American Muslim Women Not Immune to Islamist Abuse

Muslim women2BY RYAN MAURO:

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

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

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

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

One fatwa published in 2007 justifies marital rape:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there are the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in America.

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

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

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Islamic Association Of North Texas Building A “Vast Community” In the Heart of Texas

islmic_village

Freedom Outpost, by Janna Brock:

Is a mini Mecca being built in Dallas, Texas? Of all the frightening propositions, this is happening right now. The Lone Star State is morphing into an Islamic hotspot. How could this happen in a state that revels in its guns and Bibles? By slow, deliberate integration and patience. The Islamic Association of North Texas (IANT) did not come to prominence overnight, but flew under the radar. Thus, the Islamic community has expanded and prospered. With the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) set to train 200 Imans in February of this year in Dallas, Sharia is coming to Texas. The subject of this conference will be “Islamic Home Finance in the West.” This is instructing Imans on Sharia Finance and implementing sharia by force. At this point, there couldn’t be a better place to set up a vast Islamic community than Sharia compliant north Dallas. It is not a matter of if, but when.

IANT2-300x225Dallas, Texas is one of the last places one would expect to encounter Sharia law, much less a thriving Islamic community. However, the Devil works while people aren’t paying attention, and when political correctness overrides ationale. The Islamic Association of North Texas has been active for thirty years in the Dallas area, making inroads and growing. With this, the IANT has come and conquered. The IANT’s website is eye opening and something every American should look at to get a feel for what an Islamic invasion looks like. This is happening in our own backyards.

More than thirty years ago, the Islamic Association of North Texas (IANT) was established to serve the local Muslim community. Since then, our community has grown considerably, and so have our needs. As we inaugurate our next quarter-century in North Texas, we introduce a novel community idea: the Islamic Village Project, a Muslim neighborhood.”

The Islamic Village Project is a multi-million dollar project that will foster great change in the Muslim community of Dallas. It will house a senior center, Youth center, Social Services department, residential quarters, play area for the children, retail center, clinic, and a separate building for IQA and Suffa Islamic Seminary classes. The project will extend from the current Masjid facility at Abrams, on the North and South side of Spring Valley across from the masjid, and West towards Greenville.

This sounds like an ambush, but in actuality it required careful planning. An Islamic village in North Texas seems like something out of the Twilight Zone. But if Sharia can come and conquer other American locales, Texas is not exempt. There is no area in the United States that is immune to an Islamic invasion. To unobservant eyes, this will look like a well formed, integrated community. For all practical purposes, this works in a secular American society that has lost its vigilance when it comes to true Islam, and never truly understood it to begin with. Islam invaded America and has thrived because of the ignorance of the American people.

One of the cornerstones of the Islamic Village will be it Educational Complex housing our IANT Quranic Academy and Suffa Islamic Seminary under the leadership of Imam Yusuf Ziya Kavakci. In addition, the Educational Complex is expected to have a Youth Center, Day Care Facilities, and playground areas for children of all ages.

When you memorize the Quran you’ve planted the seed. The seed needs to be watered and taken care of, so make the Quran part of your life.” This is on the IQA-IANT Quranic Academy’s Facebook page.

the_greater_jihad__prayer_by_musl1m-d3ixajt-300x150What a perfect breeding ground for eager young jihadist minds. This Islamic Association of North Texas has direct ties to Hamas. This is not community integration, but terrorist training and preparation. To be an ardent Islamist is to wage jihad. Their official mission reads like a Interfaith conference bulletin.

To educate on the virtues of Islam and practice it. To build bridges of cooperation, mutual respect, and understanding among faiths.

What lies and deception! No one will be the wiser! To be in opposition is to be an “Islamophobe.” In the name of progressive idiocy, Islam is peace, in spite of the obvious truth. In 2008, five Muslim leaders, working under the guise of a charity known as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in Dallas, were arrested for funneling millions of dollars to Hamas. No doubt many of the same people involved in this terror operation are working for the IANT to build Dallas’s version of Mecca.
Read more at Freedom Outpost

Also see:

Texas: Islamic Association building vast ‘Islamic Village – A Muslim Neighborhood’ (video) *updated (creepingsharia.com)

Islamist Jurisprudence Group to Train 200 U.S. Imams

Basyouni

The group instructs Muslims to infiltrate positions of power for the purpose of gradually implementing sharia in America.

By Ryan Mauro:

The California-based Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) is holding a conference in Texas next month where it hopes to educate 200 imams.  AMJA is an anti-American Salafist group that supports abuse of women, violent jihad and the stealthy imposition of sharia in the U.S.

AMJA’s 11th Annual Imams Conference will be held on February 21-23 in Dallas, Texas with the theme, “Islamic Home Finance in the West.” The subject is part of Sharia Finance, or economics that comply with sharia.

The organization says it has already had 150 imams sign up and it has a maximum capacity of 200. Imams lead mosques and Islamic centers and are seen as the local authority on the faith, so AMJA’s teachings can impact thousands of Muslims in North America.

AMJA’s self-description says that the organization has a “moderate approach and a rejection of extremism,” but if you read what AMJA actually says, a picture emerges.

AMJA has an online bank of fatwas, or authoritative religious determinations. They explicitly command Muslims to pursue the imposition of sharia-based governance entirely. AMJA specifically criticizes those who say parts of sharia are not applicable to today, essentially saying that America should model itself after Saudi Arabia.

It instructs Muslims to infiltrate positions of power for the subversive purpose of incrementally implementing sharia. In one translated document, AMJA says Muslim judges in non-Muslim countries must “judge by the rulings of the Sharia as much as possible, even if by a ruse.”

AMJA also supports violent jihad. In 2009, AMJA responded to Israeli military operations in Gaza against the Hamas terrorist group by telling Muslims that they are required to defend their co-religionists whenever their land is attacked by an enemy. Its fatwa said to help them “with every possible means of support: military, financial, political and journalistic.”

On the topic of jihad in America, AMJA states in an Arabic fatwa that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time” [emphasis mine]:

“With our current capabilities, we are aspiring towards defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation,” AMJA explained.

Read more at Clarion Project

U.S. Islamists Press to Block Anti-Sharia Legislation

states enacting ALACBY CLARE LOPEZ:

As momentum builds across the U.S. to reinforce safeguards for the primacy of American laws in the U.S. legal system through legislation at the state level, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters are beginning to panic.

To date, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have all enacted legislation that would ensure primacy for U.S. Constitutional law in cases where enforcing foreign laws or judgments, including Islamic law (sharia), “would deprive a party of a constitutional right or liberty,” as explained by David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC).

In mid-summer 2013, the North Carolina legislature, both House and Senate, passed HB 522, the Foreign Laws/Protect Constitutional Rights Bill, with broad bipartisan support. Not surprisingly, the HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named by the Justice Department an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, has mounted an email blitz campaign, urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to veto the bill instead of signing it.

Written in neutral language, this bill is modeled after American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) language offered by the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA). The North Carolina bill, now before Governor McCrory for signature into law, specifies that the intent of the measure is to “protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right of a natural person.”

Thus, contrary to some of the criticism aimed at this bill, there is nothing in its language that would prohibit consideration of foreign law in North Carolina courts: it is only if and when application of such foreign law (sharia or any other) would deprive persons before a North Carolina court the rights to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution (and its derivative laws).

In such a case, American law would take precedence over foreign law. In cases that involve no conflict between U.S. law and foreign law, comity (mutual recognition of a respective country’s legislation) may be applied.

With the June 2011 publication by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) of a report entitled “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of American Appellate Court Cases,” the American Public Policy Alliance took notice that Islamic law increasingly has entered into state court decisions in ways that conflict with the U.S. Constitution and state public policy.

Alarmingly, not only do some judges not understand what sharia is, but make decisions that defer to it even when those decisions conflict with U.S. Constitutional protections. Islamic law is antithetical to American laws, principles and traditions in many ways, but most specifically in its rejection — and even criminalization — of basic freedoms, including freedom of belief, press, speech, due process, equal protection under the law, privacy and the right to bear arms

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

Senior Cleric for American Muslim Group: Islamic Punishment for Apostasy Is Death

1799416114

Center For Security Policy:

Originally published at Translating Jihad

Dr. Hatem al-Haj, a senior committee member for the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), confirmed in the below fatwa from July 2011 that the Islamic punishment for apostasy is death. A couple of things stand out to me about this fatwa.

First, this fatwa was taken down from AMJA’s website as far back as October 2011, along with other fatwas on the same topic, possibly in response to an article written by my colleague Andrew Bostom exposing the rulings in that same month. (See the fatwa on archive.org, while the link on AMJA’s website is broken.) So either AMJA changed their minds about the penalty for apostasy; or, more likely, they just don’t want non-Muslims seeing what they really think on controversial topics. If that’s the case, then what else are they not telling us?

Second, the question that leads to the fatwa is tellingly not asking what the ruling is on apostasy, but rather how to explain this ruling to others, including non-Muslims. While Dr. al-Haj confirms that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death, he also recommends that when explaining this to others, you should start with the caveat that this is something which should only be carried out in a Muslim country through the court system.

AMJA likes to hide behind that caveat, but at the same time they encourage Muslims in the United States to use the American legal system in order to establish Islamic law (see here and here). So isn’t it fair to assume that Dr. al-Haj and AMJA would like to eventually make death for apostates the law of the land here in the United States as well?

See my translation of Dr. al-Haj’s fatwa below (see the original Arabic on his website):

The Ruling on the Apostate, and How We (Should) Explain It to Others

23 July 2011

Question: In view of the questions which we have been receiving in the Islamic centers these days, we ask you, sirs, to please explain how to respond to these questions, which are about the ruling on the apostate and his punishment.

Answer: Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon the Apostle of Allah.

I think you should begin by explaining that this is one of those things which is entrusted to the judicial systems in Islamic countries, and not to individuals in these countries or any others. Then make clear that the courts will examine these situations and decide them based on several factors.

But the ruling in the shari’a is death for men (who commit apostasy) according to all four (mainstream) schools (of Islamic jurisprudence). It is the same punishment for women according to most of the schools, but according to the Hanafis it is only imprisonment. This is according to the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH):  “Whoever changed his religion, kill him”; and also, “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah’s apostle, except for one of the following three:  a murderer, an adulterer, and one who leaves his religion and separates himself from the community.”

This firm ruling is not the only option for the imam, for he can rule otherwise, if there is benefit (in doing so). The evidence for this is the apostasy of some in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), on whom the ruling was not carried out. For (the Prophet) said the following about those who apostatized from the Muslims and joined the Quraysh:  “Whoever departed from us and went unto them, Allah has banished.”

This is not something that was invented by Islam, but rather the ruling on the apostate is also in the Law of Moses (PBUH). The following is from the Book of Deuteronomy:

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.”

It is well-known that those who worshiped the calf were ordered to be killed. In the Book of Exodus 32:28, it mentioned the killing of 3,000 of the Levites for their apostasy:  “And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.”

In explaining this issue to non-Muslims, you need to be wise and honest. May Allah help you.

Allah Almighty knows best.

Dr. Andrew Bostom: Muslim Leaders Seek Sharia in the US:

 

 

American Muslim Jurists: Offensive Jihad — Not Yet

156x147x3LPK19nTduHE_png_pagespeed_ic_V7NAL6Wc89By Ryan Mauro:

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opposes offensive jihad in the West, but for reasons that may surprise you. In an Arabic fatwa (religious decree) that doesn’t appear on its English website, it states that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time [emphasis added].”

This doesn’t mean that all jihad is to be abandoned. “With our current capabilities, we are aspiring towards defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation,” it said.

It is important to notice that it was issued in Arabic on the website of its Secretary-General, Salah Al-Sawy. Even though AMJA is based in Sacramento and its mission is to serve their American Muslim audience, it decided against issuing this fatwa in English. If it wasn’t translated by the Translating Jihad blog and reported by Andrew Bostom in 2011, we probably wouldn’t know about it.

AMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy

AMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy

Deception is something that AMJA approves of. In an English-language fatwa on its website, issued by Al-Sawy inAMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy 2005, Muslims are authorized to lie for the sake of “repulsing evil” if there are “compelling strokes of necessity.” In that case, “he can indirectly say something that his listener can understand something else.”

Read more at Radical Islam

GOP Platform Addresses Sharia Encroachment

By Andrew Bostom:

Reports  (at “Live”  wire , repeated at Salon)  are quoting Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach to the effect that  the GOP platform has adopted an amendment which addresses Sharia encroachment.  Kobach stated,

We  see it from the top where the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly quoted  foreign law in interpreting our U.S. constitution and it’s actually coming in at  the bottom as well, it’s being raised as an argument in courts around the  country. We actually put a provision affecting Kansas statute this year and I  think it’s important for us to say foreign sources of law should not be used as  part of common law decisions or statutory interpretations by judges in the lower  state courts as well.

…I’m  not aware of any court that’s accepted the argument, but in cases involving  either spousal abuse or assault or other crimes against persons, sometimes  defenses are raised that are based in Sharia law

Despite  the predictable sneering and distressing ignorance which frames these reports by  two agitprop  “journalists,”  and Kobach’s own noble, if incomplete assessment of the profundity of the  problem, this is very welcome news.

Kobach  referred to Kansas’s recently passed law-a version of American Laws for American  Courts (ALAC) legislation-which should remind us all that the earliest of these  laws (now also passed in Tennessee, Arizona, and Louisiana) have been in effect  for several years without being challenged, let alone overturned. David  Yerushalmi recently provided a very clear, didactic example of the need for  ALAC-style laws, which corrects Kobach’s assessment about courts not having  accepted Sharia-based arguments.

Yersuhlami  described in brief an appellate court decision from Maryland, cited in a Center for Security  Policy Study, where

…the  court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody  in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not  provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital  punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.

The  salient facts of the case,  and appellate court ruling, were summarized by  Yerushalmi as follows:

The  Maryland appellate court ruled that since the woman could not prove she’d be  executed had she gone to Pakistan to litigate custody in the Pakistan Sharia  Court, which is a national-state court in Pakistan, her failure to go to  Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making the void as  against public policy argument. ALAC  would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to have  reversed the lower court’s outrageous  decision.

Here  are the Maryland appellate court’s own words, cited by Yerushalmi:

Additionally,  appellant [the mother] asserts that the Pakistani custody orders were founded on  principles of law repugnant to Maryland public policy because the Pakistani  courts allegedly “penalized the mother for not appearing without considering the  affect of her admission to adultery on her ability to return to Pakistan.” In  this regard, appellant points out that if convicted under Pakistani criminal law, her penalty could be public whipping or death  by stoning. Although Dr. Malik [the expert] opined that appellant would be arrested for adultery if she returned to  Pakistan for the custody proceedings, he also conceded that punishment for  adultery was extremely unlikely and that proving the crime was extremely  difficult. Given this testimony, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in  not considering the effect of whether appellant’s admission to adultery [under  sharia] was “repugnant” to Maryland public policy in its failure to find that  the Pakistani courts punished her for not appearing.”}

Let  me summarize for the (hope against hope) edification of  the “Live”  wire , and Salon,  agitprop journalists, the liberty-crushing, dehumanizing nature of Sharia:  open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order;  rejection of bedrock Western liberties-including freedom of conscience and  speech-enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of  non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient  chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as  amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol  consumption.

I  would also point out how the two agitpropjournalists  steadfastly ignore: ominous polling data from US  Muslims; jihad funding trial  revelations and the content of more banal Muslim litigation  proceedings; mosque  surveillance reports; analyses  of Islamic education institutions and their Muslim schoolchildren’s textbooks;  the issuance of obscurantist “fatwas” (Islamic legal rulings) by the respected,  mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America; and an open declaration by  one of America’s largest mainstream Muslim organizations, the Islamic Circle of  North America (ICNA), in its 2010 ICNA Member’s  Hand Book, which calls for the (re-)creation of a global Muslim Caliphate,  and the imposition of Sharia in America.

Notwithstanding  the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA’s) mainstream acceptance,  including uncritical  endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October  15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA  has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here),  “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here),  or adulterers (by stoning to death, here),  and condone  marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr.  Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America  and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether  “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could  take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

The  Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at  this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive  jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage.  But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows  best.

Just  six months ago (3/14/12), Translating  Jihad put what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely  Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing-and entirely unacceptable, seditious  context. AMJA’s own  words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the  US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.

Read more at American Thinker

Andrew Bostom: Saleha Abedin and The Muslim Sisterhood

By Andrew Bostom:

The extent of Dr. Abedin’s influence on her daughter Huma Abedin’s views and efforts—the latter still a close aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—should long ago have been investigated, clarified, and discussed in the public domain. Where is the mainstream media? Where are our political leaders, other than the wrongfully maligned Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and Representatives Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney? The overall silence—punctuated by ignorant and vicious attacks on those few bravely seeking answers, represents a grotesque and dangerous dereliction of duty.

********

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and four other members of Congress—Representatives Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney—have all expressed legitimate concerns to the State Department  Inspector General (IG; and IGs of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice) regarding policies “enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its interests.” The five Representatives, in turn, characterize these policies, more ominously (albeit appropriately) as “deeply problematic,” and even posing overt “…security risks for this nation, its people and interests.”

My colleagues Andrew McCarthy and Diana West have each contributed thoughtful, irrefragable rebuttals to the uninformed attacks on these intrepid Representatives—particularly Congresswoman Bachmann—epitomized by the distressingly ignorant, hypocritical, and scurrilous remarks of “maverick” Senator John McCain. McCain’s non-sequitur, Captain Queeg-like Senate floor diatribe perseverated on his warped reconstruction of Congresswoman Bachmann’s passing query  about the State Department vetting process for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin.

I share the Congresswoman’s concerns based upon readily available, objective evidence (discussed below), and traditional, long established State Department protocols which screen the background of candidates for such sensitive positions in the diplomatic corps, to avert any potential “foreign influence.”

During a February 2010 speech at Dar Al-Hekma College, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged she visited the college at the behest of her Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, daughter of Dr. Saleha Abedin, the Vice Dean of Academic Affairs and founding member of the institution. Dr. Abedin’s remarks, elaborated on the pioneering efforts being made by Dar Al-Hekma to collaborate with international educational organizations and programs that might expand opportunities for the Saudi Arabian college’s students and graduates.

So who is Dr. Saleha Abedin? According to World Who’s Who, Saleha Mahmood Abedin (b. 1940), is  a British sociologist, Muslim scholar and academic. She received her PhD from the  University of Pennsylvania in 1977, for a thesis entitled, “Islam and Muslim Fertility: Sociological Dimensions of a Demographic Dilemma.” Dr. Abedin is Director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in London, and Editor-in-Chief of the Institute’s Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.  She is also a Professor of Sociology at King Abdulaziz University Women’s College, Jeddah, and, as noted, the Founder of Dar Al-Hekma College, Jeddah.

An investigative report by Al Liwa Al Arabi (reported, in part, at Al-Jazeera, and translated via Walid Shoebat) further revealed that Dr. Abedin—Huma’s mother—was an active member of the Muslim Sisterhood—the women’s “component” of the prototype modern (i.e., circa 1928), traditionalist Islamic jihad movement, the Muslim Brotherhood. According to the late (d. 1983) Richard P. Mitchell’s definitive scholarly analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood’s origins, and initial quarter century of development, movement founder Hasan al-Banna,

…made known his concern about the essential role of women in his Islamic reformation, for if reform was to succeed, it must begin with the individual in his family context; the mother was thus a prime instrument of the reformation. Among the first projects was the creation of an “Institute for the Mothers of the Believers” in Ismailiyya. This “school.” In April 1933, became the first official “branch of the Muslim Sisters”…

During a critical juncture in the Muslim Brotherhood’s history—subsequent to al-Banna’s assassination in 1949, and several years later, the aggressive Nasser regime campaign to dismantle the Brotherhood—an heroic female figure in MB lore emerged, Zaynab al-Ghazzali (d. 2005; although technically, despite having pledged herself to al-Banna’s cause shortly before his murder, she remained a member of the MB-independent, “Muslim Ladies Association”). Eventually imprisoned for 6-years in the 1960s, she served a year with thousands of Muslim Brothers, including the seminal MB ideologue Sayyid Qutb, before being sent to the women’s prison. Al-Gahzzali’s autobiographical prison memoir, “Return of the Pharaoh,” elucidates her Weltanschauung. For example, before ultimately separating from her husband, Al-Ghazzali recounts this frank discussion:

I reached an agreement with Hasan al-Banna during the trial of 1948, shortly before he was martyred. I had decided, then, to relinquish the idea of getting married for ever, so that I would devote my entire life to da’wah [proselytizing, to disseminate Islam]. I cannot ask you [i.e., her husband] today to share with me this struggle, but it is my right on you not to stop me from jihad in the way of Allah. Moreover, you should not ask me about my activities with other mujahidin, and let trust be full between us. A full trust between a man and a woman, a woman who, at the age of 18, gave her whole life to Allah and da’wah. In the event of any clash between the marriage contract’s interest and that of da’wah, our marriage will end, but da’wah will always remain rooted in me.

Zaynab al-Ghazzali refused to be broken by her imprisonment under Nasser, and enthusiastically imbibed Qutb’s “revivalist” jihadism—a doctrine that simply recapitulated the classical jurisprudential features of this millennial old, uniquely Islamic institution, and quintessence of the Muslim creed:

The Ikhwan are the same as the Muslim Ladies Group and the da’wah of Allah carries on and the word of truth is upheld forever. Nasir will perish, but the Word of Allah will persist. When our life-terms come to an end, the unjust will surely know what final destiny they are headed for. Allah’s religion will be upheld, and there will always be a group from the Muslim Ummah who will uphold truth, defend our religion, and make Jihad for His sake. This group will not be affected by those who oppose them until Allah establishes His Will. I pray to Allah to be from among those who enjoin truth and forbid falsehood, from those who show the Ummah its way to Allah. For these are the successors of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and it is the people who will revive this religion.

…We had decided, following Sayyid Qutb’s instructions and with the consent of al-Hudaibi [who succeeded al-Banna as the MB’s “Spiritual Guide”], to extend the period of education, training and planting of tawhid [monotheism] in people’s hearts, to thirteen years. This accorded with da’wah’s age in Makkah. The grassroots of the Muslim Ummah in Egypt were members of the Ikhwan who adhered to the Shari’ah of Allah. We were bound to establish all the commands mentioned in the Qur’an and the Sunnah inside our Islamic circle. Obedience was due to our sworn-in.

In a 1981 interview with Valerie Hoffman (published here), Al-Ghazzali stated:

The Brotherhood considers women a fundamental part of the Islamic call. They are the ones who are most active because men have to work. They are the ones who build the kind of men that we need to fill the ranks of the Islamic call. So women must be well educated, cultured, knowing the precepts of the Koran and Sunna, knowing world politics, why we are backward, why we don’t have technology. The Muslim woman must study all these things, and then raise her son in the conviction that he must possess the scientific tools of the age, and at the same time he must understand Islam, politics, geography, and current events … Islam does not forbid women to actively participate in public life … as long as that does not interfere with her first duty as a mother, the one who first trains her children in the Islamic call. So her first, holy, and most important mission is to be a mother and wife. She cannot ignore this priority. If she than finds she has free time, she may participate in public activities … Marriage is a sure Sunna … a mission and a trust in Islam…It is to preserve the human race, establish the family, build the man and the woman, to build the ruler, to bring about righteous government.

Fittingly, when al-Ghazzali was asked what she would do if she came to power she replied that under Islamic rule Muslim women “would retreat to their natural domain as nurturers of the nation’s men.”

Saleha Abedin, and her contemporary cohorts in the Muslim Sisterhood, such as prominent Egyptian MB leader Khairat Al-Shater’s daughter Zahraa, and Naglaa Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Egypt’s newly-elected President, the MB’s Mohammed Morsi, represent the living legacy of Zaynab al-Ghazzali.

But the fulcrum of Saleha Abedin’s own cultural jihadist universe—consistent with being a Muslim Sister—may well be serving as Chairperson of the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child (IICWC), in Amman, Jordan.

A clearly documented report at Legal Insurrection, which simply quotes the IICWC website (in google translator Arabic to English translation of sections from this IICWC post), demonstrates how Dr. Abedin’s organization, as a champion of the Sharia over “manmade law,” vehemently opposes both laws which prohibit child marriage, and bans on the misogynistic barbarity of female genital mutilation (FGM)—an horrific scourge in major Muslim countries such as Arab Egypt, and far flung non-Arab Indonesia, where FGM rates exceed 90% because Shafiite Sunni Islamic jurisprudence predominates in both Muslim countries.

It should be noted such Muslim “jurisprudential logic” is already shared by the US Muslim community. Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)—Muslim legists in the US who train US imams, advise US Muslims, and are embraced by mainstream, institutional American Islam—also endorses both FGM and child marriage, in logical compliance with the Sharia.

IICWC website pronouncements notwithstanding, a far more comprehensive elaboration of Dr. Abedin’s traditionalist Islamic Weltanschauung—rigidly compliant with the totalitarian Sharia—can be gleaned from her vigorous efforts to assist in translating into English, editing, and publishing the book, Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations

The inner flap of the book cover provides the following “erudite” discussion of author Fatima Umar Naseef’s (b. 1944) bona fides. She is described (quoting verbatim) as

…an accomlished [sic] and renowned scholaar [sic], speaker, academic, educationist and social worker in contemporary Saudi Arabia. She has made outstanding contribution to the advancement of women’s education in the country. As head of the women’s section of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah for eight years, and as professor of Islamic Shari’ah, and through her popular public lectures, she has inspired a generation of Saudi women. She has also published a number of books and articles on issues relating to Islamic Shari’ah, the position and status of women in society, and on the subject of their rights and Obligations.

On the back cover, Saleha Abedin, who edited and supervised the translation of Naseef’s scholarly oeuvre, adds these observations for context:

The overall objectives of IICWC include the promotion of knowledge regarding women’s issues. It fosters a publication program that is aimed to facilitate the collection as well as dissemination of information on women, family and society. The Committee is, therefore, pleased to launch its Book Series with its very first publication of the translation of the popular and well-received book, Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations, authored by a prominent Saudi scholar, Fatima Umar Naseef.

This book will be of special interest to students and scholars of Islamic law and women’s studies, as well as to that segment of the general public that is interested in women’s issues. It is a comprehensive study of the rights and obligations of women in society from the Islamic perspective, and also provides a comparison with other cultures, while examining the rights and positions of women in those cultures.

What follows are a series of verbatim quotes from Women in Islam. These extracts provide res ipsa loquitur, pellucid illustrations of the traditionalist Islamic views being promulgated without any attempt to mollify, i.e., conceal from Western sensibilities, their bellicosity, liberty-crushing supremacism, and misogyny. I thank the Center for Security Policy (CSP) for this selection of representative extracts, and have simply reproduced the CSP’s arrangement and parenthetical guiding observations, adding some commentary of my own.

Read the rest at Front Page

Mainstream American Muslim Group Warns Muslims Against Becoming “Pleased with a Legal System That Does Not Come from Allah”

 
 
The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) cautioned American Muslims in a 22-page Arabic-language paper in 2008 against working in law enforcement in countries which do not rule by Allah’s dictates. One of their main concerns was that such work might cause Muslims to gain love and respect for secular laws:

…there are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah. It could also cause reverence and love for these rulings to enter the heart of the police officer, and perhaps spread to the hearts of his family members and other Muslims who see him at the mosque or even Muslims in general. They could lose conviction of governance by Allah, and become pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah. (italics added)

AMJA provided some allowances for Muslims to work in certain law enforcement professions, fearing that a lack of Muslim representation in this sector could bring negative effects for the Muslim community. They also reasoned that Muslims working as police officers might be able to use their positions to help the Muslim community, such as helping out with traffic near their mosques and protecting their mosques. Still, there was concern that some of these might be required to enforce laws contrary to the shari’a, such as “arrest[ing] a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her.”

The AMJA paper specifically forbade Muslims from working for the FBI or in national security positions, due to their alleged arbitrary targeting of certain Muslims for “their political beliefs, charity work, or some of their convictions under the shari’a”–an apparent reference to counterterrorism investigations against Muslim suspects.

The paper also made clear that Muslims are to seek justice not in secular courts, but in Islamic courts which are compliant with their shari’a:  “It is not permissible to pursue justice in the man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a shari’a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one’s rights and working out one’s grievances” (see my translation of another AMJA paper on working in the judiciary here).

Throughout the paper it is made clear that the duty of Muslims is not to uphold and respect the laws of the land in which they reside, but rather to do everything in their power to make the laws of Allah–the shari’a–supreme:

[Muslims are] to seek through legal means which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar’ia, and (not only) for personal affairs.

The duty to make Islam supreme comes above all, even preserving one’s life:

We must remember that preserving the religion comes before preserving one’s self, mind, wealth, honor, or offspring. […] But if saving [the individual’s] life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes first, even if it means the individual is destroyed. This is the case with jihad against the infidels, and the killing of apostates, and so forth.

It is worth stressing once again that AMJA–whose stated purpose is to “clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America”–is a mainstream American Muslim organization. Their membership list contains a large number of highly-influential American imams and Muslim leaders, including Muhammad al-Majid of the Adam Center in Virginia; Hussein Hamed Hassan, director of the financial consultancy firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other large American banking institutions; Zulfiqar Ali Shah, former president of Islamic Circle of North America and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America; and the author of this paper, Dr. Hatem al-Haj, MD, PhD, a fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, and founder and president of “Building Blocks of Islam.”

A longer list of some of their prominent American members follows:
Read more..

Mainstream American Muslim Jurists’ Blueprint for Undermining America’s Legal System

By Andrew Bostom:

Salah al-Sawy, mainstream AMJA “jurist”, expresses his patriotic views on US citizenship:

As for obtaining citizenships in light of circumstances of Muslims today who are residing outside the lands of Islam — on the condition that they do not accept indefinitely the law and legislation of that country and being indefinite belonging to the nation of the non-Muslim country so that they become loyal to all their allies and an enemy to all their enemies — and obtaining the citizenship is considered a required means in order to organize the affairs of Muslims who already live there while ensuring fulfilling vows and agreements between them and host countries, and exists due to urgent necessities and needs and this Muslim kept his loyalty to Allaah and His Messenger, then it would not be farfetched to say that it would be permissible.

***

Since all of the earth was bequeathed by Allah to “the best of humanity”—i.e., the Muslims (Koran 3:110)—the ancient, but timeless jihad war imperative is to render the entire globe “dar al Islam”—territory under Muslim suzerainty, and governed by Allah’s “law”, the totalitarian Sharia.  An explicit, if “legalistic” statement of this goal is the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), re-named the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on June 28, 2011.

Now a 56 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth, the OIC, currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations (UN).  Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights, and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made as the best community [Koran 3:110] and which gave humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization, in which harmony is established between hereunder and the hereafter, knowledge is combined with faith, and to fulfill the expectations from this community to guide all humanity which is confused because of different and conflicting beliefs and ideologies and to provide solutions for all chronic problems of this materialistic civilization…Article 22: (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia. (a1) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia…Article 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia…Article 25: The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Sharia—the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on “divine revelation,” which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus one can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions gross limitations on freedom (i.e., abrogating freedom of conscience and speech, via “apostasy” and “blasphemy” laws), and legal inequalities inherent in the Sharia, and its Western human rights counterparts (the US Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which guarantee freedom of conscience and expression, and do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, stressing the absolute equality of all human beings before the law.

My colleague Translating Jihad has just rendered into English an Arabic-language paper published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) in 2007, and presented at their 2008 careers conference in Houston. As he observes, aptly, in his introduction to the posting, “Credit goes to the Center for Security Policy for discovering this paper and bringing it to me for translation.”

The mission statement  of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) maintains the organization was, “…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities…” With regard to the Sharia, specifically, AMJA’s stated purpose is to “clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America.” AMJA is well-accepted by the mainstream American Muslim community.  The Islamic scholars affiliated with this group maintain influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. Translating Jihad compiled a list of some of their prominent members, including the names of universities and other organizations with which they’re affiliated, accessed from AMJA’s website:

  • Mohammad Naeem AlSaei, University of Texas, American Open University (AOU) (Virginia);
  • Waleed Basyouni, North American Imam Federation (NAIF) (Arizona), Texas Dawah Convention, AlMaghrib Institute (Texas);
  • Hatem AlHaj, Sharia Academy of America (Florida), Albert Lea Medical Center (Minnesota), NAIF, Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota;
  • Waleed Al-Maneese, Dar-al-Farooq Islamic Center (Minnesota), University of Minnesota, AOU, NAIF;
  • Muwaffak Al Ghaylany, Islamic Center in Grand Blank City (Minnesota), Shari`a Academy in America (Florida), NAIF:
  • Main Al-Qudah,  MAS Katy Center (Texas), AOU, Islamic American University (Minnesota), Al-Yarmook University (Iraq);
  • Salah Alsawy, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences (Virginia), AOU, Sharia Academy (Florida), Al-Azhar University (Egypt), Umm Al Qura University (Saudi Arabia); and
  • Muhammad Adam Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.
  • Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.

Notwithstanding this mainstream acceptance, including uncritical endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October 15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here), “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here), or adulterers (by stoning to death, here), and condone marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr. Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.

It is also of grave concern that AMJA, as an American organization, offers only grudging and conditional support to the fundamental notions of acquiring citizenship in, and swearing allegiance to, the U.S. and our Sharia-antithetical governing legal system. Responding to the query: “Is acquiring an American citizenship lawful or prohibited?” AMJA issued fatwa #77223:

As for optionally obtaining citizenship of a non-Muslim country it is definitely prohibited without a doubt, moreover it could be a form of apostasy or main means leading to apostasy because willingly accepting the laws of disbelievers and obeying it without any valid excuse or enforcement, or ignorance is considered a nullifier to Tawheed and Islam, as long as the proof has been established upon this person and the matter and its consequences are as I clarified. As for obtaining citizenships in light of circumstances of Muslims today who are residing outside the lands of Islam — on the condition that they do not accept indefinitely the law and legislation of that country and being indefinite belonging to the nation of the non-Muslim country so that they become loyal to all their allies and an enemy to all their enemies — and obtaining the citizenship is considered a required means in order to organize the affairs of Muslims who already live there while ensuring fulfilling vows and agreements between them and host countries, and exists due to urgent necessities and needs and this Muslim kept his loyalty to Allaah and His Messenger, then it would not be farfetched to say that it would be permissible.

Now, Translating Jihad puts what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing—and entirely unacceptable, seditious context. AMJA’s own words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.

Read the rest…