America delights in Carson’s honesty on Islam


WND, by Pamela Geller, Sep. 28, 2015:

Presidential candidate Ben Carson has been the victim of a media lynching for saying he would oppose a Muslim running for president. Carson is being savaged by the media for saying, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” and speaking about Shariah and taqiyya. But a new poll reveals that more than half of all U.S. voters agree with him.

Also, Ben Carson is up 6 percent in the national polls since he made these remarks. (Carly Fiorina, meanwhile, rightly suffered in the polls for denouncing Carson on Jimmy Fallon’s “Tonight Show.”)

This is one of those wonderful moments when the too-cute-by-half media cynically set up a gotcha journalism moment to trip up the GOP candidates to knock them down. It’s a media art form at this point.

A Washington Post “fact checker” went so far as to serve up taqiyya about taqiyya to “refute” Carson, asking a group of dishonest leftist and Islamic supremacist academics about Carson’s statements about taqiyya.

But it didn’t work. Not this time. John Nolte wrote in Breitbart that “obviously, Kessler’s world of experts is disturbingly provincial. If a left-wing academic says it, it must be true is not fact checking.”

That wasn’t the only way the Carson firestorm backfired, and beautifully. Because, finally, we were able to have a much-needed public conversation about jihad and Shariah, subject matters verboten by the Shariah-compliant gatekeepers of the American media. But the media are still going to go after Carson like ISIS on a Christian.

The GOP is the only one of the two parties that will even discuss the 800-pound elephant in the room: jihad and Muslim terrorism. Islamic supremacists and their leftist lapdogs in the media are waging their own jihad to silence this debate, and it is critical that we push back and support candidates who dare to speak against the gravest threat to our national security.

ISIS is here: ISIS sympathizers or jihadis have held up signs in Ferguson, Missouri, outside the White House and in Chicago. There have been several Islamic State-inspired jihad plots in the U.S. already.

The lines are drawn: Which GOP will stand up against terror groups in the U.S.?

Ben Carson is right. Electing a Muslim president would be dangerous. We have seen the Islamic pattern of previously moderate Muslims becoming devout and then aiding and abetting jihad. How could we be sure a Muslim president would not do the same?

And look at Barack Obama. Why do people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim? He claims he is a Christian, but his father and his stepfather were Muslims, and he was raised in a Muslim country. He went to an Islamic school and excelled in Quran classes while growing up in Jakarta.

Because of his upbringing, he is Islamophiliac, and his foreign and domestic policies reflect this. Obama’s advancement of Islam has been disastrous for freedom and freedom-loving peoples across the world. He has sided with jihadists in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Gaza and their counterparts in America, i.e. terror-tied CAIR.

Obama’s pro-jihad policies and his Shariah adherence (“the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”) tell us more about him than words or agitprop ever could. He rules like a Muslim leader. And the media wonder why so many people think Obama is a Muslim? Obama has banned the word “jihad” and any discussion of Islam from State, Defense and Justice Department vernacular and counter-terrorism materials.

He is denying that jihad is the enemy, while his Justice Department acts as the de facto legal arm for Muslim Brotherhood groups in America. And the Obama administration has held hundreds of meetings with U.S. Hamas front groups.

It’s not a question of “Islamophobia” or “racism,” or ignorance, for that matter. You can’t know what’s in a man’s heart, but “by their fruits ye shall know him, and so we know him.”

We must vocally and unequivocally stand by Ben Carson. This is a critical moment.

Also see:

André Carson Proves Ben Carson’s Point on Sharia

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

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

Ben Carson has said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it at WND

Mohammed Goes to Washington?

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

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

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

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

Click below to watch:

Also see:

Sharia and the U.S. Constitution

082411_koran-constitution-lg“(Mohammed) declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny that (Mohammed) is the prophet of God.”
President John Quincy Adams
Son of President John Adams

By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, 6/20/14:
It is a historical fact that America’s first war following the Revolution was a war with the Muslim (Barbary) states. In 1786, two of America’s greatest founders, John Adams (Ambassador to England) and Thomas Jefferson (Ambassador to France) met with the emissary of Tripoli to Britain – Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja to discuss the Barbary Pirates demands for tribute from U.S. ships. After this meeting, Adams and Jefferson submitted a report to Congress detailing Adja’s answer to why the Muslims were attacking the U.S. ships without any provocation. The report reads, in part:
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that is was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

As we close this weeks series on Sharia and its importance in today’s world events, it must be again reiterated that everything the United States is dealing with in the current war is all about Sharia. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic states around the world, and the doctrine of Islam itself all mandate Sharia be imposed on the entire world until there is “Peace.”

It seems fitting, then, to conclude our series on the most basic of questions: Is Sharia comparable with our Constitutional Republic in any way? The unequivocal answer is NO.

Article VI of the Constitution mandates that “…all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

By an Act of the U.S. Congress under Title 5 Section 3331 of the U.S. Code, all elected or appointed officials shall take an oath as prescribed in that law to defend the Constitution against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Former Inspector General of the United States Department of Defense and Constitutional professor Joseph Schmitz has specifically highlighted three key areas where Sharia is in direct contradiction with our Constitution: Popular Sovereignty, Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion.

Specifically, the U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, identifies the People as sovereign under our system. Sharia specifically states all of mankind must submit to Islam: “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Allah Almighty alone.” (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Mohammed Hashim Kalamali)

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states “This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land.” As was noted in an earlier UTT Blog this week, the most popular Junior High School text in American Islamic schools – What Islam is All About – states, “The law of the land is the Shari’ah of Allah.”

Finally, the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom to practice their faith and religion without government interference. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Sharia, which comes from the Quran and the example/teachings of the prophet Mohammed, states “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie and wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5); and “But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn away from Islam, seize them and slay them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from among their ranks.” (Quran 4:89) In Sharia, there is no disagreement among the scholars and 100% of authoritative Islamic Law legally puts Muslims at a higher status in the community with greater rights than those of non-Muslims, and 100% of all Islamic Law mandates that all apostates from Islam be killed.

What the Global Islamic Movement intends to do, and says it intends to do, and is killing tens of thousands of people across the globe and overthrowing countries in furtherance of, is the imposition of Sharia on the world. This is not about religious freedom for Muslims in any way. It is about a violent and organized effort to impose foreign law (Sharia) on American citizens in direct conflict of the U.S Constitution and U.S. Federal Code.

Those who have sworn an Oath to protect and defend America and our Constitution must do so against any incursion into our system by Sharia. Sharia should be viewed as a cancer inside our system – a viewpoint which was crystal clear to our Founders.

First Amendment v. Sharia: Sixth Circuit Asked to Overturn Federal Court Decision that Condoned “Benghazi-like” Attack on Christians


Cincinnati, Ohio (July 8, 2013) — The American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed its opening brief on Friday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking the court to overturn a lower court’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by several Christian evangelists who were violently attacked by a hostile mob of Muslims while preaching at an Arab festival last year in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest Muslim population in the United States.  Video of the Muslim assault went viral on YouTube.

AFLC had filed the lawsuit in September 2012 on behalf of the Christians against Wayne County, the Wayne County Sheriff, and two Wayne County Deputy Chiefs for not only refusing to protect the Christians from the attack but also for threatening to arrest the Christians for disorderly conduct if they did not halt their speech activity and immediately leave the festival area.

This past May, Federal Judge Patrick J. Duggan, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted Wayne County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.  In his ruling, Judge Duggan stated that “the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.”

In its opening brief in the Sixth Circuit, AFLC argues that “liberty is at an end if a police officer may without warrant arrest, not the person threatening violence, but those who are its likely victims merely because the person arrested is engaging in conduct which, though peaceful and legally and constitutionally protected, is deemed offensive and provocative . . . .  Indeed, the district court’s decision compels private citizens who engage in . . . constitutionally protected conduct to surrender their fundamental right to freedom of speech to mob rule because violence now serves as a lawful justification for the government to suppress a speaker’s unpopular message.  As a result, the district court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech—an outcome squarely at odds with the First Amendment.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “The district court’s ruling is an unprecedented blow to the First Amendment.  Indeed, the fact that the court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech jeopardizes the constitutional safeguards that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to establish.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented, “In light of the ongoing Muslim violence around the world, particularly against Christians in Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere, this ruling effectively empowers Muslims in America to engage in violence to silence Christian speech that they deem offensive.  And pursuant to this ruling, it is perfectly justified for law enforcement officials to respond to such violence by arresting the Christian speakers for engaging in disorderly conduct instead of apprehending the violent Muslims.  The ramifications of this ruling are ominous, which is why the appellate court must overturn it.”

The Guarantee Clause: Congress’ Duty to Oppose Theocracy in the United States

082411_koran-constitution-lgBy Robert M. Petrusak:

[Editor’s note: New Gingrich has called for a Federal ban on Sharia law in America.]

Theocracy is inherently oppressive and contrary to America’s core values. It regards God as the sovereign and source of law. It therefore places the coercive power of the state–including interpretation and enforcement of law–in the hands of believers. It excludes non-believers from the body politic and brings them suffering. In total contrast, the Declaration of Independence regards God not as a source of coercive power, but as a guarantor of inalienable rights including liberty and equality. The Declaration states that government derives its sovereign authority or “just powers” not from God, but “from the consent of the governed.” This concept of popular sovereignty is reflected not only in the preamble of the Constitution, but also in the “Guarantee Clause” of Article IV, Section 4 which obligates the federal government to preserve a republican form of government in every state. The Constitution also precludes theocracy through the First Amendment’s ban on laws respecting establishments of religion or prohibiting “free exercise” of religious beliefs.

Political Islam or “Islamism” is theocratic. It may be defined as a belief that Islam should control society and politics, not simply personal religious life. Accordingly to the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis, the ideal Islamic polity recognizes God as sole sovereign and law-giver and assigns believers the task of spreading His revelation until the entire world accepts it. This is to be achieved by extending the authority and membership of the community that follows God’s law, the Shariah, which deals with the acquisition and exercise of power and the duties of ruler and subject. [1] Accordingly, Shariah is not simply a prescription for exercising personal belief through activity such as prayer and diet. It is a system of laws that affects the conduct of both believers and non- believers in Islamic theocracies. More ominously, expansion of the community that regards God as sovereign suggests contraction and disempowerment of the community which does not.

Political Islam therefore challenges the United States Constitution, particularly its embrace of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty. There is concern that this challenge includes not only violent terrorism but an ideological struggle against non-Islamic courts and legal systems and the principle that the people, not God, are the source of political and legal authority .There is similarly concern that Islamists seek to establish “functionally Islamic governments” in every nation [2] and that toward this end, they will create divisive alternative communities by insinuating Islamic rules of conduct for the temporal world into courts and other institutions. There is even concern that Islamism will limit traditional free speech through application of its restrictions on defamation of religion or blasphemy. [3]

Such concerns have resulted in “anti-shariah legislation” in various states and subsequent court battles over whether such laws violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. However, such concerns raise issues of national importance because efforts to make public institutions Shariah-compliant may violate not only the First Amendment’s provisions on religion or free speech but also the Fourteenth Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. The former guarantees due process and equal protection; the latter proclaims the supremacy of federal statutes, treaties and constitutional provisions. Moreover, Article IV, Section 4 creates an affirmative federal obligation to guarantee a non-theocratic, “Republican Form of Government” in every state.

The very essence of republican government is the belief that sovereignty rests with the people. [4]. Our Constitution is derived exclusively from the people and alterable only by them through elected representatives. Similarly, elected representatives and elected or duly-appointed judges, not religious leaders, enact and interpret our statutory law. [5] These principles of popular sovereignty support the Article IV guarantee of republican government and are related to the concept of equality. Thus, the guarantee clause would be invoked in the struggle against slavery and in the post-Civil War struggle to include freed slaves in the body politic. [6] In this regard, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection evolved from our concept of republican government, [7] and a state that denies this fundamental right similarly violates Article IV, Section 4. The introduction into American courts, of laws or legal principles derived from a sovereign God or religious texts cannot be tolerated and the federal government has a clear responsibility to keep theocracy out of state courts and other public institutions.

Read more at Right Side News

Muslim Group Calls for ‘Litigation Jihad’

Group from Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International

Group from Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International

The objective of the “litigation jihad” is more than freeing Muslims from jail. It’s a strategy to institute Sharia law in the U.S.

By Ryan Mauro:

The website of the Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International (SIIASI), based in Pittsburgh, P.A., calls on Muslims to engage in “litigation jihad” as a means of moving the U.S. towards Sharia law. The anti-American group had its offices raided by the FBI in 2006.

“The United States has long held Muslim political prisoners within its federal, state and now privatized penal colonies. It is by waging a litigation jihad [sic] in the US penal system that some redress can be made in the international community as well. It is for this reason that Muslim inmate legal actions in the US courts constitute the front line of defense of Islam,” SIIASI says.

The objective of the “litigation jihad” is bigger than freeing Muslims from jail. It continues:

“Every successful Muslim litigation passed in the U.S. courts, is a standardization and recognition of the Islamic shari’a….but more importantly it is a perfecting and refining of the United States constitution.”

The organization states that the jihad should lead an “internationally recognized SOCIAL CONTRACT between the United States and its Muslim national minorities; which is consistent with the shari’a, but does not challenge the sovereignty of the United States.”

Don’t be fooled by the moderate costume disguising the extremist language.

SIIASI’s leader, Imam Muhammad Shareef, regularly refers to the U.S. as “Amerikkka.” He preaches against democracy and in favor of violent jihad. In 2010, Shareef condemned the “the pseudo-religion redefined by the pacifist “imams” who deny the obligation of jihad and who have deluded their followers into the fruitless activity of supporting democratic constitutional government.”

He then quoted Mohammed, the founder of Islam, as saying “There is coming upon man a time when some of the religious scholars will say, ‘This is not a time for jihad.’  For whoever comes upon that time, then know that the most blessed action during that time will be jihad.”


In the wake of the Boston bombings, we must not focus only on the acts themselves, but the ideology that drove them. The anti-American ideology it espouses is the egg from which jihadists hatch.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Bad Moon Rising: The Sharia Law Bans

-1968136017Center For Security Policy:

Against the backdrop of the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a heightened interest in the role of Islam in American society and the subsequent clash of civilizations remains.  Specifically, public concern continues to grow across the country about the use of Sharia Law, or Islamic Law, within American courts.  As a result, well over a dozen state legislatures have introduced or passed legislation that prohibits or limits the use of Sharia Law or foreign law in state courts.  These bills have taken two distinct forms: Sharia-specific and facially-neutral bills.  Regardless of classification, these legislative efforts have triggered a number of constitutional concerns, with critics arguing that the bills violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.  Critics argue that the laws have a sectarian purpose and an effect of advancing one religion at the expense of another and thus fail the Supreme Court’s jurisprudential test.  Moreover, these critics argue that the laws burden the practice of religious faith. Indeed, this debate has undeniably opened a Pandora’s Box of constitutional concerns. Meanwhile, the bills’ proponents vigorously reject the accusation that the bills are hostile to Muslims or religious freedoms.  They argue that the bills are designed to proactively safeguard the secular constitutional role of government by prohibiting religious influence, specifically that of Sharia Law.

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


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, 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:



Dallas CAIR Director: “Muslims Are Above the Law of the Land.”

Mustafa Carroll

Mustafa Carroll

By Daniel Greenfield:

I for one welcome this new CAIR policy of honesty and openness. Any day now, maybe one of their directors will admit what they truly stand for.

A Council on American-Islamic Relations leader told a crowd at a rally for Islam that members of the faith should not be bound by American law.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

The rally in Austin was part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. The event included a speech by a representative of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, who declared that Texas was an awful place and that Islam was the answer.

“Why did Muhammad say that he would not rest until the Koran was the law of the land?”

“Islam does not have Texas in the current condition, the current socio-political condition that Texas is in. What is this condition that Texas is in? Why is Texas on the brink, when you look at Texas in comparison to 50 states, education, percent of population graduating from high school is 46, high school completion rate is 46, the scholastic assessment rate, the SAT score in Texas is 47, the percentage of population with no health insurance in Texas is first, those without health insurance Texas is first. When you look at the state of a child in Texas, the percentage of uninsured children, Texas is first… etc etc

You shouldn’t be filing legislation against Islam, when you look at Texas, Islam is not the problem. Islam is the solution. Allah Akbar.”

Clearly when we look at the literacy rates and health insurance rates in the Muslim world, we cannot help but see that Islam is the answer. That is assuming the question is how can we make Texas more like Somalia or Egypt.

Herman Mustafa Carroll had defended terrorists, perhaps on the same theory that Muslims are superior to the law of the land.

“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas.”

“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a book, reading a Quran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Quran told me to blow this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”

Oddly quite a few terrorists seem to read that book and blow people up. Others read the book and declare that Muslims are above the law of the land. It sounds as if these two phenomena share a common root cause.


Thousands of Salafists stage rally demanding Shariah in Egypt

Many experts on radical Islam warned the Obama administration that the overthrow of Egypt’s Mubarak would open the door to radical Islamists. And they were right.
 Credits:  MEMRI   

Conservative Action Alerts

by Jim Kouri

An estimated 30,000 Salafists, a radical Islamist sect, gathered at Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, over the weekend demanding a constitution containing provisions with strict adherence to the Prophet Mohammed’s Islamic laws known as Shariah, according to an Israeli intelligence source.

The country’s first civilian president, Mohamed Morsi, took office a mere 100 days ago with the hope of a peaceful and stable Egypt, but is now faced with a conflict over formulating the nation’s founding legal document — a constitution.

Gaining absolute power through last year’s massive demonstration that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak who reigned for decades, the so-called conservative Muslims are attempting the total Islamization of Egypt.

Take Action — Tell Congress to END Foreign Aid to Egypt!

Some of them, mainly the violence-prone Salafists, are calling for the full application of Shariah, known as regulations and rulings of their Holy Prophet Mohammed, in every political and social area of Egyptian living.

Even Muslims themselves are divided on to what extend they should be governed by the rulings of their Prophet, according to the intelligence source.

The Salafists called for a constitution based on the “rulings” of Shariah, which suggest a society abiding by the strict letter of what clerics say is meant in Islamic law.

Other Muslims, including some but not all the members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the best organized Islamic organization in Egypt, prefer a constitution based on the “principles” of Shariah, which allows greater leeway and is also favored by some liberals.

What is H.R. 973? It’s a simple, short bill designed to protect Americans from being forced under laws which we did not enact, but were enacted by foreign powers or foreign peoples.

Take Action and Stop Sharia in America: Tell Leaders to Co-Sponsor H.R. 973!

Sixty Percent of US Muslims Reject Freedom of Expression

By Andrew Bostom:

After violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish “Innocence of Muslims” video, which simply depicted a few of the less salutary aspects of Muhammad’s biography, international and domestic Islamic agendas have openly converged with vehement calls for universal application of Islamic blasphemy law. This demand to abrogate Western freedom of expression was reiterated  in a parade of speeches by Muslim leaders at the UN General Assembly. The US Muslim community echoed such admonitions, for example during a large demonstration in Dearborn, Michigan, and in a press release by the Islamic Circle of North America.

Now the results of polling data collected by Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 US Muslims, indicate widespread support among rank and file American votaries of Islam for this fundamental rejection of freedom expression, as guaranteed under the US Constitution. The first amendment states, plainly,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” while only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma. Indeed, oblivious to US constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and 17% were “unsure”.  Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.”

Also, consistent with such findings 43% of these US Muslims rejected the right of members of other faiths to proselytize to adherents of Islam, disagreeing, “…that U.S. citizens have a right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths.” Additional confirmatory data revealed that nearly two-fifths (39%) agreed “…that Shariah law should be considered when adjudicating cases that involve Muslims, ” while nearly one-third (32%) of this American Muslim sample believed “…Shariah law should be the supreme law of the land in the US.”

These alarming data remind us that despite intentionally obfuscating apologetics, Sharia, Islamic law, is not merely holistic, in the general sense of all-encompassing, but totalitarian, regulating everything from the ritual aspects of religion, to personal hygiene, to the governance of a Muslim minority community, Islamic state, bloc of states, or global Islamic order. Clearly, this latter political aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient antecedent of more familiar modern totalitarian systems. Specifically, Sharia’s liberty-crushing and dehumanizing political aspects feature: 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.

And the US Muslim data mirror global Islamic trends. Previously, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (subsequently renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC])—the largest voting bloc in the UN, which represents all the major Muslim countries, and the Palestinian Authority—had sponsored and actually navigated to passage a compromise U.N. resolution insisting countries criminalize what it calls “defamation of religion.” Though the language of the OIC “defamation of religion” resolution has been altered at times, the OIC’s goal has remained the same—to impose at the international level a Sharia-compliant conception of freedom of speech and expression that would severely limit anything it arbitrarily deemed critical of, or offensive to, Islam or Muslims. This is readily apparent by reading the OIC’s supervening “alternative” to both the US Bill of Rights and the UN’s own 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, i.e., the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

Read more

End the Shariah War on Women

The Center for Security Policy has launched a national public education campaign to ask America’s leaders to end the real ‘war on women’ — the Shariah War On Women. ( This website features the personal stories of many women whose lives have been affected by sharia. There is a letter to President Obama you can sign urging him to take action, a flyer you can download and print out titled, A Guide to Shariah Law vs. the Constitution as well as rally signs. A very extensive page of resources is provided.


Shariah law oppresses women’s liberties and human rights, denying them their unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:

* Life: Shariah destroys women’s lives through honor killings, physical abuse, female genital mutilation, and rape.  This occurs not only to Muslim women but also to Christian and secular women through acts of kidnapping, imprisonment and murder.

* Liberty: Shariah crushes women’s liberty through censoring free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association.

* Pursuit of Happiness: Shariah punishes women’s pursuit of happiness by denying equal rights and freedom in marriage, divorce, child custody, education and employment.

In the video above, a panel discussion, moderated by Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and featuring several prominent civil liberties and human rights activists, launched the national campaign to end the Shariah War On Women. Panelists included:

Nonie Darwish: Ms. Darwish is an American human rights activist, writer, public speaker as well as founder and Director of Former Muslims United and founder of Arabs For Israel. She is the author of a new book titled The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East.  She is also the author of Now they Call Me Infidel; Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror and Cruel And Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. She speaks frequently at college campuses, religious institutions and civic association meetings. She is currently a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy.

Cynthia Farahat: Ms. Farahat is an Egyptian political activist, writer and researcher. In December 2011, Ms. Farahat testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the US House of Representatives on the roots of the persecution of the Coptic Christian minority in her native Egypt. In 2008-2009, she was program coordinator and program officer at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty in Cairo, a multi-national free market think tank. She co-founded the Liberal Egyptian Party (2006-2008) and served as a member of its political committee. She is a fellow at the Middle East Forum and the Center for Security Policy and works with the Coptic Solidarity organization.

Clare Lopez: Ms. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, homeland security, national defense, and counterterrorism issues. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments, acquiring extensive expertise in counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterproliferation issues with a career regional focus on the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center for Security Policy, The Rise of the Iran Lobby, where she serves as a Senior Fellow.

Karen Lugo: Karen Lugo is the founder of The Libertas-West Project and in this capacity she responded to a request from French jurists to submit a brief to the Conseil d’Etat on the legal grounds for banning the burqa. Karen is also Co-Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. In this role, she directs the Center’s litigation in support of constitutional issues. She has submitted amicus briefs to the US Supreme Court on such issues as Healthcare Reform, Arizona’s Border Security, Gay Marriage, The Ten Commandments, Christian Clubs on University Campuses, and Material Support to Terrorists. She is a visiting professor at Chapman Law School and co-teaches the advanced Constitutional Law Clinic. Karen is president of the Orange County Federalist Society lawyer chapter and sits on the Federalist Society International Law Executive Committee. She is also on the board of advisors for Trinity Law School in Orange County, CA and an advisor to UK Baroness Caroline Cox’s HART US. Karen is a regular guest on the Orange County PBS local issues debate program, Inside OC, and she is a frequent contributor to, FlashReport, and contributing editor to Family Security Matters. She has been interviewed by dozens of radio hosts on the matter of sharia law. Ms. Lugo is an appointee to the California Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights.

Andrew McCarthy: Rule of Law, Equal Protection Threatened Under Obama DOJ


Andy McCarthy twice addressed the AIM “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth” conference. The author and former federal prosecutor discussed the Obama Justice Department, under the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder. McCarthy successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

“What we’re seeing in this administration,” said McCarthy, “is not only an out-of-whack choice about what their priorities ought to be, but the actual use of political philosophy in deciding who gets prosecuted, and how cases get conducted—and that, for somebody who’s been inside the Justice Department, is an unbelievable thing…If you have a situation where the Justice Department is using politics in the actual enforcement of the law, then you don’t have the rule of law anymore, and you don’t have equal protection under the law anymore.”

In a later talk at the conference, McCarthy discussed his new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which we will post in the near future. He also gave an interview at the conference, where he said that what’s happening in the Middle East “is not the spontaneous outbreak of democracy,” but rather the ascendancy of Islamic supremacism. McCarthy also observed that the only countries that practice slavery today are Islamic countries.He said that America and Islam are two different civilizations and that while we’re a freedom culture, in Islam “liberty is subordinated to ‘order’…sharia law.”

He added that what the media largely ignore is the fact that there is serious persecution of religious minorities throughout the Middle East. He indicated that of the worst 50 countries that persecute religious minorities today, 36 of them are Muslim countries.

You can watch his interview here:


And you can watch his talk on “Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice” here; or you can watch it here along with the transcript.