over the body, avoiding the head, face and the private parts. A pregnant woman will not be whipped until she gives birth to her child and after her post natal bleeding (nifas). However, if she is to be stoned, then this may be carried out straight after giving birth.”

When asked, “When Is Jihad an Obligation on Me?” Al-Kawthari appears to encourage Muslims to travel and fight overseas:

“If the Muslims who are being attacked are incapable of defending themselves or they are neglectful, jihad becomes Fardh Ain [compulsory] for the Muslims nearest them and then those nearest them and so forth, until it becomes personally obligatory for all the Muslims of the East and the West … If the people of Kashmir, Chechnya, etc. are not capable of defending themselves or if they are neglectful, then Jihad will become personally obligatory on the Muslims nearest them, e.g. Muslims of Pakistan. If they are also neglectful or weak, then the Muslims nearest them, and so forth, until it becomes personally obligatory for all the Muslims.”

He advocates that thieves should have their hands and feet amputated:

“The penalty for the one who steals (when the above conditions are met) is that his/her right arm is amputated. If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then he will be imprisoned until he repents, but no further amputation will take place.”

When Kawthari was asked whether a lawyer should help an Iranian fleeing death by stoning in his home country for the “sin” of adultery or the “crime” of apostasy, Kawthari advised:

“It is thus clear from the above that, to leave your religion in order to get into a country is an extremely offensive and outrageous act and considered disbelief (kufr). To assist and aid such people will also be unacceptable, impermissible, and highly sinful.”

Al-Kawthari has also advised that, “Women should not come out of their homes unnecessarily,” and frequently expresses hatred against non-Muslims by advising: “Do not commence by greeting the Christians and Jews with Salam. If you meet one of them on a pathway, force them to walk on the side … The reason for this impermissibility of saying Salam to non-Muslims is to not show them respect.”

On another occasions, Al-Kawthari has claimed, “We live in an age where evils such as incest among the non-Muslims is becoming common.”

How is it, then, that Dr Gilliat-Ray, a claimed expert on British Islam, has chosen Al-Kawthari to be an “expert” voice of the British Muslim community?

Al-Kawthari is not the only problematic speaker invited by Gilliat-Ray. Other proposed lectures include presentations by Ajmaal Masroor, a supporter of Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood; and Ahtsham Ali, the former chairman of the Islamic Society of Britain, a Muslim Brotherhood group.

By inviting preachers such as Al-Kawthari to present their version of British Islam, then, Dr. Gilliat-Ray only serves to impose extremist ideas upon the Muslim community.

Read  more at Gatestone Institute

Muslim Brotherhood Goal Is to Spread Terror

3831235057 (2)By Joseph Schmitz:

The recent rise and fall of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt brings home an awkward truth about current threats and 21st century warfare against Americans. We can never prevail in any “war on terror” without first acknowledging our enemies who would engage in terrorism.

Terrorism per se is not among our various “enemies, foreign and domestic,” to quote the U.S. statutory oath of office. The Muslim Brotherhood is in addition to al-Qaida, etc.

A full 500 years before Christ, the Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu warned in “The Art of War”: “One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious, sometimes meet with defeat. One who knows neither the enemy nor himself will invariably be defeated in every engagement.”

Unless and until Americans face the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is our enemy, based on its own writings and core values, we are doomed to lose many if not most of our wars against “terrorism.”

According to a recent Washington Post Op-Ed, “The radicalization of the Brotherhood seems more a question of ‘when,’ not ‘if.’ In the name of fighting terrorism, the [Egyptian] regime is making the problem far worse.”

The more important question for freedom-loving Egyptians and for Americans today is, “What does the ‘radicalization of the Brotherhood’ really mean?”

Fortunately, leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America have explained in detail what its purpose is, and how it intends to destroy everything for which we stand.

The subversion campaign self-identified by the Muslim Brotherhood as “civilization jihad” must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice.

Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework, the core of which is Shariah supremacism.

This concept of civilization jihad derives from, among other sources, a document entered into evidence in the 2008 United States v. Holy Land Foundation terrorist finance trial in Texas titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group,” which is reproduced in full as an appendix to, and parsed in, the 2010 “Report of Team BII” published by the Center for Security Policy under the title, “Shariah The Threat To America; An Exercise In Competitive Analysis.”

Read more at Center For Security Policy

Life Under The Shadow Of The Islamists In Syria – Part II: Enacting The Shari’a

SYRIA-CONFLICT

MEMRI:

Introduction

Alongside their efforts to enforce authority and order and maintain security, the Islamist organizations in Syria’s liberated regions and their associated legal authorities also work to enact the shari’a, in an attempt to give these regions an Islamic character. To this end, they enforce shari’a law in matters of dress code, behavior during Ramadan, smoking (which is forbidden according to Salafi beliefs), and more – the ultimate goal being the establishment of an Islamic state in Syria. With regards to shari’a penalties, there is often a contrast between moderate statements and the harsh penalties actually imposed, which occasionally spark rage from the residents, who see these trends as foreign to the moderate religious character of Syrian society.

The following are examples of the organizations’ actions to enact shari’a law in the areas under their control.

Shari’a Trials

A military judge for the shari’a authority in Aleppo said in a video posted May 23, 2013 on the authority’s Facebook page that the authority rules according to the Islamic shari’a, whose foundations are the Koran, the Sunna, the ijma’ (consensus of religious scholars), and logical deduction. He added, however, that the authority does not implement shari’a penalties at this time except in cases of armed robbery, “because there is no ruler today, and because we are currently in dar al-harb [lands not under Muslim rule].” A clerk for the shari’a authority, Abu Al-’Abbas, says in a video that the shari’a authority has banned smoking in its building and requires women who enter it to dress in a modest, shari’a-compliant fashion, but stresses that this authority has never arrested anyone for smoking, listening to music (also  forbidden according to the Salafiyya) or violating the Salafi dress code.[1]

In recent months, the shari’a authority in Aleppo has been trying to unite with another legal authority operating in the city – the United Legal Council – in order to create a single legal authority that would ultimately enforce the shari’a but in the interim would rely on the Arab League’s Unified Penal Code.[2] The United Legal Council was established in December 2012 and deals with a variety of legal and civil matters. Some examples of its activity that have appeared on its Facebook page are: capturing two women who ran a prostitution ring; destroying tobacco; operating a rehabilitation prison, and selling medicine from pharmacies that have shut down.[3] It met with the Aleppo shari’a authority in August 2013 to sign a unification agreement, but eventually did not do so due to the shari’a authority’s insistence that it be in charge of the judicial process. The text of the agreement, as posted on the United Council’s Facebook page, states that the Islamic shari’a would be the sole source of legislation.[4]

In March 2013 the Emir of Jabhat Al-Nusra in the city of Tel Abyad in the Al-Raqqa Governorate  told the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which supports the Syrian regime, that all the brigades in Tel Abyad had agreed to implement the shari’a in Syria via the local shari’a authorities, and that Jabhat Al-Nusra was willing to oppose any armed element attempting to prevent this. The article stated further that the emir had told  Al-Akhbarexplicitly that Jabhat Al-Nusra was “fighting a jihad war” in Syria in order to establish “an Islamic state with the Koran as its constitution,” so as “to end the oppression of the people” and turn to shari’a law, but that “non-Muslims like Christians would enjoy personal liberties in Islamic Syria.’” The reporter related that, during the interview, the emir noticed a citizen holding a cigarette and told him that smoking was forbidden.[5]

The Shari’a Legal Council in the Idlib Governorate, which was established in January 2013 and has taken control of 12 shari’a courts in the region, posted status updates on its Facebook page indicating its Islamic orientation. For example, a post from February 13, 2013 reads: “The United Legal Council in the Idlib Governorate announces that it will enact Allah’s law in the land, and will judge according to what Allah sent down [i.e., the Koran]…in order to defend the religion and [people's] souls, money, land and honor.” On August 18, 2013, the head of the council wrote on Facebook: “We want an Islamic state, and we will not accept a substitute. [When we say] ‘Islamic state’ we mean enacting Allah’s law in all domains of life, both religious and worldly. Enacting [shari'a law means] that Allah’s religion prevails in the land [and binds] everyone, in justice and equality. The repeated objections by some people to the establishment of an Islamic state sometimes stem from misguided good intentions, and [sometimes] from bad intentions, as [in the case of] the secularists, who admit this and who carry no weight in the ongoing debate.”

In November 2012, photos of what appears to be the headquarters of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (the name given to the religious police in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia) in Aleppo were posted on the internet. In addition, a video was posted showing a man who was said to be a Saudi driving through the streets and calling people to pray.[6] The director of the information office of the Al-Tawhid Brigade – one of the large forces fighting in Aleppo – told Sky News Arabia that this authority is connected with the brigade’s “Revolution Security” and that its role is to handle all of society’s needs, in the domains of  aid, healthcare, orphans, martyrs and prisoners. He denied reports that the authority has issued a ban on women driving (like in Saudi Arabia) which sparked public criticism.[7]

Read more at MEMRI

Also see: