Good News: Female Muslim Prof. Says Muslims Can Rape, Rob Infidel Women Only in Some Circumstances

p.sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM, FEBRUARY 8, 2016:

Straining at gnats while swallowing camels is increasingly how Islam’s apologists rationalize away the violence and hate Sharia engenders for the “infidel,” the non-Muslim. Consider the significance of yet another video of yet another learned Muslim justifying the enslavement and rape of non-Muslim women.

Suad Saleh, a female professor of doctrine at Al Azhar University, correctly defines the Arabic phrase melk al-yamin — “right hand possession” (see Koran 4:3):

[Non-Muslim] female prisoners of wars are “those whom you own.” In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the [Muslim] army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.

Ms. Saleh’s comments are not new or unique. Countless Muslims — beginning with Muhammad himself — have confirmed that Islam permits the sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women seized during the jihad.

Saleh cannot even take the “honor” of being the first Muslim woman to support this inherently misogynistic creed.

Of interest here to the West is how the Al Azhar professor claims the Islamic institution of sex slavery is fair and just — it’s just that too many Muslims exploit it, to the detriment of Islam:

Some [Muslim] opportunists and extremists, who only harm Islam, say: “I will bring a woman from East Asia, as [as a sex slave] under the status of ‘right hand possessions.’ And with the consent of my wife, I will allocate this woman a room in the house, and will have sex with her as a slave girl.”This is nonsense. This is not prescribed by Islam at all. Islam says that a woman is either a wife or a slave girl. Legitimately owned slaves come from among prisoners from a war.

Saleh is correct in saying that many Muslim men twist the “right hand possession” law in ways that allow them to have extramarital sex. For example, some years back in Egypt a Muslim scholar formally took a woman to be his “right hand possession,” even though she wasn’t conquered in a jihad and in fact entered the agreement willingly.

Yet what Professor Saleh and Muslim apologists fail to understand is that an inherently unjust and uncivilized law — such as one that permits the sexual enslavement of “infidel” women — will, by nature, always be “abused.”

For example, Saleh and others would insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit the literal definition of “right hand possessions.”

However, other interrelated Islamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims, and to see women — especially “white,” infidel women — as little more than sex objects. In the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex:

Christian girls are only meant for one thing, the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men.

Moreover, Islamic clerics routinely encourage Muslims to migrate to Europe to help empower Islam anyway they can — including through propaganda, proselytization, apologetics, births, theft, etc. — and not just through violent jihad. If they do any of this, they technically become jihadis. After all — and as the apologists are fond of insisting — jihad literally means “striving” on behalf of Islam.

Thus, many Muslim rapists in Europe believe it their Islamic right and reward to sexually abuse infidel women.

The “exploitation” of Islam’s already unjust and uncivilized laws is common and inevitable.

Muslims are not supposed to coerce non-Muslims to convert (Koran 2:256). Yet from the dawn of Islamic history until to the present, forced conversions have been a normal aspect of Islam. Why?

Because based on the hate that Islam engenders for non-Muslims, “compelling” infidels (especially female ones) to embrace Islam can — and often is — rationalized as an altruistic act. After all, how bad can it be to force hell-bound infidels into the true religion? Moreover, it helps the growth of Islam, and so it can also be seen to fall into the jihad category.

As one human rights report explained while discussing the rampant sexual abuse and forced conversion of Christian girls in Pakistan:

The dark side of the forced conversion to Islam is not restricted only to the religious Muslim groups but also involves the criminal elements who are engaged in rape and abduction and then justify their heinous crimes by forcing the victims to convert to Islam. The Muslim fundamentalists are happy to offer these criminals shelter and use the excuse that they are providing a great service to their sacred cause of increasing the population of Muslims.

Likewise, Islamic law (based on Koran 9:29) calls for the leaders of state to extort money (jizya) from Christian and Jews who live under their authority. Most Muslim countries, thanks to European pressure in the colonial era, abolished this practice and its strictures. However, Muslims around the world know the basics, namely that the non-Muslim is meant to provide the Muslim with wealth and resources. In the words of one caliph to his general in Christian Egypt:

Milk the camel [the Copts] until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood.

Nearly 1600 years later, a Muslim cleric in the UK receiving welfare referred to British taxpayers as “slaves.”  He explained:

We take the jizya, which is our haq [“right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [“infidel”], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money — you work, give us the money, Allahu Akbar. We take the money.

Unsurprisingly, all over the Muslim world non-Muslims are being kidnapped and held for ransom, or just robbed and plundered.

The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning the sexual enslavement of infidel women, but rather that Islam allows non-Muslim women to be enslaved in the first place.

The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning conversion, but rather that Islam calls for nonstop enmity and war against non-Muslims in the first place.

The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning who has the ultimate right to collect jizya from infidels, but rather that Islam allows non-Muslims to be plundered in the first place.

It is no solace for non-Muslims to learn that Islam bans their being enslaved, raped, converted, and plundered in certain circumstances while allowing them to be enslaved, raped, coerced, and plundered in others.

What Happens When a Muslim Dies?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 9, 2016:

Why are so many Muslims motivated to fight and die as martyrs/shaheeds in Islam?

According to Islamic doctrine, when a Muslim dies for any reason – car crash, heart attack, old age – his body is washed, shrouded, prayed over, and buried in accordance with Sharia (Islamic Law).  Specific details of how the body is washed, who is to wash, specific prayers to be prayed, and how the grave is dug is all a part of the Sharia covering this topic.

Once the deceased is placed in the grave, his soul separates from the body and lingers above it.  Here is a description from What Islam is All About, the most popular text used in Islamic junior high schools in America:

“When you die, your soul is taken from your body by the Angel of Death.  If you were a good person, it is gently drawn out from  your flesh.  If you were bad, however, then your soul is ripped violently from it….

“If you were a believer in Allah, and followed the teachings of your Prophet…your environment will then be softly lighted.  Your resting place in the spiritual dimension will be made roomy and comfortable and you will sleep and dream gently until the Day of Judgment.

“But if you were a bad person, who didn’t believe in Allah, or a hypocrite, then the angels will become horrifying to you.  They will strike you and cause your soul’s resting place to squeeze in upon you until you feel suffocated.  Then you will be tormented and in agony until the Day of Judgment.”

But how does a Muslim know whether he followed the teachings of Islam or not throughout his life? Islam teaches that every Muslim has two beings called “Jinns” which record all of their good and bad deeds throughout life.  If the bad deeds outweigh the good deeds, he goes to hell on the Day of Judgment.  If the good deeds outweigh the bad deeds, he goes to paradise.  But there is no way to know until the Day of Judgment where he is going.

There is only one exception.

The martyr or shaheed – the one who dies in battle in Allah’s cause (Jihad) – immediately goes to the highest level of paradise the moment his first drop of blood hits the ground, and he receives the promise of sensual pleasures.  The shaheed avoids all punishments of the grave and is sure of his reward in paradise. The shaheed does not feel the pain of death.

Jihad (6)

“It is unlawful to wash the body of a martyr or perform funeral prayer over him. A martyr means someone who died in battle with non-Muslims.  It is recommended that war gear be removed from the body, and it is best to bury the martyr in the rest of his bloodstained clothes since it is the effect of worship.” [Um dat al Salik, 14th Century Islamic Sacred Law, certified by Al Azhar as authoritative Sunni Islamic Law]

To die as a shaheed against non-Muslims is the highest form of worship in Islam.

The Koran promises shaheeds go to the highest level of paradise above all other Muslims:

“Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons.  Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. Unto all in Faith Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” [Koran 4:95]

“Those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah (jihad) and are then slain or die, on them will Allah bestow verily a goodly Provision; truly Allah is he who bestows the best Provision.” [Koran 22:58]

This is why in Islamic schools across the world, and in America, 7th graders are taught:  “If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to Paradise.  A Shaheed, or Martyr, is described this way by Allah, ‘Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead.  No, they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord.’ (Koran 3:169)” [What Islam is All About, pg 164]

In Islam “The Cause of Allah” is Jihad.

It is clear to all Muslims, which is why it is taught to Muslim children in mosques and Islamic schools across America, that to die fighting non-Muslims is the highest form of worship in Islam and the only way to guarantee paradise when a Muslim dies.

President Obama’s Speech at Islamic Center of Baltimore: A Fact Check

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by Clare Lopez, Feb.5, 2016:

Perhaps it’s because he was making faces in Qur’an class instead of paying attention to his teacher. Or maybe he just has a selective memory about what he was taught as a young Muslim student in Indonesia.

Whatever the reason, President Barack Obama got a lot of things factually wrong in his 3 February 2016 speech at the Islamic Center of Baltimore. Things that are basic to doctrinal Islam are not only knowable because they are readily available in English but, it might be argued, obligatory that an American commander-in-chief should know in fulfillment of his oath to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

First, Mr. President, a mosque is not simply the Muslim version of a church, synagogue or temple. Because of the example of Muhammad, who is called the perfect man in the Qur’an (believed by Muslims to be the exact words of Allah), we know that mosques are established not only as places of prayer and worship, but also as centers for indoctrination, the dispensing of shariah justice, the stockpiling of weapons, and the launching of jihad. If in doubt about any of this, please check with the French police, who recently have been conducting raids on mosques and Islamic Centers in the wake of horrific jihadist attacks in Paris.

The president must have missed more than one lesson on Arabic grammar, too. When he claims that “the word itself, Islam, comes from salam—peace,” he is mistaken. While the words “Islam” and “salam” share the same three root letters—s, l, m—they are, in fact, very different words with completely different meanings. While “salam” indeed means “peace” in Arabic, “Islam” means “submission.” Submission to what? To Allah and Islamic Law. A “Muslim” is a person who submits. Surely the president knows this. Or maybe the White House Arabic language translator needs to be replaced.

Unfortunately, in pursuit of that submission, Islamic doctrine obligates Muslim conquest of the Dar al-Harb (places not yet subjugated to shariah). We know this not only from the example of Muhammad’s own life as taught to Muslim students from the 1st grade, but also from the Qur’an and hadiths. For example, Qur’an verse 9:29 says: “Fight those who believe not… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” The Qur’an is quite clear in verse 3:85 as well: ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him…’ Islamic Law defines jihad quite simply: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

This is not cherry-picking Qur’anic verses. This is Islamic doctrine as uniformly presented in the Qur’an, hadiths, biography of Muhammad, and Islamic Law. It is the agreed consensus of all authoritative Islamic scholars throughout the centuries. We may wish that more Muslim scholars would teach the prohibition of terror (jihad). But of course, they cannot teach what is contrary to Islamic doctrine. For the Qur’an itself commands Muslims to “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power… to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.” (Q 8:60)

And when the President purports to quote the Qur’an about killing an innocent, he either willfully or out of ignorance is misquoting Islamic scripture. In fact, Qur’an verse 5:32cites from a Jewish commentary on the Talmud: “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people…” This is the definition of killing without right in Islam. The takeaway here is that a Muslim may not kill except those who themselves have killed without right or perpetrated “mischief in the land”—which may include failing to accept Islam. What the President and others too often leave out is the next verse, Q 5:33, which lays out the punishments for those who disobey 5:32. They are: “death, crucifixion, amputation of the hand and foot on opposite sides or exile from the land.” The President might be asked why he left those out, when they are precisely the punishments the Islamic State (IS) is applying to those under its control in faithful obedience to what they believe is the word of Allah. This isn’t an IS version or interpretation of the Qur’an. It is what the Qur’an actually says.

These are just a few of the things the President might have said, were his intention to be accurate about the enemy we fight. He might have added that we are not actually fighting terrorism: we are fighting to defend the Constitution from attack by forces of jihad seeking to impose shariah. This does not mean we must be at war with all Muslims. But all those who fight or support the Global Jihad Movement are on the wrong side of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the way of life Americans treasure because, unlike Islamic doctrine, they enshrine principles of individual liberty, equality before man-made law, government by consent of the governed, and the right to freedoms of belief and speech.

Those, Mr. President, are the “first things” principles we Americans are willing to fight and die for. American Muslims who accept and defend them are patriots, too—but unfortunately, these are not principles to be found anywhere in the authoritative Islamic canon—and Americans need to know that.

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

Sharia as the Jihad’s Point of Coordination

arabwaveFrontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 4, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has a really important paper out and you should read it all, but I just want to highlight one area.

The three entities (the ummah, dawah and jihadi) do not have to act along formal chains of command to interoperate successfully. This is because they each execute according to their own functional orientation to Islam that reconciles through a common understanding of Islamic law.

And further

To appreciate the strategy, it should be visualized along the lines of the starfish rather than the spider: Cut an appendage from a starfish, and the severed part can grow into a fully functional starfish. Cut off a spider’s head, and all appendages become useless. In terms of command relationships, we in the West tend to think like spiders. While the Soviet Union was a spider; the Islamic Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS are starfish.

These are very important points that need to be understood to grasp the larger scope of the struggle. Finally…

To say the threat arises out of Islam is to say that it emanates from shariah. Hence, the arrow in the diagram reflects the recognition that the three lines of operation emanate from Islam through a common understanding of shariah. For this reason, shariah also provides a common reference point based on Islamic legal concepts recognized as settled. This doctrinal framework is commonly understood and easily communicated in the Islamic world. For this observation to be valid, one does not have to prove that the underlying Islamic law reflects “true Islam,” or even that most Muslims agree with it.

As I’ve said, read the whole thing, but this needs to be kept in mind, particularly when arguing with the “ISIS is not real Islam” or “Hamas is not real Islam” school of deniers.

Why does the SPLC hate the Center for Security Policy?

2490052973

CSP, by Frank Gaffney, Feb. 4, 2015:

Why are the SPLC and its Islamist friends so determined to suppress the Center for Security Policy? The answer appears to be CSP’s effectiveness, which is, in turn, animated by our love of freedom:

  • CSP’s love of freedom — not a desire to hate — puts us in opposition to Muslims who adhere to the supremacist Islamic shariah doctrine, and therefore are freedom’s enemies. We have no quarrel with Muslims whose faith practice is not shariah-adherent. They have as much to fear from the jihadists among them as do the rest of us. We are proud to work with non-supremacist Muslims to expose and help defeat our mutual enemies.
  • The Center for Security Policy’s love of freedom – not some irrational fear of Islam or fictitious “Islamophobia” – prompts us actually to do as we are officially told we must: “See something, say something.” In fact, when we see evidence of encroaching shariah, particularly that being insinuated stealthily by the SPLC’s friends in the Muslim Brotherhood, we not only say something about it. We do something about it, by working to counter and ultimately eliminate this civilization jihad and its motivating Islamist
  • CSP’s love of freedom also obliges us to respond appropriately to what is – far from some unfounded “conspiracy theory” – proof of an actual and perilous conspiracy to destroy the Constitution that guarantees our liberties and the government constituted to defend them.

In defending freedom against such adversaries, the Center for Security Policy proudly and indefatigably stands with:

  • the untold millions of non-Muslims and Muslims oppressed by Islamists around the globe;
  • the families of those who have been slaughtered or brutalized world-wide in the name of shariah and its jihad;
  • women, who have the right be treated as human beings, not as animals or property;
  • homosexuals who have the right not to be thrown off roofs or hung for their sexual preferences;
  • Christian, Jewish and other religious minorities subjected to forced expulsions and expropriation, torture, rape and murder; and
  • Muslim reformers who share our determination to prevent Islamic supremacists from imposing their abhorrent “man-made” shariah doctrine in our country – whether through violent jihad, or the Muslim Brotherhood’s preferred, stealthy “civilization jihad” kind.

We have no doubt where the vast majority of Americans come down in any choice between freedom and its enemies, foreign and domestic. Those who thoughtlessly or maliciously repeat, promote and otherwise disseminate the hate-mongering of the Southern Poverty Law Center are on the wrong side of that choice. The Center for Security Policy is not.

Q & A

Is the Center for Security Policy “anti-Muslim”?

Absolutely not. The Center for Security Policy stands against enemies of the United States, its Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed thereby – without regard to their ethnicity, geography, ideology or religious associations. Foremost among such enemies at the moment are Islamic supremacists, also known as shariah-adherent Muslims, also known as jihadists.

This subset of the followers of Islam are the ultimate hate-group. They hate Muslims who do not adhere to shariah. They hate women. They hate gays and lesbians. They hate followers of other religions. They hate democracy and any “man-made” law or government not submissive to their Quran. They hate anyone – including authors, songwriters and artists – whose free expression defies their totalitarian program of thought control.

The Center for Security Policy stands in defense of the billions of people around the world who are endangered or victimized by these hateful “Islamist phobias.”

Is the Center for Security Policy “Islamophobic”?

Absolutely not. To be clear, the term “Islamophobia” was first coined twenty-years ago by Islamists and their leftist enablers for use as an instrument of political warfare. They wield it to suppress the freedom of expression of their adversaries.

Specifically, by falsely accusing those who are critical of Islamic supremacism, shariah and jihad of having an unreasoned fear (i.e., a “phobia”) of Muslims, the perpetrators of this smear are trying to impose what amount to shariah blasphemy restrictions – a prohibition on any expression that “offends” them. What is more, by threatening, explicitly or implicitly, violence against those who give such offense, the Islamists are actually trying to instill fear in their enemies – non-Muslim and Muslim alike – in order to terrify them into submission. To ignore that reality would be irrational, and quite possibly fatal.

The Center for Security Policy has no fear of law-abiding, patriotic, tolerant, non-shariah-adherent Muslims. To the contrary, it views them as potentially invaluable partners in opposing the jihadists – violent and stealthy – in their midst.

Does the Center for Security Policy believe there is an Islamist conspiracy to infiltrate and subvert the United States from within?

Eight years ago, the U.S. government established in federal court during the largest terrorism financing trial in the country’s history, U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, that, for more than fifty years now, the Muslim Brotherhood has engaged in a conspiracy with the mission – in the Brotherhood’s own words – of “destroying Western civilization from within.” (See:http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/05/25/an-explanatory-memorandum-from-the-archives-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/.)

It is national security malpractice to ignore this reality and maliciously deceptive and/or delusional to portray those who refuse to do so as “conspiracy theorists.”

The Center for Security Policy has comprehensively documented the extent to which the Islamic supremacists are succeeding in penetrating virtually every major civil society and governing institution in furtherance of this conspiracy. (Publications in the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series may be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.) We are determined to expose, root out and neutralize such subversive influence operations in America.

In light of these facts, how should responsible journalists, public policy professionals and the American people more generally regard criticisms of the Center for Security Policy issued by the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center?

The SPLC’s assertions are utterly without foundation. They show a willingness to say and do anything to further a transparently political agenda. Such partisan, and often unhinged, criticisms are nothing more than efforts to incite hatred against, and thereby silence, their opposition.

Given the facts, those who cite or otherwise repeat such unfounded assertions are either witting partners in that odious, indefensible effort, or useful idiots who should know better – and desist.

Sharia and Non-Muslims

sharia1 (2)

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Feb 3 2016:

Sharia law is the most important part of Islamic doctrine. Sharia is Islam; Islam is Sharia. Sharia includes law, but it also includes how to raise a family, theology, philosophy and every aspect of daily living. Sharia law includes pronouncements for both Muslims and non-Muslims (Kafirs). Sharia is a manual for a civilization.

Sharia does not allow free speech. It is forbidden to make a joke about Mohammed. Blasphemy is forbidden. The US is following Sharia when it allows the UN to determine that Muslim refugees come to America and not Christians.
We have Sharia compliant textbooks now in Tennessee. We hesitate to anger Muslims or criticize Islam. In Europe Islamic rape is accepted behavior.

Sharia says that our Constitution is manmade and a product of ignorance. Sharia is Allah’s law and must replace all other governments. Countries that adhere to all of Sharia are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen.

South Carolina House Passes Bill Excluding Sharia Law From State Courts

SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images

SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 28, 2016:

The South Carolina House has passed a bill blocking Islamic sharia law from being recognized or approved in the state, after years of debate over similar legislation.

The legislation voted upon was explained as “A bill to amend the code of laws of South Carolina … so as to prevent a court or other enforcement authority from enforcing foreign law including, but not limited to, Sharia Law in this state from a forum outside of the United States or its territories under certain circumstances.”

On Thursday, the legislation passed with 68 for the bill and 42 opposed.

Sharia law is the legal and political system mandated in the Koran and other Islamic texts. It include laws governing religious practice, such as praying and ritual washing. But sharia also rules what Westerners see as non-government social practices — divorce, child-rearing, free-speech, clothing or sexual behavior, for example — and it also rules government responses to crimes, such as theft and murder.

Sharia law relegates women and non-Muslims to a lesser status, and grants men enormous authority over wives, daughters and sons. It allows for the primitive treatment of women and non-Muslims, and allows fierce punishment — sometimes, “honor killings” by fathers — for refusing to complying with sharia mandates.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Chip Limehouse. He told Breitbart News following the bill’s passage:

“This goes to demonstrate that the South Carolina House of Representatives is committed to preserving and protecting the American way of life here in South Carolina.”

“Sharia Law has been used as a defense in American courtrooms,” he adds. “We are working towards making that defense not an option for radical extremists from any country.”

“In South Carolina, we’ve had cases where people have tried to use [the rules of] Sharia Law as a defense, and we are speaking very clearly from the South Carolina House,” Limehouse said. “Shariah Law can not and will not be used as a legal defense in the state of South Carolina.”

Because the bill was passed at the beginning of the current legislative session, Rep. Limehouse said he was optimistic that the Senate would have enough time to pass the bill. In order for the bill to become law, it must now be passed by the South Carolina State Senate and signed by Governor Nikki Haley.

Tea Party and conservative grassroots organizations are credited with initiating the movement to ban sharia rules through the state legislatures. Conservative leaders Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann have publicly advocated for the need to enact nation-wide legislation against the threat of sharia.

Underground sharia courts operate in Muslim communities throughout Europe and alsoin the United States. Last year, Breitbart Texas reported that a “voluntary” sharia court had already been established in Texas.

Several countries in Europe, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, have many underground sharia courts within migrant communities. In the U.K, the government has formally deputized at least one sharia court to decide non-criminal issues among people who agree to use the court, even as public concerns rise that immigrant women are socially pressured to accept the courts’ authority

U.S. opponents of sharia courts point to Europe for evidence that western democracies can gradually cede more de-facto legal authority to self-segregating Muslim communities, so enabling the self-segregation of Muslim communities into no-go zones within cities.

Several states–including Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina South Dakota, and Tennessee–have passed “foreign law” bans against sharia. More than a dozen other states are currently considering similar legislation.

Does Islamic company selling ‘Sharia-compliant mortgages’ control Asbury Park NJ boardwalk?

1452718428836Fox News, by Tommy De Seno, Jan. 13, 2016:

With ISIS committing acts of terror on 4 continents, and President Obama importing refugees from their home territory, now is a bad time to offer interest-free Sharia Law mortgages in America, but that’s exactly what one company is doing.

The beach town of Asbury Park, New Jersey has undergone a slow-grinding redevelopment for the better part of 30 years.   Bereft of money in 2007, the city sold millions of dollars worth of storied boardwalk buildings including Convention Hall to a private company — Madison Marquette.  Madison Marquette also owns concert venues near the boardwalk like the famed Stone Pony.  They are positioned in expensive retail properties across America in California, Ohio, Washington, D.C., Florida and more.

What few know is that Madison Marquette is owned by an Islamic company rooted in the Middle East; a company whose other subsidiary specializes in “Sharia Law Compliance” and lures Sharia-following Muslims to 23 states with interest-free home mortgages.

The parent company is Capital Guidance Corporation, whose managing director Amer Hammour is also CEO of Madison Marquette.  Hammour was born in Syria and educated in Lebanon, France and the U.S.  Another wholly-owned subsidiary named Guidance Financial Group, run by Mohamad Hammour with help from Amer Hammour, was formed to enter the burgeoning “Islamic Financial Market.”  Capital Guidance states its “main vehicle” for doing business in the U.S. is Madison Marquette, and controls $5 billion in assets.

Guidance Financial maintains a “Shariah Supervisory Board.”  This board counsels in financial matters to ensure compliance with the controversial Muslim value system known as “Sharia.”

For the uninitiated, Sharia is a set of Islamic laws dating back to the 7th century, still used in whole or in part in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.  Sharia contains the notoriously brutal social and penal rules that Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorists wish to impose on the West, including America.

Under Sharia, women are chattel of men, and if convicted of adultery are stoned to death [Warning: Graphic], can be punished if raped, suffer “honor killings” and  “female genital mutilation.”  Homosexuality is punishable by death by stoning ordropping them from great heights.  Stealing is punished by having a hand chopped off  [Warning: Graphic] while apostasy and blasphemy will get you beheaded.

Sharia also has strict business rules rooted in religious texts like the Koran and Hadith. For instance, it is prohibited to charge or pay interest, which they call riba.  Sharia compliance is so complex that barely 100 Islamic scholars are recognized to opine on it, and they have set up a profitable cottage industry as “Sharia compliance advisors,” including in America.  Guidance Financial is a world leader in this area.

Guidance Financial’s “Sharia Supervisory Board” is chaired by Sheik Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who sits on dozens of Shariah boards around the world.  Usmani is part of the Deobandi movement, whose madrassas inspired the creation of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and for whom Usmani tried to set up a Sharia banking system. In 2013 he issued a fatwa against the Pakistani government for assisting the U.S. in the fight against Afghan terrorists.

His support for the Taliban against the U.S. did not get him in as much hot water as when his book, “Islam and Modernity” was translated into English in 2006. It’s been reported Usmani was on the Sharia Board of the Dow Jones Islamic Fund Index, who cut ties with Usmani and scrubbed his name from their media materials after his radical writings were published.

In his book, a questioner asked Usmani if it was necessary to commit Jihad against a Western country, if Muslims were already free to practice and preach Islam there.

Usmani answered that the right to practice and preach Islam wasn’t good enough.  Muslims must break the “grandeur and domination” of non-believers in the West, as dominance gives a psychological advantage.  He then cited the Koran, thusly:

Here, killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay Jizyah [a Muslim tax on non-Muslims], after they are humbled or overpowered.  If the purpose of killing was only to acquire permission and freedom of preaching Islam, it would have said “until they allow for preaching Islam.”  But the obligation of Jizyah and along with it the mention of their subordination is a clear proof that the purpose is to smash their grandeur, so that the veils of the domination should be raised and people get a chance to think over the blessings of Islam.

Usmani made two other points consequential to the West.  First, he said if Muslims do not posses the capability of “Jihad with Power” then agreements can be maintained “until power is attained.”   Second, he opined that imperialism by conquering other lands was a legitimate goal of Islam.

Adding it all up, Sheik Usmani said Muslims should come here, obtain power then launch jihad by killing us.  After they destroy our culture (grandeur), they will spare those who agree to pay a tax and submit to Islam.  The survivors will have the status of a dhimmi.

No wonder Dow Jones ended their relationship.  Capital Guidance has not.  Usmani is still on Guidance Financial’s website as chair of their Sharia board and Usmani lists the same affiliation on his website.

Of course for Usmani’s idea of attack to work in America, he would first need to settle Muslims here who are devoutly committed to Sharia.   Well…

Be introduced to another Guidance Financial project – Guidance Residential – which gives interest free Sharia-compliant mortgages to buy homes in 23 states, including New Jersey.  They are luring people who wish to follow Sharia and already closed 8,000 loans around the country.  Who is chair of the Shariah Board for Guidance Residential?   The same Sheik Usmani who advised Muslims to lay in wait and kill us.  Guidance Residential held training seminars for Imams in Berkeley California to school them in Sharia, using videos of Sheik Usmani.

President Obama sent Governor Chris Christie a letter telling him some of the 10,000 Syrian refugees he’s bringing to America will be in New Jersey.  Syrians culturally grew up with Islamic Law written into their Constitution (1973 and 2012 versions), and codified a  form of Sharia into a statute on marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted terrorists my try to exploit Obama’s refugee settlement program.

Won’t Sharia compliant mortgages attract them if they do?

Not all Muslims follow Sharia, but all Islamic terrorists claim to. Filtering the good from the bad is hard, so Sharia mortgage applications should be a red flag.

We are all looking for possibilities of terrorists in America and 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots.

Our mantra now is, “If you see something, say something.”  So here is what needs to be said:

Asbury Park is a very diverse city where no one stands out.  If terrorists are looking for a place to lay in wait to commit jihad, as Sheik Usmani suggested they do, Asbury Park is now magnetized to attract them. An Islamic controlled company runs the beachfront and will help with a Sharia mortgage.

Cozy.

A perfect storm of jihadi possibility, even if the parent company and the local Madison Marquette office don’t intend it.

Are terrorists already here?  An ISIS terrorist supporter was arrested in Asbury Park in 2015.

What reliance shall we place on “screening” for terrorists?  The San Bernardino killer was screened but laid in wait. Jihadists have the advantage when hiding in a group as big as 10,000, as it only took 19 men to conduct the 9/11 attack, 8 in Paris, 2 in Boston and 1 at Fort Hood.

Discovering those laying in wait is hard and Sharia adherence may present the only clue the FBI and CIA can follow. They should.

With ISIS now committing a Christian genocide, complete with beheadings and crucifixions, even of children, this is no time to countenance an immigration policy that enables terrorists to infiltrate our country by gaming our screening process just so politicians can feel good about themselves. Let’s not attract them with interest free mortgages, either.

Enjoying a day at Asbury Park’s boardwalk shouldn’t require a terrorist risk assessment.

Tommy De Seno contributes to ricochet.com and is the editor ofwww.JustifiedRight.com. An attorney and proud Catholic, he hails from Asbury Park, N.J.

***

For more on Sharia compliant finance see the CJR archives:

http://counterjihadreport.com/?s=shariah+compliant+finance&submit=Search

The Problem with Islam Is Aggressive Scripture, Not Aggressive ‘Traditionalism’

quran

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — January 16, 2016:

On the Corner this week, the eminent Jim Talent touted (with some reservations) an essay about “moderate Islam” by Cheryl Bernard. A Rand Institute researcher, she is also a novelist, a defender of war-ravaged cultures, and the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to post-Taliban (or is it pre-Taliban?) Afghanistan. With due respect to Dr. Bernard, who does much heroic work, I believe the essay highlights what is wrong with Western academic analysis of Islam.

The problem comes into focus in the very title of Senator Talent’s post, “Aggressive Traditionalism.” That is the attribute of Islamic societies that Dr. Bernard blames for the frustration of her high hopes for “moderate Islam.” In truth, however, the challenge Islam poses for moderation is not its tradition; it is Islamic doctrine — the scriptural support for traditional sharia and Islamic supremacist ideology.

I give Bernard credit. She is the unusual strategist who is willing to admit failure — in this instance, of the strategy of promoting “moderate Islam” as the antidote to “radical Islam.” But even this concession goes off the rails: She maintains that the strategy was somehow “basically sensible” despite being “off track in two critical ways.” The real problem, though, is not the two errors she identifies but the fatal flaw she fails to address: The happenstance that there are many moderate Muslims in the world does not imply the existence of a coherent “moderate Islam.” Try as she might, Bernard cannot surmount this doctrinal hurdle by blithely ignoring the centrality of doctrine to a belief system — without it, there is nothing to believe.

But let’s start with the two critical problems she does cite. The first is the matter of defining what a “moderate” is. Bernard concedes that she and other thinkers adopted a definition that was “too simplistic” — meaning, too broad. It made “violence and terrorism” the litmus test for “moderation.” This enabled what she labels “aggressive traditionalists” to masquerade as moderates.

Who are the “aggressive traditionalists”? Muslims who, though nonviolent themselves, “harbor attitudes of hostility and alienation” against non-Muslims. The failure to account for the challenge that “aggressive traditionalism” poses for moderation led to the second flaw Bernard admits: the undermining of “integration” — a reference to Muslim assimilation (or the lack thereof) in the West.

This is fine as far as it goes. In fact, Bernard is quite correct about the main challenge posed by hostile, alienated, integration-resistant Muslims: Even if they are personally nonviolent, the communities they create become “the breeding ground for extremism and the safe harbor for extremists.”

But “extremism” about what? This is the salient question, and it is one Bernard studiously ducks. The error is implicit from the very start of her essay (my italics):

Over the past decade, the prevailing thinking has been that radical Islam is most effectively countered by moderate Islam. The goal was to find religious leaders and scholars and community ‘influencers’ — to use the lingo of the counter-radicalization specialists — who could explain to their followers and to any misguided young people that Islam is a religion of peace, that the term jihad refers mainly to the individual’s personal struggle against temptation and for moral betterment, and that tolerance and interfaith cooperation should prevail.

Plainly, the “prevailing thinking” casually assumes “facts” not only unproven but highly dubious. Bernard takes it as a given not only that there is an easily identifiable “moderate Islam,” but also that this . . . what? . . . doctrine? . . . attitude? . . . is the most effective counter to “radical Islam.”

But what is moderate Islam? She doesn’t say. She maintains that there are countless moderate Muslims who, by her telling, embrace “Western values, modern life and integration.” In fact, she assumes there are so many such Muslims that they constitute the “mainstream” of Islam. Yet, that proposition is not necessarily true even in the West, where Muslims are a minority who might be expected to assimilate into the dominant, non-Muslim culture; and it most certainly is not true in the Muslim-majority countries of the Middle East.

Even worse is Bernard’s assertion — uncritical, and without a hint that there may be a counter-case — “that Islam is a religion of peace, [and] that the term jihad refers mainly to the individual’s personal struggle against temptation and for moral betterment.”

As is the wont of Islam’s Western apologists, Bernard is attempting to shield from examination what most needs examining. Her reliance on the potential of “moderate Islam” to quell “radical Islam” is entirely premised on the conceit that Islam is, in fact, moderate and peaceful. Her assumption that the vast majority of Muslims can be won over (indeed, have already been won over, she seems to say) to Western values is premised on the conceit that those values are universal and, hence, locatable in the core of Islam — such that “tolerance and interfaith cooperation should prevail” because Islam is all for them.

Islam, however, is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of conquest that was spread by the sword. Moreover, it is not only untrue that jihad refers “mainly” to the individual’s internal struggle to live morally; it is also untrue that the Islamic ideal of the moral life is indistinguishable from the Western conception.

To be clear, this is not to say that Islam could not conceivably become peaceful. Nor is it to say that jihad could not be reinterpreted such that a decisive majority of Muslims would accept that its actual primary meaning — namely, holy war to establish Islam’s dominance — has been superseded by the quest for personal betterment. To pull that off, though, will require a huge fight. It cannot be done by inhabiting an alternative universe where it has already been done.

That fight would be over doctrine, the stark omission in Bernard’s analysis. I do not think the omission is an oversight. Note her labeling of faux moderates as “aggressive traditionalists.” Citing “tradition” implies that the backwardness and anti-Western hostility she detects, to her great dismay, is a function of cultural inhibitions. But what she never tells you, and hopes you’ll never ask, is where Islamic culture and traditions come from.

Alas, they are direct consequences of Islamic scripture and sharia, the law derived from scripture. She can’t go there. She wants Islam to be moderate, but its scriptures won’t cooperate. She must rely on tradition and culture because traditions and cultures can and do evolve. Scripture, by contrast, does not — not in Islam as taught by over a millennium’s worth of scholars and accepted by untold millions of Muslims. Mainstream Islam holds that scripture is immutable. The Koran, the center of Islamic life, is deemed the “uncreated word of Allah,” eternal. (See, e.g., Sura 6:115: “The Word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and justice: None can change His Words: For He is the one Who heareth and knoweth all.”)

Bernard must blame aggressive traditionalism because if the problem is aggressive doctrine rooted in aggressive scripture, then it’s not changing any time soon — or maybe ever. Moreover, she is not in a position to challenge doctrine and scripture without deeply offending the believers to whom she is appealing. They are taught that any departure from centuries-old scholarly consensus is blasphemy.

The story Dr. Bernard tells of Islamic intransigence in her own Northern Virginia neighborhood is instructive. A Muslim-American friend of hers is a social worker who finds jobs for Muslim immigrants. He lands openings for a group of Somali women in a hospital laundry service; but the women first tell him they must check with their imam, then they turn down the jobs because they will not be allowed to wear their hijabs. The social worker and Bernard are exasperated: Why don’t the women and their adviser grasp that because hijabs could get caught in the machinery and cause injury, there is a “pragmatic reason” for departing from the traditional Islamic norm?

Notice: Bernard never considers, or at least never acknowledges, that there is doctrinal support for every decision the Somalis make: The scriptures instruct Muslims to consult authorities knowledgeable in sharia before embarking on a questionable course of conduct; they instruct Muslim women to wear the veil (particularly in any setting where they will be exposed to men who are not their husbands or close relatives). And while pragmatism suggests to the rational Dr. Bernard and her moderate, Westernized social-worker friend an obvious exception to Islam’s usual clothing rule, mainstream Islam in the Middle East and Somalia admonishes that Western reliance on reason and pragmatism is a form of corruption, a pretext for ignoring religious duty.

Doctrine is the answer to virtually every immoderate instance of aggressive “traditionalism” Bernard complains about: the separation of men from women in the mosque, and the decidedly poorer accommodations (“often unacceptable and even insulting,” as Bernard describes them) to which women are consigned; the separation of the sexes in work and social settings; the instructions not to trust or befriend “unbelievers”; the admonitions to resist adopting Western habits and developing loyalty to Western institutions. There is scriptural support for every one of these injunctions.

From the fact that she has moderate, “modernized” Muslim friends, who do not comport themselves in such “traditional” fashion, Bernard extravagantly deduces that tradition is the problem. She never comes close to grappling with doctrine — i.e., the thing that most devout Muslims believe is what makes them Muslims. The closest she comes is the fleeting observation that her moderate social-worker friend “is a scholar [presumably of Islam] and a professor who emigrated from a conservative Muslim country.” The obvious suggestion is that if he is not troubled by the flouting of traditional Islamic mores, surely there must not be any credible scriptural objection. But if it is relevant that her friend is a scholar, is it not also relevant that there are thousands of other scholars — scholars who actually do Islamic jurisprudence rather than social work for a living — who would opine that sharia requires these traditional behaviors and that it is the social worker who is out of touch?

When Dr. Bernard’s husband, Ambassador Khalilzad, served in Kabul, he midwifed the new Afghan constitution that purported to safeguard Western notions of liberty while simultaneously installing Islam as the state religion and sharia as fundamental law. In short order, Afghanistan put former Muslims who had publicly renounced Islam on capital trial for apostasy. Dr. Khalilzad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other Western officials and intellectuals pronounced themselves duly shocked and appalled — notwithstanding that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Islamic scripture knows that it calls for public apostates to be killed.

To great American embarrassment, the apostates had to be whisked out of the country lest the incompatibility of civil rights and sharia become even more painfully apparent. It is worth acknowledging, however, that what chased them out of Afghanistan was not aggressive traditionalism. It was Islamic doctrine, which simply is not moderate. Looked at doctrinally, the challenge for “moderate Islam” is . . . Islam.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

 

If You Don’t Know Abrogation You Don’t Know Sharia

shariadfgs-300x199UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 15, 2015:

One of the facets of sharia (Islamic Law) that turns the light bulb on in people’s minds more than anything else seems to be the moment they grasp the Koranic concept of abrogation and progressive revelation.

Islam teaches that Allah (the god of Islam) revealed Islam to mankind throughout history progressively. Allah revealed the Law to Moses which predicted the coming of Mohammad.  Those who did not accept the Law of Moses were lost.  When Allah revealed the Evangel to Jesus, which also foretold of the coming of Mohammad, it abrogated the Law of Moses, and those who did not accept it were lost (hellbound).  When the final seal of the prophets – Mohammad – came and revealed the Koran to all of mankind, it abrogated all that came before it, and those who did not accept it were lost.

According to Islam, the original Law of Moses and revelations given to Jesus were corrupted by the Jews and Christian Priests and, therefore, do not exist on the planet today in their “original” form.  In other words, Islam teaches that all Bibles in the world today are corrupt because the fore-tellings of Mohammad were all intentionally removed.

According to Islam, the message of the Koran was revealed to Mohammad via an angel over a period of approximately 23 years – progressively over time.

The Koran is organized into 114 chapters called “Suras.”  These suras are not organize chronologically, but generally by size of the chapter from largest to smallest with the exception of Sura 1 which is only several lines long.

Three times in the Koran (2:106, 16:101, 17:106) Allah says that whatever he reveals chronologically later abrogates (overrules or cancels) what he previously revealed.  Allah commands Mohammad to bring the community of people from their unbelief to full compliance with sharia progressively in stages.  This is exactly what we are seeing on the ground today across the world.  The Muslim community is slowly moving from living however they want to live to living in communities that are adhering to the sharia to a greater and greater degree.

According to Islam, Mohammad first received revelations in Mecca for a period of thirteen (13) years.  He was completely rejected as a “prophet” by the religious scholars (Jewish, Christian) of the time.  During those years only approximately 200 people converted to Islam – in 13 years.  This is the time of “tolerance” where Mohammad had to tolerate the non-Muslims and there were no revelations of jihad.

Then Mohammad made the hijra to Medina, and was called to become a political and military leader. There he raised an army and gained many converts to Islam as he began to get revelations of jihad.  First Mohammad received revelations of defensive jihad, then limited offensive jihad, and finally, the command to wage jihad as a permanent obligation until the entire world is under sharia.

Allah said it last (chronologically) in the Koran, then Mohammad said it, and then Mohammad did it.  This is why there is no gray area in sharia as to the permanent command for all Muslims to wage jihad until the entire world is under sharia when they have the strength and ability to do so.

The Law of Jihad provides for how jihad can be waged by Muslims depending on where they are and their abilities.

Bringing greater sharia adherence to the world via jihad is the Muslim Brotherhood’s entire focus of all they do, and the stated objective of all of the jihadi organizations on the planet.

Therefore, it is logical, when seen from the perspective of Islam, that if the Koran abrogated all that came before it Allah would say “Whoever accepts a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him and he will be of those who truly fail in the hereafter (go to hell).” (Koran 3:85)

This logically leads to the requirement of the Koran for Muslims to never take Jews and Christians as friends (Koran 5:51), for pagans to be given the option to convert or be killed (Koran 9:5), and for the “People of the Book” (Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians) to be given the option – if they choose not to convert to Islam and do not want to be killed – to submit to Islam under sharia, pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and “feel themselves subdued.” (Koran 9:29)

Islamic scholars have come to an agreement on the chronological order of the suras.  While there are slight differences in some of the listings, Sura 5 is always the last sura (chronologically) to discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Sura 9 is the last to discuss jihad.  These are the last words from Allah on these issues, and Islam teaches they abrogate all that came before them.

Screen-Shot-2015-09-08-at-3

Individuals who convert into Islam are also taught Islam progressively and not all at once.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s “How To” manual entitled Methodology of Dawah Ilallah in American Perspective has this to say about converting a non-Muslim to Islam:

“Some rituals of religion and traditions of the Muslim Community are explained.  A short account of the Prophet’s (PBUH) life is presented, without the revolutionary aspect.  When Islam is acceptable to the new entrants in this concocted or abbreviated form, the ceremony of Shahadah is performed with great reverence.  A non-Muslim thus becomes a Muslim, obedient to Allah (SWT) alone.  The revolutionary aspect of Islam is rarely brought before the new converts, as in most cases the Da’ee (the one bringing the non-Muslim to Islam) himself is not conversant with it.”

When individuals or communities come to Islam, it is done progressively and in stages.  Unlike when people join into other groups, Muslim do not tell new converts the whole story.  They bring it to them over time.  Mohammad had 23 years to bring people from where they were to full obedience to Allah.

Looking at today’s world events through this lense, we can see the move in the Ummah (global Muslim community) towards greater sharia adherence.  We see it in their dress, how they behave, how they pray, and in many other ways.  We also know that the more we visually see sharia adherence, the more violence is being taught within the Muslim community.

This progression over time from little sharia adherence to full sharia adherence is the mirror of Mohammad receiving the revelations of the Koran progressively and moving the Muslim community towards complete obedience to Allah and his law – sharia.

The focus is on the Muslim community first, as we see the military jihadi organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda doing today.  They are forcing Islamic nations to adhere to sharia.

Soon we will see, and are seeing, the HIJRA into non-Muslim lands – also known as the “refugee” surge into Europe and the United States.  Finally, we will see the call for all non-Muslims to convert to Islam, submit to Islam or be killed.  While some of this is beginning to happen, when the Global Islamic Movement assesses Muslim lands are sharia compliant, they will focus their attention on the West.

All of this is the mirror image of the progressive revelation of Islam as revealed to the world over history, and specifically to Mohammad during the 23 years he received the Koran from Allah.

We are all watching it practically play out today in real time, and this is something the suit-wearing jihadis in America are not telling our leaders.

What is Sharia?

shariah dem

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 7, 2016:

Earlier this week, UTT published the first in a series of articles about sharia (Islamic law) entitled “Understanding the Threat” which amplified the fact that sharia is the focal point and driving force behind everything jihadis across the globe are doing.

Today, we will breakdown what sharia actually is and its origins.

All Islamic sources define Islam as a “complete way of life governed by sharia.”

According to the most widely used text book in Islamic junior high schools in the United States (What Islam is All About), “The Shari’ah is the ideal path for us to follow.”

There are two sources of sharia:  the Koran and the Sunnah.

Islam is the system of life under sharia.  Those who submit to Islam and the sharia are called “Muslims.”

The Koran (also Quran or Qur’an)

According to Islam, the Koran is the “uncreated word of Allah,” who is the Islamic god, and the contents of the Koran were revealed to the Prophet Mohammad between the years 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. in the Arabian peninsula through an angel.  The Koran has 114 chapters or “suras” which are arranged in no particular order.  They are generally arranged by size from largest to smallest.  However, the first chapter is approximately the smallest, and the sizes of the chapter vary so this is not a perfect rule.

The Islamic scholars have authoritatively listed the chapters of the Koran in chronological order.  This is very important because Allah said in the Koran (2:106, 16:101) that whatever comes chronologically last overrules anything that comes before it.  This is called “abrogation.”  Allah revealed his message to Mohammad progressively over time.  By the time it was all revealed, what came last was the most important and overrules anything that was said earlier.

“It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that though mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages.” (Koran 17:106)

So, for instance “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256) is overruled or abrogated by “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him” (Koran 3:85) which is why we get “Take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends…” (Koran 5:51).  Chapter 5 in the Koran is the last chronologically to speak about relations between Muslim and non-Muslims.

Chapter 9 is the last to discuss jihad.

“Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)

Furthermore, every verse in the Koran has been legally defined in the Tafsir.  The most authoritative Tafsir scholar in Islam is a man named Ibn Kathir.  For instance, the Tafsir defines a portion of verse 9:5 above as follows:  “This is the Ayah (verse) of the sword…’and capture them’ (means) executing some and keeping some as prisoners…’and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush’ (means) do not wait until you find them.  Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them.  This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”  (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 4, pages 375-376)

Tafsir

The Tafsir is taught at mosques in the United States on a regular basis.  There is no such thing in Islam as a “personal interpretation” of a particular verse of the Koran.

The Sunnah

The Sunnah is the example of the Prophet Mohammad who is considered the al Insan al Kamil in Islam – the most perfect example of a man.  If Mohammad did it or said it, it is an example for all Muslims to follow for all time.

His words and deeds are recorded in the authoritative biographies (Sira) and the collection of the Hadith or stories about him. In Islam there are many Hadith scholars, but the most authoritative are by men named Bukhari and Muslim.

The Prophet said, “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.”  Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926. Volume: Jihad; Chapter: Fighting the Jews

The above quote from Mohammad is doctrine in Islam.  Mohammad said it and it is authoritatively recorded by Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam.  This is why the above quote is not only in the Hamas Covenant, it is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools.

Example:  Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl?  Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was six (6) years old and consummated the relationship when she was nine (9). Mohammad is the perfect example, therefore, it is a capital crime in Islam to suggest this is wrong behavior.

The Koran, as understood with the Koranic concept of abrogation, and the Sunnah form the “Sharia” or the way for all Muslims to follow. This is a totalitarian legal system and cannot be altered or amended because it comes from Allah and was exemplified by the actions and words of Mohammad.  Therefore, when it comes to the definition of jihad, the obligation of jihad, the law of jihad, the obligation of the Caliphate (Islamic State), the rules under the Caliph, and relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is no disagreement among any of the scholars.

If Allah said it chronologically last in the Koran, Mohammad said it, and Mohammad did it, how could there be a legal “gray area” in sharia?

  1. “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
  2. Mohammad said:  “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”  Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim
  3. Mohammad went out and fought many battles against non-Muslims until they converted to Islam or submitted to Islam.  Those who did neither were killed.

Any questions?

Guandolo: Understanding the Threat

UTT, By John Guandolo, Jan. 5, 2016:

As we enter 2016 and the global jihad grows, it is critical for discerning Americans, and all people in the free West, to understand the threat we face in order to address and defeat it.

Massacre-Those-Insult-Islam

Our enemy identifies itself at the “Global Islamic Movement.”  It takes many forms and comes at us in many different ways.  The International Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is the primary driving force behind the global Movement, but there are parallel movements aligned with the Brotherhood such as Tablighi Jamaat, Jamaat e Islami and others.  These groups focus on bringing the Muslim community back to authentic Islam while softening the non-Muslim world to accept their “civilization alternative” to Western culture.

As the Muslim Brotherhood’s by-laws state, they do their work by making “every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs as well as the formation of committees to regulate zakat affairs and alms.”  Today, across Europe and North America, the Muslim Brotherhood created and controls a large portion of the Islamic organizations.  Yet, it is in the United States the MB has their greatest influence.

Apart from the MB and related jihadi movements, there are military jihadi organizations like Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hizbollah, and hundreds of others.

100% of these organizations and their members state they are Muslims waging jihad in the Cause of Allah (Jihad Fisabilillah) in order to establish the caliphate under sharia.

shariah signs

Sharia is everything in this war.  It is what the enemy seeks to impose on the world, and it is the blueprint for how they do everything they do.  That is why sharia is taught at the first grade level to Muslims in Islamic schools and mosques across the planet.  Islam teaches that Islam is “a complete way of life” – social, cultural, political, military, and religious – governed by sharia (Islamic Law).

100% of all published sharia obliges jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.  100% of sharia only defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

shariah for britainSharia is a totalitarian system of governance, not a religious edict.

Why don’t “moderate Muslims” teach a softer “version” of Islam?  Because it is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is not true about Islam.  You would actually have to read sharia to know this.

Hint:  When buying books on Islam, do not go to your local bookstore.  Go to the mosque bookstore and buy books written by Islamic authorities for a Muslim audience.  Then ask yourself  “Why is this information exactly opposite of the information that is written in books for the non-Muslim audience?”

zone

Sharia is the threat doctrine of our enemy.  If you read and understand Sharia, you will:  know why Muslims yell “Allahu akbar” before they commit an act of jihad; understand why in 15 years “Islamic advisors” to our government have not mentioned that “Jihad” is only defined in Islamic law as “warfare against non-Muslims”; and you will see why “Islamophobia” is not a random term but a term of art meant to identify people who violate the Islamic Law of Slander (a capital crime in Islam), which is defined as saying anything about a Muslim or Islam that a Muslim would “dislike.”

Sharia is the threat doctrine.  Those who practice Sharia and seek to impose it by all means necessary are the threat.

sharia poster

There is only one organization in the United States teaching law enforcement, military, and community organizations about the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi Movement and network here, their doctrine (Sharia), their modus operandi, and ways law enforcement can identify and defeat the network in their area – Understanding the Threat (UTT).

UTT intends on fighting the good fight until the fight is done.  UTT needs allies who know and understand the threat.  Join us!

Robert Jackson on Sharia v. the Constitution

Constitution vs Sharia (1)National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 4, 2015:

I’ve been working my way through my friend Steve Coughlin’s invaluable new book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad (which I discussed a bit in this recent column on the San Bernardino terrorist attack).

In light of the sharia encroachment campaign to bend the First Amendment to the repressive blasphemy standards of Islamic law (the subject of my columns today and over the weekend), it is very much worth noting Steve’s unearthing of a 1955 statement by the legendary Robert Jackson – the former Supreme Court justice and Nuremberg prosecutor, who was United States attorney general under FDR:

In any broad sense, Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge – all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire – reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.

The passage is part of a Forward Justice Jackson wrote to a book called Law in the Middle East. He thought it was a subject we needed to be informed about.

Today, we don’t want to know about sharia – not the government, the commentariat, or the popular culture. As noted here time and again, foreign policy of the United States has for a generation proceeded on the absurd assumption that sharia and Western liberalism are perfectly, seamlessly compatible.

Indeed, that is the operating assumption of the new constitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq that the United States government helped write – constitutions that impossibly purport to protect civil rights while simultaneously enshrining sharia as a principal source of law. In Afghanistan, the government has, for example, convicted former Muslims for apostasy under the new Constitution – the apostates escaped the death penalty only by being whisked out of the country. In Iraq, since the American invasion and the new constitution it ushered in, the Christian population has decreased by more than 70 percent (from about 1 million down to around 250,000 to 300,000, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2015 Report, pp. 95-96). While the rise of ISIS has exacerbated religious persecution in Iraq, it was rampant even before the terror network came along. (See id. at 97: “The Iraqi government, under both former Prime Minister al-Maliki and current Prime Minister Haideral-Abadi, also has committed human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial killings of Sunni prisoners and civilians.”)

Tellingly, Islamic supremacists fully comprehend the fundamental incompatibility between Islamic and Western standards. In Cairo in 1990, the 57-government Organization of Islamic Cooperation (then known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference) issued its “Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.” This sharia supremacist proclamation was issued because the “Universal” Declaration of Human Rights presumptuously issued by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 was not consistent with Islamic norms.

Steve observes that the deeply flawed assumption of compatibility between sharia and the Constitution that undergirds our policy flows from “an absence of functional knowledge of Islamic law in America’s halls of power.” Why don’t officials inform themselves? Because, he opines, “our national security leaders have taken active measures to suppress both analysis and discussion of the topic, under threat of harsh sanctions.”

There was a time, not so long ago, when America’s national security leaders and legal titans grasped the need to be informed about Islamic law as it actually exists, not as they wished it were. Until we recover that understanding, we will be able neither to protect ourselves nor to know how and when to intervene in the world’s most volatile region.

SHARIA LAW – BRITAIN’S BLIND SPOT

sw-eye-bannerSharia Watch, Dec. 31, 2015:

Contents

  1. Muslim Council of Britain
  2. Islamic Sharia Council
  3. Muslim Association of Britain
  4. Federation of Student Islamic Societies
  5. The Cordoba Foundation
  6. British Muslim Initiative
  7. Green Lane Mosque
  8. East London Mosque/London Muslim Centre
  9. Islamic Forum of Europe
  10. iEngage
  11. Islam Channel
  12. Islamic Human Rights Commission
  13. London Central Mosque (Regent’s Park Mosque)
  14. Mosques engaged in underage marriage
  15. Approach of the legal profession

Introduction

Sharia Watch UK seeks to highlight and expose those movements in Britain which advocate and support the advancement of sharia law in British society. We seek to explain and describe sharia law in relation to specific issues – primarily the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.

Sharia Watch UK believes in freedom of religion, but we say that its practice must remain within the laws that have been set down by Parliament. To this end, we aim to expose the ways in which sharia law operates in Britain in contravention of the law. We will also highlight the areas in which sharia  advances within the parameters of the law.

We call on the UK government to recognise that the establishment of a sharia state, or campaigning for such, is itself an extremist position. We base this on the fact that a sharia state would involveprofound mistreatment of women and girls (including forced marriage and unequal legal status), theimplementation of barbaric punishments (including stonings and amputations) and the complete destruction of freedom of speech and democracy.

We urge the UK government to immediately cease all funding of groups with such extremist political views, to arrest and charge people where there is evidence of any breach of laws, for example incitement to violence against women or Jews, and to ensure that laws on public order and discrimination are upheld equally across all communities irrespective of religion, cultural beliefs or background.

We urge the UK government to make a clear, unequivocal and public denouncement of sharia law and Islamist ideology, and to ensure all laws which prevent extremism are applied to the groups named in this report.

Sharia Watch UK makes a clear distinction between Muslims as human beings, and Islam as a system of belief. We believe strongly that all Muslims should be afforded equal human and civil rights alongside all other citizens. We believe equally strongly that Muslims must also be burdened with the same responsibilities as all other citizens. However, we assert that Islam is a belief system like any other and as such is liable to scrutiny, criticism, and ridicule and that it is the democratic right of all British citizens to be free to discuss any belief system, and to hold any opinions on that belief system, as they see fit.

We wish to make it clear that the information contained in this report is intended to inform both the British public and our elected representatives of the true beliefs and political philosophy of various “mainstream” Islamic organisations in the UK. We ask that the government recognises the extreme nature of such beliefs and condemns these accordingly.

We would like to stress that all of the information contained in this report can already be found in the public domain.

Muslim Council of Britain

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is perhaps the most prominent of Britain’s “mainstream” Islamic organisations. Founded in London in 1997, the organisation describes itself as “a national representative Muslim umbrella body with over 500 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools.” The Muslim Council of Britain has received several hundred thousand pounds of taxpayers’ money, despite evidence of its links with extremists and its own extremist beliefs. Cabinet ministers have condemned the MCB for its boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day. In 2009 the British Government cut ties with the Muslim Council of Britain after Daud Abdullah, the Deputy Secretary General, became a signatory to the Istanbul Declaration, which calls for attacks on British troops and Jewish communities.

Representatives of the Muslim Council of Britain feature regularly in the media, particularly at moments of significance involving Islam. For example, following the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, London, senior MCB representative Ibrahim Mogra appeared alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury in a joint message of condemnation and reconciliation. Similarly, Mogra acted as MCB spokesman on the issue of child sex grooming in cities around England. The MCB worked with the police, the NSPCC and other Muslim groups to raise awareness of this problem.

Following the exposure of a number of mosques across Britain which had agreed to marry underage girls, Mogra was again interviewed by numerous media bodies, as representative of the MCB. He told the Daily Mail: “UK law does not allow the marriage of underage girls and that’s all that matters to us here. In this country, it is illegal, it is forbidden and no imam should be allowed to conduct the marriage of an underage child. It should be noted that Mr Mogra’s opposition to child marriage was not based on any moral concern for the child or indeed for women’s rights generally.

Following the London underground terrorist bombings in 2005, a number of Muslim organisations came together to form the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (NIMAB), the aim of which was, according to the new group, to regulate mosques and to ensure that extremism was not being preached. This initiative was reported by the BBC in a highly positive light. The report stated that four of the largest Muslim organisations in Britain, namely the MCB, the Muslim Association of Britain, the British Muslim Forum, and the Al‐Khoei Foundation, shared the government’s concern about radicalisation in mosques.

Furthermore, the MCB was described by Baroness Shirley Williams as “a sensible organisation” on BBC’s Question Time, and representatives of the organisation regularly appear as guests on the BBC, including its Sunday morning discussion programme The Big Questions.

Sharia Watch UK believes that the MCB is itself an extremist organisation. We further believe that the portrayal of this group by the mainstream media as the moderate face of Islam facilitates the cover‐up of this fact and hides from the public mind the true nature of the organisation and the beliefs and motives of its senior representatives. This report aims to provide a more factual analysis of the MCB and its representatives so that the public can have a clearer picture of Islamic extremism in Britain.

Read more

Shariah: A unique form of religious law

arabicmotifeasternmuslim-970x350Covenant Spotlight, by Christopher W. Holton, Jan, 1, 2916:

One of the most misunderstood aspects of studying Jihad and Islam is the role of Shariah law. This is largely because so much misinformation about Shariah has been disseminated by Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association and, especially, the Islamic Circle of North America here in the U.S.

Many Westerners, even pastors, priests and rabbis, assume that Shariah is similar to Christian canon law or Jewish rabbinical law. That just isn’t true at all.

First of all, Shariah covers virtually all aspects of life for a Muslim, whether the aspect at hand is a religious issue or not. Whereas canon law and rabbinical law primarily cover religious issues and ecclesiastical issues, Shariah covers issues of criminal punishment, civil justice, economics/finance and war, in addition to purely ecclesiastical matters.

For instance, there is nothing in canon law that resembles the Hudud punishments so infamous under Shariah, which prescribe stoning, crucifixion, beheading, whipping and the amputation of limbs. These are the infamous aspects of Shariah.

But there is an even more significant difference between Shariah and every other form of religious law among the major religions: Canon law is only meant to apply to Christians. Jewish rabbinical law is only meant to apply to Jews.

Shariah applies to everyone of any faith. That’s right, Shariah is the only form of religious law in existence that applies to people of faiths other than the faith which invented the law.

Large sections of Shariah texts deal exclusively with rules and regulations for kafirs, a derogatory term used to refer to “non-believers.” When Jihadist organizations such as the Islamic State take over a region, as they have in Iraq and Syria and parts of Libya, we can see Shariah in action, largely through its imposition on local non-Muslim populations, which are subjugated to second-class citizenship known as dhimmitude. More on that in a future column.

Also see: