“Islam is the Religion of War”

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

UTT, by John Guandolo, May 18, 2015:

When the leader of the Islamic State, al Baghdadi, said “Islam is not the religion of peace, Islam is the religion of war,” he meant it.

Here are 6 reasons indicating al Baghdadi is correct:

1.  Islamic World is United in Teaching Jihad Must Be Waged Until Islam Rules the World

At Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt – the pre-eminent school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world and the oldest – they teach the purpose of Islam is to destroy the Dar al Harb (House of War) until the entire world is the Dar al Islam (House of Islam) and Sharia (Islamic Law) is the law of the land.  The vehicle to do this is called “Jihad” which is only defined in Sharia as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islamic schools across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Central/South America, Mexico, Asia, and North America, first graders are taught that Islam must rule the world, and Christians and Jews are to be hated by Muslims.

All published Sharia mandates jihad until a Caliphate is created and Sharia is the “Law of the Land” across the globe.  All published Sharia only defines “jihad” as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

Note: It is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is incorrect about Islam.

2. Senior Islamic Scholars Call for Jihad Against Non-Muslims

The most prominent and well-educated Islamic scholars call for jihad and the implementation of Sharia, and many are even labeled as “terrorists” by the West.

Omar Abdel Rahman is arguably one of the most respected Islamic scholars alive on the planet today. As some of you may know, he is also known as the “Blind Sheikh,” and is in federal prison in the United States for his involvement with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other plots in New York and beyond. Yet today, Rahman is hailed as a great scholar and many are calling for his release from prison.  He is an Al Azhar trained/educated Islamic scholar.

Abdullah Azzam graduated with a degree in Sharia from Damascus University before being invited to attend Al Azhar University.  After he finished his studies, he was asked to teach at Al Azhar, putting him in a very small and elite group of Islamic scholars.  This is the man who, with Osama bin Laden, developed Al Qaeda and its beginnings.

Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi is one of the most widely respected and sought after Islamic scholars in the world today, and hosts the most popular show on Al Jazeera (“Sharia and Life”).  He is currently the President of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS) and leads the European Council for Fatwa and Research.  He has twice been offered the position of “Supreme Guide” of the International Muslim Brotherhood, and is the man who led the first Jummah prayers in Tahrir Square in Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew the Mubarak regime.  That was his first time back in Egypt in 30 years because he was banned from Egypt for his involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood’s assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.  Qaradawi is also the Islamic scholar who called for the killing of American civilians in Iraq.

3.  All “Terrorists” Get Their “Version” of Islam Wrong in the Exact Same Way

ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyef, Al Shabab, Hamas, Hizbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and all Islamic “terrorist” groups on the planet state they are doing what they are doing in order to establish the Caliphate (Global Islamic State) under Sharia law.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s By-Laws say they exist to impose “Allah’s law (sharia) in the land” and establish an “Islamic State.”

The Al Qaeda operatives who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993/USS Cole/US Embassies in Africa (1998)/etc, the 9/11 Hijackers, Major Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood), the “Underwear Bomber,” the Time Square Bomber, the “terrorists” who killed the British soldier in Woolwich (England), the Somalis from Al Shabab who killed citizens in the mall and university attacks (among others) in Kenya, the Muslim who sawed his colleague’s head off in Oklahoma, Terry Lee Lowen who attempted to bomb a plane in Kansas, the jihadis who were killed in Texas in April 2015 (Garland), and all of the other jihadis we and our allies have faced over the last 30 years have all done what they did because they were following the Sharia – and they all say so.

Isn’t it interesting they all say it is a command from Allah to wage jihad until the infidels submit to Allah’s law and an Islamic state is created?  Isn’t it interesting they use the same source materials to quote these commands – all of which have unquestioned authority in Islam?

They all get it wrong in exactly the same way.

4.  Former Muslims Confirm Islam Obliges Jihad and Strict Adherence to Sharia

Scores of men and women who have left Islam – under penalty of death – confirm Islam teaches exactly what Al Qaeda says it does – Jihad is an obligation until Islam rules the world.

Former Muslims United, interestingly, never gets much traction from American media, but their stories are powerful, and they openly discuss the truth about Islam.

Nonie Darwish, whose father was a Shaheed, says “Islam wants to rule the world.”  Former Muslim and Al Azhar scholar Mark Gabriel (alias) makes clear Al Azhar teaches Jihad is a permanent obligation until Islam rules the world under Sharia.   The Quran commands it, and the Prophet Mohammad taught and did it.

5.  The History of Islam is Consistent with Their Doctrine (Sharia)

Over the last 1400 years, when Islam had the material ability and strength to do so (per Sharia), it has waged Jihad on the non-Muslim world.  From the 7th century to today, this has been true.  Western Civilization has defended itself against the Islamic armies since the time Mohammad became a political and military leader in Medina in approximately 623 AD.

In the early 1920’s, the Ottoman Empire (Caliphate) was dissolved by Mustapha Kamal and the nation state of Turkey created. While most people in the West forgot or never knew this, the Muslim world has not forgotten.  Since the Islamic community began growing their wealth from oil money in the 1960’s and ’70’s, the world has watched the growth of the Islamic Jihad – because the Sharia demands it.

Our “ally” – Saudi Arabia – continues to fund the global jihad today.

6.  Where is the Other “Version” of Islam Taught?

The obvious question must be asked: Where is this other mystical and peaceful version of Islam and where is it taught? Can anyone name one authoritative text of Islamic jurisprudence from any country or century that teaches something other than the fact Islam exists to wage Jihad until the world is under the rule of Sharia?

The answer is – “NO.”

There is no authoritative Islamic text that teaches something different because there is no other “version” of Islam.  While you may find books that discuss other definitions of “jihad” and other “versions” of Islam at your local book store, those books are written for YOU, not the Muslim community.  If you want to read what Muslims are taught, you must go to Islamic/Mosque bookstores and read their stuff.

Jihadophobia

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

Breitbart, by Daniel Akbari, May 15, 2015:

I’m stunned by how Americans panic when they are threatened with the label “Islamophobe.” They become terrified, their judgment gets clouded, their insight is crippled so that they cannot pause for a moment to ask themselves what Islamophobe means. For Americans, being called an Islamophobe is in the same category as being called homophobic, racist, or sexist. The term Islamophobia has successfully silenced many voices and created an atmosphere in which people deliberately self-censor.

But people should not surrender freedom of speech – the right that Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) said was the most important right of all – in response to propaganda. The goal of propaganda is to provoke an emotional response, but Americans deserve a strongly reasoned argument – a reason that makes sense – to give up their freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and even academia have created a culture of shallowness that stops Americans from thinking profoundly when it comes to controversial issues. In the culture of shallowness, people are unable to analyze things deeply, they just look superficially.

The term Islamophobia is the perfect example of this culture of shallowness at work. Breaking Islamophobia down into two separate words, Islam and phobia, enables us to cut through that culture of shallowness. Both Islam and phobia have simple meanings that are easy to understand if used separately. “Islam” is a religion, it is a set of ideas and rules derived from Islamic authoritative sources: the Koran, Hadith, and the consensus of Islamic scholars over the last 1400 years. “Phobia” is a fear that “is in no way justified by reality.” Since phobias are irrational they are considered a psychological disorder. On the basis of the offered definitions, the term Islamophobia means a fear of Islam that lacks a rational basis.

Islam, as a religion, has been subject to different interpretations. The interpretation that is consistent with the authoritative Islamic sources generates sharia and commands jihad. However, there is a broad spectrum of interpretations, some close to the true understanding of Islam and some considered heretical. Being afraid of the fundamental and traditional Islam from which sharia and jihad are spawned is not irrational. In this regard, calling somebody an Islamophobe is tantamount to calling them a Jihadophobe or Sharia-phobe. The fear of jihad and sharia, for those who know them, is a rational fear, it is not a phobia.

Numerous Koran verses explicitly command jihad. Some of the most famous are surah nine of the Koran 9:5,29,73 verse 5, the Verse of the Sword, verse 29, jihad against People of the Book, and verse 73 jihad against hypocrites and unbelievers. Sharia comes from surah 5: 44-48, among others, and tells Muslims they are unbelievers if they do not judge by what Allah has revealed. Sharia is simply the rules for how to practice Islam, formulated by scholars from the Koran and Hadith. For an explanation of the qualification of scholars and how they formulate sharia see Chapter 2 of my latest book, Honor Killing.

The propaganda machine that tars people with the label Islamophobe never dares to discuss the teachings of the authoritative Islamic sources. When they call someone an Islamophobe, it has nothing to do with Islam– they take advantage of the culture of shallowness to make people think the speaker is somehow opposed to Muslims. If they were honest they would say “Muslimophobe.” But who is a Muslim? Many people who come from Islamic countries or have Islamic-sounding names might not be Muslim at all. Many do not practice or even believe in Islam. In the United States, people have come from all parts of the world, including Islamic countries. America has never been against immigrants – against flesh and blood – it is opposed to the ideas that destroy freedom.

As a sharia lawyer, someone who truly understands Islam and sharia law, I know firsthand that living under sharia law is something to be feared. Why Americans have become so shallow and superficial that they do not bother to take the time to question new terms like Islamophobe stuns me.

Daniel Akbari is certified by the Iranian Bar Association as a Number One Attorney, is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Iran, and is the author of two books:HONOR KILLING: A Professionals Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources and New Jihadists and Islam.

Beheaded Christian Doesn’t Regret Faith

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative's Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Stone

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative’s Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Stone

Daily Caller, by Pete Hoekstra, May 15, 2015:

Only among the U.S. media would such a headline make sense.

Radical Islamist terrorists armed with AK-47s attacked hundreds of people at an event in Garland, Texas that sponsored a Muhammad cartoon exhibit and contest. The Associated Press headline that ran on countless websites and newspapers across the country declared: “Activist: No regrets about cartoon contest ended by gunfire.”

What’s next? “No apologies from Jews for inciting Holocaust?” or “No remorse from child aboard bus when bomb exploded?” Since when did it become acceptable, no less headline news, to blame the victim?

Apparently it started when violent Islamists and their sympathizers declared anyone who disagrees with them as Islamophobes subject to death for violating Sharia law. It became much safer and more politically correct to accept their bullying rather than to challenge them.

Numerous moralizing lecturers in the fourth estate piled on free speech activist and writer Pamela Geller for exercising her First Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by hosting the event in Texas.

The Washington Post ran with the headline “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”

The New York Times editorialized that Geller “achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.”

Bill O’Reilly said on his Fox News Channel program: “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid.” He added that Geller hurts the cause of attracting the support of moderate Muslims in the war against jihadists in countries like Jordan and Egypt. Muslims in those countries are already fighting a life and death battle against ISIS and al Qaida, and let’s not be so vain to think that it’s because of whether or not they like us. They do it to stay alive and preserve their children’s future.

Do O’Reilly and writers at the AP, The Washington Post and The New York Times still think that appeasing fanatical jihadists will lessen their hatred of the West and stop them from murdering innocent men, women and children of different faiths?

Been there, done that. It didn’t work.

President Obama tried it in Cairo not too long after his inauguration in 2009. With the Muslim Brotherhood invited to sit in the front row, he told his audience that “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

The administration then banned the use of such words as “Islamic terror” from the White House in a see no evil, hear no evil approach to the building threat.

The outcome? Islamist terrorists have since turned Libya into a chaotic lawless state, ISIS continues to control large swaths of Iraq and Syria, al Qaida owns the Arabian Peninsula, and individuals and groups worldwide – including within the United States – are pledging solidarity with ISIS.

It’s grand Theatre of the Absurd when elites target the First Amendment rights of fellow citizens as opposed to condemning a movement that sees mass murder as a rational response to objectionable caricatures.

Also see:

See Something, Say Something about Jihad

sharia1 (1)CSP, May 11, 2015:

Secure Freedom announces the launch of our new CounterJihad campaign with an ad calling for free people everywhere to speak their minds about the encroachment of Islamic law, known as shariah.

With jihadists on the march worldwide – including here – truth-tellers about Islam’s anti-constitutional shariah doctrine should be commended, not slandered.

Two armed jihadists were shot dead before they could murder proponents of free speech meeting in Garland, Texas. After the attack, some commentators have taken to blaming its targets, claiming they are “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes” who provoked the Islamic supremacists by drawing pictures of and denouncing their prophet Mohammed.

It is not racism or bigotry, let alone an unfounded fear of Islam that prompts courageous freedom fighters like Pamela Geller and Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to defend our civilization against those determined to destroy it. They are willing to challenge a threat to freedom of speech that not just Islamists but others, including Hillary Clinton, insist must be accommodated.

So join the CounterJihad and stand up for the freedoms that make America, and all of our allies in the free world, beacons of liberty to oppressed people everywhere.

CounterJihad is a combination of education, advocacy and action designed to stop the spread of The Global Jihad Movement (GJM). Muslims declared holy war, jihad, on non-believers long ago. They have been killing, enslaving, torturing and putting more territory under their dominion every day. It is long overdue for the free world to stand up and fight back.

We call our enemy the Global Jihad Movement because regardless of how they name themselves, they share a common goal: The global supremacy of Islam. We advocate harnessing the full range of powers of the United States and our allies including Military, Diplomatic, Intelligence, Cyber and Economic forces. We must also champion and promote the power of our culture which values individual liberty and government by man-made, not religious law.

The GJM comprises two identifiable and mutually-supporting lines of endeavor: Violent Jihad and Civilization Jihad.

Violent Jihadists include al Qaeda, the Islamic State (IS), Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and any of their ideological comrades who fly the black flag of jihad. The Violent Jihadists ply their deadly trade all around the world. The alliance between IS and Boko Haram creates a trans-continental Caliphate in the Middle East and Africa and it is expanding daily.

They are Hostis Humani Generis, Enemies of all Mankind, and we must defeat them.

Civilization Jihadists, as they refer to themselves, use a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to denote a stealthy jihad in its pre-violent stage of societal infiltration. They include the MB and its many associated organizations and front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others who follow the same ideology as the violent ones, but use covert means to advance it.

The Civilization Jihadists comprise perhaps an even more dangerous threat to US national security interests, culture. They convert and indoctrinate new generations to become the next violent jihadists, and they finance, and provide political cover for their violent brethren. They infiltrate in seemingly innocuous ways and use our own freedoms to advance their agenda of Shariah law and the eventual creation of Islamic states where democracies now exist.

Victory over the Civilization Jihadists requires government and citizens working together to counter the threat.

  • We must counter their lawfare by enshrining the supremacy of US laws
  • We must end government outreach to jihadist groups of all types
  • We must declare the Muslim Brotherhood, and affiliates, terrorist groups
  • We must investigate and close radical mosques that preach jihad
  • We must stop the infiltration of groups that promote Shariah

Join us in the CounterJihad to Secure Freedom for ourselves and our posterity.

Reformist Approach to Sharia a Refreshing Break with Academic Apologists

Rumee-Ahmed-ramadan-770.JPGJihad Watch, by Andrew Harrod, May 2, 2015:

In a refreshing departure from Sharia apologias common in Middle East studies, University of British Columbia Islamic law professor  rejected the “myth” of Sharia (Islamic law) as a “static, fixed, reified entity” on April 22 in the Georgetown University Center for Contemporary Arab Studies’ wood-paneled boardroom. Ahmed’s presentation, “Shari’a 2.0: Islamic Systematics and the Science of Islamic Legal Reform” before a student-dominated audience of about fifteen, demonstrated simultaneously Sharia’s all-too human origins as well as its embedded dangers.

He described a “sharp, sharp disconnect” between contemporary and historical Islamic interpretations of Sharia. According to the former, Islamic legal scholars substantiated their claim of being central to legitimating Islamic regimes that claimed to rule by God’s law. Yet judges who were not legal scholars often made politically motivated legal decisions that were subject to subsequent overruling by temporal rulers such as caliphs. Campaigning armies, meanwhile, would simply make unilateral decisions without consulting legal scholars on issues such as the division of spoils.

Concerning pre-colonial Islamic legal scholars, Ahmed questioned the power and reputation of such men in a world of three percent literacy. Political patronage could compromise the purity of their intentions. Danger lurked, he noted, since their struggles with rulers could lead to imprisonment or even execution.

Ahmed expressed a “very cynical view” regarding past legal use of Islam’s canonical texts. Quran 8:67-68, concerning the Muslim victory at the Battle of Badr under Muhammad, suggested that taking prisoners manifested a failure to fulfill a divine command to fight the enemy. But “sharp breaks” throughout history in the acceptance of taking and ransoming prisoners by Sunni Islam’sHanafi school of jurisprudence demonstrated how Islamic law responded to political developments with theological reinterpretation.

Practical realities aside, Ahmed described how earlier Islamic legal scholars created in their voluminous writings “subjunctive worlds.” Although these legal visions often had no expectation of implementation, they expressed the “ideal relationship between human beings and God.” “Writing a book of law is never a waste of time,” he noted, but is a “way to express your religiosity” or a “devotional act” similar to prayer. The intricacy of such legal thinking means that attempts to reform a single point of Islamic law on, for example, punishments involving whipping necessitates considering several other elements of Islamic legal theory.

Islamic legal history is replete with controversies surrounding reform, he said. Quran 5:38 was “pretty clear” in mandating hand amputation as punishment for stealing, although some had tried to interpret this verse to mean “cut off their power” with imprisonment. Several hadith, or canonical narratives of Muhammad’s life, however, did indeed mandate amputation and formed a corresponding pre-colonial Islamic legal consensus, contrary practice notwithstanding.

Slavery’s permissibility received a similar “unequivocal yes” in Islamic law sixty or seventy years ago. Political pressures forced Muslim scholars to justify abolition in what Ahmed described as a “little bit of a technical argument” premised on the understanding that “times have changed.” The Islamic State (ISIS), though, has recently reintroduced slavery, arguing that times have changed again.

Other controversies involving Sharia have been addressed creatively, Ahmed noted. The Egyptian jihadist group Gama’a al-Islamiyya, for example, discovered in Western contract law a unique basis for abolishing airline hijacking: the purchaser of an airline ticket may not violate its terms by destroying or seizing the plane. In the political sphere, while many European diaspora Muslims vote simply for the sake of political participation, the Sharia principle of maslaha or public good allows conservative Muslims to participate in non-Muslim politics in order to advance Islam.

One of Ahmed’s Powerpoints stated, “Gender: The Greatest Challenge to Islamic Reform.” “Gender pervades every part of Islamic law,” he explained, a law that was traditionally patriarchal. The Quran, for example 4:11, prescribes half the inheritance for women as for men.

Nonetheless, Sharia’s past malleability made Ahmed optimistic that in Islam, “any law, no matter how entrenched it seems in Muslim texts, can be reformed.” To this end, he is developing an application allowing popular citation of legal arguments and sources in order to “democratize” and “crowdsource Sharia.” That way, less educated and “state-sponsored ulama” (religious scholars) will “not have a monopoly on Islamic law.”

Ahmed himself would like to “get less religion” in Muslim governance, but Sharia is not going to disappear from Muslim societies anytime soon, including pertinent national constitution clauses. An “overwhelming number” of surveyed Muslims expressed a belief in Sharia, often including corporal punishment, as divine. Alternatively, millions of Muslims sought an Islamic theological basis to justify their support for human rights norms such as gender equality. “Context driving law is not just legitimate, it’s inevitable,” he concluded.

Ahmed’s illuminating and refreshingly honest examination of Sharia raised several important concerns surrounding Islamic law and its reform. On one hand, critical examination of Sharia’s past could cause many Muslims to be as reform-minded as Ahmed and to reject Sharia as a divinely-ordained, unalterable legal code that demands future application. On the other hand, Sharia contains serious moral failings not easily resolved even with the most sophisticated (or sophistic) Islamic theological and legal arguments.

As presented by Ahmed, Islamic law suffers from an unwieldy, unstable, and incoherent structure stemming from Islam’s doctrinal foundations. As one of his slides stated, Islam’s arbitrary conception of God is “beyond our moral code.” Islamic norms then derive from Muhammad, who “is supposed to be the pristine believer” in Islamic teaching and thus, according to some Islamic teachings, incapable of sin. On the basis of the life of this seventh-century desert dweller, Islamic law has accepted slavery while possessing an “unnecessary amount of information on the law of wells.” Developing modern legal standards for a free society within such a body of law will be difficult indeed, which is why Ahmed’s insistence on reform is so important.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Eleven Reasons to Reject Sharia Law in Any Form

sharia1 (1)Citizen Warrior, May 2, 2015:

The following list was posted at the Infidel Blogger’s Alliance and has been attributed to Larry Houle. It is a countdown of the top eleven reasons to reject Shari’a. Shari’a is Islamic law, based on the Quran and the Sunnah. It is considered my Muslims to be Allah’s law, and the only rightful set of laws on earth.

Several countries apply Shari’a today, and millions of Muslims around the world are uniting and recruiting and willing to die to get Shari’a applied in more countries. Here is why their efforts must be stopped:

11. Shari’a condones slavery.

Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora notes: “the Quran stipulated that female slaves might lawfully be enjoyed by their masters.” Mohammad himself owned many slaves, some of whom he captured in wars of conquest and some he purchased. The names of forty slaves owned by Mohammad are recorded by Muslim chroniclers.

Islamic law (Sharia) contains elaborate regulations for slavery. A slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), slaves had no right to property, could marry only with the permission of the owner, and were considered to be chattel, that is the movable property, of the slave owner.

Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Sharia law to sexually exploit their slaves, including hiring them out as prostitutes. One reason why very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery is that traditional Islamic culture still condones slavery. The Sharia, the codified Islamic law which is based upon the teachings and example of Mohammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery. One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Mohammad.

Whatever Mohammad did, we must do, what he forbade, we must forbid, what he did not forbid, we may not forbid.

As Mohammad himself traded in slaves and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year-old, and having concubines — slavery and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition.

Muslim nations had engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

THE RIGHTS OF SLAVES UNDER ISLAM

According to the Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves had few civil or legal rights. For example:

  • Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves – Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49.
  • Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God – Sura 16:77
  • According to Islamic tradition, people at the time of their capture were either to be killed, or enslaved. Shows you that they were at the bottom of the barrel to start with.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves were merchandise. The sales of slaves was in accordance with the sale of animals.
  • Muhammad ordered that some slaves who were freed by their master be RE-ENSLAVED!
  • It is permissible under Islamic law to whip slaves.
  • According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this.
  • According to Islam, the testimony of slaves is not admissible in court. Ibn Timiyya and Bukhari state this.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves cannot choose their own marriage mate. – Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, part 9.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. – Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155.

Slavery continued in Islamic lands from about the beginning to this very day (read one man’s recent experience escaping slavery in Sudan). Muslim rulers always found support in the Quran to call ‘jihad’, partly for booty, partly for the purpose of taking slaves.

As the Islamic empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms, and each ruler was able to decide what Islam’s theology really meant. Usually, he always found it in support of what he wanted to do. Their calls of jihad against their neighbors facilitated the taking of slaves for Islam. The Quran and Islamic jurisprudence support the taking of slaves, so, those petty Muslim rulers were following the Quran when they needed slaves.

WHO CAN BE MADE SLAVES UNDER ISLAM?

  • Islam allows Muslims to make slaves out of anyone who is captured during war.
  • Islam allows for the children of slaves to be raised as slaves.
  • Like (a), Islam allows for Christians and Jews to be made into slaves if they are captured in war. After Muslim armies attacked and conquered Spain, they took thousands of slaves back to Damascus. The key prize was 1000 virgins as slaves.
  • Christians and Jews, who had made a treaty with the ruling Muslims could be made into slaves if they did not pay the “protection” tax. This paying for ‘protection’ was just like paying a Mafia racketeer! This allowed Muslim rulers to extort money from non-Muslim people.

10. Shari’a commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason number 9 below), but also for drinking alcohol. In 2005, in Nigeria a Shari’a court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes. In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90-91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does.

A poor ‘criminal’ was brought to Muhammad who became angry: The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad’s presence].

(Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774-6775)Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment? The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

9. Shari’a allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al-Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia. Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. One of the guests was an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of Allah], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. Allah is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Quran, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘Abdur Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr:

Muslim no. 2127: ‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual ‘crimes’ may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women.

Generally, Shari’a restricts women’s social mobility and rights, the more closely Shari’a is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars.

In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women’s testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

8. Shari’a allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge — physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancé. In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.The Quran says:

5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Quran, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.

Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC (the law is based on the Torah) and to re-impose the old law of retaliation — literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally.

7. Shari’a commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

This punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan. The Quran says:

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done — a deterrent from Allah: Allah is almighty and wise.

5:39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief’s hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

6. Shari’a commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. An article about it said of this punishment that it was the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation).

AI has recorded thirty-three amputations and nine cross-amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated. The Quran says:

5:33-34 Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter…unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that Allah is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33-34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away…The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

5. Shari’a commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over on top of three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108-113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’ These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: …’If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.’ (Abu Dawud no. 4447)
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have a wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version…on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

4. Shari’a orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex. The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]. (Hilali and Khan)

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833. The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

In Iran, a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty-five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports: An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging.

Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped. She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her… (Muslim no. 4206) The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her.

Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet’s words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

3. Shari’a orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Shari’a itself.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote The Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran.

Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa. In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. The Muslims’ ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam. Here are the classical legal rulings:

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597-98, o8.7):

  1. Reviling Allah or his Messenger;
  2. being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat';
  3. denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it';
  4. holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent';
  5. reviling the religion of Islam;
  6. being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
  7. denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message…to be the religion followed by the entire world.

‘It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head.

The non-Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)-(5)):

  1. Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her;
  2. conceal spies of hostile forces;
  3. lead a Muslim away from Islam;
  4. mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet…or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows:

  1. death,
  2. enslavement,
  3. release without paying anything, or
  4. ransoming in exchange for money

These punishments also execute free speech — even repulsive speech — and freedom of religion or conscience. Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth.

As it stands, Shari’a — with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and the Shari’a itself — testifies to their weakness since Shari’a threatens those who dare to differ. How confident was Muhammad (and today’s Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

2. Shari’a orders apostates to be killed (an apostate is someone who leaves Islam).

In Iran, an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi’ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings. See the previous point number 3 for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Citing Quranic verses and hadith passages, Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, argues that Sura 9:11-12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death. Apostates should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.

And the number one reason why Shari’a is bad for all societies…

1. Shari’a commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the memetic code for Islam — waging war. In the ten years he lived in Medina from AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. Muhammad had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax (“protection” tax) on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury.

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

  1. Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since any previous marriages of slaves are automatically annulled upon their capture, according to Shari’a.
  2. Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, did this.
  3. Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.
  4. Old men and monks could be killed.
  5. A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.
  6. Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non-Muslim.
  7. Civilian property may be confiscated.
  8. Civilian homes may be destroyed.
  9. Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.
  10. Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.
  11. People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury.

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad a revelation to stop these practices. Therefore, Islam is violent — unjustly and aggressively.

Also see:

Garland Police Stop “Known Wolf” Jihadists but Free Speech Threat Remains

6850320CSP, by Kyle Shideler, May 4, 2015:

Sunday night, May 3rd, outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland Texas, two would-be jihadists attempted to launch an attack against a free speech event being held by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). Thanks to the swift response by local security and GPD, the two suspects were killed, while an officer was wounded, but soon released from the hospital.

One of the suspects was identified as Elton Simpson, an Arizona man convicted in 2011 for lying to federal agents regarding his attempt to travel to Somalia to join a terror group. On a twitter page reportedly connected to Simpson, the author swears an oath of allegiance to Islamic State leader AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi just moments prior to the attack taking place, with the hashtag #Texasattack. An investigation is currently underway to determine who the second suspect was, identified in Simpsons’ twitter page only as “the bro with me.”

There is no doubt that many in the media will attempt to paint the responsibility for this attack on the hosts of the event, for having the temerity to hold an art exhibit featuring a number of drawings (both contemporary and historical) of Islam’s prophet Mohammad. But an examination of Simpsons’ earlier trial documents make clear Simpson was committed jihadist. From the Court quoting transcripts from the audio recordings submitted by the FBI:

In that recording, Mr. Simpson told Mr. Deng that Allah loves an individual who is “out there fighting [non-Muslims]” and making difficult sacrifices such as living in caves, sleeping on rocks rather than sleeping in comfortable beds and with his wife, children and nice cars. Mr. Simpson said that the reward is high because “If you get shot, or you get killed, it’s [heaven] straight away.” Mr. Simpson then said:

“[Heaven] that’s what we here for…so why not take that route?”

Simpson went on to describe the importance of Shariah law, and the willingness to fight to establish it:

They’re trying to make them live by man-made laws, not by Allah’s laws. That’s why they get fought. You try to make us become slaves to man? No we slave to Allah, we going to fight you to the death.”

As we have noted previously, Shariah blasphemy laws call for death for perceived insults to either Allah or Mohammed, and multiple Muslim-majority countries maintain the death penalty for blasphemy, and in many others extrajudicial killings are routine. The attempted attack on the Curtis Culwell Center should likewise be viewed as an attempt to enforce a foreign system of law against the constitution, through violence. It is not an irrational act by those “angered” or offended by a display, but one attack in a campaign targeting America’s system of governance.

Such attacks do not occur in isolation, but are part of a larger political effort to impose Shariah over American law. This is done first by equating the act of speech with the violence directed against the speakers. As we noted at the time of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris:

The Organization of the Islamic Cooperation has led the charge to see the criminalization of defamation of religion (interpreted by the OIC to mean Islam only) enforced by governments. Unfortunately the U.S. State Department has cooperated with implementing these efforts under the “Istanbul Process” for the past several years. Wickham’s claim that because violence against the speaker will inevitably result, the publication of images of Mohammad are not protected speech is the exact line of thinking represented by the Istanbul Process’s“test of consequences” concept and shows how successful the OIC’s effort to peddle this narrative has been.

This same line was adopted by the Islamist organizers of the “Stand With the Prophet” Rally, also held in Garland, Texas. From a Free Beacon article covering the event:

“Frustrated with Islamophobes defaming the Prophet?” the event materials ask. “Fuming over extremists like ISIS who give a bad name to Islam? Remember the Danish cartoons defaming the Prophet? Or the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’?”

“When real events warrant, like the Danish Cartoon controversy, Sharia ban, Quran burning, Boko Haram kidnappings. [Islamic State] brutality, etc., we articulate fresh talking points and content quickly, and in a timely manner, working with professionals to disseminate it through community spokespersons and our allies,” organizers state on their website.

The publication of cartoons and other acts of free speech are being directly equated here with kidnapping, brutality and terrorism as part of an intentional effort to permit the banning of free speech that offends Islam. It’s the same logic that led Congressmen Andre Carson and Keith Ellison to demand Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders be barred from the country. Wilders attended and spoke at the Garland event.

Sadly this rhetoric has clearly caught on, and was on hand following the Garland shooting as journalists, bloggers and “Countering Violent Extremism” analysts lumped the AFDI and those who attempted to murder them together as “extremists.”

We should all be thankful that swift action by the Garland police put down a violent threat to free speech and the Constitution on Sunday.  But we should all respond equally swiftly to the political threat to free speech by loudly and unapologetically insisting that the Constitution trumps Sharia law, and free speech trumps  “so-called” blasphemy.

And there’s nothing extremist about that.

UK: Sharia Courts Abusing Muslim Women

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, April 8, 2015:

The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land.

“I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.” — Muslim woman interviewed for the report.

The report concludes by calling on the British government to launch a judge-led inquiry to “determine the extent to which discriminatory Sharia law principles are being applied within the UK.”

“The government’s response will be a litmus test of the extent to which it genuinely upholds the principle of equality before the law or is so dominated by the fear of ‘giving offense’ that it will continue to allow these women to suffer in ways which would make our suffragettes turn in their graves.” — Baroness Caroline Cox.

Muslim women across Britain are being systematically oppressed, abused and discriminated against by Sharia law courts that treat women as second-class citizens, according to a new report, which warns against the spiraling proliferation of Islamic tribunals in the United Kingdom.

The 40-page report, “A Parallel World: Confronting the Abuse of Many Muslim Women in Britain Today,” was authored by Baroness Caroline Cox, a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords and one of the leading defenders of women’s rights in the UK.

The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land.

The Arbitration Act of 1996 allows parties to resolve certain civil disputes according to Sharia principles in such a way that the decision can be enforced in British courts.

According to the report, however, many Muslim bodies are using the Arbitration Act to support the claim that they are able to make legally binding decisions for members of the Muslim community, when in fact the law limits their role to that of being a mediator to help reach an agreement. “The mediator is not a judge or an arbitrator who imposes a decision,” the report states.

The report shows how Sharia courts often fuse the concepts of arbitration, in which both parties agree to submit their dispute to a mutually agreeable third party for a decision to be made, and mediation, in which the two parties voluntarily use a third party to help them reach an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

On top of this lies the problem of “jurisdiction creep,” whereby Sharia courts are adjudicating on matters well outside the arbitration framework, such as by deciding cases relating to criminal law, including those involving domestic violence and grievous bodily harm.

 

Haitham al-Haddad is a British Sharia court judge, and sits on the board of advisors for the Islamic Sharia Council. Regarding the handling of domestic violence cases, he stated in an interview, “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort their matters among themselves.” (Image source: Channel 4 News video screenshot)

As a result, Muslim women, who may lack knowledge of both the English language and their rights under British law, are often pressured by their families to use Sharia courts. These courts often coerce them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions, which are imposed and viewed as legal judgments.

Worse yet, “Refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia forum could lead to threats and intimidation, or being ostracized and labelled a disbeliever,” the report states, and adds:

“There is a particular concern that women face pressure to withdraw allegations of domestic violence after they make them. Several women’s groups say they are often reluctant to go to the authorities with women who have run away to escape violence because they cannot trust police officers within the community not to betray the girls to their abusing families.”

The report shows that even in cases where Muslim tribunals work “in tandem” with police investigations, abused women often withdraw their complaints to the police, while Sharia judges let the husbands go unpunished.

Meanwhile, most Sharia courts, when dealing with divorce, do so only in a religious sense. They cannot grant civil divorce; they simply grant a religious divorce in accordance with Sharia law.

According to the report, in many cases this is all that is necessary for a “divorce” anyway; many Muslim women who identify themselves as being “married” are not in marriages that are legally recognized by British law. Although a nikah (an Islamic wedding ceremony) may have taken place, if the marriage is not officially registered, it is not valid in the eyes of civil law. The report states:

“This creates a very serious problem: women who are married in Islamic ceremonies but are not officially married under English law can suffer grave disadvantages because they lack legal protection. What is more, they can be unaware that their marriage is not officially recognized by English law.”

This places Muslim women in an especially precarious legal situation when it comes to divorce. In Islam, a husband does not have to follow the same process as the wife when seeking a talaq (Islamic divorce). He merely has to say “I divorce you” three times, whereas the wife must meet various conditions and pay a fee. The report cites women, when speaking of their own talaqproceedings, who referred to their lack of legal protection after discovering that their nikah did not constitute a valid marriage under English law.

The report cites Kalsoom Bashir, a long-time women’s rights activist in Bristol, who discusses the added problem of polygamy. She notes:

“There is an increasing rise in polygamy within Muslim families and again the women who are involved are not in a position to be able to challenge the situation or get any form of justice. They find it difficult to obtain any maintenance as the marriages are not registered legally. Polygamy is used to control first wives who are told that if they are a problem the man has the Islamic right to take another wife. Sometimes just one of the marriages is registered leaving one wife without any legal protections.”

Overall, the report includes excerpts of testimonies of more than a dozen Muslim women who have suffered abuse and injustice at the hands of Sharia courts in Britain. One woman said: “I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.”

The report concludes by calling on the British government to launch a judge-led inquiry to “determine the extent to which discriminatory Sharia law principles are being applied within the UK.” It also calls on the government to support Baroness Cox’s Private Members’ Bill — the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill — which would “create a new criminal offense criminalizing any person who purports to legally adjudicate upon matters which ought to be decided by criminal or family courts.”

Baroness Cox originally introduced the bill in 2011, but it went nowhere due to the lack of support from the main parties. She re-introduced the bill in 2013 and 2014, but it continues to languish, apparently because the main parties are afraid of offending Muslims. Cox has vowed to re-introduce the bill in the next session of Parliament, whose members will be elected on May 7.

The bill aims to combat discrimination by, among other restrictions, prohibiting Sharia courts from: a) treating the evidence of a man as worth more than the evidence of a woman; b) proceeding on the assumption that the division of an estate between male and female children on intestacy must be unequal; or c) proceeding on the assumption that a woman has fewer property rights than a man.

The law would also place a duty on public bodies to ensure that women in polygamous households, or those who have had a religious marriage, are made aware of their legal position and relevant legal rights under British law.

In a letter, Baroness Cox wrote that her recommendations “can by no means remedy all of the sensitive issues involved, but they do offer an important opportunity for redress.” She added that her bill “already has strong support from across the political spectrum in the House of Lords as well as from Muslim women’s groups and other organisations concerned with the suffering of vulnerable women.”

But it remains to be seen whether the next government will agree to support the bill. On March 23, British Home Secretary Theresa May pledged that if the Conservative Party wins the general election, she would launch a review into whether Sharia courts in England and Wales are compatible with British values.

But the Conservative government’s track record on confronting Islam has been patchy at best. In November 2013, for example, the government rejected an amendment offered by Cox to the Anti-Social Behavior, Crime and Policing Bill, which would have protected women who are duped into believing that their marriages are valid under British law when in fact they are not.

More recently, the Conservatives quashed a “politically incorrect” inquiry into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain.

While Cox welcomed May’s commitment to investigate Sharia courts, she also expressed concern that politicians will once again bow to political correctness. It is important, she wrote, that such investigations “do not fall at the first hurdle, as appears to have happened with previous, similar government-led reviews. Without powers to subpoena witnesses, any independent review — no matter how well intentioned — will be another lost opportunity.”

Cox summed it up this way:

“The government’s response will be a litmus test of the extent to which it genuinely upholds the principle of equality before the law or is so dominated by the fear of ‘giving offense’ that it will continue to allow these women to suffer in ways which would make our suffragettes turn in their graves.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Tweet of Defeat

by Mark Steyn  •  Mar 12, 2015

I’ve written many times about the Islamic State’s ingenious use of social media – or, as they’ve brilliantly transformed it, anti-social media. These guys really are on – what’s the phrase? – the cutting edge. By contrast, the 12-year-old zeitgeist-surfers running communications at the Obama Administration are clumsy, cack-handed, and worse than useless. Even though it’s a mere droplet in the bottomless sinkhole that is the US federal budget, I deeply resent having to pay for the halfwit embarrassments of “Think Again Turn Away” – the State Department’s social-media outreach strategy for countering “violent extremism”.

Here’s a recent Tweet from the geniuses at State:

In open societies, all faiths enjoy freedom of speech; under #ISIS rule, no such thing as freedom of expression.

And beneath it was the photograph at right – “a group of burqa-clad women promoting Sharia law“, under the approving slogan:

Muslims coming out inviting society to #Islam

1207That’s one way of putting it. In fact, the body-bagged crones are asserting the superiority of Islam over your society – that’s to say the superiority of Sharia over what they call “man-made law”.

The women are promoting Sharia not in, say, Turkey or Indonesia, but on what appears to be a street in Britain.

Why is the State Department promoting Sharia for the United Kingdom?

And, given that that the “man-made law” in question is English Common Law, which is the basis of American law, why by implication is the State Department promoting Sharia for the United States? Aren’t they supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

Sharia is incompatible with that constitution, as it is with the entire legal inheritance of western civilization.

You might make the case that the US Government is simply demonstrating how absolute is its commitment to free speech – although given that President Obama and Secretary Clinton got that video-maker tossed in jail and did a cringe-making ad for Pakistani TV apologizing for him, I would doubt that.

But, even so, our enemies are not interested in our “fairness”; they’re interested in winning – which is one reason why they attract tens of thousands of the west’s nominal citizens. And, when the best you can do to counter that is tell them, “Hey, why go all the way to Syria and Iraq when you can stay home and hollow us out from within?”, they rightly conclude we’re a bunch of losers.

After all, what’s the underlying message of the State Department Tweet? We’ve no problem with your end, we’re just a little bit squeamish about your means.

That’s not enough for me. I don’t want to live under Sharia. And, if you’re in favor of Sharia, by definition you are incapable of being a citizen of a free society. So, when the global superpower can muster no better argument than “the great thing about western civilization is that we’re open to letting you destroy it”, it’s a wee bit demoralizing. The State Department’s Tweet tells our enemies we’re losers, and we’re happy to lose, as long as you let us lose incrementally.

As I say, I wish all those Obama hipster pajama boys were as good at social media as they tell themselves.

ISIS is the Syndrome, Sharia the Real Malignancy

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsignFamily Security Matters, by Alex Alexiev, March 11, 2015

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia.  And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses.  As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples.  If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council  of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed  “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because  “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is IASC’s Senior Fellow for Eurasia Affairs.  He has more than 35 years of analytical experience in U.S. national security as a senior analyst and project director with the Rand Corp’s National Security Division, and several think tanks in Washington D.C.  He has directed numerous research projects for the Department of Defense, Office of Net Assessment, U.S. Army Intelligence, USAF intelligence, DIA, CIA, and other U.S. Government agencies, and has testified before Congress numerous times. He is the author of several books and myriad monographs and articles on national security issues.

Lisa Daftari: The Real War on Women: A Look Into Global Human Rights Abuses and the Americans Who Ignore Them

Published on Feb 20, 2015 by The Heritage Foundation 

***

Iranian American: ‘Sharia Law Is Here in the U.S.’  by By Penny Starr at CNS News, February 25, 2015

Investigative reporter and Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Feb. 20, 2015. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Investigative reporter and Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Feb. 20, 2015. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Iranian American Lisa Daftari, an investigative journalist and contributor to Fox News, said on Friday that Sharia law is being followed by practitioners of radical Islam right here in the United States, even if many Americans think of the human rights abuses towards women by these practitioners as something that only takes place in the Middle East and Africa.

“And some might ask why should Americans care about what goes on in those countries?” asked Daftar, whose family fled Iran during the 1979 revolution that overthrew Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and established an Islamic state in the country. “How about tolerance for other practices; respect for Sharia law – the cultural and religious differences?

“Well the answer is it’s not just contained to that part of the world,” Daftari said. “It’s here.

(see excerpted video at CNS News)

“It’s in Europe. It’s in our cities. It’s in our places of work. It’s in our schools,” Daftari said. “Yes, Sharia law is here in the U.S., and this too is a war on women.”

Daftari, who spoke at the Conservative Women’s Network at the Heritage Foundation, focused her remarks on what she said is “the real war on women,” including “honor killings” that have taken place in the United States.

“Every year, about 26 women are killed in the U.S. by a relative in the name of family honor,” Daftari said.

She cited two such killings. On Jan. 1, 2008, a man shot his two teenage daughters, Amina and Sarah Said.

“It later came to light that these murders were premeditated as honor killings as retribution for [Amina] rejecting an arranged marriage to a man in Egypt,” Daftari said.

In an essay written in September 2014, Amina’s boyfriend, Joseph Moreno, said the couple hoped to marry and that the father has never been arrested and his whereabouts are unknown.

“In 2011 an Arizona judge sentenced an Iraqi man to more than 34 years in prison, Daftari said. “He ran over his 20-year-old daughter because he claimed she’d become too westernized.”

Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki was found guilty in the killing of his daughter Noor, according to an article posted on AZCentral.com.

Daftari said radical Islam is also being promoted by Muslim groups on college campuses in the U.S., based on her investigative reporting on the phenomenon.

Daftari cited other examples of human rights abuses against women around the globe that she said represent “the real war on women.”

“The real war on women is about the millions of women throughout the Middle East and the continent of Africa who are forced to undergo genital mutilation,” she said. “In 2013, 3.6 million were mutilated in these parts of the world. In Somalia, FGM (female genital mutilations) is at 99 percent.

“That means nearly every single woman,” Daftari said.

“The real war on women is about the many religious minorities who stand firmly behind their faith and beliefs in Muslim-dominated countries – Christians, Jews, Bahi’s and others facing minority taxes, imprisonment, persecution,” she said.

“The real war on women is about the women of Iran who cannot dress as they want, dance as they want, attend the schools or obtain the jobs that they want,” Daftari said.  “They cannot file for divorce, even from a violent spouse, and even if they do, custody of all their children will go to the husband.”

Daftari also cited the case of a 26-year-old Iranian woman who was jailed and eventually executed because she fought back against the man who raped her.

Also see:

Defeat Jihad Summit panel debates the use of ‘qualifiers’ when referring to Islam

moderate_radical-islam

CJR: The perennial debate over use of qualifiers such as radical, extremist or even fundamentalist to describe Islam is brought up by the intrepid Diana West at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit. Diana West believes that we are in fact abiding by Islamic blasphemy laws when we say “radical” Islam rather then just Islam.

Stephen Coughlin comes at this from a military intelligence perspective which seeks to define just what the Islamic threat doctrine is so that we can “orient on the enemy”.  He explains that he chooses to refer to The Reliance of the Traveller shariah manual because it represents the sanctioned views of A Azhar, the OIC and the American Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore it represents the prevailing view of Sunni Islam and can be said to be Islam…not radical Islam. Coughlin then says something very interesting that needs to be highlighted. He refers to the tactic of using qualifiers in order to “bring people along”. In other words, some counter jihadists, especially those who are working in the political arena, choose to use qualifiers in order to soften the message for politically correct ears, including moderate Muslims.

Following Coughlin, David Yerushalmi speaks to the legal issues of trying to reform shariah law with an explanation of Fiqh and what it would take to overturn articles of Islamic jurisprudence developed over thousands of years as Islamic reformers such as Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Al Sissi are advocating.

Debra Burlingame then speaks to the quandry of Moderate Muslims who have no safe place to express their views. Andrew McCarthy and Fred Fleitz believe it is important to reach out to Moderate Muslims and enlist their help.

I think a general consensus was reached that it is not necessary to address what the true Islam is if you can identify as the enemy those Muslims who subscribe to the Islamic Threat Doctrine of Shariah. John Guandolo gets down to law enforcement brass tacks and asserts that we need to start prosecuting those in high positions who are aiding and abetting terrorists. While John Guandolo did not agree that moderate Muslim outreach is producing results, he asserted that counter jihadists do not have to agree on everything in order to work together. I heartily agree.

Watch the debate which goes from 5:03 to about 5:38 in the video.  I’ve set the video to begin with Diana West  but if for some reason that changes just move the progress bar with your cursor:

 

***

Here are some clips of the Summit now available at securefreedom:

Michael Mukasey at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Gen. Jerry Boykin at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Gov. Bobby JIndal at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Scott Perry at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Mike Pompeo at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Steve King at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Andrew McCarthy at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Pete Hoekstra at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Newt Gingrich at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Nonie Darwish

 

 

Petition: Examine whether Islam is antithetical to Human Rights

humanrights_pictures_human570

Faith Freedom, FEBRUARY 11, 2015

This petition urges the leaders of the Western and non-Muslim World and the UN to examine whether Islam is in fact antithetical to Human Rights law, and incites violence towards non-Muslims and apostates, incites hatred and the rejection of Civil Law. We the undersigned urge our Political Leaders and the United Nations Human Rights Council to examine whether Islam is an ideology rather than a religion and as such should be banned as a belief system in the non-Muslim world.

The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights ruled in February 2003 that Islamic Sharia law is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” The court said that a legal system based on Sharia law “would diverge from the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the rules on the status of women, and its intervention in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”  

Further, the European Court of Human Rights determined on July 31, 2001, that “the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.”

Sharia law is Islam. Islamic Theocratic regimes are founded upon Islam. In all its manifestations, whether in violent responses to ‘blasphemy’ such as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, or in forcing women to cover their faces, child marriage, beheadings or intolerance towards non-Muslims, Islam, Muslim nations, leaders and Islamic organisations are continuously flouting Human Rights laws.

This is evidenced today in Saudi Arabia‘s theocratic (religious) legal system enforcing regular beheadings, banning women from driving and the persecution of minorities, or the much better known barbarism of Isis which takes slaves of women and children and is currently engaged in the extermination of the Yazidi people and conquest of land in Iraq and Syria.

Muslim groups Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab in Kenya and Somalia terrorise and kill thousands. Iran regularly hangs and whips dissenters, is close to having a nuclear weapon and has stated its intention to destroy Israel. Jews have been expelled from Muslim nations and Christians continue to be persecuted and killed there for their religious belief.

Closer to home, Hizbut Tahir works to establish a global Caliphate and rejects UK law openly. ‘Islamophobia’ is shouted each time Islam causes another horror, in order to crush dissent and debate – regardless of the fact that Islam is responsible for oppression and slaughter, most recently in Paris – NOT non-Muslims.

We constantly hear Muslim voices condemning non-Muslim actions (such as publishing cartoons) – yet these are as nothing compared to the killing and oppression BY Muslims.

It is now incumbent on our political leaders and the UN to listen to the voices of non-Muslims and to ex-Muslim testimony in order to finally examine in a dispassionate manner Islam and its relationship to the non-Islamic world. Specifically we ask that a major enquiry is set up to examine whether or not Islam  will pose a threat to the freedoms and Human Rights which we have fought oppression to guard and which we hold so dear in the non-Muslim world.

There are now many Muslim groups wanting to establish Sharia law in the West and to make Muslim lands of our nations. The existent rulings by Strasbourg that there no place for Sharia law in a democracy must be upheld everywhere and it means too that non-Muslim nations should stop allowing the voices of Islam to demand special treatment or the silencing of dissent. Ultimately it is the purpose of this petition to ask our leaders to honestly examine whether Islam is compatible with Human Rights in non-Muslim nations. If it is found not to be it should be banned just as Nazism is banned.

People like Ayaan Hirsi-Ali and Serkan Engin have left Islam and as such are able to see it clearly. They compare it to a cult or to Nazism – NOT to a religion. Nazism is rightly condemned today, yet Islam has an even worse track record historically. Muhammad was a warlord who himself killed many people and persuaded his followers to kill any who didn’t believe in his new religion.

This tendency to kill non-believers is very evident in the history of Islam right through to the present day. Islam was started by Muhammad who was not peaceful nor tolerant – he had Jews and Christians killed. The fact that Iran has a stated aim to ‘destroy Israel’, and the rise of Isis and Islamic terrorist attacks on the West shows clearly that Islam uses the cover and protection of religious freedom to promote its hate-filled, intolerant and violent ideology.

If followers of the cult of Scientology were to begin beheading people and violently taking over large parts of the world there would be immediate calls to ban it. Yet there is a popular myth which our leaders and media maintain, that Islam is a religion of the same caliber as Judaism or Christianity. In fact whilst terrible things were done in the name of these religions – the Judeo-Christian faith model is based on strongly moral teaching. Jesus was so peaceful he allowed himself to be killed and abused rather than exhort his followers to kill for him. Islam is based on the example of a violent warlord who did exhort violence as the solution to non-believers.

It is Islam which leads to Islamism. The roots of the violence and persecution of other religions which we see both today, and in the history of the belief, are there plainly in the Koran and especially the Hadith or life of Muhammad.

Read the following from Bukhari, The Book of Jihad, and consider whether Isis and Boko Haram are in fact much more likely to be simply Muslims rather than radical Muslims – for they DO follow the life of their prophet:

‘He (The Prophet) had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered that nails should be heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the rocky land of Medina. They asked for water, but none provided them with water till they died.’ [3018]

Please sign this petition now, and share it widely, to ask our world leaders to stop calling Islam the ‘Religion of Peace’ when it is no such thing – rather it has a history of violence and conquest of non-believers which has not abated to this day.

Humanity itself and the freedom of Western civilisation is at threat from this fastest growing belief system which incites hatred, violence and oppression, intolerance and fear wherever it spreads.

Islam must be examined as a cult or belief-system which has always and is now a threat to Human peace and civilisation – NOT as a religion. If Sharia and Theocratic Regimes are disallowed under the Human Rights act then why is Islam given the respect of any other religion? Islam is the foundation of Sharia and Islamic Theocracies.

There is no place for such a belief system within the non-Muslim world. Please watch Ayaah Hirsi Ali’s account of Islam and read more on how Islam breaches Human Rights Law here.

Thank you for your time and please help us in this struggle to retain our basic freedoms, in the face of this violent oppressor which passes for a ‘religion’ when it is rather no more than a cult.

We would not allow Nazism to flourish again unchecked in our lands – we should therefore not allow Islam to place more and more checks on our behaviour until all we hold dear has been destroyed.

https://www.change.org/p/president-barack-obama-examine-whether-islam-is-antithetical-to-human-rights

Sharia Court in Texas: What Could Go Wrong?

By Patrick Poole:

Yesterday I was interviewed by the Glenn Beck Show on Blaze TV following up from Glenn’s interview on Monday with two of the imams responsible for the sharia court that they’re opening up in Dallas, Texas.

A sharia court in Texas? What could possibly go wrong? Well, I can think of a few things…

In this segment of Glenn’s interview with the imams, Taher El-Badawi claims that cutting off heads is not just something they do in Islam, but it’s practiced everywhere, including the US (!!!), and that cutting off hands for theft in America would be economical:

 

Taher : We are ready for any point to discuss with, but the main point here, the reason we are here to discuss this issue what kind of cases Islamic tribunal handle, and you start with the sharia. Why the people afraid from sharia? I’m sorry to say it, one point related to this, cut head is not just in sharia law, just in Islamic law. It’s everywhere. Who said that just in Islamic law? That’s even another sharia, in Jewish sharia, in Christian sharia, in American here, we cut we cut head for some reason.

So, I’m asking you an easy question, if anyone kill another, he should get killed by law, by Islamic law, by government. He should get killed. What is wrong with that? If a thief jump, I’m sorry, to your house, scare your wife, scare your children, scare your neighbor, and they did that with our stores, this is the law, the law to cut his hand because if he feels my hands were cut because of that, he will think about this 100 times. He will never do it. If he do that one time, he will never do it again.

Look how many millions of dollars American here or other states or other states outside spend to keep the criminal in jail, a lot of millions of dollars. We can save that, just let him go, and that’s it, because he did something wrong in the whole community and this kill the whole community. Why not?

OK, then…

One of the other important issues covered my interview was about the imam’s claims that the court will only handle “family issues, includes manners, behavior characters, including marriage divorces, including inheritance law…”.

Contrary to sharia apologists, these courts are not just about whether you pray five times a day or which foot you enter a bathroom with. It is precisely where U.S. family law conflicts with Islamic law that is one of the greatest concerns some have with the establishment of sharia courts in the US.

In 2013, the BBC program Panorama went undercover in sharia courts operating in the UK and found systematic discrimination against women in these courts and regularly telling women suffering from domestic violence not to go to police against UK public policy.

You can view the full Panorama program here:

 

When Glenn asked whether divorces by U.S. courts would be recognized, the imam admitted that women would also need to get an Islamic divorce, and that her US court divorce would not be recognized if she traveled to Islamic countries (the imam specifically mentions US ally, Jordan). So US civil law, even by their own admission, isn’t recognized by Islamic law, here or abroad.

And what about the testimony of women in Islamic court? The imams tried to brush it off that it only related to financial transactions, but you only need to go to the IslamQA website where they defend the principle that the testimony of women isn’t the same as that of men.

As I noted in my own interview, a 2011 survey of Middle East countries by UNICEF found only in Tunisia and Oman (one could also add here Israel) is the testimony of women fully admitted in all judicial proceedings. In most Middle Eastern countries, a woman’s testimony is regularly limited in family and financial matters. This is hardly a secret.

I recall the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Barack Obama’s favorite US Islamic group, used to publish a ruling on their website by one of the top Islamic jurists in the US expressly forbidding Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men, saying “It is better to a slave, bondsman than get married to a non-Muslim.”

After the ruling was pointed out by sharia critics, ISNA removed it from its website, but it still can be found at Web Archive.

fiqh

Among the more laughable claims the imams made in their interview is that you need an Islamic state led by a caliph to implement penal “hudud” punishments (meaning therefore that no one is actually implementing Islamic law anymore), and that Saudi Arabia is not governed by Islamic law.

One only need look at the implementation of sharia in Islamic-majority countries around the world, and enshrining sharia as the ultimate source of their law codes in their respective constitutions, to see they have no problem implementing sharia in the absence of a recognized caliph or an Islamic state.

And Saudi Arabia isn’t governed by Islamic law? Really? [insert laugh track]

In my interview I noted that you can walk into practically any mosque or Islamic bookstore and pick up books like Mohamed S. El-Awa’s “Punishment in Islamic Law,” which is published by American Trust Publications, the publishing arm of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which owns and operates hundreds of mosques around the country. In El-Awa’s book, you find helpful advice on: “How the hand should be cut off (Makan al-Qati’),” “Stoning as punishment (al-Rajm),” “Flogging (al-Jald),” and “The Death Penalty (al-Ta’zir bil-Qatl).”

The same is true for another manual of Islamic law from the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence published in America – translated in English and approved by many global Islamic authorities – called “Reliance of the Traveller (sic).” Book O is dedicated to “Jihad,” and they don’t mean “internal struggle.” Again, these are books marketed directly to American Muslims.

And let’s not forget the imam last July, as reported by Reuters, who tried to cut off the hand of one of the mosque attendees accused of stealing. But this wasn’t Cairo, Tehran or Riyadh. This happened in Philadelphia. Did this imam misunderstand Islam?

Read more at PJ Media

To Undermine Sharia — on The Glazov Gang

 

defeating political islamFebruary 9, 2015 by

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, the author of Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War.

Dr. Muthuswamy came on the show to discuss To Undermine Sharia, analyzing how and why the West needs to spearhead the effort to undercut the Sharia narrative.

 

Sharia law is empowering Islamist radicals at the expense of secularists by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy

PORTLAND, Oregon — The astonishing recent confession of a serving American commander that “[w]e do not understand the [Islamist] movement” calls for a revisit of an old problem.

Two centuries ago, when science began to replace religion as a source for understanding the world, secularists began growing in power. Science gave us an unprecedented mastery over nature, and led to societies that were more advanced than earlier ones.

If one compares how people lived in 1870 with life in 1970, the advancement of society is self-evident. This was true of Muslim societies as well.

In the 1970s, secular dictators ruled most of the Muslim-majority nations. Now, many of these dictatorships are history, and the ones still left are fighting an uphill battle against growing Islamist power whose outlook is regressive.

In most non-Muslim religious communities — Hindus in India, Buddhists in Asia or Christians in Europe, Latin America and Africa — the reverse is true. These communities continue to advance while largely avoiding conflicts and are increasingly democratized.

Historically, Muslim religious ideologues felt that their communities should live by the principles of Islam. This idea was framed in the form of calls to adhere to Sharia, portrayed compellingly as all-encompassing “divine law.” As an interpretation of Islam, Sharia laws vary widely.

In general, they reflect the cultural norms of the Arab tribes of a bygone era. In part, clerics’ or religious ideologues’ prestige and usefulness stem from their status as interpreters of Sharia.

The infusion of modernity and secular ideas into Muslim communities threatened to upend the influence of orthodox leaders. Beginning in the early 1900s, prominent ideologues such as Hassan Al-Banna, and later Sayyid Qutb in Egypt, Abul Maududi in Pakistan and Ruholla Khomeini in Iran started to push back against secularism, by cogently articulating the need for Muslims to live by Sharia laws.

Had oil not been discovered in the Middle East, the calls of the orthodox would have likely been ignored; the price of rejecting modernity certainly would have been poverty.

Iran and Saudi Arabia, prominent Shia and Sunni Islamic nations, respectively, not only found themselves awash in oil wealth, but also provided jobs for millions of Egyptians and Pakistanis, among others.

Starting in the 1970s, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and home to its two holy mosques, began a worldwide export of Sharia and armed jihad emphasizing Wahhabism, a conservative and intolerant form of Islam. Saudi-trained clerics told their flock that Allah would reward them with oil wealth if they practice Islam like the Saudis, including a strict adherence to “God’s law (Sharia).”

The Saudis also pioneered religious sponsorship (in addition to the financial one) of armed jihad through the Afghan Islamic insurgency of the 1980s.

In particular, the impact of the emphasis on Sharia has been no less consequential. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center report, in 25 out of 38 nations, the majority of the Muslims surveyed considered Sharia to be the “revealed word of God” and favored making it the law of the land. Among those who favored doing so, in 10 out of 20 nations, the majority supported corporal punishments such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers, much like what Saudi Arabia enforces under its Sharia laws.

Not surprisingly, in a handful of these 25 nations, including Pakistan, Nigeria and Iraq, newly formed militant groups — Tehreek-e-Taliban, Boko Haram and the Islamic State — are waging armed jihad with the intent of imposing strict Sharia-based governance on communities where a mix of modern and Sharia laws prevail.

What then if only a minority supports the above referenced Sharia measures in a Muslim majority nation? Predictably, there can be a welcome possibility: Nations moderate in their outlook that can sustain socioeconomic development. One such nation is Turkey.

Instead of being at the top of counterterrorism policy agenda, Sharia has become an afterthought. For example, in a 2014 address to the United Nations, President Barack Obama called on Muslims to “reject the ideology of [militant] organizations,” without any mention of Sharia.

The issue is not Islam, but those who are pushing the self-serving narrative of Sharia as an all-encompassing divine law. Specifically, much like the successful war of ideas waged against Soviet communism, the West needs to spearhead the effort to undercut this Sharia narrative.

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy is a scholar of radicalism who lives in Portland, Oregon.

***

Also see: