Shariah Incompatible With the Constitution



by Pete Hoekstra
IPT News
October 6, 2015

Note: Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra is the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Shillman senior fellow. This article originally appeared at Newsmax.

NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd in a recent exchange with a presidential candidate raised an issue that should be discussed not only by all of the candidates, but debated and analyzed by the American people.

Is Islamic law (Shariah) compatible with the U.S. Constitution?

The question has no simple answer, but we have three recent examples of where regime change forced national leaders to determine Shariah’s role in their governance, all failing to reach a definitive conclusion.

The first two followed interventions by the Obama administration, in one case actively and in the other passively, that facilitated the overthrow of stable authorities.

In Libya, NATO precipitated the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi’s 42-year dictatorship. In Egypt, the U.S. sent clear and unambiguous indications that replacing President Hosni Mubarak with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood would be acceptable, if not desirable.

In both cases new governments rose to power through American support.

I illustrate how events unfolded following Gaddafi’s deposition in my upcoming book, “Architects of Disaster: the Destruction of Libya.”

The U.S.-backed National Transitional Council – comprised of radical Islamist “moderates” that fought Gadhafi – appointed Sadeq al-Ghariani grand mufti during the civil war, a title that he retained after the shooting subsided.

Al-Ghariani, as grand mufti, the highest ranking official on Islamic law in a Muslim country, declared that Shariah would serve as the primary source of legislation and that any law contradicting it was invalid.

He legitimized polygamy, banned women from marrying foreigners, directed the Ministry of Education to delete passages on democracy and freedom of religion from school textbooks, and praised the militant group Ansar al-Sharia, which the U.S. blames for the Benghazi attacks that resulted in the murder of four Americans.

In addition, British officials accused al-Ghariani of encouraging jihadists with ideological ties to ISIS to overthrow the duly elected parliament.

Libya remains a bitterly divided failed state with one group supporting jurisprudence under the model created by Mohammad and another fighting for more democratic reforms while still pledging allegiance to Islamic law.

In Egypt, the government led by the Muslim Brotherhood focused on consolidating power rather than quickly imposing expanded facets of Shariah. However, the Muslim populace quickly rejected the actions and declarations of leaders dedicated to implementing stricter adherence to the fundamental teachings of the Koran.

Egyptians already dissatisfied with the economic performance under the stewardship of President Mohammed Morsi turned on him before he could impose what many believed was an agenda to introduce it gradually.

The sad irony is that in both Libya and Egypt, the Obama administration — a supposed champion of liberty and human rights — supported groups that wanted to ultimately enforce the code of law championed by Mohammed once they gained power.

Another irony is that while people in both countries are fighting and dying for political freedom and against more radical Shariah interpretations, that debate can’t even take place in the United States. Those who raise the issue are immediately labeled as Islamophobic.

Finally, the third example of Shariah is that inflicted by ISIS which allows for genocide of religious minorities in the so-called caliphate, an area comprised of large swaths of Syria and Iraq. Their practices are so barbaric that it’s difficult to imagine anyone in the U.S. defending them.

Other practices under ISIS’ application of the religious precepts of Islam include beheading and immolating captives, as well as selling “infidel” women as sex slaves. Here again other Muslims are fighting ISIS, for many reasons that include their obedience to Shariah.

The policies and laws executed by the grand mufti in Libya, the long-term agenda in the short-lived Morsi government in Egypt and by ISIS in its ideal Islamist Ummah are incompatible with the Constitution, period.

If such interpretations are unacceptable as many in the region indicate by their physical resistance, it is not difficult to understand why Americans are asking whether it could apply here.

How would Shariah work within the parameters of America’s founding document, and would the American Muslim community broadly embrace it?

Let’s ask all of the presidential candidates of both parties to hear what they have to say and allow a real discussion among American voters to begin.

Pete Hoekstra represented Michigan for 18 years in Congress, including as chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee. He currently serves as the Shillman senior fellow at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and is the author of “Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.”

Brigitte Gabriel VVS15 Talks Pew Poll on Sharia Law


Published on Oct 1, 2015 by Brigitte Gabriel

ACT for America president and founder Brigitte Gabriel talks about “moderate Muslims” in the top 5 Islamic countries and how they voted on Sharia Law. Gabriel message: Heed a warning from a victim of Islamic extremism.

Join ACT’s Refugee Resettlement Working Group



Meanwhile, An Islamic Fifth Column Builds Inside America by Paul Sperry

In berating GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson for suggesting a loyalty test for Muslims seeking high office, CNN host Jake Tapper maintained that he doesn’t know a single observant Muslim-American who wants to Islamize America.

“I just don’t know any Muslim-Americans — and I know plenty — who feel that way, even if they are observant Muslims,” he scowled.

Tapper doesn’t get out much. If he did, chances are he’d run into some of the 51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.

Maybe they’re all heretics, so let’s see what the enlightened Muslims think.

If Tapper did a little independent research he’d quickly find that America’s most respected Islamic leaders and scholars also want theocracy, not democracy, and even advocate trading the Constitution for the Quran.

These aren’t fringe players. These are the top officials representing the Muslim establishment in America today.

Hopefully none of them ever runs for president, because here’s what he’d have to say about the U.S. system of government:

Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

Germany’s Sharia Refugee Shelters – “Bulk of Migrants Cannot Be Integrated”

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, Oct. 1, 015:

  • Christians, Kurds and Yazidis in the shelters are being attacked by Muslims with increasing frequency and ferocity.
  • “I fled from the Iranian secret service because I thought that in Germany I could finally live my faith without persecution. But in the refugee shelter, I cannot admit that I am a Christian, or I would face threats… They treat me like an animal. They threaten to kill me.” — An Iranian Christian in a German refugee shelter.
  • “We have to dispense with the illusion that all of those who are coming here are human rights activists. … We are getting reports of threats of aggression, including threats of beheading, by Sunnis against Shiites, but Yazidis and Christians are the most impacted. Those Christian converts who do not hide their faith stand a 100% probability of being attacked and mobbed.” — Max Klingberg, director of the Frankfurt-based International Society for Human Rights.
  • “We are observing that Salafists are appearing at the shelters disguised as volunteers and helpers, deliberately seeking contact with refugees to invite them to their mosques to recruit them to their cause.” — Hans-Georg Maaßen, head of German intelligence.
  • Police are urgently calling for migrants of different faiths to be housed in separate facilities. Some politicians counter that such segregation would go against Germany’s multicultural values.
  • “The bulk of the migrants who are arriving here cannot be integrated.” — Heinz Buschkowsky, former mayor of Berlin’s Neukölln district.

Muslim asylum seekers are enforcing Islamic Sharia law in German refugee shelters, according to police, who warn that Christians, Kurds and Yazidis in the shelters are being attacked by Muslims with increasing frequency and ferocity.

Muslim migrants from different sects, clans, ethnicities and nationalities are also attacking each other. Violent brawls — sometimes involving hundreds of migrants — are now a daily occurrence.

Police say the shelters, where thousands of migrants are housed together in cramped spaces for months at a time, are seething cauldrons ready to explode. The police are urgently calling for migrants of different faiths to be housed in separate facilities.

Some politicians counter that such segregation would go against Germany’s multicultural values, while others say that separating hundreds of thousands of migrants by religion and nationality would be a logistical impossibility.

As the consequences of unrestrained migration become apparent, the tide of public opinion is turning against the government’s open-door policy. Observers say that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the so-called most powerful woman in the world, may have met her Waterloo.

A report published by the newspaper Die Welt on September 27 sheds light on the targeting of Christians by Muslims in German refugee shelters. The paper interviewed an Iranian convert to Christianity who said:

“In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards arrested my brother in a house church. I fled from the Iranian secret service because I thought that in Germany I could finally live my faith without persecution. But in the refugee shelter, I cannot admit that I am a Christian, or I would face threats.

“Muslims wake me before the crack of dawn during Ramadan and say that I should eat before sunrise. When I decline, they call me a kuffar, an unbeliever. They spit at me. They treat me like an animal. They threaten to kill me.”

At a refugee shelter in Hemer, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia, 10 Algerian asylum seekers attacked a Christian couple from Eritrea with glass bottles. The Muslims said they were angry that the man was wearing a cross. They ripped the cross from his neck and stole his money and cellphone.

Die Welt also interviewed an Iraqi Christian family from Mosul who were living at a refugee shelter in the Bavarian town of Freising. The father said that threats by Islamists were a daily fact of life. “They shouted at my wife and hit my child,” he said. “They say: ‘We will kill you and drink your blood.'” Life in the shelter, he said, was as if in a prison.

According to the director of the Munich-based Central Committee for Oriental Christians, Simon Jacob, these incidents are only “the tip of the iceberg.” “The actual number of attacks is very high,” he said. “We have to expect further conflict, which the migrants bring to Germany from their homelands. Between Christians and Muslims. Between Shiites and Sunnis. Between Kurds and extremists. Between Yazidis and extremists.”

Max Klingberg, the director of the Frankfurt-based International Society for Human Rights (Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte, IGFM), says that much of the aggression is being perpetrated by Afghans and Pakistanis, who are “even more Islamic than some Syrians and Iraqis.” He warns that conflict in the refugee shelters will only become worse:

“We have to dispense with the illusion that all of those who are coming here are human rights activists. Among those who are arriving here now, a substantial number are at least as religiously intense as the Muslim Brotherhood.

“We are getting reports of threats of aggression, including threats of beheading, by Sunnis against Shiites, but Yazidis and Christians are the most impacted. Those Christian converts who do not hide their faith stand a 100% probability of being attacked and mobbed.”

In a September 29 interview with the newspaper Passauer Neue Presse, the head of the German police union (Deutschen Polizeigewerkschaft, DPolG), Rainer Wendt, warned that “brutal criminal structures” have taken over the refugee shelters and that police are overwhelmed and unable to guarantee safety and security. He called for Christians and Muslims to be separated before someone gets killed:

“We have been witnessing this violence for weeks and months. Groups based on ethnicity, religion or clan structures go after each other with knives and homemade weapons. When these groups fight each other at night, all those German citizens who welcomed the migrants with open arms at the Munich train station are fast asleep, but the police remain awake and are left standing in the middle…

“We can only estimate the true extent of violence because women and children are often afraid to file a complaint. Since it is also about sexual abuse and rape…

“Sunnis are fighting Shiites, there are Salafists from competing groups. They are trying to impose their rules in the shelters. Christians are being massively oppressed and the Sharia is being enforced. Women are forced to cover up. Men are forced to pray. Islamists want to introduce their values and order at the shelters.

Wendt gave the interview days after 300 Albanian migrants clashed with 70 Pakistani migrants at a refugee shelter in Calden, a town in the state of Hesse, on September 27. More than a dozen people, including three police officers, were injured in the melee, which erupted after two migrants got into a fight while waiting in line at the canteen. It took 50 police officers several hours to restore order at the shelter, which is home to 1,500 migrants from 20 different countries.

More than 60 migrants, including ten children, were injured after Pakistanis and Syrians clashedat the same shelter on September 13. The fight broke out just after midnight, when someone sprayed mace into a tent filled with sleeping migrants. Police did not inform the public about the fight for more than a week, apparently to prevent fueling anti-immigrant sentiments.

Violent brawls are becoming commonplace at German refugee shelters across the country.

In the past two months alone, dozens of violent brawls and riots between different groups of migrants have erupted in Germany’s refugee shelters.

On September 30, migrants went on a rampage at a refugee center in Braunschweig, a city in Lower Saxony. On September 29, Syrian migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Gerolzhofen, a small town in Bavaria. Also on September 29, migrants from Algeria and Mali clashed at a refugee center in Engelskirchen, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia.

On September 28, more than 150 Syrians and Pakistanis clashed at a refugee shelter on Nöthnitzer Straße in Dresden. The migrants attacked each other with wooden planks and metal bars. Two dozen police officers were needed to restore order. More than 30 Syrians and Pakistanis clashed at the same shelter on August 10.

Also on September 28, between 100 and 150 migrants of different nationalities clashed at a refugee shelter in Donaueschingen, a town in the Black Forest. The trouble started over a dispute about who should be able to use the shower facilities first. On September 22, more than 400 migrants marched through town to protest conditions at the same facility. On September 15, a male migrant was attacked by another migrant for using a female bathroom at the shelter.

On September 24, around 100 Syrians and Afghans clashed at a refugee shelter in Leipzig, the largest city in Saxony. The fight broke out after a 17-year-old Afghan pulled a knife on an 11-year-old Syrian girl at the shelter, which houses 1,800 migrants. On September 23, migrantsclashed at a refugee shelter for unaccompanied minors in Nuremberg.

On September 3, Syrian migrants attacked security guards at a refugee shelter in the Moabit district of Berlin. Also on September 3, Iraqi migrants attacked security guards at a refugee shelter in Heidelberg. A total of 21 squad cars were dispatched to restore order. On September 2, Algerian and Tunisian migrants clashed at the same shelter. A dozen police cars were deployed to restore order.

On September 3, migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Hövelhof, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia. On September 2, migrants clashed at a refugee facility in Wolgast, a town in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Also on September 2, migrants clashed at a refugee center inGütersloh, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia.

On September 1, migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Delitzsch, a town in Saxony. A 27-year-old Tunisian migrant was killed after being stabbed by a 27-year-old migrant from Morocco. Also on September 1, a 15-year-old Somali migrant stabbed a 15-year-old Egyptian migrant with a scissors at a refugee center in the Groß Borstel district of Hamburg.

On September 1, Somali, Syrian and Albanian migrants clashed at a refugee center inTegernsee, a small town in Bavaria. Also on September 1, migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Heidelberg.

On August 31, Libyan and Tunisian migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Hoyerswerda, a town in Saxony. Also on August 31, migrants clashed with each other and with security guards at a refugee shelter in Heidelberg. On August 30, a 25-year-old Sudanese migrant was arrested for going on a rampage at a refugee shelter in Jesteburg, a small town in Lower Saxony.

On August 29, a 17-year-old Algerian migrant was arrested for robbing the cellphones of other migrants at a refugee center in Elzach, a town in Baden-Württemberg. On August 25, 60 migrants went on a rampage at a refugee shelter in Karlsruhe.

On August 24, a migrant from Montenegro was stabbed by a migrant from Algeria at a refugee shelter in Seevetal, a town in Lower Saxony.

On August 22, Afghan migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Rotenburg, a town in Hesse. Also on August 22, at least 20 migrants went on a rampage at a refugee center in Grafing, a town near Munich.

On August 21, migrants clashed at a refugee facility in Schwetzingen, also in Baden-Württemberg. Also on August 21, migrants clashed at a refugee center in the Marienthal district of Hamburg.

On August 16, 50 migrants attacked each other with broken tree branches, umbrellas and trash cans at a refugee center in Friedland, a town in Lower Saxony. The facility, which has a capacity of 700, is home to 2,400 migrants.

On August 19, at least 20 Syrian migrants staying at an overcrowded refugee shelter in the eastern German town of Suhl tried to lynch an Afghan migrant after he tore pages from a Koran and threw them in a toilet. More than 100 police officers intervened; they were attacked with stones and concrete blocks. Seventeen people were injured in the melee, including 11 refugees and six police officers. The Afghan is now under police protection. The president of the German state of Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow, said that to avoid similar violence in the future, Muslims of different nationalities must be separated.

On August 10, 40 migrants clashed at a refugee shelter on Bremer Straße in Dresden.

On August 1, 50 Syrians and Afghans clashed at the same shelter. More than 80 police officers were needed to restore order.

According to Jörg Radek, the vice chairman of Germany’s police union, (Gewerkschaft der Polizei, GdP), police have reached the “absolute breaking point,” and Christian and Muslim migrants should be housed separately. In a September 28 interview with the newspaper Die Welt, Radek said:

“Our officers are increasingly being called to respond to confrontations in refugee shelters. When there are 4,000 people in a shelter which only has space for 750, this leads to aggression where even something as insignificant as a walk to the restroom can lead to fisticuffs.

“We must do everything we can to prevent further outbreaks of violence. I think it makes perfect sense to separate migrants according to their religion.”

Not everyone agrees. In an interview with N24 television, the former mayor of the Neukölln district of Berlin, Heinz Buschkowsky, warned that if migrants are separated by religion and nationality, Germany risks the permanent establishment of parallel societies throughout the country.

Buschkowsky said the first lesson migrants must learn when they arrive in Western countries is tolerance, and if they refuse to accept people of other faiths, their asylum applications should be rejected. He expressed pessimism about the possibility of integrating the current wave of migrants into German society: “The bulk of the migrants who are arriving here cannot be integrated.”

Meanwhile, the head of German intelligence, Hans-Georg Maaßen, was warned that radical Muslims in Germany are canvassing the refugee shelters looking for new recruits. He said:

“Many of the asylum seekers have a Sunni religious background. In Germany there is a Salafist scene that sees this as a breeding ground. We are observing that Salafists are appearing at the shelters disguised as volunteers and helpers, deliberately seeking contact with refugees to invite them to their mosques to recruit them to their cause.”

The editor of the newspaper Neue Westfälische, Ansgar Mönter, reports that Salafists in Bielefeld, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, have already infiltrated refugee centers in the area by bringing toys, fruits and vegetables for the migrants.

Mönter says “naïve” politicians are contributing to the radicalization of refugees by are asking Muslim umbrella groups in the country to reach out to the migrants.

Mönter points out that the main Muslim groups in Germany all adhere to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and are anti-Western in outlook. Some groups have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood while others want to implement Sharia law in Germany. According to Mönter, politicians should not be encouraging these groups to establish contact with the new migrants.

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 onFacebook and onTwitter. His first book,Global Fire, will be out in early 2016.

Also see:

Video: Radical Islam Is Now The World’s Most Dangerous Ideology


raymond-ibrahim-prager-u-680x365The Hayride, by Scott McKay, Sep. 28, 2015:

Here’s a very succinct, no-nonsense video which puts Sharia Islam in a proper historical perspective. Namely, that for the last 100 years or so the world has been wracked with conflict originating from ideologies which legitimize state tyranny along utopian lines. First came fascism, as it emerged in Germany, Italy and Japan, and to a lesser extent in Spain (though the Spanish government of Francisco Franco was distinctly inward in its worldview and didn’t project itself on its neighbors). Then came international communism in the wake of fascism’s demise in World War II. But the victory of free people in the Cold War in the second half of the 20th century made us believe the fight against “isms” was over.

Sadly, it wasn’t. Islamism, or Sharia Islam, has made a roaring comeback out of the ash-heap of history that Western colonialism had relegated it to in the 19th century and is now in an ascendant position in a significant swath of the globe. Even more frightening is that Islamism is creeping into states which aren’t even Muslim, and those states – specifically in Europe – are in swift demographic decline. Islamism is a far more primitive and unappealing ideology than fascism and communism before it; fascism and communism purported to bring heaven on earth through scientific principles and thus create equality and prosperity and technological advancement as never seen before, while the utopia Islamism promises contains a host of features non-Muslims generally find abhorrent on their face.

And yet in the face of Western cultural decline it’s Islamism that’s on the rise. Which is perplexing, and unnerving.

A full explanation comes in this video, narrated by Raymond Ibrahim, the author of The Al Qaeda Reader…

Differing Views from Catholic Clergy on the Threat from Jihad and Shariah

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton:

With the visit of Pope Francis to the United States, some attention has been paid to his views on Jihad in general and the September 11 attacks in particular.

On a visit to the September 11 memorial at Ground Zero, the pope made a statement that we find offensive and born of ignorance.

From USA Today:

In a remark some relatives of 9/11 victims may disagree with, the pope attributed “the wrongful and senseless loss of innocent lives” at Ground Zero to “the inability to find solutions which respect the common good.”

To what solutions could Pope Francis possibly be referring?

What “solutions which respect the common good” would have convinced Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta that violent Jihad was wrong?

Al Qaeda and all Jihadist groups have as their goal the imposition of Shariah through violent Jihad. We can only assume that the pope is unaware of this. We must also assume that he is unaware that mainstream Islamic doctrine also calls for the imposition of Shariah worldwide.

Which Catholics and other Christians should be sacrificed to live under Shariah for the “common good?”

This was not the first time Pope Francis made statements that demonstrate an ignorance of Islamic doctrine.

In his The Joy of the Gospel, the pope stated:

Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.

No one can study Islamic doctrine based on the Islamic trilogy–the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah–and come away believing that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”

It should be noted that when it comes to commentary on Islam, Pope Francis is merely stating his opinion; this is not a statement that has the authority of the Catholic church behind it since it applies to the interpretation of another religion.

But all one has to do to see the folly in the pope’s assertion here is to review the too numerous to count examples of Islamic religious leaders and Shariah scholars admonishing their followers to violent Jihad.

We could fill volumes with examples of violent exhortations in the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah. We could go into depth here about the principle of abrogation in the Quran. But rather than do that, we would like to point out that there are other members of the Catholic clergy and community who are more informed on Islam, Shariah and Jihad and they have put their thoughts in writing. In some cases, these good men are much closer to the tip of the spear in the clash of civilizations:

  1. Nigerian cardinal criticizes role of sharia, says Muslim leaders must ‘rein in their mad dogs’

Nigeria of course has been wracked for several years now by horrible violence committed by Boko Haram, which has recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Cardinal Onaiyekan has seen thousands of Christians in his country slaughtered at the hands of Jihadists and he knows that Boko Haram’s stated goal is the imposition of Shariah.

2. It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. expresses a very different view from that of Pope Francis on the issue of the Islamic State and the role of Islam in violence.

3. Making Islam “As Banal as Catholicism”

Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., also expresses a far different view of Islamic terrorism than the one expressed by Pope Francis.

Why have these three men, two American and one Nigerian, two men of the cloth and one a prominent lay Catholic, one black and two white, reached such a different conclusion than that of Pope Francis?

To those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine over the past 15 years, the clear answer is that they have studied the Quran, the Hadith, the Sirah and Shariah. Pope Francis clearly has not. Francis is not alone in that state of being; few if any world leaders in the non-Islamic world have studied Islamic doctrine.

But those who have know what it contains and it isn’t all about peace, the “opposition to every form of violence” and “solutions for the common good.”

To This Secular Muslim, Ben Carson Had a Point

Photo Illustration by Alex Williams/The Daily Beast

Photo Illustration by Alex Williams/The Daily Beast

Daily Beast, by Asra Q. Nomani, Sep. 24, 2015:

Take it from someone who’s been fighting it her whole adult life: The sad truth is that too many Muslims want to mix mosque and state.
Ben Carson’s blunt remarks about a Muslim president triggered much outrage, even after he partially walked them back. But secular Muslims like me, who reject political Islam, understood what he meant: He doesn’t want a Muslim as president who doesn’t believe in the strict secular separation of mosque and state, so that the laws of the state aren’t at all touched by sharia, or Islamic law derived from the Quran and hadith, the sayings and traditions of prophet Muhammad. Neither do we. We really don’t want a first lady—or a president—in a burka, or face veil.Carson’s comments underscore a political reality in which Muslim communities, not only in far-flung theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but also in the United States, still struggle with existential questions about whether Islam is compatible with democracy and secularism. This struggle results in the very real phenomenon of “creeping sharia,” as critics in the West call it (and which some Muslims like to mock as an “Islamophobic” allegation). While the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment states the United States “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the Quran states that Allah “takes account of every single thing (72:28),” which has led to the divine mandate by leading Muslim scholars to reject secularism, or alamaniya, or the way of the “world,” derived, from the Arabic root for world, alam.

In too many instances, we are seeing an erosion of those boundaries, in part led by some Muslims, increasingly using America’s spirit of religious accommodation and cultural pluralism to challenge rules that most of the rest of America accepts. Many of those incursions have been led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial self-described advocacy group for Muslims that, not surprisingly, called for Carson to step down this week.

For example, when I was a girl in New Jersey in the early 1970s, we took our Muslim holidays off, if we wanted, but didn’t demand the rest of the school take the day off with us. Last week, however, four decades later, New Jersey Muslims stormed out of a Jersey City school board meeting after the school board refused to cancel school at the last minute for the Muslim holiday called “Eid al-Adha,” or “the Feast of Sacrifice,” being celebrated Thursday. CAIR has lobbied public school officials for the change for the sake of “diversity and inclusion.

At the meeting, the local NBC news segment showed an older woman yelling in Arabic that the holiday was her “right,” followed by a young Muslim woman, wearing a headscarf and smiling eerily as she said, “We’re no longer the minority. That’s clear from tonight. We’re going to be the majority soon.”

The thinly veiled threat was as disturbing to me as it might be to other Americans. Unspoken is the sharia ruling that Muslims engage in no work or school on the day of Eid-ul Adha, but, instead, as the prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying in a hadith, “O people of Islam, these are days of eating and drinking.”

 Yet it is unreasonable and, quite frankly, selfish for Muslim parents to demand an unplanned holiday, forcing other parents to scramble to find child care, as board member pointed out. But, sadly, on the eve of the “Festival of Sacrifice,” there is one issue that too many Muslims find difficult to sacrifice: Their belief that mosque and state must not be separated but must in fact be intermingled.

Tthis month, an ExpressJet flight attendant, Charee Stanley, a relatively new convert to Islam, demanded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reinstate her job after she was put on leave for refusing to serve alcohol. CAIR argued the flight attendant deserved “a religious accommodation.”

But Ali Genc, senior vice president of media relations at Turkish Airlines, said in an interview that his carrier, based in a Muslim country, doesn’t make such allowances, saying, “The service and consumption of alcoholic beverages onboard is regulated in the framework of the rules of Turkish Airlines. In this respect, a refusal of such service by our cabin crew is not possible as a matter of course.”

Some years ago, a Muslim woman, Ginnah Muhammad, demanded her right to enter a Michigan small claims courtroom with a face veil, a demand that was correctly refused. CAIR supported her petition, saying removing the veil meant denying the woman her “constitutional rights.”

Before that, another Muslim woman convert, Sultaana Freeman, sued the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to allow her to take her driver’s license photo with her veil. CAIR supported her demand, saying the woman “sincerely” believed it would “advance her piety.” These efforts at appealing to schools, courts, and other government structures to suit hyper-conservative interpretations of sharia reveal how some Muslims are going too far in demanding accommodations by U.S. authorities, blurring the mosque and state divide.

Corey P. Saylor, director of the “department to monitor and combat Islamophobia” at CAIR, disputed my argument that the organization has worked to erode secularism in the United States, saying, “CAIR’s legal and political advocacy aims to preserve our nation’s spirit of religious accommodation from efforts to erode it or restrict it to certain faiths.”

He added, “Americans of the Islamic faith have equal rights and responsibilities in civic life and may argue for policies they favor, and win or fail based on a well-established political and legal process to which everyone has, and should have, equal access.”

In the cases that I cited “the courts or relevant political entities make the final decision,” Saylor said, “not us.” Indeed, fortunately, CAIR has so far lost its Florida, New Jersey and Michigan efforts.

Carson wasn’t being hyperbolic in expressing concern. Globally, Muslims express deep problems with separation of mosque and state. In a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, an alarming percentage of Muslims worldwide, numbering 99 percent in Afghanistan and 45 percent in Russia, answered “favor” when asked whether they favor or oppose making sharia the law of the land. A disturbing percentage supported including sharia in family, marriage, and criminal law, including settling property disputes, deciding child custody arrangements, stoning people for adultery, and cutting off the hands of thieves. While to be sure the survey wasn’t conducted in the West, the results reveal cultural mindsets.

In the United States, I first confronted our Muslim community’s difficulty with the concept of secularism in late 2003 when I walked through the front door of my mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, citing Islamic rights as well as civil rights granted me as a woman in this country. Soon after, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette wrote an article that included this passage: “Dalía Mogahed, outreach coordinator for the Pittsburgh mosque, agrees on Muhammad’s respect for women but says Nomani is viewing the issues through the eyes of a secular feminist rather than the eyes of a Muslim.”

Secular feminist?

I read the passage twice because to me, being a secular Muslim feminist wasn’t a contradiction in terms. To me, though they are few and far between, we have Islamic theologians who advocate for equal rights for women and secularism in governance. But the criticism was a wakeup call to me of the challenges we face advocating for secular values among Muslims. (Mogahed later led survey research at Pew and was a member of an Obama administration advisory council. She didn’t return a request for comment.)

It’s not “time to pull the plug” on Carson’s campaign for his indelicate comments on Islam, as columnist P.J. O’Rourke argues. But it is time to continue the politically incorrect but critical conversation that he started.

The presidential candidate is talking against a backdrop of 9/11 and a reality in which political Islam expresses itself violently in the West and in Muslim countries from Iraq to Indonesia. To me, not acknowledging this real issue among Muslims amounts to another Carson allegation, of Muslims practicing taqiyya, or deception.

Much of the modern-day debate dates back to 1977 when Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a theological brain trust of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood political party, fighting secularism, wrote, “Al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa Kayfa Janat `alaa Ummatina,” or “How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah,” casting secularism and Islam in a cosmic battle, with a section entitled, “Secularism vs. Islam.”

He wrote: “Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” Today, even ordinary Muslims ask questions like, “Is it permissible to pray behind imams who…promote democracy and secularism?” The answer from too many in Muslim leadership is no.

Carson dared to address an explosive issue that Muslims are still struggling to resolve on issues of sharia and fiqh, a related concept, referring to Islamic jurisprudence. Not long ago, Ayad Jamal Deen, a former Iraqi parliament member and courageous intellectual and religious cleric, admitted, “In my opinion, the fiqh is more dangerous than nuclear technology.” He acknowledged that “Islam has been politicized and is used as a sword.” We would be wise to listen to advocates of secularism who have battled the forces of political Islam.

In his Fox walk-back interview, Carson said, “Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.”

To me, Carson’s words aren’t “anti-Muslim” either, as a Guardian headline described them. They are a realistic mirror on the challenges Muslims today face with the notion of strict secularism.

Even John Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, funded by a rich member of the theocratic Saudi ruling family and criticized for publishing “apologist” explanations of Islam, wrote not long ago:

“Many Muslims, in particular Islamists, cast secularism as a completely foreign doctrine imposed on the Islamic world by colonial powers.” Even “secular reformers” who appreciate Western secular democracies “opt for a state that reflects the importance and force of Islamic principles and values as they proceed to engage in wide ranging reformist thinking.”

Interestingly, for secularists, like Iraqi-born Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement, raised by a liberal Muslim family and now living in New York City, it’s actually strict secular Muslims who could truly understand the critical need for a separation of mosque and state. He said in an interview that he doesn’t agree with Carson’s edict and noted, “I would also argue that secular Muslims would make the best presidents on the topic of the First Amendment because they understand the most [that] the marriage between religion and politics is very poisonous.”

One of his Facebook friends responded: “Faisal Saeed Al Mutar for President.” Meanwhile, some of his Muslim critics have also called him a “heretic” and an “infidel,” not to mention “Uncle Tom” and “sellout.”


For a reality check on whether a Muslim, absent sweeping reform of Islamic doctrine, can truly be secular see Dr. Stephen M. Kirby’s series on Fantasy Islam:





Also see:

André Carson Proves Ben Carson’s Point on Sharia

b333651e-d4ec-4456-8397-560c6bbf2ff6Town Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Sep. 24, 2015:

Recently Rep. André Carson of Indiana took the lead in condemning presidential candidate Ben Carson for his remarks regarding unwillingness to support a sharia-adherent Muslim for the position of President of the United States.

Ben Carson has said:

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”

Rep. André Carson has publicly called the Republican hopeful’s position “asinine”and has been featured in the press attacking Ben Carson for his statement. Carson has been featured on MSNBC, CNN, and NPR denouncing Ben Carson’s statement.

André Carson’s stance is unsurprising, not simply because he himself is Muslim, but because he embodies perfectly the exact concerns which are being raised.

Rep. André Carson has spent his entire political career in the company of, and advocating on behalf of, Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations. Carson has extensive ties to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and others revealed in federal law enforcement documents to be tied to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, and (in the case of CAIR and ISNA) to the terrorist organization Hamas. He has been both funded by Islamists, as well spoken at fundraisers on their behalf.

Of course the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is inherently anti-constitutional, as expressed in the “Explanatory Memorandum” which details the Brotherhood’s long term plan for America:

“The lkhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Having as president an individual who believes (or whose allies believe, as Carson’s certainly do) that the goal should be to see Islam “made victorious” over other religions is a far greater threat to religious liberty than any suggestion made by Ben Carson.

It was after all, André Carson, not Ben Carson, who sought to have European Parliamentarian Geert Wilders banned from entering the United States over his immigration views and views on Islam. The idea that the U.S. should be a country which bans people on the basis of their speech shows its Rep. Carson who have a problem with the fundamental principles which form the Constitution, in particular the 1st Amendment. As legal scholar Eugene Volokh noted in the Washington Post:

“The Congressmen [referring to Rep. André Carson and Rep. Keith Ellison] quite clearly don’t want to allow Rep. Wilders to debate such matters here in the U.S.” But their “In the U.S.” paragraph suggests that they view even such debates by Americans as constitutionally unprotected.”

Carson also sought to have the Department of Justice carry out a criminal civil rights probe against protesters who held a rally outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix simply because some protestors chose to legally exercise their second amendment right at the same time. The ICCP was chosen as a protest site because the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Mosque was the home of Garland, Texas shooters Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson, whose attempt to slaughter attendees (including Geert Wilders) at a cartoon contest was averted only by armed security and quick thinking police.

Rep. André Carson clearly has a major problem with understanding the free exercise of the 1st (and perhaps 2nd) amendment.

Carson did not have a problem however publicly praising Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan in 2014. Ramadan had previously been banned from entering the United States under the Bush administration for having provided material support to Hamas.

Given the choice between the constitutionally-protected but Sharia-violating speech on Islam, and the illegal under American law but obligatory under Sharia material support for jihad, André Carson appears to favor Sharia every time.

This makes him an excellent spokesman to prove Ben Carson’s point.



Dr. Ben Carson, retired brain surgeon and candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

Dr. Ben Carson, retired brain surgeon and candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sep. 24, 2015:

Is it possible for a “good Muslim” to also be a “good president” of the United States of America?

Ben Carson doesn’t think so, but the question divides the Republican Party along familiar lines – those preferring a more establishment candidate and those looking for an outsider.

While some fellow GOP candidates such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina have criticized Carson for saying he could not support a Muslim as president, an influential Iowa congressman sees it differently.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa – whose opinions carry weight in the Iowa GOP primary – said the comments would likely help Carson in his state.

“I wouldn’t expect those remarks would hurt Dr. Carson in Iowa. I think they help him,” King told the the Washington Post. “The people on our side who pay any attention to this at all understand Shariah is incompatible with the Constitution and that a sincerely devout Muslim – I might say, a devout Islamist — cannot seriously give an oath to support the Constitution, because it’s incompatible with his faith.”

Carson himself said Wednesday the flow of donations into his campaign coffers has accelerated since his controversial comment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday with Chuck Todd.

“I mean, the money’s been coming in so fast, it’s hard to even keep up with,” Carson said on “Fox and Friends.” “I remember the day of the last debate, within 24 hours we had raised a million dollars, and it’s coming in at least at that rate, if not quite a bit faster.”

The super PAC supporting Carson’s bid for the White House reported a surge in donations since his remarks Sunday, the Washington Times reported.

“We sent out an email to Carson supporters, and we’ve never had an email raise so much money so quickly — it’s unbelievable,” John Philip Sousa IV, who chairs the 2016 Committee super PAC, told the Times. “My phone has exploded over the last 48 hours – of people wanting me to pass on to Dr. Carson how much they respect his truthfulness and believe in the American system, and how absolutely not should anyone who believes in Shariah law come close to the White House. The people are on Dr. Carson’s side on this one – sorry, NBC, you lose.”

Carson said on “Meet the Press” that he believed Islam was inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Carson, “Do you believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”

“No, I do not,” Carson responded. “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Carson dismissed criticism from his fellow Republican presidential candidates Monday in a Facebook post.

“Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing,” he wrote. “Under Islamic law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed. I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced … I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for president.”

According to a June 2015 Gallup poll, 38 percent of Americans said they could not support a Muslim for president. Only atheists (40 percent) and socialists (50 percent) fared worse in the poll.

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, called on Carson to withdraw from the race, saying his comments were “a disqualifier … for the nation’s highest office.”

CAIR should immediately be stripped of its nonprofit status for taking sides in the political debate, said Dr. Mark Christian, a physician and former Muslim imam who converted to Christianity and emigrated from Egypt to America.

“CAIR is all over the place speaking against Ben Carson,” Christian, founder of the Global Faith Institute in Omaha, Nebraska, told WND. “Ben Carson says he can’t support a Muslim in the White House. For those who are upset by this, please tell me which of the current Muslim leaders in the Muslim world you would elect to be president here in the great land of America?”

Christian also points out that CAIR’s history of involvement in terrorism disqualifies it as a credible source. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2007, and more than a dozen of its leaders have either been convicted or investigated for involvement in terrorist activity.

See WND’s rogues gallery of terror-tied CAIR leaders.

The following is a rundown of what others are saying about Carson’s comments:

Read it at WND

Mohammed Goes to Washington?

1497by Mark Steyn
Hannity on Fox News
September 23, 2015

On Tuesday night I checked in with Sean Hannity on Fox News to ponder the latest strange turn of this political season – the question of whether a Muslim should be America’s president.

As the celebrate-diversity types like to drone, the US Constitution does not impose a religious test. Which is true. But the Constitution does impose a constitution test – and that would pose a serious difficulty for an honest, observant Muslim. Which is why, as I pointed out to Sean, around the world, when traditional Common Law protections rub up against Sharia, it’s Common Law that bites the dust. As President Erdogan famously put it, democracy is a train you ride until you get to the stop you want – and so it has proved.

On the Is-Obama-a-Muslim? front, Sean noted that this line was not so subtly promoted by Hillary in 2008 – although Obama has certainly done his best to live up to it, championing Sharia over the First Amendment by declaring to the United Nations in 2012 that “the future shall not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”.

Click below to watch:

Also see:

Czechs Protest the Stoning of Women Under Islam

Gates of Vienna,  by Baron Bodissey Aug. 12, 2015:

Popular sentiment against further Muslim immigration into the Czech Republic is increasing. The latest manifestation of resistance is a series of exhibits in the public parks of Prague, featuring veiled female effigies representing women who have been stoned to death under Islam.

Our Czech correspondent Margita, who sent the tip about the article, includes this note:

It appears that the Czechs continue to be ‘original’ in their fight against Islam. When talking to my friends they all seem to be pretty suspicious about the ‘religion of peace’…

The following report was published at České It’s refreshing to read that the police in Prague “have not come across any breach of the law” on the part of those who created the exhibits. What a far cry from the oppressive situation in Sweden or the UK!

Statues of Stoned Women Are in Prague in Protest Against Islam

Prague — The followers of the We Do Not Want Islam in the Czech Republic and the Bloc Against Islam groups this morning installed the torsos of the women stoned to death in order to warn of the danger of Islam, Prague police spokesman Tomas Hulan has told journalists.

The effigies covered by white cloths tainted with colour as blood and surrounded by stones have appeared in a number of places in Prague, Hulan said.

The police are dealing with the affair, but they have not come across any breach of the law, he added.

The installations include the captions such as “Pregnant after Rape” or “She was unfaithful” pointing out the alleged reasons for being stoned to death.

The statues of the women stoned to death are to warn of Islamic barbarism and the violence committed against women, Artur Fiser, spokesman for We Do Want Islam, told CTK.

“Islamic barbarism is infiltrating us with a growing speed, but it has not touched upon majority society,” Fiser said.

“We hope that if we open the eyes to the public before it gets here in full, people will not have to watch real stoning or read in the papers that a neighbour killed his daughter over the perverted notion of ‘honour’, Fiser said.

We Do Not Want Islam in the Czech Republic has staged a number of anti-Islamic events, but its followers are mainly active online, the Interior Ministry has said.

It is regularly mentioned in the ministry’s reports on extremism where it is called a part of the extreme right.

Larger photos may be found accompanying the original article.


Obama Makes U.S. Oath of Allegiance Comply with Islamic Law

By Raymond Ibrahim, August 6, 2015:

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

bbOn July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance which immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says that “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan—the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer—comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life—American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.

However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States”—to quote the original Oath of Allegiance—against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty—even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it—with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Most germane is Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y—the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.”  As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”[1]

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[2]

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims—who, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty—it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75).

Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.”   When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.”  The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”

Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States.

rIn 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.”  The army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed.  Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And in April 2005, Hasan Akbar, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality.  It is not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smile to (see here for examples).  Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second”—reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion.

Now, in direct compliance with Islamic law, the Obama administration has made it so that no Muslim living in America need ever worry about having to defend her—including against fellow Muslims or jihadis.

Raymond Ibrahim, a Judith Friedman Rosen writing fellow at the Middle East Forum,is a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War in Christians.

[1] ‘Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.

[2] Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.

Ignored by US Media? Sharia Law’s Conflict With Rights of Women

Women in Afghanistan (Photo: © Reuters)

Women in Afghanistan (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, Daniel GallingtonJuly 13, 2015:

Earlier this year I wrote a short article on the political, societal and legal tensions associated with the large-scale Muslim immigrations to Europe in the late 1960’s and early 70’s – a period when I lived in both England and Germany.

I wrote the piece because I disagreed fundamentally with the suggestion by some of our senior political leaders that violent incidents – such as the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris – could have been avoided had Europeans worked harder to “assimilate” their Islamic immigrants.

The article included discussion of traditional Muslim “proprietary” doctrines toward women and girls. I wrote, “We still have brutal ‘honor killings’ of women – even in the United States – and young girls are murdered, raped and enslaved (in the name of religious law) throughout the more ‘modern’ Muslim world” and explained how such doctrines and practices were fundamentally inconsistent with the law in Western democracies.

Shortly after the article appeared, I was surprised by an email from my editor at the time – who had previously declined to run the piece – saying: “I have reached the unfortunate conclusion that your views on the matter are well outside the spectrum that we are willing to publish…”

I also wondered, was this “conclusion” a clear example of our “big media’s” reluctance to publish on the negative aspects of Islam? Was such critical coverage, whether reporting or commentary, “well outside the spectrum that [they] are willing to publish”?

Here’s another example: After my article appeared, a scholarly report on the practice of “female genital mutilation and cutting” (or “FGM/C”) of some Muslim women and girls was published by the independent American Population Reference Bureau (PRB). 

The findings of this report are shocking:

“Girls under age 18 made up one-third of all females at risk…. While some of these girls were born in countries with high prevalence rates, the majority are U.S.-born children of parents from high-prevalence countries. Anecdotal reports tell of U.S.-born girls being cut while on vacation in their parents’ countries of origin and of people traveling to the United States to perform FGM/C on girls here.” 

Mainstream American media has simply ignored this report. Is it because even totally objective factual coverage of the report could somehow be considered “Islamophobic” — an editorial descriptor for all things critical of Islam?

In a larger context, has U.S. big media learned anything from the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, the killings in Copenhagen, the brutal attack at a Kenyan university and the recent mass shootings in Tunisia? Doesn’t our media see these vicious acts as a direct threat to their – and our – basic freedoms of thought, press and expression — the very fundamentals of a democracy?

This is not a new tension in the West. More than a hundred years ago, Sir Winston Churchill observed – in reference to the conflict between fundamental Islam and democracy – that “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

In short, an Islamic reformation is long overdue, as I wrote, “…Muslim integration into Western cultures – especially ours – requires the abandonment of laws, rules and practices inconsistent with living in free societies. This is nothing radical or new – most other organized religions have done it for the past few hundred years, some far more than others.”

Whether one agrees or not with this conclusion is perhaps less important than the willingness to address it, and therefore it must remain an important concern for Western lawmakers and our legal scholars.

Yet, some of our media continues its reluctance to publish on the anachronistic and negative influences of Islam and sharia law – especially as it affects women – and this while attempting to “assimilate” itself into Western democracies and modern legal systems.

And, the idea that media criticism of Islam or sharia law is somehow off limits  – especially as it teaches or condones violence toward women  – is also fundamentally inconsistent with our democratic values. This is an aspect of Islam or Sharia Law that can never be “assimilated” in Western democracies.

Daniel Gallington is the Senior Policy and Program Adviser at the George C. Marshall Institute in Arlington, Virginia.




Breitbart, by Raheem Kassam, July 2, 2015:

Britain’s first female sharia law judge has issued a brazen warning that flies in the face of UK law, stating that the “government cannot ask Muslims not to have more than one wife”.

The news comes on the back of a report by the Times newspaper which claims that Britain is experiencing a “surge” in Sharia marriages, as young British Muslims adopt a more hardline religious stance than their parents.

The Times reports:

“As many as 100,000 couples are living in such marriages, which are not valid under UK law, experts said. Ministers have raised fears that women can be left without the right to a fair share of assets if the relationship ends, while others are forced to return to abusive “husbands”.”

A leading Islamic family lawyer warned that the increase in Sharia ceremonies among the 2.7 million-strong Muslim population in Britain was also behind a growth in “secret polygamy”.

“Probably a quarter of all couples I see involve polygamy issues,” Aina Khan told The Times. “There has been a huge rise in recent years because people can have a secret nikah [Islamic marriage] and no one will know about it.”

The growth in a parallel marriage system that bypassed the register office was being driven by Muslims aged below 30, who were becoming more religious, she said. Other factors include finding a way around the expectation of no sex before marriage and a fear of British family courts, which presume that assets should be split equally.

Muslim Arbitration Tribunals, colloquially known as Sharia courts, have existed in the United Kingdom since 1996, when the Arbitration Act began to allow for different religious laws to be applied in cases such as divorce.

While the tribunals are supposed to work within UK law, recent reports suggest that young Muslims are not registering their marriages with the government under UK civil law, instead simply using nikha ceremonies, which can lead to men having a number of wives, and none of the legal responsibility towards them usually afforded to spouses under the 1949 Marriage Act.

Now, Amra Bone, who is the UK’s first female Sharia council judge, has said that “the government cannot — ask Muslims not to have more than one wife. People have a right to decide for themselves,” implying that British Muslims are free to operate outside UK law, as a rule unto themselves and the Sharia courts they feel are legitimate.

Muslim women who enter into marriage in Islamic ceremonies are often duped into thinking that the marriage under Islamic law is enough to protect them under UK law. As such, they receive none of the usual protections under UK law, such as assets being divided in cases of divorce.

Also see:

A Counterjihad Survey From a British University

oxfordummahGates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey (Ned May) June 25, 2015:

A few weeks ago a PhD candidate at a British university sent us the following email.

I am a PhD student at [a major British institution of higher learning]. I am researching groups set up to oppose radical Islam in Europe and North America, including anti-Jihad, anti-Sharia and anti-halal organisations.

I would like to interview activists within these organisations, to help me understand how they became involved, what their concerns are about radical Islam, and how they are going about countering them.

I would welcome the opportunity to interview someone from Gates of Vienna as part of my research, given that it is one of the most prominent counter-jihad websites.

Depending on the questions, I’m not averse to answering such surveys, even though I know the all but universal multicultural agenda of the institutions that sponsor them. I wrote him back and told him that if he wanted to use my answers to compile statistical results, that was fine. But if he quoted me, I required that he include the entire questionnaire — all his questions and my answers in full — somewhere in his published material, even if only as an appendix. In the past, various Counterjihad people (including several of my friends) have had the unfortunate experience of being quoted out of context. This method at least makes the entire context available for anyone who is interested. Plus, of course, I am posting it here — I told him that I reserved the right to publish the entire interview myself.

When the questionnaire arrived, it was prefixed with an option to choose between two waivers:

Delete as appropriate: EITHER: I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials; OR: I would prefer to remain anonymous in published materials.

Please note: There is no compulsion to answer any question. If you prefer not to answer a question, just leave the box blank.

I chose the second option, but appended a proviso:

I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials provided that they are made available to readers in their entirety, including the complete wording of each question.

The questions and my responses are reproduced below in their entirety:

Part A: Personal details

Name: Ned May
Organisation: Gates of Vienna
Position within organisation: Editor
Age: 60+
Gender: M
Ethnicity: Human Race

Part B: Questionnaire

1. When and how was Gates of Vienna set up?

We put up our first post on October 9, 2004. For the first eight and a half years we were hosted for free at, under the aegis of Blogger (i.e. Google). Then, after a series of incidents in which our blog was closed or locked by Blogger, in January 2013 we moved to our own domain hosted by a commercial service.

For the first couple of years most of the blogging was done by my wife Dymphna. After I was laid off in 2006, I started blogging more regularly. As Dymphna’s chronic illness worsened, I took on more tasks, and now perform most of them.

2. What is your role in Gates of Vienna?

I am the principal editor. We have a number of translators and contributors, and it is my job to edit their prose where appropriate, find and prepare images to use as illustrations, and do the general formatting for each post. This is in addition to writing an occasional post myself.

I also maintain the database used to create each day’s news feed, and write the programming code that makes it possible.

3. Were you involved in political activism before Gates of Vienna? If so, please indicate which organisations.

No, I was never politically active. My wife and I made modest campaign contributions to our congressman from time to time, but that was all.

4. How would you describe the purpose or aims of Gates of Vienna?

Our principal aim is to resist the Islamization of Western societies. More specifically, we want to prevent the imposition of Islamic law (sharia), which is encroaching on our legal system piecemeal at an increasing rate, by a process that is commonly known as the “stealth jihad”.

Examples of the new sharia-based rules include the “religiously-aggravated Section 5 public order offences” in the U.K., the “hate crime” prosecutions by the various Human Rights Commissions in Canada, and the prosecutions for the “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” in Austria. Numerous other examples may be found in almost all Western countries.

Sharia-based norms violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the constitutions of the countries in which they are implemented. In that sense they are illegal or extra-legal, and not in conformance with the law of the land.

Islamization is only making headway in the West because the existing cultural matrix has been damaged. For that reason, Gates of Vienna frequently examines other issues that pertain to our ongoing social and political breakdown.

5. What are the main challenges or obstacles you face in achieving these aims?

(a) Lack of funding. Everything must by financed by small individual donations from readers.
(b) The unwillingness of the legacy media to cover these issues in depth and without bias. Counterjihad people are routinely characterized as “racists” and “far-right”, while at the same time the issues we raise are virtually never examined on their merits.
(c) The toxic smog of political correctness that shrouds all public discourse and prevents an honest discussion of Islam as a totalitarian political ideology, and not just as a religion.

6. What is Gates of Vienna’s relationship to the wider counterjihad movement?

As envisioned by the original participants in the 910 Group (later CVF and then ICLA), we function as a “network of networks”. That is, we help expedite contact and communication between and among individuals and groups that share the same broad Counterjihad goals.

When I say “we”, I mean the very loosely associated groups under the ICLA umbrella. Gates of Vienna serves as a clearinghouse and bulletin board for those groups and their leaders.

7. What is your assessment of the counterjihad at this point in time?

The Counterjihad is fairly fragmented and often at odds with itself. Cooperation across a broad spectrum of groups is relatively rare. Like the rest of the culture, the members of the loose constellation of groups and people who oppose Islamization are afraid of being called “racists”. That fear causes people to shy away each other if there is even a faint perception of “racism” on one side or another. For this reason broad, sustained coordination among groups is very difficult to achieve.

However, due to the rise of the Islamic State and the increasing incidence of atrocities committed by jihad groups, more and more people are becoming aware of the nature of the crisis that faces us. As a result, I can see our work becoming less difficult in the not-so-distant future — we will not be required to overcome as much initial resistance as has been true in the past.

“Racism” will eventually seem less important, given the immediacy of violent jihad and the illiberal cultural regimen imposed in areas that have accepted sharia rules.

8. If the counterjihad were to be successful, how would the world be different in twenty years’ time?

Your question doesn’t make any sense, because the Counterjihad can’t possibly achieve success within twenty years, or even forty. This is the “Long War”. I expect it to last at least two more generations. I will be long dead before there is any final resolution, so I’m reluctant to predict the shape of things to come.

Let’s just say that I expect that we will experience an undetermined number of grim and bloody decades before this is over.

9. If someone wanted to learn more about the issues discussed on Gates of Vienna, where would you direct them? For example, are there particular books, websites, or other resources that you would recommend?

As a starter, I recommend the book Among the Believers by V.S. Naipaul. After that, anything written by Robert Spencer in his books, or at, would help the reader become fully informed. To stay abreast of the violence and brutality of Islamic terrorists worldwide, people should read every day.

For comprehensive, in-depth analysis of sharia law and jihad, the book
Catastrophic Failure by Maj. Stephen Coughlin is highly recommended.

10. Are there any issues not covered in your previous responses that you think should also be considered as part of this research?

I would like to emphasize the importance of studying Islamic law. Until non-Muslims in the West grasp the essentials of sharia, they will remain confused and perplexed by current events involving Islam.

Sharia is based directly on core Islamic scriptures — the Koran, the hadith, and the sunna — and has not changed in any meaningful way in more than a thousand years. When one has acquired a basic understanding of how it all works, such disparate phenomena as Boko Haram, the Islamic State, Louis Farrakhan, the Taliban, Hamas, and Anjem Choudary begin to make sense. The interconnectedness of events concerning Islam — whether “moderate” or “radical” — will start to become clear.

After reading some of the books and websites mentioned earlier, interested citizens should acquire a copy of ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

English-speakers should read the Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994), “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.

This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

Why Sharia Should Have No Place in America

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsign (1)Family Security Matters, by Eileen F. Topansky, June 22, 2015:

There are still far too many Americans who do not perceive the terrifying Nazi-like intentions of Islamic jihadists either through their outright destruction of the infidel and/or the implementation of sharia law as Allah has ordained it to be.

The alphabet-soup-named groups’ ultimate goal of extermination of Jews, Christians and any others deemed infidels has still not penetrated the consciousness of the media or academia.  And no matter how many ardent efforts are made to educate and raise awareness of the Islamists’ goals, people either ignore or minimize the dangers.

And, yet, like Churchill, there are those of us who feel a moral obligation to continue the clarion call and not bend, dhimmi-like, to the whims and wishes of those who deliberately abuse the freedoms of this country in order to abolish those very freedoms for the rest of us.

Which is why, freedom loving Americans need to support Pamela Geller, Ayanna Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and other courageous souls who refuse to cower before the appalling attacks on freedom of speech.  Given the opportunity, Islam swallows the whole body politic. Thus it has been in the past and thus it will be going forward.  After all, “Hijab Day was imposed on citizens in Minneapolis” in 2014.

Author/neuroscientist Sam Harris in his article entitled “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” asserts that “[t]he position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you.”  Furthermore,” [o]nly Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.”

Contrary to Muslims’ oft-repeated assertions of victimization, it is interesting to note that the latest FBI statistics indicate that Muslims are the least discriminated among groups in the United States.  In fact, “[t]here were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish” as compared to “anti-Islamic ones [which] constituted just 13.1 percent.”  Yet Muslims play the victim game with the result that “Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying ‘respect’ to the glaring pathologies in their culture.”

How many Americans understand the true import of the word “dhimmitude?”  Victor Sharpe describes it as the “parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.”

Secularists from India to Indiana must understand that “by being silent about the horrendous practices in Islam, they only help toward further subjugation of women.” The veil is but one of the many symbols of “a totalitarian political system and an ideology which declares war on the non-Muslims.”  It is as clear and potent as the Nazi swastika was in its declaration of war against civilization.  Yet, when Muslim women activists speak out against sharia and Islamic gender apartheid, they are ignored by the majority of so-called Western feminists.

One need only read the March 2015 report by Baroness Cox entitled “A Parallel World: Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today” to see what jihadist ideology is doing to the land of Churchill who, in 1897, wrote “western civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism.”  Baroness Cox has written that the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all” would “make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”

In 2014 in their publication entitled Sharia Law: Britain’s Blind Spot, Sharia Watch warned about the encroaching sharia law that was affecting “the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.”

Yet the West continues to contort itself to ban Islamophobia, that completely false narrative that disguises and whitewashes the true intentions of the jihadists.  What every freedom-loving individual should be doing is demanding an “Islamist Apartheid Week” to show the “genocidal, totalitarian and racist states that operate under Islamic rule.”  In fact, it isChristianophobia and Judenphobia which are endemic across the Muslim world.

Is sharia law America’s blind spot as Joanne Moudy asserts? In her June 2014 article, Moudy explains that “. . . many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.”  Moreover, “[t]he ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.”

In addition, Bethany Blankley in her article entitled “What America Would Look Like Under Sharia Law” notes the disingenuousness and double standards that define Islamic organizations as they stealthily infiltrate American organizations.

Blankley’s most cogent point is that since Islamists say there is no conflict between sharia law and constitutional law, “why then [do these same Islamic groups] vigilantly advertise, lobby, award ‘educational grants,’ and fund political campaigns, to implement sharia compliant American law?”

In fact, one need only look at Saudi Arabia and other sharia-ordered countries to see that Jews and gays have no civil rights in Islam.  Thus, “like everyone else, they must either submit to Islam or die.  But they are especially forbidden and targeted for death — because the Qur’an instructs it.”  According to Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, “[t]he Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty–and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights–are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.”

Amendment VIII in the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Yet, in sharp contrast, “every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice” in the world of sharia law.

In fact, “[i]n Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world.”

Under “sharia, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam.”  Additionally, “blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad.” Thus, anything that is deemed “offensive” is illegal.  And finally, “inequality, slavery and murder are enforced through the Islamic construct of dhimmitude.”

To further understand what life would actually be like for women under an Islamic state, it behooves readers to study the manifesto on women by the Al-Khanssaa Brigade in the February 2015 piece entitled Women of the Islamic State. A propaganda piece to recruit young girls to ISIS, some highlights include a “lengthy rebuttal of the ills of Western civilisation [.]”  ISIS has proposed a curriculum that would ‘begin when [girls] are seven years old and end when they are fifteen, or sometimes a little earlier.'” In essence, “the role of women is inherently ‘sedentary’, and her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house [.] This role begins at the point of marriage which, . . . can be as young as nine years old. From this point on, it is women’s ‘appointed role [to] remain hidden and veiled and maintain society from behind.'” In actuality, “the ideal Islamic community should refrain from becoming caught up in exploring [science], the depths of matter, trying to uncover the secrets of nature and reaching the peaks of architectural sophistication.”  Consequently, “the implementation of sharia,” and doing “jihad” is paramount.

In Wisconsin and Ohio public school female students are now being asked to pretend to be Muslims.  This subtle propaganda is a first step to indoctrinating American youth.  In fact, much of American life is now being tainted with militant and violent Islamic ideology, be it in public schools, hospitals, and mosques.

Concerning actual sharia incursions into American life, on the one hand, Elizabeth K. Dorminey in her March 2012 article entitled “Sharia Law in American Courts” asserts that “[s]o long as U.S. courts and the federal and state legislatures adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, Sharia’s proscriptions and prohibitions cannot displace constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the United States.”  Likewise Eugene Volokh believes American jurists will halt sharia-like incursions.

But in reality, American courts are already using sharia to adjudicate cases; this is highlighted in the December 2014 booklet entitled Shariah in American Courts, which pdf is available here and whose blurb states that “[t]his monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.”

In fact, Frank Gaffney emphatically asserts the “need for state legislators to clearly define public policy related to foreign law and Shariah.”  Consequently, . . .  in every case where foreign law and Shariah emerge in the court of a state that has yet to define clearly this policy, it creates one more advance in the Islamists’ determined campaign to have us destroy ‘our house’ by ‘our own hands.'”

Moreover, Gaffney underscores that “Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws” because of the “fundamental Shariah doctrine that Islamic law must rule supreme in any jurisdiction where Muslims reside.”  This three minute you-tube is a short version of the article entitled “Shariah vs. Jewish Law and encapsulates the stark differences.

Most alarming is that in “146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail[ed] to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy.”  Consequently, there is an “increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization.”  Multi-cultural tolerance is being turned on us. Being paralyzed by political correctness eliminates what self-preservation demands.

In the June 2014 booklet entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” published by One Law for All, the authors explain that “[f]undamentalist terror is predicated on “. . . controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people — they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place [.]'”he Campaign La All

Why would we want to import any part of this to our shores?

Eileen has been a medical librarian, an Emergency Medical Technician and a Hebrew School teacher.  She is currently an adjunct college instructor of English composition and literature.  Active in the 1970’s Soviet Jewry Refusenik movement, she continues to speak out against tyranny.  Eileen is also a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at