Pamela Geller and the hijacking of America

1281
American Thinker, By Larissa Scott, May23, 2015:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I couldn’t help thinking, I could have been a passenger on one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Today the feeling is back, as if we are all passengers on a hijacked plane the size of America, heading towards an imminent crash. The question is, knowing what we know now, what are we going to do about it?

Shortly before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower, an Egyptian-born jihadi, Mohammed Atta, addressed the passengers over the intercom:

“Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay.  We are returning to the airport… Nobody move.  Everything will be okay.  If you try to make any move, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane.  Just stay quiet… Nobody move, please…  Don’t try to make any stupid moves.”

Twenty minutes later they died a horrible death, accompanied by hundreds of people inside the North Tower. Had the passengers known the real plan, they might have attempted to take matters into their own hands and possibly avert a bigger disaster. But they likely believed Mohammed Atta, especially since no hijacker had deliberately crashed a plane before.  Many were probably thinking, Let the government sort it out, that’s whom the terrorists always blackmail. We just need to stay quiet and make no stupid moves. Of course we’ll be okay.

Tactical deception, especially when lying to non-Muslims, is legally sanctioned under Sharia, which is a mainstream, universal Islamic law.  In Sunni Islam, such practice is referred to as mudarat, or taquiyya.

Fast-forward fourteen years to Garland, TX.  Jihadists drove a thousand miles to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. The cop who shot them to death likely prevented a gruesome massacre. We are now being told that this would not have happened and everything would have been okay if Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer had stayed quiet and didn’t make any stupid moves, such as, organizing the exhibition of Mohammed cartoons.

This is exactly the behavior of passengers on a hijacked plane. We hope that everything will be okay as long as we remain quiet and make no stupid moves. We willingly trust the voices on TV and hope the government will sort it out. We want to believe that every act of Islamic terrorism is an isolated incident, that they only target the government, and that the 58% of Muslim-Americans in a 2012 survey who think that that critics of Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges, with 12% of them favoring the death penalty for blasphemy, are not part of a bigger phenomenon. Just stay quiet and nothing bad will happen. After all, no terrorist has ever hijacked and crashed an entire nation before.

Alas, nations have been consistently hijacked and crashed throughout history. This has always been executed according to the same blueprint, which originated in the 7th century Islamic conquests and is known to Islamic jurists as the Pact of Umar.

While the ‘s precise origins are a matter of legend, its conditions, based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people, have gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence with regard to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, otherwise known as dhimmis, and as such became a subset of Sharia law.

Given that Sharia by definition cannot be altered any more than one can alter the Koran or the Sunna, and even talking about reforming Sharia is considered blasphemous, its medieval rulings about what dhimmis are allowed or not allowed to do, are still in effect today. According to a recent Pew survey, the majority of Muslims worldwide want Sharia to be the law of the land everywhere; that includes the Conditions of Umar, even if those who practice them may not necessarily refer to them by that name.

Settling in non-Muslim countries, Muslim minorities traditionally bring with them Sharia law, which prescribes them to punish dhimmis who overstep certain boundaries regardless of what the local law says, because the “God-given” Sharia law will always be superior to the “man-made law” of the dhimmis.

Under the many Conditions of Omar, dhimmis aren’t allowed to criticize anything that has to do with Islam, including the very conditions of subjugation under which they live. Dhimmis are supposed to remain ignorant about Islamic teachings and can only refer to Islam in positive terms. Mocking, insulting, cursing, or even upsetting Muslims in any way, testifying against a Muslim in court, or raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, is forbidden.

Criticism of a Muslim person by a dhimmi — even if it’s based on undeniable facts, constitutes “slander” and is punishable by death. In contrast with the Western definition of slander — false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation — Sharia defines slander as any statement a Muslim would dislike, regardless if its degree of accuracy. This works in conjunction with another Sharia ruling, which gives all Muslims an open license to murder the offender wherever they find him. That doesn’t mean all Muslims will do it, but if someone volunteers to do the killing, he will not be punished under Sharia. In modern times, this means an open season of vigilante street justice on any critic of Islam anywhere on the planet.

Suddenly, the medieval choices jihadis place before their victims are all over today’s news coverage, just as they were originally set out in the Koran:  convert to Islam, submit to the Muslim rule and pay a non-Muslim religious tax called jizya, or die by the sword. Those who submit, as we’ve seen in the territories conquered by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, are doomed to a life of humiliation, subjugation, discrimination, and confiscatory taxation.

Dhimmi translates as “protected person,” which is similar in meaning to protection racket: what a nice dhimmi community you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it. You are protected from violence as long as you obey the conditions and pay the protection money. But if any of the dhimmis act up or “made a stupid move,” his or her action puts the entire dhimmi community in jeopardy of jihadi retaliation, where anyone is fair game for collective punishment.

Western nations with a significant share of Muslim immigrants are now learning to live in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear that one of them might upset a Muslim and thus provoke rioting or jihad slaughter. As a result, Western dhimmis are learning to police each other and make sure no one in their community makes any “stupid moves.”

Pamela Geller just did that. Her exhibition of Mohammed cartoons has crossed the line of permissible dhimmi behavior, and for that she has become a target of criticism by the American media, including some conservative commentators. Among the many stated reasons why Pamela should have “just stayed quiet,” the main argument remains unstated: she made a stupid move and now we’re all in danger of retaliation.

The real questions the media should be asking is, if we aren’t already living under the Conditions of Umar, what would we do differently if we did?

National Cathedral Presents More Kumbaya Islam

muslims-hold-prayer-inside-the-washington-national-cathedralFamily Security Matters, by Andrew Harrod, May 19, 2015:

The Very Reverend Gary Hall declared “one of the great blessings” in his life as being able to “encounter Islam” while introducing in Washington, DC, an April 21 National Cathedral presentation on “Islam and Politics in the U.S.”  The National Cathedral dean’s words once again set in this “spiritual home for the nation” a politically correct tone for a subsequent discussion naively presenting Islam as morally equivalent to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

An Islamic prayer service in the National Cathedral indicates that total lack of obedience to Jesus Christ in this alleged church which is now more more than a general for rent auditorium.

Like the previously analyzed first session of the National Cathedral’s “Exploring Islam in America” series, Hall emphasized ecumenism before about 60 mostly middle- and senior-aged individuals in the Perry Auditorium.  His opening prayer invoked the “God of the Prophet Muhammad” along with the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” and the “God of Jesus.”  He then cited religion scholar Huston Smith for the proposition that a Martian “would see one religion with three branches” in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  “Deep continuity” and “respect” marked in his view the relationships between these three faiths claiming ancestry from Abraham.

Other event participants complemented Hall’s ecumenism.  As at the previous “Exploring Islam in America” presentations, the late Edward Said‘s sister Grace introductory prepared remarks befitted her brother’s distorted leftist views.  She discussed coming from an Arab community in which her Christian faith supposedly harmoniously coexisted with Islam throughout history.  “Exploring Islam in America” moderator Yvonne Haddad, a Georgetown University professor from a Christian Arab background like the Saids, likewise emphasized intra-Muslim harmony among Shiites and Sunnis.  She discussed how they had lived together and intermarried until the 20th century, overlooking an often bloody history of Shiite-Sunni animosity that has reemerged in recent years to make their intermarriages lethally acrimonious in places like Iraq.

The evening’s featured speaker, Brookings Institution fellow Khaled Elgindy, also asserted monotheistic and moral commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and an “Islam…firmly rooted in the Abrahamic tradition.”  Concurring with Haddad’s assessment that the United States has “shariaphobia all over the place,” he found “no more abused term in the Islamic lexicon than sharia,” in American discussions of which  the “vast majority is nonsense.”  He cited the Islamic doctrine that sharia protects five fundamental values, namely life, worship, intellect, property, and lineage (a person’s knowledge of their ancestry), goals that could count as “natural rights in a liberal sense.”

Elgindy’s reference to these goals is a popular argument for sharia apologists, but scrutiny reveals the inadequacy of such platitudes in protecting human dignity in an Islamic context.  Muslims, for example, cite Quran 5:32‘s text that “whoever saves one-it is as if he had saved mankind entirely” in support of protecting human life.  Such citations, though, omit this verse’s exception for killing a person for taking a “soul or for corruption [done] in the land” such as blaspheming Islam, the capital punishment for which the subsequent verse 5:33 brutally delineates.

Likewise the “primary goal of sharia is to preserve the deen” or religion, notes one Muslim commentator, raising questions about worship in Islam suppressing the free expression of non-Muslim faith.  References to intellect also do not explain Muslim restrictions on intellectual pursuit of truth to protect against criticism.  Property under sharia excludes interest and forbidden items like pork while “penal laws that govern the breach of this right” noted by the commentator include Quran 5:38‘s command to amputate a thief’s hand.  That “Islam seeks to protect the lineage and honor of people” in his words can also include prohibitions against criticizing an Islamic faith with which many Muslims identify.

Elgindy found “frightening how pervasive” is “nonsensical fearmongering” concerning sharia, “almost like a straw man,” and decried that 22 states had passed anti-foreign law/sharia legislation to deal with an “imaginary threat.”  He repeated stock canards against such American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) initiatives, saying that they could prohibit Islamic marriage or inheritance while analogizing sharia to Jewish religious law (Halacha).  He also noted the sharia doctrine that Muslims should obey the laws of the lands in which they live.

Elgindy’s anti-ALAC arguments do not withstand scrutiny.  Such laws merely prohibit American courts fromapplying foreign law like sharia in their judgments in violation of state and federal constitutional rights, leaving unobjectionable matters like marriage or inheritance unaffected.  ALAC thereby parallels British law, which recognizes sharia contracts, but only upon court review of their conformity with British law as the Center for Islamic Pluralism’s report on sharia infiltration in Western Europe notes.

Elgindy’s sharia-Halacha equivalence is also false.  Halacha nowhere constitutes foreign law (not even in Israel) applicable under ALAC and recognizes a country’s civil law as binding, thereby relegating Jewish religious courts to minor ceremonial roles and private arbitration.  Additionally, one rabbi notes, “generations of interpretation explain a number of mitzvoth (Torah commandments) out of existence according to the principle of Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi (Torah exists here for us, not in Heaven).”  Therefore Old Testament passages contrary to modern human rights norms have no current applicability.

Elgindy’s comments notwithstanding, sharia diverges from Halacha’s subordination to civil law.  ALAC, after all, concerns American judicial application of foreign sharia laws, under which Muslims would indeed obey the laws of a land, just not America.  Obeying the laws of the land also says nothing about changing a country’s law and practices in conformity with Muslim norms, as evident in various Western societies with respect to matters like polygamy.

To prove that “Islam does not preclude the notion of modern citizenship rights” such as religion-state separation, Elgindy cited as a “social contract” the seventh-century Constitution of Medina drafted under Islam’s prophet Muhammad.  This popular Islamic apologia, though, inflates the importance of what was essentially an alliance between the early Muslim community and Medina’s Jewish tribes.  This alliance, moreover, ended with conflict between Muslims and Medina’s Jews and the latter’s expulsion and extermination.

Elgindy’s whitewashing of Islamic law has special significance in light of his comment that “not that huge” a distance separates Saudi Arabia from the murderous Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  While Saudi authorities refrain from wearing black masks and publicizing their beheadings, “ideologically there are clearly similarities” between this globally prominent Muslim state and ISIS.  The latter’s proclaimed caliphate also has a “very romantic” appeal for many Muslim youth, further refutation of his contention that brutal Muslim groups like ISIS or the Taliban come to power primarily due to political chaos.

Elgindy has previously made ludicrously benign prognoses of Islamic developments flying in the face of facts.  This former advisor to the Palestinian Authority, for example, wrote in 2012 that the jihadist terrorist group Hamas’ “shunning by Washington may be…outdated and counter-productive.”  Unnoticed by others and perhaps influenced by the Brookings Institution’s Qatari funding, he found that a “growing pragmatism” and “yearning for political normalcy” marked Hamas’ “significant changes in recent years.”

Despite Elgindy’s best efforts, he simply cannot explain away serious Islamic controversies.  Problems associated Europe’s “ghettoized Muslim communities” are not simply attributable to, for example, a French “inherited sense of superiority” towards immigrants from former colonies or phobias about “swarthy men.”  Sharia-supporting Muslim groups with their dangers are not similar to “revivalist movements” in other faiths like evangelical Christians.  National Cathedral personnel like Canon Patty Johnson, however, are unlikely to understand these issues anytime soon.  At the presentation’s end, she hawked copies of the leftist Center for American Progress’ report Fear, Inc. on the “Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” as a “wonderful document…one of the best I have ever seen.”

“Islam is the Religion of War”

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

UTT, by John Guandolo, May 18, 2015:

When the leader of the Islamic State, al Baghdadi, said “Islam is not the religion of peace, Islam is the religion of war,” he meant it.

Here are 6 reasons indicating al Baghdadi is correct:

1.  Islamic World is United in Teaching Jihad Must Be Waged Until Islam Rules the World

At Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt – the pre-eminent school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world and the oldest – they teach the purpose of Islam is to destroy the Dar al Harb (House of War) until the entire world is the Dar al Islam (House of Islam) and Sharia (Islamic Law) is the law of the land.  The vehicle to do this is called “Jihad” which is only defined in Sharia as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islamic schools across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Central/South America, Mexico, Asia, and North America, first graders are taught that Islam must rule the world, and Christians and Jews are to be hated by Muslims.

All published Sharia mandates jihad until a Caliphate is created and Sharia is the “Law of the Land” across the globe.  All published Sharia only defines “jihad” as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

Note: It is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is incorrect about Islam.

2. Senior Islamic Scholars Call for Jihad Against Non-Muslims

The most prominent and well-educated Islamic scholars call for jihad and the implementation of Sharia, and many are even labeled as “terrorists” by the West.

Omar Abdel Rahman is arguably one of the most respected Islamic scholars alive on the planet today. As some of you may know, he is also known as the “Blind Sheikh,” and is in federal prison in the United States for his involvement with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other plots in New York and beyond. Yet today, Rahman is hailed as a great scholar and many are calling for his release from prison.  He is an Al Azhar trained/educated Islamic scholar.

Abdullah Azzam graduated with a degree in Sharia from Damascus University before being invited to attend Al Azhar University.  After he finished his studies, he was asked to teach at Al Azhar, putting him in a very small and elite group of Islamic scholars.  This is the man who, with Osama bin Laden, developed Al Qaeda and its beginnings.

Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi is one of the most widely respected and sought after Islamic scholars in the world today, and hosts the most popular show on Al Jazeera (“Sharia and Life”).  He is currently the President of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS) and leads the European Council for Fatwa and Research.  He has twice been offered the position of “Supreme Guide” of the International Muslim Brotherhood, and is the man who led the first Jummah prayers in Tahrir Square in Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew the Mubarak regime.  That was his first time back in Egypt in 30 years because he was banned from Egypt for his involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood’s assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.  Qaradawi is also the Islamic scholar who called for the killing of American civilians in Iraq.

3.  All “Terrorists” Get Their “Version” of Islam Wrong in the Exact Same Way

ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyef, Al Shabab, Hamas, Hizbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and all Islamic “terrorist” groups on the planet state they are doing what they are doing in order to establish the Caliphate (Global Islamic State) under Sharia law.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s By-Laws say they exist to impose “Allah’s law (sharia) in the land” and establish an “Islamic State.”

The Al Qaeda operatives who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993/USS Cole/US Embassies in Africa (1998)/etc, the 9/11 Hijackers, Major Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood), the “Underwear Bomber,” the Time Square Bomber, the “terrorists” who killed the British soldier in Woolwich (England), the Somalis from Al Shabab who killed citizens in the mall and university attacks (among others) in Kenya, the Muslim who sawed his colleague’s head off in Oklahoma, Terry Lee Lowen who attempted to bomb a plane in Kansas, the jihadis who were killed in Texas in April 2015 (Garland), and all of the other jihadis we and our allies have faced over the last 30 years have all done what they did because they were following the Sharia – and they all say so.

Isn’t it interesting they all say it is a command from Allah to wage jihad until the infidels submit to Allah’s law and an Islamic state is created?  Isn’t it interesting they use the same source materials to quote these commands – all of which have unquestioned authority in Islam?

They all get it wrong in exactly the same way.

4.  Former Muslims Confirm Islam Obliges Jihad and Strict Adherence to Sharia

Scores of men and women who have left Islam – under penalty of death – confirm Islam teaches exactly what Al Qaeda says it does – Jihad is an obligation until Islam rules the world.

Former Muslims United, interestingly, never gets much traction from American media, but their stories are powerful, and they openly discuss the truth about Islam.

Nonie Darwish, whose father was a Shaheed, says “Islam wants to rule the world.”  Former Muslim and Al Azhar scholar Mark Gabriel (alias) makes clear Al Azhar teaches Jihad is a permanent obligation until Islam rules the world under Sharia.   The Quran commands it, and the Prophet Mohammad taught and did it.

5.  The History of Islam is Consistent with Their Doctrine (Sharia)

Over the last 1400 years, when Islam had the material ability and strength to do so (per Sharia), it has waged Jihad on the non-Muslim world.  From the 7th century to today, this has been true.  Western Civilization has defended itself against the Islamic armies since the time Mohammad became a political and military leader in Medina in approximately 623 AD.

In the early 1920’s, the Ottoman Empire (Caliphate) was dissolved by Mustapha Kamal and the nation state of Turkey created. While most people in the West forgot or never knew this, the Muslim world has not forgotten.  Since the Islamic community began growing their wealth from oil money in the 1960’s and ’70’s, the world has watched the growth of the Islamic Jihad – because the Sharia demands it.

Our “ally” – Saudi Arabia – continues to fund the global jihad today.

6.  Where is the Other “Version” of Islam Taught?

The obvious question must be asked: Where is this other mystical and peaceful version of Islam and where is it taught? Can anyone name one authoritative text of Islamic jurisprudence from any country or century that teaches something other than the fact Islam exists to wage Jihad until the world is under the rule of Sharia?

The answer is – “NO.”

There is no authoritative Islamic text that teaches something different because there is no other “version” of Islam.  While you may find books that discuss other definitions of “jihad” and other “versions” of Islam at your local book store, those books are written for YOU, not the Muslim community.  If you want to read what Muslims are taught, you must go to Islamic/Mosque bookstores and read their stuff.

Why Islam Is More Dangerous Than Other Religions: Shariah, Jihad, and Muhammad

A woman holds a placard during a march and rally in east London, December 13, 2013. They were participating in a rally organized by British Islamist Anjem Choudary condemning use of alcohol and promoting Shariah law.

A woman holds a placard during a march and rally in east London, December 13, 2013. They were participating in a rally organized by British Islamist Anjem Choudary condemning use of alcohol and promoting Shariah law.

Christian Post, BY MIKE DOBBINS, May 14, 2015:

In the wake of the Muhammad cartoon contest attack, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, tens of thousands of Muslims worldwide flocking to join ISIS, and the chronic oppression of women and minorities in Islamic nations, millions of people are taking a second look at Islam. Journalists, politicians, Muslims, and the public are realizing that something is fundamentally different about the religion. With every Islamic inspired beheading, bombing, burning, crucifixion, hanging, kidnapping, raping, shooting, stabbing, beating, lashing, amputation, and stoning, the difference becomes clearer.

If nations are serious about addressing the root cause of Islamic violence and oppression, they must stop deceiving themselves about the cause. The world must acknowledge the features of Islam that make followers more susceptible to acts of terror and tyranny and put out to pasture the discredited excuses of Islamic apologists.

Just like it would be absurd to say all governments are the same and equally benign, it is the height of irrationality to believe religions are the same and don’t differ in their dangerous teachings. While nearly all religions can teach violence and oppression, each religious text and founder is distinct. What they emphasize means the difference between extreme non-violence, as is the case with fundamentalists in Jainism, or extreme violence, as is the case with fundamentalists in Islam.

If the mainstream media persists on shielding Islam from criticism in the name of political correctness and religious sensitivities, the cycle of Islamic violence will continue ad infinitum. Only when we show moderate Muslims that we care more about saving their lives, improving their well being, and protecting their human rights than we care about possibly offending them will we be able to take our first steps towards ending the violence.

Three key aspects of Islam make it different and more dangerous than other religions: Sharia, Jihad, and Muhammad. Please feel free to reference and share this with the many apologists who still remain ignorant or in denial.

1. Sharia: Islamic law, called Sharia, is the only religious law that is incompatible with democracy and human rights. Wherever Sharia is embraced by an Islamic nation, oppression of women, religious minorities, gays, atheists, and ex-Muslims follows. Cruel and unusual punishments are employed and fear is used to control the population.

In Sharia, if you’re a Muslim who commits apostasy and renounces Islam you will be killed. Women have unequal rights in divorce, inheritance, freedom of movement, freedom of dress, and freedom of employment. Sharia supports killing or punishing gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender people. Sharia enforces blasphemy laws by stating those who criticize Islam, including the Quran or Muhammad, should be killed or severely punished.

The inhumane treatment of people in Sharia is why the Supreme Court of Turkey, a fledgling Islamic democracy, has effectively banned Sharia. It is also why the European Court of Human Rights ruled Sharia “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.”

According to Pew Research Center, a 2013 poll of Muslims worldwide revealed the majority believe Sharia to be revealed by Allah and not created by man. Since Sharia is the law of God, no manmade law can supersede it. Ones allegiance is to Sharia, not secular laws.

As a legal code, Sharia blurs the line between faith and government, making the two indistinguishable. Consequently, religion becomes the rule of law and there is no separation of church and State. This diverges from Christianity that says render unto God what is God’s and Caesar what is Caesar’s and from Jewish law, Halakha, which says Jews should follow the laws of the land they live in.

While some Islamic nations only embrace the civil law aspects of Sharia, for many Sharia is fully implemented and encompasses the personal, cultural, social, political, economic, and legal aspects of life. Though Sharia can be understood differently by the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, it is often interpreted very strictly as it is in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brunei, and many others Islamic countries. It’s no coincidence that these countries have some of the most atrocious human rights records in the world.

The strongest evidence that Sharia makes Islam more oppressive than other religions is the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (CDHRI). 45 Islamic nations have signed the Cairo Declaration that proclaims a number of human rights only to renege on them if they contradict Islamic Sharia. It is a devious way to give the appearance of caring about human rights when in reality it guts the historic 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by declaring Sharia the only source for Muslim ‘human rights’.

To even call the CDHRI a declaration of ‘human rights’ is an affront to the principles of human rights. The Cairo Declaration is an attempt by the majority of Islamic nations to enshrine religious inequality and oppression for eternity and create an Orwellian parallel version of ‘human rights’ to compete with the UDHR. They believe it is a Muslims ‘human right’ to oppress and be oppressed, to carry out cruel and unusual punishments, and to treat women and non-Muslims as inferior.

The Cairo Declaration offers no protections for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or equal rights. For instance, Article 2, section D of the CDHRI states “Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Sharia-prescribed reason.”(Emphasis added) Endless ‘rights’ are no sooner given then they are taken away by declaring that Sharia supersedes all laws guaranteeing human rights.

In case there was any misunderstanding the signers of the declaration included Article 24 that states “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”
If any rights guaranteed in the Cairo Declaration contradict the Sharia, the Sharia always wins. If any of the rights of the Declaration are not found in the Sharia, then they are not ‘guaranteed.’ Islamic nations would have saved a lot of time had they simply called it the ‘Cairo Declaration of Sharia Over Human Rights’.

No other nations on earth have set up a parallel version of ‘human rights’ to undermine the UDHR in the name of religion. By doing so, Islamic countries have declared Islamic Sharia to be incompatible with human rights and Islam very different than other religions. I unequivocally agree with them.

2. Jihad: Islam is the only major religion to have violent resistance, or violent Jihad, embedded into its sacred scriptures and endorsed by the founder. While Jihad can mean to struggle to improve oneself, Jihad meaning ‘violent struggle’ is prevalent in the Quran, Hadith, Islamic history, and modern day Islam. One need only turn on the evening news to see Jihad in action.

No matter where you go in the world, no matter their economic or educational background, race, age, gender, profession, or country of origin you will find a minority of Muslims turning to violent jihad. No matter where you go in the world, no matter their economic or educational background, race, age, gender, profession, or country of origin you will never find any Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Mormon, or humanist followers committing violent Jihad. Violent Jihad is unique to Islam.

Since no other religion has the doctrine of Jihad, we should expect more Muslims to succumb to violence then followers of other faiths. That is exactly what is happening. What would truly be baffling and in need of an explanation is if Muslims weren’t turning to violent Jihad.

Here are but 3 of the many quotes in the Quran and Hadith supporting Jihad. If you read them in context as I suggest you do, it will only reinforce their support of violent jihad.

“Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Quran 9:029

“Our Prophet ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a syahid shall go to paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.” Sahih Bukhari 4:53:386

“A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.” Sahih Bukhari 4:52:50
Astonishingly, even with Islamic terrorists referring to these passages as their inspiration for Jihad and the Quran and Muhammad’s endorsement of Jihad, Islamic apologists still deny that Islam has anything to do with terrorism or that Islam is different than other religions. It’s like trying to talk to someone with their head buried in blood soaked sand.

While the majority of Muslims do not support Jihad, a sizeable minority does. According to a 2013 Pew Poll of Muslims worldwide, 13% support Al Qaeda’s Jihad. When you take into account that there are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, 13% comes to 208 million Muslims scattered around the globe supporting terrorism. There are 15 times more Muslim Al Qaeda supporters than the entire world Jewish population of 13.9 million.

The goal of Jihad is simple: to spread Islam until it conquers and rules the world and all non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule. Non-Muslims and Muslims deemed apostates would be killed, asked to convert, or forced to pay the Jizyah. They will then implement a version of oppressive Sharia law on the conquered lands.

Jihad will not stop next year, next decade, or next century unless there is a worldwide concerted effort to wipe the legitimacy of Jihad from Islamic doctrines.

3. Muhammad: The prophet Muhammad is the only founder of a major religion to also be a warrior and military leader. This crucial distinction between him and founders of other major religions should be significant for obvious reasons. From the beginning the sacred and profound of Islam were bound to be entangled with the violent and cruel.

Like other military leaders of his day, Muhammad committed many ruthless acts. Islamic biographers reveal that he warred with neighboring tribes, ordered assassinations, killed prisoners of war, exploited women and children, gave his blessing to violent religious Jihad, and made people slaves. Many Muslims are only taught Muhammad’s merciful deeds and still remain shockingly ignorant or in denial of his complete life history.

For Muslims who do know and accept his life story, it can be a strong motivation to cause violence. Islam teaches Muslims that Muhammad is the ultimate role model for and they are encouraged to follow in his footsteps. As the supposed last prophet chosen by God his behavior and character are revered as holy and he is an example to be emulated.

It should come as no surprise that Muhammad’s support for violent acts is a significant source and inspiration for violence committed in Islam’s name. Radical Muslims, including ISIS, are simply doing what their prophet encouraged them to do or did himself. By behaving like Muhammad, Jihadi’s believe their violent acts will bring them closer to God, closer to the prophet, and make them more worthy of entrance into paradise.

If Muhammad had preached non-violence, to love non-Muslims, or to live in peace, then we’d have tens of thousands of Muslims around the world acting like Jesus. Because Muhammad was the antithesis of Jesus, we have tens of thousands of Muslims acting like warriors. This makes Islam, and Muhammad, much more dangerous than other religions.

To live in peace, Muslims and non-Muslims must denounce the violent and hateful parts of Muhammad’s life. They must admit that Muhammad was flawed and that his violent actions and sayings were not holy and contradict the Islamic precepts of mercy and forgiveness.

Ultimately, all Muslims, Imams, Islamic Scholars and Universities, Islamic political leaders, Islamic culture, Western political leaders, and Western culture must renounce Sharia, Jihad, and the violent aspects of Muhammad’s life. The alternative is 1400 more years or murder, mayhem, and broken lives.

Jihadophobia

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

Breitbart, by Daniel Akbari, May 15, 2015:

I’m stunned by how Americans panic when they are threatened with the label “Islamophobe.” They become terrified, their judgment gets clouded, their insight is crippled so that they cannot pause for a moment to ask themselves what Islamophobe means. For Americans, being called an Islamophobe is in the same category as being called homophobic, racist, or sexist. The term Islamophobia has successfully silenced many voices and created an atmosphere in which people deliberately self-censor.

But people should not surrender freedom of speech – the right that Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) said was the most important right of all – in response to propaganda. The goal of propaganda is to provoke an emotional response, but Americans deserve a strongly reasoned argument – a reason that makes sense – to give up their freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and even academia have created a culture of shallowness that stops Americans from thinking profoundly when it comes to controversial issues. In the culture of shallowness, people are unable to analyze things deeply, they just look superficially.

The term Islamophobia is the perfect example of this culture of shallowness at work. Breaking Islamophobia down into two separate words, Islam and phobia, enables us to cut through that culture of shallowness. Both Islam and phobia have simple meanings that are easy to understand if used separately. “Islam” is a religion, it is a set of ideas and rules derived from Islamic authoritative sources: the Koran, Hadith, and the consensus of Islamic scholars over the last 1400 years. “Phobia” is a fear that “is in no way justified by reality.” Since phobias are irrational they are considered a psychological disorder. On the basis of the offered definitions, the term Islamophobia means a fear of Islam that lacks a rational basis.

Islam, as a religion, has been subject to different interpretations. The interpretation that is consistent with the authoritative Islamic sources generates sharia and commands jihad. However, there is a broad spectrum of interpretations, some close to the true understanding of Islam and some considered heretical. Being afraid of the fundamental and traditional Islam from which sharia and jihad are spawned is not irrational. In this regard, calling somebody an Islamophobe is tantamount to calling them a Jihadophobe or Sharia-phobe. The fear of jihad and sharia, for those who know them, is a rational fear, it is not a phobia.

Numerous Koran verses explicitly command jihad. Some of the most famous are surah nine of the Koran 9:5,29,73 verse 5, the Verse of the Sword, verse 29, jihad against People of the Book, and verse 73 jihad against hypocrites and unbelievers. Sharia comes from surah 5: 44-48, among others, and tells Muslims they are unbelievers if they do not judge by what Allah has revealed. Sharia is simply the rules for how to practice Islam, formulated by scholars from the Koran and Hadith. For an explanation of the qualification of scholars and how they formulate sharia see Chapter 2 of my latest book, Honor Killing.

The propaganda machine that tars people with the label Islamophobe never dares to discuss the teachings of the authoritative Islamic sources. When they call someone an Islamophobe, it has nothing to do with Islam– they take advantage of the culture of shallowness to make people think the speaker is somehow opposed to Muslims. If they were honest they would say “Muslimophobe.” But who is a Muslim? Many people who come from Islamic countries or have Islamic-sounding names might not be Muslim at all. Many do not practice or even believe in Islam. In the United States, people have come from all parts of the world, including Islamic countries. America has never been against immigrants – against flesh and blood – it is opposed to the ideas that destroy freedom.

As a sharia lawyer, someone who truly understands Islam and sharia law, I know firsthand that living under sharia law is something to be feared. Why Americans have become so shallow and superficial that they do not bother to take the time to question new terms like Islamophobe stuns me.

Daniel Akbari is certified by the Iranian Bar Association as a Number One Attorney, is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Iran, and is the author of two books:HONOR KILLING: A Professionals Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources and New Jihadists and Islam.

Beheaded Christian Doesn’t Regret Faith

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative's Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Stone

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative’s Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Stone

Daily Caller, by Pete Hoekstra, May 15, 2015:

Only among the U.S. media would such a headline make sense.

Radical Islamist terrorists armed with AK-47s attacked hundreds of people at an event in Garland, Texas that sponsored a Muhammad cartoon exhibit and contest. The Associated Press headline that ran on countless websites and newspapers across the country declared: “Activist: No regrets about cartoon contest ended by gunfire.”

What’s next? “No apologies from Jews for inciting Holocaust?” or “No remorse from child aboard bus when bomb exploded?” Since when did it become acceptable, no less headline news, to blame the victim?

Apparently it started when violent Islamists and their sympathizers declared anyone who disagrees with them as Islamophobes subject to death for violating Sharia law. It became much safer and more politically correct to accept their bullying rather than to challenge them.

Numerous moralizing lecturers in the fourth estate piled on free speech activist and writer Pamela Geller for exercising her First Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by hosting the event in Texas.

The Washington Post ran with the headline “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”

The New York Times editorialized that Geller “achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.”

Bill O’Reilly said on his Fox News Channel program: “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid.” He added that Geller hurts the cause of attracting the support of moderate Muslims in the war against jihadists in countries like Jordan and Egypt. Muslims in those countries are already fighting a life and death battle against ISIS and al Qaida, and let’s not be so vain to think that it’s because of whether or not they like us. They do it to stay alive and preserve their children’s future.

Do O’Reilly and writers at the AP, The Washington Post and The New York Times still think that appeasing fanatical jihadists will lessen their hatred of the West and stop them from murdering innocent men, women and children of different faiths?

Been there, done that. It didn’t work.

President Obama tried it in Cairo not too long after his inauguration in 2009. With the Muslim Brotherhood invited to sit in the front row, he told his audience that “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

The administration then banned the use of such words as “Islamic terror” from the White House in a see no evil, hear no evil approach to the building threat.

The outcome? Islamist terrorists have since turned Libya into a chaotic lawless state, ISIS continues to control large swaths of Iraq and Syria, al Qaida owns the Arabian Peninsula, and individuals and groups worldwide – including within the United States – are pledging solidarity with ISIS.

It’s grand Theatre of the Absurd when elites target the First Amendment rights of fellow citizens as opposed to condemning a movement that sees mass murder as a rational response to objectionable caricatures.

Also see:

The lengths we will go to for free speech

20150504001128911016-original
CSP, by Clare Lopez, May 11, 2015:

Beyond the sheer act of defiance in the face of tyranny that was the recent “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, TX, a deeper benefit is emerging: the swirl of controversy that erupted after two Muslim terrorists drove all the way to Texas from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Cultural Center of Phoenix, intending to commit mass murder, is forcing us to consider what exactly it means to ‘defend free speech.’ And what we want it to mean…or are ready to accept that it should mean. Most Americans have no trouble defending the First Amendment – in the abstract, anyway. But now that defending the right to defy Islamic blasphemy laws comes with specifics like an art contest, with actual drawings of Muhammad, and prize money offered by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), and event organizers like AFDI co-founders Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, and death threats—now some aren’t quite so sure anymore that this is the kind of free speech or these exactly are the free speech champions they had in mind.

So, there are the artists and cartoonists who draw images of Muhammad: the Albanian-born ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin (who won the AFDI contest), the Swedish artist, Lars Vilks, and the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard. And there is the Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders, who made a film that criticized shariah-sanctioned abuse of women. Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard is a free speech advocate who has been critical of Islam, too. These (and many more, including Americans who increasingly are labeled ‘Islamophobes’) are the champions of free speech who actually create the material shariah would label ‘blasphemous’ (essentially for daring simply to depict Muhammad in an image or criticize anything about Islam at all). Many have been targeted for death by the enforcers of shariah.

Then there is the Jyllands-Posten Danish newspaper that published Westergaard’s drawings and the satirical Parisian magazine, Charlie Hebdo, that generally takes swipes at everyone and everything, including Islam. These and a host of online sites (including this one) posted the articles and cartoons and images, thereby incurring the murderous wrath of shariah-adherent Muslims, whose doctrine and law explicitly enjoin them to attack such media and their staffs with intent to kill.

And finally, there are those like Pamela Geller who display and encourage and feature such material, whether in city bus ads, transit stations, or at the recent contest in Garland, TX.

The question that so many of the wobbly set now seem to be stumbling over is, At which point in the free speech process – creation, publication, or public promotion – does it become ‘provocation’ that ‘goes too far’? Does it ever? Is it even possible for speech to be ‘too free’—in America? Why is the abstract defense of free speech and the First Amendment so laudable, but when the abstract takes form in ways that boldly challenge Islam’s attempts to silence those who criticize, when the abstract is personified in a Fawstin, a Geller, Hedegaard, Vilks, Westergaard, or Wilders, then it’s called ‘incitement’ that ought to be toned down? If not their statements, then what would be an acceptable demonstration of defiance against Islam’s blasphemy codes? That is, if defiance itself isn’t just a bit too much these days…

The point is that unless we champion and defend the actual people who are the physical embodiment of those abstract principles we all claim to cherish, the principles won’t stand a chance.

My Winning Mohammad Contest DrawingBosch Fawstin’s winning drawing of Muhammad was neither crude, nor grotesque, nor tasteless. It was, in fact, the perfect depiction of the principle at the center of contention: the right to freedom of artistic expression. If the conquered civilizations of the Afghan Buddhists, Byzantium, Middle East Christianity and Judaism, Hindus, and Persians teach us anything, it must be that even the most determined defense over a span of centuries may not suffice to save a people targeted by Islam; anything less, never mind actual passivity in the face of jihad aggression, will lead inevitably to subjugation.

Some would say that Pamela Geller pushes the edges of the envelope. To the extent that this is true, it is because it is always out at the edges, at the frontiers, that the ghazi – the warriors of Islam – have probed and tested the defenses of their targets for any weakness. If no one confronts them at the frontier, they push onward, inward, to the soft centers of society. Those hardy defenders who hold firm out there on the frontiers stand between civilization and barbarism.

By all means, we need to have this discussion. Long overdue, actually. But let us understand that the debate is not about the principle of free speech, per se: we agree on that pretty unanimously. Rather, it’s about how far we are willing to go to support those who put that principle into action against an enemy that would shut it down completely if not stopped.

Also see:

Imam Anjem Choudary Tells Hannity That Pamela Geller Should Die

11109173_911436202241134_7526057364378278405_n

Truth Revolt, by Caleb Howe, May 7, 2015:

On Fox News last night, Sean Hannity hosted what basically amounted to a verbal holy war between Islamic Imam Anjem Choudary and Pamela Geller. Choudary repeatedly stated that Geller knew the “consequences” for her actions, and that the consequences for her actions are death. He says that she isn’t even good enough to be called a pig. He said America was the real murderer, that all will come under sharia law, that any who insult the prophet should receive “capital punishment.”

This is a good time to remind our readers that people who talk about sharia in America are called conspiracy theorists, that Pamela Geller, who has been marked for death by Islam over cartoons, is the one being called “hateful” by our media, and that the official position of Smart People is that only a tiny few Muslims are terrorists and murderers.

As far as we know, Anjem Choudary isn’t a terrorist. Using the standard the media and the President use, he would not be counted in the “less than one percent” of Muslims who commit acts of terror or join ISIS or kidnap girls in Africa. Yet here he is on a major news outlet telling the world, as he often does, that he believes the exact same thing as the terrorists.

Nobody is a terrorist until they are. But it is clear that support for the murder of cartoonists extends beyond just the murderers themselves. Believing that those who insult Mohammed should be put to death does not mean you are in some exclusive terrorist-only club, or that you are a member of ISIS. It is not uncommon. It is a widely shared conviction. And what’s more, it’s put into practice by people who aren’t counted in that “one percent” we’re supposed to find insignificant.

Also see:

Pamela Geller, TIME Magazine: A Response to My Critics—This Is a War

Screen-Shot-2015-05-06-at-11.01.54-AMBy Pamela Geller, May 6, 2015:

The cartoon contest was needlessly provocative? No — murdering cartoonists is needlessly provocative.

It was the jihadis, not I, who made the cartoons a flash point. If we surrender on that point and stop drawing Muhammad, we’ve established a precedent of surrendering to violent Sharia enforcement, and once established, we will be made to reinforce it again and again.

Did anyone think these 2 gunmen would have lived quiet lives as peaceable and loyal Americans if we hadn’t held the contest? They would have waged jihad elsewhere, on a less protected target, and killed more people.

“Pamela Geller: A Response to My Critics—This Is a War,”  Time Magazine, May 6, 2015

NEW YORK - AUGUST 3:  Pamela Geller, author of the book The Post-American Presidency and a proponent of the proposed World Trade Center Islamic Center answers emails inside her home on August 3, 2010 in New York City. Mrs. Geller has spoke and written heavily against the center on her blog Atlas Shrugs. (Photo by Jason Andrew/Getty Images)

Some are saying I provoked this attack. But to kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

Sunday in Garland, Texas, a police officer was wounded in a battle that is part of a longstanding war: the war against the freedom of speech. Some people are blaming me for the Garland shooting — so I want to address that here

The shooting happened at my American Freedom Defense Initiative Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, when two Islamic jihadists armed with rifles and explosives drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland and attempted to gain entry to our event, which was just ending. We were aware of the risk and spent thousands of dollars on security — and it paid off. The jihadis at our free speech event were not able to achieve their objective of replicating the massacre at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine last January — and to go it one better in carnage. They were not able to kill anyone. We provided enormous security, in concert with the superb Garland police department. The men who took the aspiring killers down may have saved hundreds of lives.

And make no mistake: If it weren’t for the free-speech conference, these jihadis would have struck somewhere else — a place where there was less security, like the Lindt cafe in Australia or the Hyper Cacher Kosher supermarket in Paris.

So, why are some people blaming me? They’re saying: “Well, she provoked them! She got what she deserved!” They don’t remember, or care to remember, that as the jihadis were killing the Muhammad cartoonists in Paris, their friend and accomplice was murdering Jews in a nearby kosher supermarket. Were the Jews asking for it? Did they “bait” the jihadis? Were they “provoking” them?

Are the Jews responsible for the Nazis? Are the Christians in the Middle East responsible for being persecuted by Muslims?

Drawing Muhammad offends Islamic jihadists? So does being Jewish. How much accommodation of any kind should we give to murderous savagery? To kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

This is a war.

Now, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, and after the Garland attack, what are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?

The attack in Garland showed that everything my colleagues and I have been warning about regarding the threat of jihad, and the ways in which it threatens our liberties, is true. Islamic law, Sharia, with its death penalty for blasphemy, today constitutes a unique threat to the freedom of speech and liberty in general.

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.

Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not stand for being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed, while everyone else lives in fear.

Islamic law as it’s interpreted by extremists forbids criticism of Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad. If they cannot be criticized in the United States, we are in effect accepting Islamic law as overriding the freedom of speech. This would establish Muslims as a protected class and prevent honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence.

Some say that “hate speech” should be censored. But what constitutes “hate speech” is a subjective judgment that is unavoidably influenced by the political perspective of the one doing the judging.

Allowing this sort of censorship would mean nothing less civilizational suicide. Many in the media and academic elite assign no blame to an ideology that calls for death to blasphemers — i.e., those who criticize or offend Islam. Instead, they target and blame those who expose this fanaticism. If the cultural elites directed their barbs and attacks at the extremist doctrine of jihad, the world would be a vastly safer place.

You can try to avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. The shootings in Garland, Paris, and Copenhagen targeting defenders of free speech, and the raging jihad across the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, are the disastrous consequences of avoiding reality.

I encourage all Americans to watch the videos of the Garland event and see what Islamic supremacists wish to silence: basic, elemental free speech arguments.

But we are unbowed. Even when the venue was in lockdown and hundreds of attendees were ushered down into the auditorium, the crowd was singing the Star Spangled Banner and G-d Bless America. In the face of fear, they were staunchly and uniquely American.

To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you cannot criticize. If the international media had run the Danish cartoons back in 2005, none of this could have happened. The jihadis wouldn’t have been able to kill everyone. But by self-censoring, the media gave the jihadis the power they have today.

We must take back our freedom.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

***

More videos added! 21 and counting!

Educating CNN and Fox News About Pamela Geller and the Sharia Assault on Free Speech in Garland, Texas

Fawstin_Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small-1024x814By Andrew Bostom, May 5, 2015:

Today we are getting confirmation (here; here) of potential direct ISIS involvement in the jihad terror attack on a Garland, TX free speech gathering, Sunday May 3, 2015. Mercifully, the jihadist assault-weapons wielding attackers were slain by an intrepid handgun-wielding policeman before they could complete their Sharia (Islamic Law)-compliant act of carnage.

Veteran journalist, author, and brave activist par excellence, Pamela Geller, organized the Garland event which featured artistic cartoon depictions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. The conference was assembled in direct defiance of the Sharia’s First Amendment/ free speech-crushing blasphemy law—a form of medieval cum modern Islamic obscurantism, “enforced” by murderous violence, or non-violent coercion.

Geller’s courageous and informative effort (view the full 3-hour event here)—nearly terminated via jihadists desirous of mass-murdering “blasphemous” innocents—has been ignorantly misrepresented not only by the likes of Alisyn Camerota on CNN, but also Martha MacCallum, and even to a lesser extent, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News. More egregiously, neither of these networks have displayed the thoughtful Muhammad cartoon drawn by artist Bosch Fawstin, a former Muslim freethinker of Albanian descent, whose depiction (above) was awarded first prize at the free speech exhibition. Indeed, Mr. Fawstin was told specifically not to show his cartoon drawing, prior to his interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren (see my twitter exchanges here, here, and here with Fawstin and Van Susteren).

Sam Sorbo graciously provided me a radio forum to attempt to educate news media talking heads Camerota, MacCallum, Kelly, Van Susteren, and their ilk. Over 13-years after the murderous jihad cataclysm of 9/11/2001, these news intermediaries evidence a woefully deficient understanding of the living Islamic doctrinal and historical basis for behaviors such as the thwarted Garland, TX attack. They are equally oblivious to hard contemporary data on both global, and U.S. Muslim attitudes toward such critically relevant matters as “blasphemy,” as well as what a preeminent, mainstream North American Muslim jurists association opines about “punishment” for criticism of Islam’s prophet. This professional knowledge deficit—a dereliction of journalistic duty—is manifest in their coverage of the free speech event, and/or their interactions with Ms. Geller.

The yawning gaps in Camerota’s, MacCallum’s, Kelly’s, and Van Susteren’s understanding are summarized in the following bullets, and within the Sam Sorbo interview (embedded below), and elaborated here, and here:

  • Muhammad’s prototype behaviors which sanction violent jihadism, non-Muslim (especially Jew)-hatred, misogyny, and lethal attacks on his—and Islam’s—critics.
  • Sharia, and Sharia-based blasphemy law, per Muhammad’s example, and its contemporary manifestations, include: widespread application in Islamic societies; the ominous support for Islamic blasphemy amongst U.S. Muslims—58% rejecting free speech criticism of Islam 45% wanting such “blasphemers” prosecuted, and 12% supporting lethal punishment for “blasphemy”; and sanction, i.e., a formal fatwa (Islamic legal ruling) by the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America that killing blasphemers remains valid for North American Muslims.

Finally, Sam Sorbo and I also discussed the issue of so-called “provocation,” versus rational, informed assessment of Muhammad’s pious Muslim biography, and the intimately related Sharia. This concluding exchange riveted upon demonstrable facts, not wishful, defensive, and accusatory ignorance.

***

See more videos here

Reformist Approach to Sharia a Refreshing Break with Academic Apologists

Rumee-Ahmed-ramadan-770.JPGJihad Watch, by Andrew Harrod, May 2, 2015:

In a refreshing departure from Sharia apologias common in Middle East studies, University of British Columbia Islamic law professor  rejected the “myth” of Sharia (Islamic law) as a “static, fixed, reified entity” on April 22 in the Georgetown University Center for Contemporary Arab Studies’ wood-paneled boardroom. Ahmed’s presentation, “Shari’a 2.0: Islamic Systematics and the Science of Islamic Legal Reform” before a student-dominated audience of about fifteen, demonstrated simultaneously Sharia’s all-too human origins as well as its embedded dangers.

He described a “sharp, sharp disconnect” between contemporary and historical Islamic interpretations of Sharia. According to the former, Islamic legal scholars substantiated their claim of being central to legitimating Islamic regimes that claimed to rule by God’s law. Yet judges who were not legal scholars often made politically motivated legal decisions that were subject to subsequent overruling by temporal rulers such as caliphs. Campaigning armies, meanwhile, would simply make unilateral decisions without consulting legal scholars on issues such as the division of spoils.

Concerning pre-colonial Islamic legal scholars, Ahmed questioned the power and reputation of such men in a world of three percent literacy. Political patronage could compromise the purity of their intentions. Danger lurked, he noted, since their struggles with rulers could lead to imprisonment or even execution.

Ahmed expressed a “very cynical view” regarding past legal use of Islam’s canonical texts. Quran 8:67-68, concerning the Muslim victory at the Battle of Badr under Muhammad, suggested that taking prisoners manifested a failure to fulfill a divine command to fight the enemy. But “sharp breaks” throughout history in the acceptance of taking and ransoming prisoners by Sunni Islam’sHanafi school of jurisprudence demonstrated how Islamic law responded to political developments with theological reinterpretation.

Practical realities aside, Ahmed described how earlier Islamic legal scholars created in their voluminous writings “subjunctive worlds.” Although these legal visions often had no expectation of implementation, they expressed the “ideal relationship between human beings and God.” “Writing a book of law is never a waste of time,” he noted, but is a “way to express your religiosity” or a “devotional act” similar to prayer. The intricacy of such legal thinking means that attempts to reform a single point of Islamic law on, for example, punishments involving whipping necessitates considering several other elements of Islamic legal theory.

Islamic legal history is replete with controversies surrounding reform, he said. Quran 5:38 was “pretty clear” in mandating hand amputation as punishment for stealing, although some had tried to interpret this verse to mean “cut off their power” with imprisonment. Several hadith, or canonical narratives of Muhammad’s life, however, did indeed mandate amputation and formed a corresponding pre-colonial Islamic legal consensus, contrary practice notwithstanding.

Slavery’s permissibility received a similar “unequivocal yes” in Islamic law sixty or seventy years ago. Political pressures forced Muslim scholars to justify abolition in what Ahmed described as a “little bit of a technical argument” premised on the understanding that “times have changed.” The Islamic State (ISIS), though, has recently reintroduced slavery, arguing that times have changed again.

Other controversies involving Sharia have been addressed creatively, Ahmed noted. The Egyptian jihadist group Gama’a al-Islamiyya, for example, discovered in Western contract law a unique basis for abolishing airline hijacking: the purchaser of an airline ticket may not violate its terms by destroying or seizing the plane. In the political sphere, while many European diaspora Muslims vote simply for the sake of political participation, the Sharia principle of maslaha or public good allows conservative Muslims to participate in non-Muslim politics in order to advance Islam.

One of Ahmed’s Powerpoints stated, “Gender: The Greatest Challenge to Islamic Reform.” “Gender pervades every part of Islamic law,” he explained, a law that was traditionally patriarchal. The Quran, for example 4:11, prescribes half the inheritance for women as for men.

Nonetheless, Sharia’s past malleability made Ahmed optimistic that in Islam, “any law, no matter how entrenched it seems in Muslim texts, can be reformed.” To this end, he is developing an application allowing popular citation of legal arguments and sources in order to “democratize” and “crowdsource Sharia.” That way, less educated and “state-sponsored ulama” (religious scholars) will “not have a monopoly on Islamic law.”

Ahmed himself would like to “get less religion” in Muslim governance, but Sharia is not going to disappear from Muslim societies anytime soon, including pertinent national constitution clauses. An “overwhelming number” of surveyed Muslims expressed a belief in Sharia, often including corporal punishment, as divine. Alternatively, millions of Muslims sought an Islamic theological basis to justify their support for human rights norms such as gender equality. “Context driving law is not just legitimate, it’s inevitable,” he concluded.

Ahmed’s illuminating and refreshingly honest examination of Sharia raised several important concerns surrounding Islamic law and its reform. On one hand, critical examination of Sharia’s past could cause many Muslims to be as reform-minded as Ahmed and to reject Sharia as a divinely-ordained, unalterable legal code that demands future application. On the other hand, Sharia contains serious moral failings not easily resolved even with the most sophisticated (or sophistic) Islamic theological and legal arguments.

As presented by Ahmed, Islamic law suffers from an unwieldy, unstable, and incoherent structure stemming from Islam’s doctrinal foundations. As one of his slides stated, Islam’s arbitrary conception of God is “beyond our moral code.” Islamic norms then derive from Muhammad, who “is supposed to be the pristine believer” in Islamic teaching and thus, according to some Islamic teachings, incapable of sin. On the basis of the life of this seventh-century desert dweller, Islamic law has accepted slavery while possessing an “unnecessary amount of information on the law of wells.” Developing modern legal standards for a free society within such a body of law will be difficult indeed, which is why Ahmed’s insistence on reform is so important.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Eleven Reasons to Reject Sharia Law in Any Form

sharia1 (1)Citizen Warrior, May 2, 2015:

The following list was posted at the Infidel Blogger’s Alliance and has been attributed to Larry Houle. It is a countdown of the top eleven reasons to reject Shari’a. Shari’a is Islamic law, based on the Quran and the Sunnah. It is considered my Muslims to be Allah’s law, and the only rightful set of laws on earth.

Several countries apply Shari’a today, and millions of Muslims around the world are uniting and recruiting and willing to die to get Shari’a applied in more countries. Here is why their efforts must be stopped:

11. Shari’a condones slavery.

Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora notes: “the Quran stipulated that female slaves might lawfully be enjoyed by their masters.” Mohammad himself owned many slaves, some of whom he captured in wars of conquest and some he purchased. The names of forty slaves owned by Mohammad are recorded by Muslim chroniclers.

Islamic law (Sharia) contains elaborate regulations for slavery. A slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), slaves had no right to property, could marry only with the permission of the owner, and were considered to be chattel, that is the movable property, of the slave owner.

Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Sharia law to sexually exploit their slaves, including hiring them out as prostitutes. One reason why very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery is that traditional Islamic culture still condones slavery. The Sharia, the codified Islamic law which is based upon the teachings and example of Mohammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery. One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Mohammad.

Whatever Mohammad did, we must do, what he forbade, we must forbid, what he did not forbid, we may not forbid.

As Mohammad himself traded in slaves and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year-old, and having concubines — slavery and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition.

Muslim nations had engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

THE RIGHTS OF SLAVES UNDER ISLAM

According to the Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves had few civil or legal rights. For example:

  • Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves – Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49.
  • Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God – Sura 16:77
  • According to Islamic tradition, people at the time of their capture were either to be killed, or enslaved. Shows you that they were at the bottom of the barrel to start with.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves were merchandise. The sales of slaves was in accordance with the sale of animals.
  • Muhammad ordered that some slaves who were freed by their master be RE-ENSLAVED!
  • It is permissible under Islamic law to whip slaves.
  • According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this.
  • According to Islam, the testimony of slaves is not admissible in court. Ibn Timiyya and Bukhari state this.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves cannot choose their own marriage mate. – Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, part 9.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. – Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155.

Slavery continued in Islamic lands from about the beginning to this very day (read one man’s recent experience escaping slavery in Sudan). Muslim rulers always found support in the Quran to call ‘jihad’, partly for booty, partly for the purpose of taking slaves.

As the Islamic empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms, and each ruler was able to decide what Islam’s theology really meant. Usually, he always found it in support of what he wanted to do. Their calls of jihad against their neighbors facilitated the taking of slaves for Islam. The Quran and Islamic jurisprudence support the taking of slaves, so, those petty Muslim rulers were following the Quran when they needed slaves.

WHO CAN BE MADE SLAVES UNDER ISLAM?

  • Islam allows Muslims to make slaves out of anyone who is captured during war.
  • Islam allows for the children of slaves to be raised as slaves.
  • Like (a), Islam allows for Christians and Jews to be made into slaves if they are captured in war. After Muslim armies attacked and conquered Spain, they took thousands of slaves back to Damascus. The key prize was 1000 virgins as slaves.
  • Christians and Jews, who had made a treaty with the ruling Muslims could be made into slaves if they did not pay the “protection” tax. This paying for ‘protection’ was just like paying a Mafia racketeer! This allowed Muslim rulers to extort money from non-Muslim people.

10. Shari’a commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason number 9 below), but also for drinking alcohol. In 2005, in Nigeria a Shari’a court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes. In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90-91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does.

A poor ‘criminal’ was brought to Muhammad who became angry: The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad’s presence].

(Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774-6775)Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment? The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

9. Shari’a allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al-Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia. Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. One of the guests was an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of Allah], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. Allah is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Quran, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘Abdur Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr:

Muslim no. 2127: ‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual ‘crimes’ may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women.

Generally, Shari’a restricts women’s social mobility and rights, the more closely Shari’a is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars.

In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women’s testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

8. Shari’a allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge — physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancé. In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.The Quran says:

5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Quran, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.

Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC (the law is based on the Torah) and to re-impose the old law of retaliation — literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally.

7. Shari’a commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

This punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan. The Quran says:

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done — a deterrent from Allah: Allah is almighty and wise.

5:39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief’s hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

6. Shari’a commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. An article about it said of this punishment that it was the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation).

AI has recorded thirty-three amputations and nine cross-amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated. The Quran says:

5:33-34 Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter…unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that Allah is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33-34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away…The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

5. Shari’a commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over on top of three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108-113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’ These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: …’If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.’ (Abu Dawud no. 4447)
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have a wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version…on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

4. Shari’a orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex. The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]. (Hilali and Khan)

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833. The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

In Iran, a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty-five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports: An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging.

Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped. She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her… (Muslim no. 4206) The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her.

Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet’s words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

3. Shari’a orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Shari’a itself.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote The Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran.

Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa. In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. The Muslims’ ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam. Here are the classical legal rulings:

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597-98, o8.7):

  1. Reviling Allah or his Messenger;
  2. being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat';
  3. denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it';
  4. holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent';
  5. reviling the religion of Islam;
  6. being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
  7. denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message…to be the religion followed by the entire world.

‘It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head.

The non-Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)-(5)):

  1. Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her;
  2. conceal spies of hostile forces;
  3. lead a Muslim away from Islam;
  4. mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet…or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows:

  1. death,
  2. enslavement,
  3. release without paying anything, or
  4. ransoming in exchange for money

These punishments also execute free speech — even repulsive speech — and freedom of religion or conscience. Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth.

As it stands, Shari’a — with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and the Shari’a itself — testifies to their weakness since Shari’a threatens those who dare to differ. How confident was Muhammad (and today’s Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

2. Shari’a orders apostates to be killed (an apostate is someone who leaves Islam).

In Iran, an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi’ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings. See the previous point number 3 for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Citing Quranic verses and hadith passages, Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, argues that Sura 9:11-12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death. Apostates should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.

And the number one reason why Shari’a is bad for all societies…

1. Shari’a commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the memetic code for Islam — waging war. In the ten years he lived in Medina from AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. Muhammad had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax (“protection” tax) on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury.

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

  1. Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since any previous marriages of slaves are automatically annulled upon their capture, according to Shari’a.
  2. Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, did this.
  3. Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.
  4. Old men and monks could be killed.
  5. A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.
  6. Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non-Muslim.
  7. Civilian property may be confiscated.
  8. Civilian homes may be destroyed.
  9. Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.
  10. Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.
  11. People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury.

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad a revelation to stop these practices. Therefore, Islam is violent — unjustly and aggressively.

Also see:

Free Speech, “But” – Paris, Copenhagen, Now Garland Texas

by Sundance:

Considering the jihadist attack in Garland Texas, it will not take long for the professional left to begin espousing the familiar tome: “free speech, but“….

There is no “but” in any sentence about “free speech”.  It is, it exists, -or-, it is not, it does not exist.  It is that simple.

Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small

The fact that a simple event depicting pictures of Muhammad needs to spend $10,000 to hire security -IN AMERICA- should be the real story.  The fact that a simple event depicting pictures would be considered “controversial” -IN AMERICA- should be the sub line of the real story.  Alas, these simple considerations will be lost amid the “but” crowd.

“But”, free speech does not protect offensive speech – is another familiar, perhaps the most frequent, refrain from the “but” crowd.  Insufferably wrong.   The only speechthat needs first amendment protection is “offensive speech”, if your speech wasn’t controversial or offensive it would not need protection.

As BigFurHat accurately opines:

[…] This event was to see if ordinary Americans could draw a F*CKING CARTOON without the penalty of death.

Apparently not. So why would you be sympathetic to hair-trigger unreasonable monsters in our midst? Why would you cower, rather than say, “ya, right, if I doodle your prophet I’m going to die. Not in America, Omar.” (link)

And, in a larger sense, showcasing this absurdity is exactly the purpose of the event.

Texas Muhammad

Why do marchers march?  Why do protesters protest?  Why can every American carry their soapbox to any street corner or public square and stand atop it?  Because the central tenet of our foundational principles says We Are Free To Speak.  Period.

“But”, you must accept the consequences therein – yet another similar refrain.  And what “consequences” should be allowable? “Consequences” yes, but drawing out those consequences while contrast against the foundational principle of freedom is exactly what the event was highlighting.

Authentic Islam, carried out to it’s fullest political construct, is antithetical to our U.S. constitutional freedom.

If the central tenet of any belief commands a person to kill another person for drawing a picture – it’s the belief that must be confronted within a society that values freedom, not the artist drawing the picture.

But”, other progressive societies restrict “provocative speech – another espousal from the “But” crowd.   We are not ‘other societies’, we are a formed national society based on valuing ‘individual freedom’ not ‘collective freedom’.  Our foundation puts the freedom of speech as the first freedom, the first amendment – a bill of unalienable rights endowed not by government or man.

We, our nation, were born as a constitutional republic, not a democracy.  The outlined rights of the individual are embedded as more valuable than the rights of the state, so long as the expression of those individual rights does not impede upon the same rights of another – nor form a delivery obligation unto another individual.

But”, your expression of freedom (drawing a picture), is by measure and consequence, having an impact upon my ability to believe in my religion.   A statement finally reached when having a conversation with anyone practicing Authentic Islam.

This is where it is claimed that the tenet of their belief demands they must not allow depictions of the Prophet Muhammad; and therefore an individual freedom of expression or belief is impacting their first amendment right to their religious belief.

That part of the argument is exactly evidence that Authentic Islam is antithetical to our U.S. constitutional freedom.

That part of the argument is exactly what the purpose of the event in Garland Texas was drawing out.

The Heroine For Freedom - Pam Geller Wins First Amendment Case In Washington DC

Free Speech, you either have it or you don’t….

….there is no “but”.

The Unwavering Failsafe – Just to make sure there never would be a “but” our forefathers cemented the first amendment with the establishment of the second amendment to protect it.

Last night in Garland Texas their foresight worked seamlessly.

Also see:

Islam’s Message to “Islamophobes” – Shut Up or Else

imagescaok312n (2)UTT, by John Guandolo, April 16, 2015:

In a number of interviews and presentations recently, Understanding the Threat (UTT) has received questions about how our enemy uses the label of “Islamophobe” to silence and threaten those who speak honestly and factually about the threat of the Islamic Movement here and abroad.

In a brief attempt to review, we will simply look at three key pieces of information:  the Islamic Law of Slander, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Cairo Declaration, and the OIC’s 10 Year Programme of Action.

In Sharia (Islamic Law), “Slander” is defined as to say anything about a Muslim or Islam he would dislike. (Umdat al Salik, Holding One’s Tongue).  Veracity of the statement is irrelevant.  Therefore, to factually explain to people that Sharia obliges Muslims to wage jihad (warfare against non-Muslims) until the entire world is under the rule of Sharia, can be considered “Slander” because the Muslim community does not want non-Muslims to know this right now.  You will know everything you need to know about Sharia when you are under the weight of it.

Slander is a capital crime in Islamic Law.

The OIC is the largest international body in the world, second only to the UN, and is made up of all 57 Islamic States on the planet.  Yes, 57 states.

In 1990, during the OIC’s Extraordinary Session, the Heads of State and Kings of every Muslim nation on earth approved the Cairo Declaration.  This document states that the entire Muslim world agrees with the International Declaration of Human Rights, insofar as it does not contradict Sharia.  To quote Articles 24 and 25:  “ARTICLE 24 – All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.  ARTICLE 25 – The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

In other words, the Muslim world does not adhere to the rest of the world’s understanding of “Human Rights.”  In 1993, the OIC served the Cairo Declaration to the UN, thus putting the world on notice that beheading Christians, killing homosexuals, and subjugating women, were all in accordance with Islamic “Human Rights.”

In 2005, the OIC published their “Ten Year Programme of Action” in which they make “Combatting Islamophobia” a main focus of their plan.  It specifically highlighs the need to “combat defamation” of religion (read: “Islam”).  The Programme states:   “Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”  Punishments for speech the Muslim world doesn’t “like.”  Here they are tying “Islamophobia” to the Islamic Law of Slander and demonstrating their desire to punish violators.

At the international level this is a gross assault on our rule of law, the foundational principles of Western civilization, and basis decency.  Nothing surprising here from a global Movement which beheads 8 year olds and puts their heads on spikes to line the roads, sets fire to people, and calls for the death of all Jews so they can go to Paradise.

Also see CJR’s page on the Threat to Free Speech

UK: Sharia Courts Abusing Muslim Women

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, April 8, 2015:

The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land.

“I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.” — Muslim woman interviewed for the report.

The report concludes by calling on the British government to launch a judge-led inquiry to “determine the extent to which discriminatory Sharia law principles are being applied within the UK.”

“The government’s response will be a litmus test of the extent to which it genuinely upholds the principle of equality before the law or is so dominated by the fear of ‘giving offense’ that it will continue to allow these women to suffer in ways which would make our suffragettes turn in their graves.” — Baroness Caroline Cox.

Muslim women across Britain are being systematically oppressed, abused and discriminated against by Sharia law courts that treat women as second-class citizens, according to a new report, which warns against the spiraling proliferation of Islamic tribunals in the United Kingdom.

The 40-page report, “A Parallel World: Confronting the Abuse of Many Muslim Women in Britain Today,” was authored by Baroness Caroline Cox, a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords and one of the leading defenders of women’s rights in the UK.

The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land.

The Arbitration Act of 1996 allows parties to resolve certain civil disputes according to Sharia principles in such a way that the decision can be enforced in British courts.

According to the report, however, many Muslim bodies are using the Arbitration Act to support the claim that they are able to make legally binding decisions for members of the Muslim community, when in fact the law limits their role to that of being a mediator to help reach an agreement. “The mediator is not a judge or an arbitrator who imposes a decision,” the report states.

The report shows how Sharia courts often fuse the concepts of arbitration, in which both parties agree to submit their dispute to a mutually agreeable third party for a decision to be made, and mediation, in which the two parties voluntarily use a third party to help them reach an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

On top of this lies the problem of “jurisdiction creep,” whereby Sharia courts are adjudicating on matters well outside the arbitration framework, such as by deciding cases relating to criminal law, including those involving domestic violence and grievous bodily harm.

 

Haitham al-Haddad is a British Sharia court judge, and sits on the board of advisors for the Islamic Sharia Council. Regarding the handling of domestic violence cases, he stated in an interview, “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort their matters among themselves.” (Image source: Channel 4 News video screenshot)

As a result, Muslim women, who may lack knowledge of both the English language and their rights under British law, are often pressured by their families to use Sharia courts. These courts often coerce them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions, which are imposed and viewed as legal judgments.

Worse yet, “Refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia forum could lead to threats and intimidation, or being ostracized and labelled a disbeliever,” the report states, and adds:

“There is a particular concern that women face pressure to withdraw allegations of domestic violence after they make them. Several women’s groups say they are often reluctant to go to the authorities with women who have run away to escape violence because they cannot trust police officers within the community not to betray the girls to their abusing families.”

The report shows that even in cases where Muslim tribunals work “in tandem” with police investigations, abused women often withdraw their complaints to the police, while Sharia judges let the husbands go unpunished.

Meanwhile, most Sharia courts, when dealing with divorce, do so only in a religious sense. They cannot grant civil divorce; they simply grant a religious divorce in accordance with Sharia law.

According to the report, in many cases this is all that is necessary for a “divorce” anyway; many Muslim women who identify themselves as being “married” are not in marriages that are legally recognized by British law. Although a nikah (an Islamic wedding ceremony) may have taken place, if the marriage is not officially registered, it is not valid in the eyes of civil law. The report states:

“This creates a very serious problem: women who are married in Islamic ceremonies but are not officially married under English law can suffer grave disadvantages because they lack legal protection. What is more, they can be unaware that their marriage is not officially recognized by English law.”

This places Muslim women in an especially precarious legal situation when it comes to divorce. In Islam, a husband does not have to follow the same process as the wife when seeking a talaq (Islamic divorce). He merely has to say “I divorce you” three times, whereas the wife must meet various conditions and pay a fee. The report cites women, when speaking of their own talaqproceedings, who referred to their lack of legal protection after discovering that their nikah did not constitute a valid marriage under English law.

The report cites Kalsoom Bashir, a long-time women’s rights activist in Bristol, who discusses the added problem of polygamy. She notes:

“There is an increasing rise in polygamy within Muslim families and again the women who are involved are not in a position to be able to challenge the situation or get any form of justice. They find it difficult to obtain any maintenance as the marriages are not registered legally. Polygamy is used to control first wives who are told that if they are a problem the man has the Islamic right to take another wife. Sometimes just one of the marriages is registered leaving one wife without any legal protections.”

Overall, the report includes excerpts of testimonies of more than a dozen Muslim women who have suffered abuse and injustice at the hands of Sharia courts in Britain. One woman said: “I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.”

The report concludes by calling on the British government to launch a judge-led inquiry to “determine the extent to which discriminatory Sharia law principles are being applied within the UK.” It also calls on the government to support Baroness Cox’s Private Members’ Bill — the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill — which would “create a new criminal offense criminalizing any person who purports to legally adjudicate upon matters which ought to be decided by criminal or family courts.”

Baroness Cox originally introduced the bill in 2011, but it went nowhere due to the lack of support from the main parties. She re-introduced the bill in 2013 and 2014, but it continues to languish, apparently because the main parties are afraid of offending Muslims. Cox has vowed to re-introduce the bill in the next session of Parliament, whose members will be elected on May 7.

The bill aims to combat discrimination by, among other restrictions, prohibiting Sharia courts from: a) treating the evidence of a man as worth more than the evidence of a woman; b) proceeding on the assumption that the division of an estate between male and female children on intestacy must be unequal; or c) proceeding on the assumption that a woman has fewer property rights than a man.

The law would also place a duty on public bodies to ensure that women in polygamous households, or those who have had a religious marriage, are made aware of their legal position and relevant legal rights under British law.

In a letter, Baroness Cox wrote that her recommendations “can by no means remedy all of the sensitive issues involved, but they do offer an important opportunity for redress.” She added that her bill “already has strong support from across the political spectrum in the House of Lords as well as from Muslim women’s groups and other organisations concerned with the suffering of vulnerable women.”

But it remains to be seen whether the next government will agree to support the bill. On March 23, British Home Secretary Theresa May pledged that if the Conservative Party wins the general election, she would launch a review into whether Sharia courts in England and Wales are compatible with British values.

But the Conservative government’s track record on confronting Islam has been patchy at best. In November 2013, for example, the government rejected an amendment offered by Cox to the Anti-Social Behavior, Crime and Policing Bill, which would have protected women who are duped into believing that their marriages are valid under British law when in fact they are not.

More recently, the Conservatives quashed a “politically incorrect” inquiry into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain.

While Cox welcomed May’s commitment to investigate Sharia courts, she also expressed concern that politicians will once again bow to political correctness. It is important, she wrote, that such investigations “do not fall at the first hurdle, as appears to have happened with previous, similar government-led reviews. Without powers to subpoena witnesses, any independent review — no matter how well intentioned — will be another lost opportunity.”

Cox summed it up this way:

“The government’s response will be a litmus test of the extent to which it genuinely upholds the principle of equality before the law or is so dominated by the fear of ‘giving offense’ that it will continue to allow these women to suffer in ways which would make our suffragettes turn in their graves.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.