Video: Christopher Holton on Civilization Jihad, the Global Islamic Insurgency and Shariah Compliant Finance

moa1Terror Trends Bulletin, Oct. 17, 2012, by Christopher Holton:

This information makes up the introductory portion of the briefing that I have been delivering around the country for the past 3 years. It is important given the mounting evidence of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the West, and the US in particular.

On 22 May 2007, the Pew Research Center, certainly not a “conservative” organization, published a report on a survey that they conducted of Muslims in America. The name of that report was “Muslims in America: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream.”

Pew rolled it out as a celebration of Muslims in America. The media jumped on the bandwagon and the report was received with delight.

But there are aspects of the report which deserve more scrutiny and which Pew and the media essentially ignored in their spin during the release.

First a few background highlights:

• Pew reported that there were 2.35 million Muslims in America, including 1.4 million over the age of 18 (the target group of the survey).

This is important because the Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as CAIR and ISNA, frequently claim that there are 5-6 million Muslims in America. President Obama parroted the bogus 5-6 million figure from the Muslim Brotherhood in his 2009 Cairo speech.

• 30% of the 1.4 million (420,000) were said to be between 18 and 29.

This is important because this is the demographic most likely to be involved in jihadist activity.

Most importantly, there were two particularly relevant questions that were buried deep in the Pew survey that Pew chose not to address or highlight in its release and rollout of the report:

Relevant Question Number 1: Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?

A: Often/Sometimes: 8%

A: Rarely: 5%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 9%

A: Never: 78%

 In other words, AT LEAST 13% of American Muslims believed that suicide bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

 182,000 Muslims in America over the age of 18 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Here is another important point: This same question was asked of Muslims under the age of 30 (the age group most associated with jihadist activity):

A: Often/Sometimes: 15%

A: Rarely: 11%

A: Don’t know/refuse to answer: 5%?

A: Never: 69%

 26% or 109,200 Muslims in America between 18 and 29 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Relevant Question Number 2: What is your view of Al Qaeda?

A: Favorable: 5%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 10%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 27%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

Same questions to Muslims under 30:

A: Favorable: 7%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 16%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 19%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

 70,000 Muslims in America admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

 29,400 Muslims in America between the ages of 18 and 29 admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

It is particularly noteworthy that younger Muslims in America appear to be more predisposed to violent Jihad than older Muslims based upon the answers to these two questions.

Note that this survey was conducted of Muslims in America, not Muslims in Benghazi, Ramadi, Fallujah, Gaza, Cairo, Sana’a, Tehran, Kandahar, or Islamabad. The tens of thousands of Muslims that harbor these views all live in America. These numbers are staggering and frightening.

Civilizational Jihad and Global Islamic Insurgency with Christopher Holton, Published on Dec 26, 2013 by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors:

 

“… new reality makes identifying and understanding the Islamic doctrinal basis of our Jihadist enemies all the more important, yet with each passing attack, we seem to be getting further and further away from doing so.”

Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy discussed what America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, an even more toxic danger — a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

Civilizational Jihad is succeeding through government, finance, military institutions…and though our schools.

Christopher Holton is Vice-President of Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program. He has been involved in legislation in twenty states to divest taxpayer supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2008, Chris has been the editor-in-chief of the Shariah Finance Watch Blog. In 2005, he was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, The American Thinker, Family Security Matters, Big Peace, World Tribune, World Net Daily, NewsMax, and thehayride.com. Before joining the Center, Chris was President of Blanchard and Company, a two hundred million dollar per year investment firm, and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit. Christopher blogs at TerrorTrendsBulletin.com.

 

And this is an excellent presentation on Shariah Compliant Finance with a long Q&A beginning about 50 min. in:

 

Here is a transcript of a similar presentation given in 2012.

 

Muslim Immigration to America Doubled Since 1992

PF_13.05.15_RelAffImmigrants_10-371x350 By Daniel Greenfield:

The numbers still aren’t anywhere as bad as in Europe. We’re looking at 100,000 Muslims a year or 10 percent of the 1 million immigrants a year who enter the United States.

That number has doubled since 1992. The immigration origins trajectories have skewed a bit further away from Europe and more toward Asia and Latin America, but Africa is also making its presence known.

A new report shows a significant rise in Muslim immigration to the US. The Pew Forum has analyzed the results and found that over the past 20 years, around one million immigrants have been granted permanent residency status every year. Sometimes they are able to obtain this status because they are family members of other residents, while other times they get work visas, are refugees and asylum seekers, or they have won a visa lottery. But as the report shows, where they are coming from is changing. Whereas before, there were more arriving from Europe and other parts of North America as well as South America, now those numbers are decreasing while those from Asia, Africa and the Middle East are increasing

What this means is that while there are still many Christians immigrating to the US (though less than before), the number of Muslims is increasing steadily. In 1992, 68% of the new legal permanent residents were Christians, while this number has dropped to only 61% ten years later. Meanwhile, during the same time frame, Muslims comprised 5% of the new legal permanent residents before and have increased to twice as many, 10%, a decade later. Religious minorities once made up one out of every five new legal immigrants, but now they are one out of every four. Some of these religious minorities are Hindus and Buddhists, but they are generally productive members of society and contribute to the economy. T

The LA Times has reported that in the near future we could see thousands of Syrian refugees in American towns and cities. There are currently 1.6 million Syrian refugees in other Middle Eastern countries. The idea is that these countries cannot support them all, but shouldn’t they be taking care of their brethren? Why is it the responsibility of the US?

But it’s the birth rate that really counts more than just the number of immigrants. We aren’t just accepting immigrants, but their children and their children’s children. That’s how the Boston Marathon bombing happened.

The big apparent change is a sizable rise in the number of Sub-Saharan African Muslims coming to America. The numbers are significant enough that the Somalis and others may be responsible for much of the boost in Muslim immigration.

It’s not just the sheer collective numbers, but the breakdowns. In 2011, I took a closer look at some of the origin points.

Read more at Front Page

 

More states move to ban foreign law in courts

Source: Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project Janet Loehrke and Kimberly Railey, USA TODAY

Source: Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life Project
Janet Loehrke and Kimberly Railey, USA TODAY

By Kimberly Railey, USA TODAY:

Some say that preventing judges from recognizing foreign law when issuing decisions could affect religious arbitration used to handle family and personal disputes.

A growing number of states are targeting what they see as a threat to their court systems: the influence of international laws.

North Carolina last month became the seventh state to pass legislation barring judges from considering foreign law in their decisions, including sharia. The bill awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory.

*************************

CAIR asks national membership to bombard North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory with emails urging him to veto ALAC legislation

Please click here to send your email urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to sign HB 522 Application of Foreign Law into state law.

Contact information:

Office of the Governor
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301
Phone: (919) 814-2000
Fax: (919) 733-2120

pat.mccrory@nc.gov

*********************

Six other states — Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee — have already enacted similar legislation since 2010, and at least 25 have introduced such measures, according to the Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life Project.

One exception to this trend is Missouri. In June, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed a foreign law bill, saying it would make international adoptions more difficult.

Sharia, or Islamic law, is both a moral code and religious law that governs all aspects of Muslim life, ranging from religious obligations to family relationships. It is derived from the Quran, the main religious text of Islam, and the teachings of Mohammed, the Muslim prophet.

Many of the bills, including North Carolina’s, would apply only in situations in which invoking foreign law would violate a person’s constitutional rights.

“They exist purely to create a conversation around what sharia is,” said Corey Saylor, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Advocates of the foreign law bans say they safeguard American constitutional liberties, but critics argue they are unnecessary and could complicate international business and contract law.

The bans could also make it difficult to enforce foreign money judgments and matters of family law, like divorce decrees, that are based on a foreign law or religion, said Matthew Duss, a policy analyst at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

“We’ll have to wait for the test cases to come, but there are a range of issues in which these bans could create real legal uncertainty,” Duss said.

Supporters of the legislation, including Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, say that Islamic law is slipping into U.S. courts.

“It’s an affront to the Constitution of the United States,” he said, “and detrimental to those whose rights are infringed.”

In the U.S., sharia, like other religious law, can enter court through divorce and custody cases or in commercial litigation, mainly when contracts cannot be settled in a religious setting. But the exact frequency of such instances is hard to measure.

A 2011 report by the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, D.C., think tank, cited 50 examples. However, in many of them, constitutional rights trumped foreign or religious laws in judges’ decisions.

One outlier is a 2010 New Jersey case, where a state court found that a man did not intend to rape his wife because he thought his religion allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her at any time. An appeals court eventually overturned that ruling.

The wave of state action began in Oklahoma in 2010, when a voter initiative to prohibit sharia in state courts passed with 70% of the popular vote. In 2012, a federal circuit court struck down the measure.

In its wake, the laws have been retooled to ban all foreign law in state courts to avoid targeting one religion.

But some still say the legislation can harm faith groups. Debra Linick, a director at the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, said foreign law bans could affect religious arbitration used to handle family and personal disputes.

Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina School of Law, said the legislation, particularly North Carolina’s ban, is a solution to a non-existent problem.

“I simply cannot imagine any state court would recognize sharia to defeat a federal constitutional right,” Gerhardt said.

Here are the facts: FAQ for State Legislators On American Laws for American Courts

Islam, Muslims, and the 2012 Election

by David J. Rusin
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2013, pp. 21-35 (view PDF)

Just as the 2012 elections maintained the status quo in Washington, D.C., so too did they reinforce decade-old trends concerning Muslims and the American political process: The images (81)Muslim population further solidified as a Democratic voting bloc, and parties’ outreach efforts once again legitimized Islamists. However, 2012 was notable for Islam’s impact as a political issue in the presidential primaries and several congressional races.

Whether or not Washington experiences a power shift in the years to come, it is likely that the current relationship between Muslims and American politics will hold for the foreseeable future. Avoiding the pitfalls of this reality begins with understanding it.

Clinton, Bush, and Obama: A Brief History

Much has changed since this journal analyzed the 1996 and 2000 elections, both of which broke new ground in the political engagement of Muslims. Though Muslims at the time still debated whether they should take part in American democracy at all, Khalid Durán described the 1996 campaign as “the moment when the ‘Muslim vote’ first began to count in American politics. And Muslim Americans left no doubt that they hoped their involvement would be decisive for Islam in the United States.” With quality data scarce in the contest between President Bill Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole, Durán concluded: “All that can be said with some certainty is that the ‘Muslim vote,’ such as it is, went more solidly for Clinton than did the nation as a whole.”[1]

The question of participation having been settled, a number of Islamist groups launched the American Muslim Political Coordination Committee (AMPCC) in an attempt to speak with one voice. After an unprecedented level of outreach to Muslims, Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush earned AMPCC’s endorsement in 2000. Islamists were quick to take credit for his razor-thin victory over Vice President Al Gore, with one poll reporting that 91 percent of Florida Muslims had backed Bush. In his postmortem for the Quarterly, Alexander Rose warned of “unscientific and dubious self-administered surveys” but conceded that “it can be said with reasonable certainty that the Texas governor did better among Muslims than Dole did four years earlier.” However, he cautioned that “what tilt there was to Bush in 2000 was most likely a temporary aberration caused by the election’s unique nature.”[2]

Rose’s prediction proved correct as the attacks of September 11, 2001, catalyzed Muslim voters’ return to the Democratic fold. While Bush kept meeting with Islamists and professed that “Islam is peace,”[3] his military campaigns abroad and counterterrorism programs at home alienated many Muslims who had cheered his promises to conduct a humble foreign policy and end the use of secret evidence. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an influential Islamist group, released an “exit poll” claiming that 93 percent of Muslims had voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004.[4] According to a 2007 study by the Pew Research Center, 71 percent voted for Kerry and 14 percent for Bush.[5]

images (79)Having increased their political footprint in subsequent years with the election of the first two Muslim congressmen—Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minn.) and André Carson (Democrat, Ind.), each of whom has exhibited Islamist tendencies[6]—Muslims continued their move toward the Democrats in 2008 even though presidential nominee Barack Obama did not court them publicly. In one infamous gaffe, two hijab-wearing women were prevented from sitting behind the podium at an Obama campaign rally.[7] A 2011 Pew survey found that 92 percent of Muslims had cast their votes for Obama nonetheless.[8]

6a00d8341c630a53ef01156fc9728b970c-800wiAs president, Obama shed his reluctance to embrace Islam. Efforts during his first term, which began with a prayer service featuring Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America,[9] included Obama’s choosing al-Arabiya television network for his initial interview;[10] erroneously labeling the United States“one of the largest Muslim countries”;[11] lauding the Muslim world in his June 2009 Cairo speech and declaring it “part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam”;[12] supporting the right to construct an Islamic center near Ground Zero;[13] backing Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin when she was accused of Muslim Brotherhood ties;[14] pursuing policies that empowered Islamists in the Middle East;[15] maintaining a chilly relationship with Israel;[16] and stating that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”[17] Additionally, his administration placed several Muslims with Islamist backgrounds in key posts;[18] refused to link Islam and terrorism;[19]routinely met with Islamist groups;[20] purged training material deemed “Islamophobic”;[21] sent an envoyto the Organization of Islamic Cooperation[22] and joined it in the “Istanbul process” to curb “defamation of religion”;[23] intervened in local disputes over mosque building;[24] and sued on behalf of a teacher who had been denied three weeks off to visit Mecca.[25]

Obama’s time in office also saw significant evolution of Islam as a political issue, as highlighted by the Muslim Brotherhood’s becoming a household name and the rising danger of homegrown terrorism,[26] which was underlined by congressional hearings on Muslim radicalization that infuriated Islamists.[27] Fallout from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terrorism-funding trial,[28] which had concluded just months before Obama entered the White House, cast a long shadow over several U.S. Muslim groups implicated in the conspiracy to finance Hamas and gradually opened many eyes to the Brotherhood’s stealth jihad of “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”[29] In addition, research documented deference to Shari’a (Islamic law) in state courts,[30] sparking a legislative push to restrict consideration of foreign law,[31] and grassroots anti-jihad activism came into its own with opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.[32]

Subjects such as jihad and Shari’a influenced the 2012 political landscape, and Muslims, repeatedly told by Islamists that they were under attack, may have looked to Democrats for protection.

Read more

Sharia Über Alles

130430_sharia1By Andrew Bostom:

[T]he concept of an Islamic state attracts a following determined to realize it now or as soon as practicable. They bend their energies to the achievement of this goal. That they pursue concrete political aims is clear from their use of the word “ideology” which has no rightful place in a reli­gious context as religion is understood in the West. But it may be justified if Islam is understood in its traditional sense—as a faith and a way of life for man in society and state. . . . The fate of the Sharia will decide not only what Islam is to be today and tomorrow, but also what part it is to play in the confrontation between Europe and the East, between Islamic and Western civilization.

—Erwin I. J. Rosenthal, 1965

 

**

Cross-posted at The American Thinker

Despite a number of (deliberately?) mitigating biases, both methodological and interpretative, the latest Pew Research Forum report, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” released April 30, 2013, confirms the broad appeal of the totalitarian Sharia, Islam’s religio-political “law,” across Islamdom.

The data were pooled from surveys conducted between 2008 and 2012, representing, as touted by Pew, “a total of 39 countries and territories on three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe.” Collectively, the surveys included “more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages and dialects, covering every country that has more than 10 million Muslims.” Pew did acknowledgethis important caveat about Muslim populations not surveyed because, “political sensitivities or security concerns prevented opinion research among Muslims.” Notably excluded countries were Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, and Iran—all Islamic states, governed by the Sharia, Saudi Arabia and The Sudan under Sunni Islam, the third, Iran, being the world’s largest Shiite Muslim state.

Responses to four related questions on the Sharia, comprise the surveys’ salient—and pathognomonic—findings. The questions were, “Do you favor or oppose making sharia law, or Islamic law, the official law of the land in our country?”, and these three internally validating (and equally edifying) queries, “Do you favor or oppose the following: punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery?”, “Do you favor or oppose the following: punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery?”, “Do you favor or oppose the following: the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion?” Summary data from the nations with the five largest Muslim populations (as per 2010) surveyed, Indonesia (204 million), Pakistan (178 million), Bengladesh (149 million), Egypt (80 million), and Nigeria (76 million), revealed:

  • 72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims,  74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies. The population-weighted average from these 5 nations was 77% support. (Composite regional data confirmed these individual country trends—84% of South Asian Muslims, 77% of Southeast Asian Muslims, 74% of Middle Eastern/North African Muslims, and 64% of Sub-Saharan African Muslims favored application of the Sharia as official state law.)
  • 37% of Indonesian Muslims, 85% of Pakistani Muslims, 50% of Bengladeshi Muslims,  70% of Egyptian Muslims, and 45% of Nigerian Muslims favored Sharia-based mandatory (“hadd”) punishments “like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery”
  • 42% of Indonesian Muslims, 86% of Pakistani Muslims, 54% of Bengladeshi Muslims,  80% of Egyptian Muslims, and 45% of Nigerian Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of stoning for adultery
  • 16% of Indonesian Muslims, 75% of Pakistani Muslims, 43% of Bengladeshi Muslims,  88% of Egyptian Muslims, and 29% of Nigerian Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of execution for “apostasy”

Furthermore, the Pew survey results confirm the abject failure of the US mid-wived Iraqi and Afghan “democracies” to fulfill the utopian aspirations of the much ballyhooed “(BernardLewis doctrine.” Instead, the negative prognostications, epitomized by my colleague Diana West’s evocative description “Making the world safe for Sharia,” have been realized. Specifically, the Pew data indicated:

  • 91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies
  • 55% of Iraqi Muslims and 81% of Afghan Muslims favored Sharia-based hadd punishments “like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery”
  • 57% of Iraqi Muslims and 84% of Afghan Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of stoning for adultery
  • 42% of Iraqi Muslims and 79% of Afghan Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of execution for “apostasy”

Religious piety, as evidenced by frequency of prayer and “Following the Prophet’s Example,” increased support for Sharia, which was unaffected by age, gender, or educational level.

The Pew report fails to elaborate on these strong associations, offering no explanation about why increased compliance with prayer and pious conformity with the behavior of Islam’s prophet Muhammad might result in broad Muslim approval for mutilating thieves, stoning adulterers to death, or executing those who simply exercise freedom of conscience, and forsake Islam. Yet the Pew investigators readily proffer these mollifying comments, insisting the predilection for Sharia “varies widely,” noting “many favor democracy over authoritarian rule,” and even concluding,

Overall, Muslims broadly support the idea of religious freedom. Among Muslims who say people of different religions are very free to practice their faith, three-quarters or more in each country say this is a good thing.

First, even the Pew data on Muslim support for “killing” apostates do not reflect sentiments for the less draconian punishments for apostasy: imprisonment with beatings (for women under Shiite law, timed to each of the prayer sessions, i.e., 5 times per day) until “recantation”; dissolution of marriage and  both parental and property rights. These adjunct non-lethal “punishments”—often applied to “private” apostates who do not manifest their apostasy in public—would likely have registered far more “popular” appeal. Also, both “religious freedom”  and “freedom”—(“hurriyya”; discussed below) in Islamdom bear no resemblance to Western conceptions of these ideals, as this ranking of Christian persecution—dominated by countries from Sub-Saharan Africa (where 94% affirmed to Pew “it is good that others are very free to practice their faith” ) and the Middle East/North Africa (where 85% affirmed to Pew “it is good that others are very free to practice their faith”)—makes plain.

Furthermore, the current Pew report includes no data on “blasphemy,” i.e., a simple question about Muslim attitudes toward public criticism of Islam’s prophet or the creed itself by both non-Muslims and Muslimsignoring Pew’s own August, 2011 data from its analysis,  “Rising Restrictions on Religion.” This report, released August 9, 2011, examined the issue of “defamation” of religion, tracking countries where various blasphemy, or criticism of religions are enforced. “While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice, they often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical,” the report noted. These Pew findings indicated that application of the Sharia at present resulted in a disproportionate number of Muslim countries, twenty-one—Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Western Sahara, and Yemen—registering the highest (i.e., worst) persecution scores on their scale. Furthermore, the Pew investigators observed,

Eight-in-ten countries in the Middle East–North Africa region have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion, the highest share of any region. These penalties are enforced in 60% of the countries in the region.

As a predictable consequence of this sharia-based application of apostasy and blasphemy laws by Islamic governments, the Pew report also documented that

…the share of national governments that showed hostility toward minority religions involving physical violence was much higher in countries where laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion are actively enforced than in countries without such laws (55% versus 22%).

Pew’s reticence to present its own April 2013 findings without clumsily recasting, or ignoring their doctrinal roots, and obvious implications, can be traced to the dominant, post-modern Western narrative regarding Islam, where objective understanding has been replaced by pure apologetics. Indeed, simply presenting doctrinal Sharia without camouflage, and then demonstrating how Muslims, overwhelmingly, continue to cherish the application of this ancient system of religious totalitarianism, shatters the prevailing, rigidly enforced Western apologetic narrative.

Derived from Islam’s most important canonical texts –the Koran and hadith (the canonical collections of the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s deeds and pronouncements) – and their interpretation and codification by Islam’s greatest classical legists, Sharia, 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 or an 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 of even Muslim women, to subservient chattel; and barbaric, mandatory “hadd” punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

Here is an apt illustration (via Andrew McCarthy’s summary)  of the contents ofReliance of the Traveller, a classic Sharia manual of Islamic jurisprudence,certified by Al Azhar University, the Vatican of Sunni Islamic religious education, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community,” in our era:

– Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”)

– Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law”

– “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims”

– Non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various adhesive conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued (such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feastdays”

– Offenses committed against Muslims (including murder) are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims

– The penalty for fornication is to be stoned to death, unless one is without the “capacity to remain chaste,” in which case the penalty is “being scourged one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50mi. for one year”

– The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death

– “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris”

– A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam)

– A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them”

– A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child

– The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand

– The penalty for drinking alcohol is “to be scourged forty stripes”

– The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah)

– The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man

– If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses”

– The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male

But Pew’s investigators, and journalists reporting the Pew survey results were puzzled by the seeming “contradiction” between the Muslim desire for Sharia, including application of the hadd punishments, and professions of support for “freedom,” including “religious freedom,” and “democracy,” or even so-called “anti-authoritarianism.” The Economist’s lament characterized this apparent “confused” state of mind as follows:

Almost 80% of Egyptian Muslims say they favour religious freedom and a similar number favour sharia law. Of that group, almost 90% also think people who renounce Islam should be put to death. Confused? So are they. 

These inept assessments reveal an ignorant, or willfully blind misunderstanding of the yawning gap between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom – “hurriyya” in Arabic.  Following Sharia slavishly throughout one’s life was paramount to hurriyya “freedom.”  This earlier more concrete characterization of hurriyya’s metaphysical meaning, whose essence Ibn Arabi reiterated, was pronounced by the Sufi scholar al-Qushayri (d. 1072/74).

Let it be known to you that the real meaning of freedom lies in the perfection of slavery. If the slavery of a human being in relation to God is a true one, his freedom is relieved from the yoke of changes. Anyone who imagines that it may be granted to a human being to give up his slavery for a moment and disregard the commands and prohibitions of the religious law while possessing discretion and responsibility, has divested himself of Islam. God said to his Prophet: “And worship your Lord until there comes unto you the certainty (i.e. death).” (Koran 15:99). As agreed upon by the [Koranic] commentators, “certainty” here means the end (of life).

Bernard Lewis, in his (mid-1950s) Encyclopedia of Islam analysis of hurriyya,discusses this concept in the latter phases of the Ottoman Empire through the contemporary era.  After highlighting a few “cautious” or “conservative” (Lewis’ characterization) reformers and their writings, Lewis maintains:

[T]here is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the formation or conduct of government—to political freedom, or citizenship, in the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West. While conservative reformers talked of freedom under law, and some Muslim rulers even experimented with councils and assemblies government was in fact becoming more and not less arbitrary[.]

Lewis also makes the important point that Western colonialism ameliorated this chronic situation:

During the period of British and French domination, individual freedom was never much of an issue. Though often limited and sometimes suspended, it was on the whole more extensive and better protected than either before or after.

Read more

Huge Flaw in Pew Survey on Muslim Views about Sharia

images (31)By  Andrew C. McCarthy:

There will be more to say about the findings of the newly released Pew survey ”The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.” Of course, such revelations as the approval by upwards of two-thirds of Middle Eastern Muslims of the death penalty for apostates, and by one-third of suicide bombings, are depressing — though not at all surprising for anyone who has been paying attention. (I wrote about similar poll results in The Grand Jihad.) But what is striking is that the depressing state of affairs is manifest despite Pew’s best efforts to make things seem better than they are. Principally, the survey is about Muslim views about sharia, Islam’s legal system and framework for society. It is intimated that Pew’s study is exhaustive, involving interviews with 38,000 Muslims across 39 countries. But, as my friend Andy Bostom pointed out to me this morning, guess which countries are not included in the survey? That would be Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan — perhaps the three most sharia compliant countries in the world, home cumatively to nearly 150 million Muslims. (Scroll down from here to see which countries are included in the survey.)

This gaping omission invites the standard progressive fairy tale about sharia, and Reuters does not disappoint: “Unlike codified Western law, sharia is a loosely defined set of moral and legal guidelines based on the Koran, the sayings of Prophet Mohammad (hadith) and Muslim traditions. Its rules and advice cover everything from prayers to personal hygiene.”

Read more at National Review

America’s Future Belongs to Islam

20130205_Muslims_Pray_Capitol_LARGEby PAUL L. WILLIAMS, PHD:

(author of Crescent Moon Rising)

Islam, according to newly released data from the Association of Statisticians  of American Religious Bodies, is now the fastest growing religion in America,  verifying President Barack Obama’s claim that the United States is “no longer a  Judeo-Christian country.”

How many Muslims now live within the country remains anyone’s guess, since  the U.S. Census Bureau neglects to collect data on religious identification. A  2008 study by Cornell University projected that the number of Muslims in America  had climbed from 1.6 million in 1995 to 7 million.[i] A U.S. News and World  Report survey, which was conducted at the same time, placed the figure at 5  million,[ii] while the Pew Research Center set the number at 2.35 million.

But Pew researchers admit that their survey was not thorough since it  neglected to take into account immigrant and poor black Muslims.[iii] What’s  more, these researchers only contacted Americans with telephone landlines and  failed to take into account the fact that nearly 50% of U.S. residents and age  18-35 and the nearly 100% of the illegal immigrants who communicate exclusively  by cell phones.[iv]

Muslim organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations  (CAIR), supported the Cornell  University projection of 7 million – - based on  mosque attendance.[v]

In any case, all demographers agree that throughout the coming decades, the  faith of the Prophet Mohammed will continue to impact and transform all aspects  of American life: social, political, and economic.  They further maintain  that, save for a cataclysmic sea-change in population trends, Islam by 2050 will  emerge as the nation’s dominant religion.

Read more: Family Security Matters

FamilySecurityMatters.org  Contributing Editor Paul L. Williams is the author of The  Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, The Al  Qaeda Connection, and other best-selling books. He is a frequent guest  on such national news networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, and  NPR. Visit his website at http://thelastcrusade.org.

 

Pew Research Institute Releases Telling Survey of World’s Muslims

By Clare Lopez

Recent results of the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life multi-year survey of beliefs and practices by the world’s Muslims that were published 8 August 2012 are remarkable in a number of respects. First of all, the broad scope of the project—based on 38,000 face-to-face interviews conducted with Muslims in 39 different countries and territories—ensured a wide range of opinions from a diverse sampling of Muslim communities.

The results, however, show a high level of agreement about one of the most debated issues concerning Islam: Whether Muslims believe Islamic teaching is subject to various “interpretations” or only one. As Islamic teaching is derived from the Qur’an, the Sira, and the ahadith (which together are the main sources for Sharia, or Islamic law), in essence this was a question about Muslim beliefs about the fundamentals of their faith.

According to the Pew survey results, a majority (more than 50%) of Muslims in 32 of 39 countries believes that “There is only one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion.”

The highest levels of agreement with that statement were found in places perhaps not expected to score at or above the 75% mark: Bosnia-Herzegovina (in the heart of Europe) and Tajikistan (in Central Asia). Three of the most populous Muslim countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan—all scored above 70% agreement on the oneness of Islamic doctrine, a level of orthodoxy that tracks well with Pakistan’s jihadist image, but may come as a jolt to those who still think that Islam’s East Asian strongholds are somehow more willing to diverge from core Islamic doctrine than their Middle Eastern co-religionists.

In fact, Indonesian Muslims’ 72% level of agreement that there is “only one true way to interpret” Islam places them just a few points behind Egypt and Jordan, with 78% and 76%, respectively. It was the Sub-Saharan African Muslims who posted the strongest display of Sharia adherence, however: All 16 survey countries from Mali and Nigeria in West Africa to Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania in the east scored above the 50% mark of agreement on the “one true” interpretation question.

Of course, Tawhid, meaning the oneness of Allah, the oneness of belief, and the oneness of the Muslim ummah, is a core identifying concept of Islam that would not come as a surprise to those who have studied authoritative Islamic doctrine.

The new Pew survey was conducted among global Muslims, but did not include interviews of American Muslims. The Institute, however, has conducted earlier, similar surveys among U.S. Muslims, specifically in 2007 and 2011.

The August 2011 “Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism” report stands out for the mind-boggling statistic that shows only 26% of all Muslims in America see themselves as American first, while nearly double that number (49%) see themselves as Muslim first and American second. An additional 18% see themselves as both American and Muslim equally.

There’s another wake-up call in the August 2011 U.S. survey, where Pew asked essentially the same question about American Muslims’ views on the “ways to interpret the teachings of Islam” as in the 2012 global survey. By a 57% to 37% margin, American Muslims said there was more than one way.

Of the minority (37%) who thought there was only one way to interpret Islamic teaching, however, native U.S.-born Muslims were more likely to believe there was only one way to interpret Islam than the foreign-born immigrant Muslims! Put another way, native-born American citizen Muslims are far more likely to be rigid about their Islamic faith than Muslim immigrants—by a whopping 46% to 31% margin.

This finding means that the Salafist indoctrination efforts of Muslim Brotherhood-dominated madrassas, mosques and Islamic Centers across the U.S. are successful at turning out home-grown, Sharia-adherent Muslims. Additionally, it correlates well with the results of the Summer 2011 Middle East Quarterly “Mapping Sharia” study by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, which found that teaching at U.S. mosques is overwhelmingly (80%) of the hard core Salafi variety that advocates violence.

Read more at Radical Islam

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).