Lisa Daftari: The Real War on Women: A Look Into Global Human Rights Abuses and the Americans Who Ignore Them

Published on Feb 20, 2015 by The Heritage Foundation 

***

Iranian American: ‘Sharia Law Is Here in the U.S.’  by By Penny Starr at CNS News, February 25, 2015

Investigative reporter and Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Feb. 20, 2015. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Investigative reporter and Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Feb. 20, 2015. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Iranian American Lisa Daftari, an investigative journalist and contributor to Fox News, said on Friday that Sharia law is being followed by practitioners of radical Islam right here in the United States, even if many Americans think of the human rights abuses towards women by these practitioners as something that only takes place in the Middle East and Africa.

“And some might ask why should Americans care about what goes on in those countries?” asked Daftar, whose family fled Iran during the 1979 revolution that overthrew Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and established an Islamic state in the country. “How about tolerance for other practices; respect for Sharia law – the cultural and religious differences?

“Well the answer is it’s not just contained to that part of the world,” Daftari said. “It’s here.

(see excerpted video at CNS News)

“It’s in Europe. It’s in our cities. It’s in our places of work. It’s in our schools,” Daftari said. “Yes, Sharia law is here in the U.S., and this too is a war on women.”

Daftari, who spoke at the Conservative Women’s Network at the Heritage Foundation, focused her remarks on what she said is “the real war on women,” including “honor killings” that have taken place in the United States.

“Every year, about 26 women are killed in the U.S. by a relative in the name of family honor,” Daftari said.

She cited two such killings. On Jan. 1, 2008, a man shot his two teenage daughters, Amina and Sarah Said.

“It later came to light that these murders were premeditated as honor killings as retribution for [Amina] rejecting an arranged marriage to a man in Egypt,” Daftari said.

In an essay written in September 2014, Amina’s boyfriend, Joseph Moreno, said the couple hoped to marry and that the father has never been arrested and his whereabouts are unknown.

“In 2011 an Arizona judge sentenced an Iraqi man to more than 34 years in prison, Daftari said. “He ran over his 20-year-old daughter because he claimed she’d become too westernized.”

Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki was found guilty in the killing of his daughter Noor, according to an article posted on AZCentral.com.

Daftari said radical Islam is also being promoted by Muslim groups on college campuses in the U.S., based on her investigative reporting on the phenomenon.

Daftari cited other examples of human rights abuses against women around the globe that she said represent “the real war on women.”

“The real war on women is about the millions of women throughout the Middle East and the continent of Africa who are forced to undergo genital mutilation,” she said. “In 2013, 3.6 million were mutilated in these parts of the world. In Somalia, FGM (female genital mutilations) is at 99 percent.

“That means nearly every single woman,” Daftari said.

“The real war on women is about the many religious minorities who stand firmly behind their faith and beliefs in Muslim-dominated countries – Christians, Jews, Bahi’s and others facing minority taxes, imprisonment, persecution,” she said.

“The real war on women is about the women of Iran who cannot dress as they want, dance as they want, attend the schools or obtain the jobs that they want,” Daftari said.  “They cannot file for divorce, even from a violent spouse, and even if they do, custody of all their children will go to the husband.”

Daftari also cited the case of a 26-year-old Iranian woman who was jailed and eventually executed because she fought back against the man who raped her.

Also see:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Obama Must Confront the Threat of Radical Islam

An ISIS member waves an ISIS flag in Raqqa, Syria on June 29, 2014.

An ISIS member waves an ISIS flag in Raqqa, Syria on June 29, 2014.

ISIS is recruiting young Muslims from around the globe to Jihad, and the White House apparently doesn’t understand why

Time, By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Feb. 20, 2015:

How can the Obama Administration miss the obvious? Part of the answer lies in the groups “partnering” with, or advising, the White House on these issues. Groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council or the Islamic Society of North America insist that there should be no more focus at the Summit on radical Islam than on any other violent movements, even as radical Islamic movements continue to expand their influence in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria, and elsewhere.

Amplifying a poor choice of Muslim outreach partners, however, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued in recent days that economic grievances, a lack of opportunities, and countries with “bad governance” are to blame for the success of groups such as ISIS in recruiting Muslims to their cause. Yet, if this were true, why do so many young Muslims who live in societies with excellent governance—Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, the United States—either join ISIS or engage in Jihadist violence in their own countries? Why do young Muslims with promising professional futures embark on the path of Jihad?

Neither the Summit partners nor the U.S. Administration can effectively answer these questions.

Both Denmark and the Netherlands have “good governance.” Denmark and the Netherlands not only offer free health insurance but also free housing to Muslim refugees, along with high-quality education for their children. This should produce an outpouring of gratitude by young Muslims towards the host society, and no Jihadists.

Yet there are dozens of Jihadists hailing from the Netherlands and a recent attack in Copenhagen was committed by a man who was raised in Denmark and had effectively enjoyed years of Danish hospitality.

The question is not limited to Europe. Minnesota, for instance, is hardly a state with “bad governance.” Minnesota offers ample opportunity for immigrants willing to work hard. Yet more than a dozen young men from the Twin Cities area have joined the Jihadist movement in recent years.

How can Barack Obama or John Kerry explain this? Based on President Obama’s public statements and John Kerry’s analysis in The Wall Street Journal, they cannot.

It is worth remembering Aafia Siddiqui, the M.I.T.-educated neuroscientist who could have enjoyed a prestigious and lucrative career in the bio-tech industry but instead chose to embrace radical Islam, eventually becoming known as “Lady Al-Qaida.”

Or think of the three Khan siblings who recently sought to leave Chicago in order to go live in Syria under the rule of ISIS. The Khan sister, intelligent and studious, had planned to become a physician. The siblings were intercepted before they could fly out of the country, and prosecutors argue they wanted to join armed Jihad. Defense attorneys have a different explanation, stating the siblings desperately wanted to live under a society ruled by Shariah law—under the rule of Allah’s laws, without necessarily wanting to commit acts of violence.

It is this motivation—the sincere desire to live under Islamic religious laws, and the concomitant willingness to use violence to defend the land of Islam and expand it—that has led thousands of Western Muslims, many of them young and intelligent—and not the oft-described “losers”—to leave a comfortable professional and economic future in the West in order to join ISIS under gritty circumstances.

In its general strategy, the U.S. Administration confounds two things. It is true that in “failed states” criminal networks, cartels, and terrorist groups can operate with impunity. Strengthening central governments will reduce safe havens for terror networks. Secretary Kerry’s argument in The Wall Street Journal is different, however, namely: If we improve governance in countries with “bad governance,” then fewer young people will become “violent extremists.” That’s a different argument and not a plausible one. In fact, it’s a really unpersuasive argument. Muslims leave bright, promising futures to join ISIS out of a sense of sincere religious devotion, the wish to live under the laws of Allah instead of the laws of men.

In reading Kerry’s piece, I am glad that in the late 1940s the U.S. had people such as George Kennan employed in its service to see the Communist threat clearly and describe it clearly. But where is today’s Kennan in this administration? Who in the U.S. government is willing to describe the threat of radical Islam without fear of causing offense to several aggressive Islamic lobby groups?

American policymakers do not yet understand Islamism or what persuades young Muslims to join Jihad: sincere religious devotion based on the core texts of Islam, in particular early Islam’s politicized and aggressive period in Medina (compared to Islam’s spiritual and ascetic period in Mecca).

How does one tackle misguided religious devotion of young Muslims? The answer lies in reforming Islam profoundly—not radical Islam, but mainstream Islam; its willingness to merge Mosque and State, religion, and politics; and its insistence that its elaborate system of Shariah law supersedes civil laws created by human legislators. In such a reform project lies the hope for countering Islamism. No traditional Islamic lobbying group committed to defending the reputation of Islam will recommend such a policy to the U.S. government. Yet until American policymakers grapple with the need for such reform, the real problem within Islam will remain unresolved.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the founder of the AHA Foundation and the author of Infidel, Nomad, and the forthcoming Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation, to be published next spring.

President Obama: Jihadists Have No Legitimate Grievances

obama31CSP, by Fred Fleitz, February 20, 2015:

Did President Obama really say at the “countering violent extremism summit” yesterday and in his recent LA Times op-ed that jihadist terrorist groups are winning recruits by exploiting economic, political and historic grievances that are “sometimes accurate.”

Yes he did.

This incredible claim begs two questions.  What kind of legitimate grievances could possibly justify beheadings and burning people to death?  And what type of people are being motivated to join Jihadist groups because of such atrocities?

Mr. Obama’s statement reflects his continuing refusal to acknowledge that the global jihad movement is motivated by a unifying ideology: radical Islam and its doctrine of imposing shariah worldwide through violence.

It also is impossible to square President Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda and ISIS are attracting recruits for political and economic reasons with the fact that thousands from Western countries are buying plane tickets to fly to Turkey to join ISIS.  And let’s not forget that al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was not poor; he was the son of a Saudi billionaire.

Moreover, the president’s claims that ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists are perverting or exploiting Islam are at odds with radical Islam’s long historical legacy and its basis in the Koran.

The president also is ignoring growing radicalism in mainstream Islamist theology.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, confirmed this last week at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit when he said that to combat ISIS and al-Qaeda, the United States must avoid aligning with Islamist organizations which may currently be non-violent but sympathize or endorse violent jihadist groups.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said at the Defeat Jihad Summit that these groups are waging a “pre-violent’ campaign to advance a jihadist agenda in the West which the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”  Click HERE to read a Center for Security Policy analysis of this issue, “Civilization Jihad: the Muslim Brotherhood’s Potent Weapon.”

Jasser also took issue with “countering violent extremism,” the term President Obama uses to describe America’s efforts to oppose al-Qaeda, ISIS and other radical groups.  Jasser said “Stop the nonsense of ‘CVE’.  We’re not countering violent extremism.  I can’t help you as a reform-minded Muslim with my book The Battle for the Soul of Islam if you say this is a battle for the soul of violent extremism.  That’s nonsense.”

In short, President Obama is dead wrong.  Jihadist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS are recruiting followers by promoting the anti-Western, anti-modern ideology of radical Islam.  They are recruiting people who hate modern society, Western civilization and the United States.  These disgruntled and disturbed individuals are not going to be dissuaded by a new U.S. jobs program for youth in Muslim countries or President Obama making excuses for their decision to join terrorist groups that are the face of evil in the modern world.

French Premier Manuel Valls had it right when he said after the Paris shootings by French jihadists last month, “It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”

This is what President Obama needs to say about the threat posed by the global jihad movement.  Until the president stops denying this threat, he is signaling American weakness and lack of resolve which will allow this threat to continue to spread and grow.

Sharia Court in Texas: What Could Go Wrong?

By Patrick Poole:

Yesterday I was interviewed by the Glenn Beck Show on Blaze TV following up from Glenn’s interview on Monday with two of the imams responsible for the sharia court that they’re opening up in Dallas, Texas.

A sharia court in Texas? What could possibly go wrong? Well, I can think of a few things…

In this segment of Glenn’s interview with the imams, Taher El-Badawi claims that cutting off heads is not just something they do in Islam, but it’s practiced everywhere, including the US (!!!), and that cutting off hands for theft in America would be economical:

 

Taher : We are ready for any point to discuss with, but the main point here, the reason we are here to discuss this issue what kind of cases Islamic tribunal handle, and you start with the sharia. Why the people afraid from sharia? I’m sorry to say it, one point related to this, cut head is not just in sharia law, just in Islamic law. It’s everywhere. Who said that just in Islamic law? That’s even another sharia, in Jewish sharia, in Christian sharia, in American here, we cut we cut head for some reason.

So, I’m asking you an easy question, if anyone kill another, he should get killed by law, by Islamic law, by government. He should get killed. What is wrong with that? If a thief jump, I’m sorry, to your house, scare your wife, scare your children, scare your neighbor, and they did that with our stores, this is the law, the law to cut his hand because if he feels my hands were cut because of that, he will think about this 100 times. He will never do it. If he do that one time, he will never do it again.

Look how many millions of dollars American here or other states or other states outside spend to keep the criminal in jail, a lot of millions of dollars. We can save that, just let him go, and that’s it, because he did something wrong in the whole community and this kill the whole community. Why not?

OK, then…

One of the other important issues covered my interview was about the imam’s claims that the court will only handle “family issues, includes manners, behavior characters, including marriage divorces, including inheritance law…”.

Contrary to sharia apologists, these courts are not just about whether you pray five times a day or which foot you enter a bathroom with. It is precisely where U.S. family law conflicts with Islamic law that is one of the greatest concerns some have with the establishment of sharia courts in the US.

In 2013, the BBC program Panorama went undercover in sharia courts operating in the UK and found systematic discrimination against women in these courts and regularly telling women suffering from domestic violence not to go to police against UK public policy.

You can view the full Panorama program here:

 

When Glenn asked whether divorces by U.S. courts would be recognized, the imam admitted that women would also need to get an Islamic divorce, and that her US court divorce would not be recognized if she traveled to Islamic countries (the imam specifically mentions US ally, Jordan). So US civil law, even by their own admission, isn’t recognized by Islamic law, here or abroad.

And what about the testimony of women in Islamic court? The imams tried to brush it off that it only related to financial transactions, but you only need to go to the IslamQA website where they defend the principle that the testimony of women isn’t the same as that of men.

As I noted in my own interview, a 2011 survey of Middle East countries by UNICEF found only in Tunisia and Oman (one could also add here Israel) is the testimony of women fully admitted in all judicial proceedings. In most Middle Eastern countries, a woman’s testimony is regularly limited in family and financial matters. This is hardly a secret.

I recall the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Barack Obama’s favorite US Islamic group, used to publish a ruling on their website by one of the top Islamic jurists in the US expressly forbidding Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men, saying “It is better to a slave, bondsman than get married to a non-Muslim.”

After the ruling was pointed out by sharia critics, ISNA removed it from its website, but it still can be found at Web Archive.

fiqh

Among the more laughable claims the imams made in their interview is that you need an Islamic state led by a caliph to implement penal “hudud” punishments (meaning therefore that no one is actually implementing Islamic law anymore), and that Saudi Arabia is not governed by Islamic law.

One only need look at the implementation of sharia in Islamic-majority countries around the world, and enshrining sharia as the ultimate source of their law codes in their respective constitutions, to see they have no problem implementing sharia in the absence of a recognized caliph or an Islamic state.

And Saudi Arabia isn’t governed by Islamic law? Really? [insert laugh track]

In my interview I noted that you can walk into practically any mosque or Islamic bookstore and pick up books like Mohamed S. El-Awa’s “Punishment in Islamic Law,” which is published by American Trust Publications, the publishing arm of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which owns and operates hundreds of mosques around the country. In El-Awa’s book, you find helpful advice on: “How the hand should be cut off (Makan al-Qati’),” “Stoning as punishment (al-Rajm),” “Flogging (al-Jald),” and “The Death Penalty (al-Ta’zir bil-Qatl).”

The same is true for another manual of Islamic law from the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence published in America – translated in English and approved by many global Islamic authorities – called “Reliance of the Traveller (sic).” Book O is dedicated to “Jihad,” and they don’t mean “internal struggle.” Again, these are books marketed directly to American Muslims.

And let’s not forget the imam last July, as reported by Reuters, who tried to cut off the hand of one of the mosque attendees accused of stealing. But this wasn’t Cairo, Tehran or Riyadh. This happened in Philadelphia. Did this imam misunderstand Islam?

Read more at PJ Media

To Undermine Sharia — on The Glazov Gang

 

defeating political islamFebruary 9, 2015 by

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, the author of Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War.

Dr. Muthuswamy came on the show to discuss To Undermine Sharia, analyzing how and why the West needs to spearhead the effort to undercut the Sharia narrative.

 

Sharia law is empowering Islamist radicals at the expense of secularists by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy

PORTLAND, Oregon — The astonishing recent confession of a serving American commander that “[w]e do not understand the [Islamist] movement” calls for a revisit of an old problem.

Two centuries ago, when science began to replace religion as a source for understanding the world, secularists began growing in power. Science gave us an unprecedented mastery over nature, and led to societies that were more advanced than earlier ones.

If one compares how people lived in 1870 with life in 1970, the advancement of society is self-evident. This was true of Muslim societies as well.

In the 1970s, secular dictators ruled most of the Muslim-majority nations. Now, many of these dictatorships are history, and the ones still left are fighting an uphill battle against growing Islamist power whose outlook is regressive.

In most non-Muslim religious communities — Hindus in India, Buddhists in Asia or Christians in Europe, Latin America and Africa — the reverse is true. These communities continue to advance while largely avoiding conflicts and are increasingly democratized.

Historically, Muslim religious ideologues felt that their communities should live by the principles of Islam. This idea was framed in the form of calls to adhere to Sharia, portrayed compellingly as all-encompassing “divine law.” As an interpretation of Islam, Sharia laws vary widely.

In general, they reflect the cultural norms of the Arab tribes of a bygone era. In part, clerics’ or religious ideologues’ prestige and usefulness stem from their status as interpreters of Sharia.

The infusion of modernity and secular ideas into Muslim communities threatened to upend the influence of orthodox leaders. Beginning in the early 1900s, prominent ideologues such as Hassan Al-Banna, and later Sayyid Qutb in Egypt, Abul Maududi in Pakistan and Ruholla Khomeini in Iran started to push back against secularism, by cogently articulating the need for Muslims to live by Sharia laws.

Had oil not been discovered in the Middle East, the calls of the orthodox would have likely been ignored; the price of rejecting modernity certainly would have been poverty.

Iran and Saudi Arabia, prominent Shia and Sunni Islamic nations, respectively, not only found themselves awash in oil wealth, but also provided jobs for millions of Egyptians and Pakistanis, among others.

Starting in the 1970s, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and home to its two holy mosques, began a worldwide export of Sharia and armed jihad emphasizing Wahhabism, a conservative and intolerant form of Islam. Saudi-trained clerics told their flock that Allah would reward them with oil wealth if they practice Islam like the Saudis, including a strict adherence to “God’s law (Sharia).”

The Saudis also pioneered religious sponsorship (in addition to the financial one) of armed jihad through the Afghan Islamic insurgency of the 1980s.

In particular, the impact of the emphasis on Sharia has been no less consequential. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center report, in 25 out of 38 nations, the majority of the Muslims surveyed considered Sharia to be the “revealed word of God” and favored making it the law of the land. Among those who favored doing so, in 10 out of 20 nations, the majority supported corporal punishments such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers, much like what Saudi Arabia enforces under its Sharia laws.

Not surprisingly, in a handful of these 25 nations, including Pakistan, Nigeria and Iraq, newly formed militant groups — Tehreek-e-Taliban, Boko Haram and the Islamic State — are waging armed jihad with the intent of imposing strict Sharia-based governance on communities where a mix of modern and Sharia laws prevail.

What then if only a minority supports the above referenced Sharia measures in a Muslim majority nation? Predictably, there can be a welcome possibility: Nations moderate in their outlook that can sustain socioeconomic development. One such nation is Turkey.

Instead of being at the top of counterterrorism policy agenda, Sharia has become an afterthought. For example, in a 2014 address to the United Nations, President Barack Obama called on Muslims to “reject the ideology of [militant] organizations,” without any mention of Sharia.

The issue is not Islam, but those who are pushing the self-serving narrative of Sharia as an all-encompassing divine law. Specifically, much like the successful war of ideas waged against Soviet communism, the West needs to spearhead the effort to undercut this Sharia narrative.

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy is a scholar of radicalism who lives in Portland, Oregon.

***

Also see:

Sharia Adherent Muslims Are Not “Extremists”

cropped-cf404835c7c93f19d7efce5545012ae5_2e08UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 9, 2015:

The U.S. government continues to label the Islamic terrorists we face as “violent extremists” who commit acts of “workplace violence.”  Here at UTT we prefer to live in reality because it is the only place our enemies can be defeated.

The phrase “violent extremism” is a non-sensical term which means nothing, and was brought to the U.S. via the FBI and DHS who were convinced by our British counterparts it identifies those who are willing to support their beliefs with violence.  In this light, U.S. military forces and any American willing to defend a just cause can be classified as a “violent extremist.”

Unfortunately, those participating in the global Islamic jihad do not call themselves “extremists.” They call themselves “Jihadis” seeking to impose jihad on the world until the entire world is under Sharia (Islamic Law).  American war fighting doctrine states we begin our analysis of any enemy by how that enemy describes itself.

This enemy specifically states they seek to impose Sharia and it is the blueprint for everything it does.  Jihad is total warfare.  It is Civilization Jihad per the Muslim Brotherhood’s own strategic plan for North America, and the MB’s global strategy.  Jihad is warfare that comes at a society in a hundred different ways:  political, economic, psychological, spiritual, cultural, societal, and includes violence in the community and on the battlefield.

Sharia is the filter through which this enemy communicates and understands the world.  This is why it is crucial that we also use Sharia when we hear our adversaries speak so we can properly understand what the enemy intends.  “Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without right.  “Human Rights” is the imposition of Sharia (per the Cairo Declaration, a formal document served to the UN by the entire Muslim world via the OIC in 1993).  Extremism is when a Muslim exceeds his ability or authority.

Nowhere in the Muslim world do Islamic jihadi organizations call themselves “extremists” – they call themselves “Jihadis.”

At the Muslim Peace Conference in Oslo, Norway in 2013, we see the Muslim Community openly agreeing that the punishments of the Sharia are broadly supported.  Fahad Qureshi, the founder of IslamNet, asked the crowd a series of questions.  The answers from the entire Muslim audience put this issue right in our face.  They specifically state they are in full support of the Sharia, its punishment, and its importance to the Muslim community.

 

It is arrogant and condescending to believe Muslims do not believe the very thing they say they subscribe to – the very things Islam teaches.

They are not “extremists” – they are jihadis.

***

Also see:

The Muslim Brotherhood Comes to the White House

Obama-and-Valerie-Jarrett-AP-Photo-Jacquelyn-Martin-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 7, 2015:

The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.

As previously uncovered by Breitbart News, the White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Federal prosecutors have previously described how ISNA funneled its money to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (via Investigative Project):

ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader…

Azeez’s bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In October, 2014, Azeez signed a letter endorsing Sharia Islamic governance. Under the Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. The Sharia also endorses the hudud punishments in the Koran and Hadiths, which state that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders’ meeting with President Obama.

MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written and often endorsed a paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has publicly encouraged officials to look at Israel as a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks.

He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance.” In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, an MPAC senior official described the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah as one that fights for “American values.” In an MPAC-sponsored March 2009 protest to “Defend al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds,” participants could be heard chanting slogans encouraging Palestinians to wipe out Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” demonstrators chanted.

Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.

In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”

Majid is also an official with the brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

He also signed the October 2014 letter, along with White House meeting attendee Azhar Azeez, insisting that Sharia law should be an acceptable political system worldwide.

It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Also see:

Telling the Truth About Muhammad to the Bleeding Hearts


main-qimg-d0a7e7c524eb284f87b13ecd2ab69821By Eric Allen Bell:

Muslims are not what is wrong with Islam. This is what has been nearly impossible to communicate to most Liberals today.  The problem with Islam is the Prophet Muhammad.  According to Islamic scripture, in other words, what mainstream Muslims are taught to believe, the Prophet Muhammad was a slave owner, a rapist, committed mass murder, hated Jews with a passion, wanted homosexuals punished, killed his critics, stripped women of all rights and had sex with a nine year old girl, whom he married when she was six, named Aisha.

If the Prophet Muhammad was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, Liberals would oppose him vehemently. But as I have stated before, within the Liberal mind there seems to be a perceptive disability. When I say “Islam” they hear “Muslim”. Such is the nature of the Collectivist mind.

But Muslims are a symptom and not the source of the problem.  The problem is the Prophet Muhammad. If he were alive today, Amnesty International would certainly have a problem with his followers obeying his laws, which demand that certain people have their limbs amputated and their nose cut off. The Democrats would have him in their crosshairs as being at the forefront on the “war against women”. The New York Times would certainly seek to expose him and any whistle blower in his ranks would be celebrated as the next Julian Assange.

The Huffington Post and Daily Kos would be collecting signatures, to demand that our government do something to stop him. Media Matters would be reprinting all of the outrageous things he said, such as “I have become victorious through terror”.

Michael Moore would probably follow the Prophet around, trying to trick him into a “gotcha” question, then win an Academy Award for his latest documentary, “Muhammad and Me”. The poster would feature Michael Moore gloating in his baseball cap, next to a cut out of the Prophet – and then of course he would be executed, because of the piction of the Prophet.

Gloria Allred would be representing all of the women whom the Prophet Muhammad took as sex slaves. Every major women’s rights group in America would send out mailers, asking for donations to stop the Prophet Muhammad from instructing his followers to rape his enemies, as an act of war.  Rachel Maddow would have a field day, every day, with this story – and rightfully so. Organizations for the rights of women would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper would profile the Prophet Muhammad in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment of his highly rated show, because of all the contradictions in Muhammad’s best seller, the Holy Quran (look up “Abrogation”).  Cat Stevens would be held in Guantanamo Bay for aiding an enemy of the United States, since he is a follower of the Prophet and Muhammad says that no government is legitimate, unless it follows the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. And he would be likely be sharing a bunk with Representative Keith Ellison.

The ADL would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad stating that Jews are all apes and pigs (see Suras 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166), rather than trying to protect the rights of Islam’s female followers to wear black sheets over their bodies, as the Prophet’s laws command. If someone were alive today, calling Jews apes and pigs, while having 1.6 billion followers, the ADL would have something to say about it.

The Daily Show would have more fun mocking the Prophet than taking pot shots at Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.  Bill Maher and Sean Hannity would ironically be sharing a Nobel Peace Prize for their brave and pioneering work, in exposing the war crimes of the Prophet Muhammad.  No one would be drawing parallels between the persecuted yet devout followers of Muhammad and the Holocaust, if the Prophet Muhammad were conducting his mass genocide of infidels today (see Quran 9:5).

Gay rights groups would be a little concerned about the Mormon Church, but totally freaked out about anyone who follows the laws of the Prophet, known as the Sharia, because Sharia Law calls for homosexuals to be severely punished.  Every cult awareness website and organization out there would put out an alert, since the penalty for leaving the Prophet’s religion is death.

After the Prophet Muhammad beheaded an entire tribe of Jews, possibly no one would have a problem with waterboarding anyone who knew where to find him.  The Prophet Muhammad had several wives, but the one named Safiyya became his wife after he tortured and killed her father, her brothers, the men in her tribe, told his fighters to take the women of that tribe as sex slaves and then raped Safia that night. Anyone who had a problem with that, which would be anyone in their right mind, would not be called a “bigot”.

Given that the Prophet Muhammad advocated slavery and owned slaves, it would be unlikely that any African Americans would follow him.  Louis Farrakhan’s speeches would end up on a blooper reel, right next to Malcom X and of course the champion of human rights, Ben Affleck.

The young multibillionaire owner of the world’s largest social network would not be able to quietly obey the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.  But the Prophet is said to have been told about his impending death by the Angel Gabriel. He was said to have been given a choice between being a great king on Earth and going to meet Allah. Apparently he chose not to remain immortal. However, if we compare the body counts of Pol Pot, Hitler and Chairman Mao against the 270 million people killed in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, I guess you can say he has become immortal after all.

Anyway, that young multibillionaire is named Mark Zuckerberg and his social network is called Facebook. At the time this article was written, there are an estimated 1.2 billion Facebook members and the average time a member spends on Facebook is 55 minutes a day. So, whatever policy Facebook decides to adopt is kind of a big deal – in some ways it has more of an impact than what the United Nations decides.

Currently the United Nations has approximately 57 nations which make up what is called the OIC, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.  The OIC is trying to make it an international law that criticizing the Prophet Muhammad become illegal. Vice President of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, here in the United States, Syrian immigrantAbdou Kattih, said he supports such a law.  But the OIC are lightweights compared to the power of Facebook. There is an argument to be made that the world went inside the internet and became the world.

Today as I write this, there have been about 25,000 acts of terrorism committed, just since 9/11 alone, in the name of the Prophet Muhammad.  That is several per day – approximately 2 million people actually.  But you can’t say that on Facebook. A new Facebook educational page went up this morning, called “Exposing the Prophet Muhammad” and was taken down, hours later, as it violates Facebook’s policy concerning anything that offends the followers of the Prophet Muhammad.

What did that Facebook page post that was so offensive?  It posted a video that referenced all of the Islamic scripture that tells the story of how Muhammad took Aisha as his wife when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine.  Oh, and it referenced the Islamic law that states that anyone drawing a picture of the Prophet be killed.

What does this mean for you and me?  It means that in the Information Age, the most powerful force on the internet has agreed to follow the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad.  Islamic Law is also called “Sharia”.  Do you still think the Sharia scare is some crazy Right Wing conspiracy theory?

Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser living in Los Angeles, California.  While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing for Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace.

Basis in Islamic Jurisprudence (Shariah) and Scripture for Execution of Jordanian Pilot

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, Feb. 3, 2015:

“Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”

Quran Sura 4:56

In the burning scene video the Islamic State gave the Islamic edict straight from the top Islamic authority of Ibn Taymiyya’s jurisprudence:

“So if horror of commonly desecrating the body is a call for them [the infidels] to believe [in Islam], or to stop their aggression, it is from here that we carry out the punishment and the allowance for legal Jihad”

Ibn Taymiyya was one of the most esteemed Sunni Islamic scholars of all time. He is considered one of the originators of the Hanbali school of Shariah. He originated the practice of declaring Jihad on Muslims who did not follow the Shariah based on the belief that they were not true Muslims, despite their claims to the faith.

taymiyya

***

“Healing The Chests Of Believers,” And The Duty To Instruct As Well As Protect

NER,  by Hugh Fitzgerald

That was the title, that was the theme, that was the point, of the video of the burning alive of Moaz Al-Kasasbeh. Obama refers to this “bankrupt ideology” that has come, apparently, out of nowhere. King Abdullah, in Washington, is apparently amazed and flabbergasted at these people, who have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. And the rest of the world’s leaders are also horrified, and amazed, and presumably puzzled, as to this “ideology” that comes out of nowhere, that has “nothing to do with Islam” and for which no texts, not a single sentence, can be found that is not in the Qur’an, or not in the Hadith, or not in essence discoverable in the biography (Sira) of Muhammad, beginning with that of Ibn Ishaq. Perhaps someone should offer a sufficiently high reward — say, $25 million, the price the American government put on the head of Osama bin Laden — to anyone who can come forward with the presumably fictional quotes from Qur’an and Hadith that the Islamic State relies on.

If you happen to google — it takes about 30 seconds — “heal the chests of believers” or a variant, you will find what I found, in Sura 9, ayat 14.

Read here.

For a story about setting fire to someone regarded as an enemy — a Jew of the Khaybar Oasis, because he didn’t want to give up all of his property to Muhammad and his marauding followers at Khaybar — who was set alight, and then decapitated, google “Kinana” and, if you need to, “Ibn Ishaq,” and you will discover that Kinana first had his chest set alight. And then he was decapitated. And his propoerty taken. And his wife Safiya taken by Muhammad to be his sex slave. Youu can read more about it, in Ibn Ishaq and in the Hadith,here.

Obama — and other Western leaders — cannot continue this attempt to hide from those to whom they have a duty not only to protect, but to instruct — what is in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. They think they can continue this indefinitely. They apparently think it is possible to “keep the support” — what support, really? — of our “staunch allies” in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, and also “keep the support” — what support, really? — of Muslims in the West, and yet not lose the support of non-Muslims who in ever greater numbers will be alarmed, as they find out what is being kept from them, and will, already do, distrust their governments, distrust much of the media, and wonder why they cannot be properly informed so that they may, in turn, vote for candidates who understand the problem abroad, and the problem within our countries too.

This menace, and this misinformation about that menacee, and this growing mistrust of those all over the West who have a duty to instruct as well as protect us, will not go away. It will not lessen. It will only get worse.

***

Islamic State Justification for Burning Alive the Jordanian Pilot: Translation and Analysis 

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi  •  Feb 4, 2015

Below I have translated the document circulated by the Islamic State’s al-Eftaa wa al-Buhuth committee on the subject of the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot. This committee is responsible for providing Islamic textual justifications for various decrees on the acceptability of certain acts. This latest example is perhaps the most notorious. It is important that these documents be brought to light because as the corpus of Islamic texts- whether verses of Qur’an, the ahadith and acts from early Islamic history- is so vast, the Islamic State will likely find some reference that can justify its actions and make its supporters and members feel more sure of themselves. My friend Hassan Hassan has already noted this problem, and it presents a significant challenge to those who wish to counter the Islamic State on interpretation and counter-interpretation grounds.

Question: What is the ruling on burning the kafir [disbeliever] with fire until he dies?

Answer: […] The Hanafis and Shafi’is* have permitted it, considering the saying of the Prophet ‘Fire is only to be administered as punishment by God’ as an affirmation of humility. Al-Muhallab** said: “This is not an abslolute prohibition, but rather on the path of humility.”

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar*** said: “What points to the permissibility of burning is the deeds of the Companions, and the Prophet put out the eyes of the Uraynians with heated iron…while Khalid ibn al-Waleed**** burnt people of those who apostazied.”

And some of the Ahl al-‘Ilm have been of the opinion that burning with fire was prohibited originally, but then on retaliation it is permitted, just as the Prophet did to the people of Urayna, when he put out the eyes of the Uraynians with fire- in retaliation- as is related in Sahih [reliable] tradition, and this brought forth the words together among the proofs.

[…]

Notes

*- Two of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence, the others being Maliki and Hanbali.
**- Early theologian in Islam- died c. 702 CE.
***- Fifteenth century imam and jurist from Egypt: bio here.
****- Companion of Muhammad who participated in early Muslim conquests in the Levant.

***

Why ISIS Used Fire to Murder the Jordanian Pilot

PJ Media, By Bridget Johnson On February 4, 2015:

After ISIS released the video yesterday of 1st Lt. Muath al-Kasaesbeh being burned to death in a cage, U.S. news reports were musing about the method of his murder as cremation is not permissible in Islam.

Pundits and anchors steered toward the conclusion that the fire was intended to be the ultimate insult to the pilot called an apostate by his captors.

ISIS supporters, though, defended burning him alive by claiming the principle of “qisas,” claiming that he burned children with airstrikes so should burn himself. They bulldozed rubble over his body, again symbolizing the airstrikes.

Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper provides a lengthy primer on qisas: “The Quran provides two options to deal with someone who is found guilty of intentional murder: qisas (ie that he/she be killed in the manner in which the victim was murdered) and forgiveness by the heir/s of the victim.”

ISIS and its supporters, which had been using the Arabic hashtag #SuggestAWayToKillTheJordanianPilotPig right after the pilot’s capture to suggest murder methods, particularly put social media effort into defending the murder of al-Kasaesbeh, himself a Muslim, as keeping with Islamic laws. There was also some debate on Twitter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newt Gingrich on the Islamist Threat and America’s Survival

 

PJ Media, By Andrew C. McCarthy On January 30, 2015:

How is our nation dealing with the continuing menace of Islamic supremacism, the ideology that catalyzes the jihadist and cultural threat to the West?

At the Freedom Forum in Iowa last Saturday, Newt Gingrich drew an apt analogy to the period from the end of World War II through 1948, as the Iron Curtain consigned half of Europe to tyranny: Imagine that the president of the United States had been not Harry Truman but Stalin’s useful idiot, Henry Wallace – the former vice president whom FDR thankfully dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1944.

Had that happened, Gingrich opined, our president would have been assuring us, “There is no KGB. There is no Comintern. The Soviet Union is not a threat. Communism is okay. I don’t think you should be worried about all these things.”

Meaning: What we’d have had is defeat in the Cold War.

Newt’s admonition was clear. In a rousing speech about “America’s survival,” the former House speaker argued that, after being at it for fourteen years, we are losing “the war with radical Islamists.”

His main point, one very similar to the contention advanced by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (in a recent London speech that was the subject of my NROcolumn last weekend), is that we are at war with an enemy that seeks to destroy the West, and that we cannot win the war without telling the truth about the enemy — indeed, “without admitting it’s a war.”

In the interest of candor, then, I will concede that I am not crazy about the term Newt uses to describe the enemy: “radical Islamists.” The right term is “radical Islam.” An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive, discriminatory sharia imposed. In the West, an Islamist is radical by definition.

It is not pedantry to raise this difference. When we say “radical Islam,” we concisely divide our enemies – extremist, sharia-supremacist Muslims, violent or nonviolent – from the rest of Islam, with which we would like to live amicably. But saying “radical Islamist” implies that there must also be “moderate Islamists.” There aren’t, of course, but the progressives’ insistence that there must be has led to exactly what the former speaker is rightly concerned about: paralyzing political correctness and reckless policy errors (e.g., Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood) – the things that obscure the threat to us.

Still, any difference of opinion on this point is narrow. “Radical Islamist” is geometrically more clarifying than the Beltway’s willfully blind preference, “violent extremist.” Moreover, in invoking “radical Islamists,” the former House speaker is clearly referring to violent jihadists – i.e., Islamists who commit terrorism. Terrorists are radical even among Islamists – although Islamist support for terrorists (at least moral support and often material support) is alarmingly high.

Our bipartisan ruling elite attempts to minimize the ideological underpinning of the Islamist threat as well as its geographical scope. Gingrich was firm that the jihad is formidable, unified and global. In its blatant contempt for our government, the Iranian regime locks up a journalist and enables its proxies to rout Yemen (which Obama had touted as a counterterrorism success) — confident that the Obama administration will keep talking to them and appeasing them no matter what they do. ISIS, of course, has obliterated the border between Iraq and Syria even as Western leaders grope for country-specific policies based on a map that no longer exists.

But that’s not the half of it. As Gingrich elaborated, Western intelligence estimates about ISIS in Syria and Iraq warn us of at least 1,000 jihadists from France, 600 from Britain, and 100 from the United States. Many if not most of these Islamists will return home not just with training and combat experience but with an enhanced prestige that comes with taking part in the jihad – a prestige that makes them more effective recruiters, fundraisers, and practitioners of domestic jihad.

Meanwhile, as the threat intensifies, Western governments, led by our own, continue to lie about it. The ruthless Boko Haram jihadist organization in Nigeria has 10,000 fighters (and, as the Wall Street Journal reported this week, it eyes conquest in nearby Chad, Cameroon and Niger). Yet, under Hillary Clinton, the State Department would not even designate it as a terrorist organization – even though, Gingrich sharply observed, Boko Haram named one of their main training camps “Afghanistan” in honor or the Taliban.

Again, that’s not the half of it. Under Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton, the State Department has declined to designate the Afghan Taliban itself as a terrorist organization. This underscores Newt’s on-target assessment that, when it comes to obfuscation about Islamic supremacist ideology, the State Department was nearly as bad under Bush as under Obama. And while Bush at least included the Taliban as a terrorist organization in a 2002 executive order, Obama spokesmen have spent this week spinning the risible yarn that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization but a purely domestic “insurgent” group.

In truth, as the former speaker asserted, we have an elite in both parties that is unwilling to tell the truth. You can’t win the war without telling the truth and without admitting it’s a war. As he put it, there is a common thread that unites the enemy, wherever on earth the enemy operates: They “hate our civilization and would impose their religion by force.”

This cannot be blinked away – neither by what Gingrich tartly but accurately diagnosed as Obama’s “pathological incapacity to deal with reality,” nor by the ineffable John Kerry’s insistence that jihadist terror has nothing to do with Islam – that these atrocities are committed by “specific, unique, random individuals” who just happen to be Muslims bent on imposing sharia.

From his national security right perspective, Newt anticipated and dismissed as “Baloney!” an attack on his position from the strange-bedfellow alliance of antiwar leftists and extremist libertarians who see U.S. counterterrorism as a greater threat than the jihad. It is the claim that what Gingrich is really calling for is “an army of 7 million” so we can “occupy everywhere” in the Middle East.

As he countered, we are talking about defeating an enemy whom we must identify. And in identifying that enemy “we can draw a clear distinction.” To wit:

If you are a Muslim, and you want to live in peace with your neighbors, and you have no problem with people converting in both directions, and you’d like to be allowed to have a mosque but, by the way, they can have a synagogue, a temple, or a church – I have no problem with Muslims who are prepared to live in diversity. But if you’re a Muslim who believes you are going to impose sharia by cutting off my head, I have a desire to kill you before you cut off my head.

The ensuing standing ovation from Freedom Forum attendees carried a salient message for the GOP’s field of would-be presidential nominees: A Republican will not win the White House in 2016 unless national security is a major issue and one on which Republicans hold a decisive edge.

The keys to gaining that edge are candor, clarity and courage. As Newt recounted, Churchill took the time to read and understand Mein Kampf. He was unafraid to call the threat to civilization what it was, even when no one in England or Europe wanted to listen. Reagan – “not having gone to Harvard Law School and been thoroughly educated in how to avoid reality” – understood that when Stalinists said they wanted to conquer the West, what they meant was … that they wanted to conquer the West. In his “magnificent” post-9/11 speech to a joint session of Congress, George W. Bush warned rogue regimes that they had a choice to make: With us, or with the terrorists?

It is again time – past time – to be bold in calling the threat against us what it is, and in understanding why it seeks to conquer us (i.e., in grasping that it is about their ideology not our flaws). That has been the essence of self-defense throughout history, and it hasn’t changed.

Among the best parts of Newt’s excellent speech was its call for practical action. With Republicans now in control of both houses of Congress, he argued that conservatives can serve the cause of national security by demanding months of hearings to examine, to speak bluntly about, the Islamist challenge to the West. Gingrich’s suggestions along these lines tracked his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed:

  • Appraise the strength and growth rate of the enemy.
  • Assess the danger on a country-by-country basis, through each jihadist hub – Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
  • Shine a spotlight on the Muslim Brotherhood – the enemy’s theoretical backbone that is “so little understood by Washington elites that it deserves its own set of hearings.”
  • Identify the primary sources of funding, especially in the Gulf.
  • Learn from Arab countries that have successfully contained the radicals.
  • Study the radicalization process, particularly the role of mosques and social media in recruiting young Muslims into terrorism.
  • Tackle “the Islamist cyberthreat” – in fact, as Gingrich declared (to much applause), we should be “driving them off the Internet.”

The recent barbarities in Paris, the stepped up pace of al Qaeda and ISIS atrocities, must be a wake-up call. For Newt Gingrich, conservatives do not just have an opportunity to lead the way. If America is to survive as we know and love her, conservatives must see that opportunity as a duty. The hour is growing late.

Voluntary’ Sharia Tribunal in Texas: This Is How It Starts

Islamic Tribunal Website

Islamic Tribunal Website

by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, January 28, 2015:

Breitbart Texas confirmed Tuesday that “an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law” is indeed operating in Texas. But not to worry: an attorney for the tribunal assures us that participation is “voluntary,” and one of the Sharia judges, Dr. Taher El-badawi, says it’s devoted only to “non-binding dispute resolution.”

This is how it starts. This is how it started in the United Kingdom. When Sharia courts were instituted there, Muslim and non-Muslim officials alike all assured the British public and the world that they would be voluntary, restricted to matters involving non-criminal matters, and subject to the British courts. Any areas in which British law and Sharia law conflicted would be referred not to the Sharia courts, but to the British courts.

That is not how it worked out. The Telegraph reported in August 2011 that “there are growing concerns” that the Sharia courts “are creating a parallel legal system — and one that is developing completely unchecked.” The Independent stated in April 2012 “some Sharia law bodies have been misrepresented by the media as being transparent, voluntary and operating in accordance with human rights and equality legislation. This is not the case. Many Sharia law bodies rule on a range of disputes from domestic violence to child residence all of which should be dealt with by UK courts of law.” Instead, “they operate within a misogynist and patriarchal framework which is incompatible with UK legislation.”

And in July 2013, the BBC (of all places) announced a video expose of the Sharia courts:

A BBC Panorama Documentary goes undercover in one of the 85 sharia courts operating as a parallel legal system in the UK, uncovering the extensive abuse of women, refusal to grant divorces, charging of the woman but not the man for divorce proceedings, and even the taking away of the woman’s children, and rulings contrary to British law.

Now this is coming to Texas. Sharia judge El-badawi said this about the Islamic divorces his tribunal would be dealing with: “While participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He readily owned up to how sexist the process is: “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal. The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.”

Even worse, the UK’s Telegraph reported this about the Sharia courts in its August 2011 report:

After being beaten repeatedly by her husband — who had also threatened to kill her — Jameela turned to her local Sharia council in a desperate bid for a way out of her marriage…In an airless room in the bowels of the mosque, Jameela is asked to explain why she wants a divorce. She replies that her husband spends most of his time with his second wife — Islamic law allows men to have up to four wives — but complains he is abusive whenever he returns to her home.

Her request for a divorce was denied. “For the sake of the children, you must keep up the facade of cordial relations,” the Sharia judge told her. “The worst thing that can happen to a child is to see the father and mother quarreling.”

The Telegraph article adds ominously: “While a husband is not required to go through official channels to gain a divorce — being able to achieve this merely by uttering the word ‘talaq’ — Islamic law requires that the wife must persuade the judges to grant her a dissolution.” El-badawi sounds as if he is planning to set up the same system in Texas.

Will the Texas Sharia court also turns a blind eye to spousal abuse, like the British Sharia court that heard Jameela’s case, in accord with this Qur’anic directive? “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.” (Qur’an 4:34)

You think that couldn’t happen in Texas? When asked what he would do when Islamic law conflicted with American law, El-badawi said: “We follow Sharia law.”

The dehumanization and diminishment of women is universal in the Muslim world. Muslim women can’t go against what their husbands and Sharia judges decide, no matter how many times the Sharia courts insist that they’re “voluntary.” Above all, they can’t go against what Islam says.

These Sharia courts are vicious, misogynistic, and brutal. The host countries have no clue what goes on in these “tribunals.” They should be banned in Western nations. Instead, they’re coming to Texas – and probably soon to your state as well.

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. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Video: Steve Coughlin Counterterror Training Education and Analysis

622022286
Center for Security Policy, September 13, 2012

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

 

Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law:

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law:

 

Part 6: The Boston Attack and “Individual Jihad” –  summary of key points

Watch Deborah Weiss on Fox News discussing “Freedom of Speech Under Attack

NER, by Jerry Gordon, Jan. 21, 2015:

Last weekend, 9/11 survivor and human rights lawyer, Deborah Weiss, Esq. was on Fox News’ Justice with Judge Jeannine discussing “Freedom of Speech under Attack.”   This discussion occurred in the wake of the murderous jihadist attacks in Paris on the French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher kosher super market in which 17 died;  cartoonists, journalists, shoppers and workers, five of them Jews.   Ms. Weiss drew attention to media and government self-censorship and the redaction of national law enforcement and homeland security training materials preventing identification of Islamist terrorist threat doctrine based on sacralized Islamic texts.  She also exposed the prominent role of the Saudi-backed Organization of Islamic Cooperation seeking to enforce blasphemy codes under Sharia in Western governments including the US.  Weiss is in the midst of preparing a monograph about the OIC UN resolutions to stifle all criticism of Islam-related subjects.  We interviewed Ms. Weiss about her compelling experience as a survivor of 9/11, who became an advocate for free speech, opposing  acquiescence to Islamic blasphemy codes under Sharia law.  See New English Review: A Survivor of 9/11 Speaks: An Interview with Deborah Weiss, Esq. (September 2014). Thursday January 22, 2014, Weiss will be interviewed on the nationally syndicated radio program, “Line of Fire” at 3:05PM EST. You may listen live, here.

Watch this You Tube video clip of Weiss on FoxNews’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine”:

The Muslim population of America is expanding at warp speed

American Thinker, by Carol Brown, Jan. 21, 2015:

Even when Muslims are a minority population they can and do transform whole cultures and societies. And not for the better.

Why? Because their holy book is a totalitarian ideology founded on submission and world domination. And toward that end, Islam is on the march. Meanwhile, the West remains mired in cowardice and complicity. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in Europe, which is on the fast track to join the Caliphate.

Not to be outdone by Europe’s madness, the United States is traveling down the same bloody path, importing large numbers of Muslims from Islamic countries thanks to the Islamophile sitting in the Oval Office and a nation full of dhimmis.

muslims in americaEstimates on the number of Muslims living in the US vary, ranging from 3 million to 7 million. Whatever the precise number, it’s already outdated as it rises with each passing nanosecond.

Since 9/11, there has been a dramatic uptick in immigration from Islamic countries with a 66% increase in the past decade. And things are just warming up. Islam is now the fastest growing religion in America.

Muslim popStrange, is it not? War has been waged against America in the name of Islam and we’ve opened our doors ever-wider to those who adhere to the very ideology that mandates our destruction.

Pew Research projects that by 2030, the Muslim population in the United States will more than double. In large part this will be attributable to immigration; to a lesser degree due to the size of Muslim families.

9781612154985In his book Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam, Peter Hammond wrote a detailed analysis on the proportion of Muslims to the overall population and increased violence and adherence to Sharia law. Hammond’s research reads like a roadmap to ruin; a horrifying picture of the future of civilization. To summarize an oft-quoted section:

When the Muslim population remains at or under 2%, their presence tends to fly low under the radar. In the 2% – 5% range, Muslims begin to seek converts, targeting those they see as disaffected, such as criminals. When the population reaches 5% they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers, becoming more aggressive and pushing for Sharia law. When the population hits the 10% mark Muslims become increasingly lawless and violent. Once the population reaches 20%, there is an increase in rioting, murder, jihad militias, and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. At 40%, there are “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.” Once beyond 50%, infidels and apostates are persecuted, genocide occurs, and Sharia law is implemented. After 80%, intimidation is a daily part of life along with violent jihad and some state-run genocide as the nation purges all infidels. Once the nation has rid itself of all non-Muslims, the presumption is that ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ has been attained – the Islamic House of Peace.

(Peace, of course, is never attained. Schisms among sects, starting with the rift between Shia and Sunni, erupt. The ideal of absolute power with divine authority always leads to internal conflict.)

That the United States is ramping up Muslim immigration is sheer insanity. A crucial step to putting the brakes on this frenzied march to our demise is to close the door to Muslims – whether those from Islamic countries or anywhere else.

Unfortunately, we’re doing the exact opposite.

In the last three years alone, 300,000 Muslims immigrated to the United States. And that’s just the beginning. The Refugee Resettlement Program is paving the way for a mass of Muslims to flock to our shores. With the United Nations in charge of determining who qualifies for refugee status and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference) as the power broker at the UN, you can count on a flood of Muslim refugees to be arriving at a town near you – if not your own town – soon.

And as one might expect, Obama is on board with any and all avenues to bring Muslims to the United States. I guess it’s part of his dream; our nightmare.

Who can forget the lie he told back in 2009 when he said the United States was one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Taqiyya? Stupidity? Slip of the tongue? Wishful thinking? Whatever the reason, it appears he is doing everything in his power to make that lie a reality.

 

Part of the process of flooding this country with Muslims from Islamic countries involves transplanting entire communities from places like Somalia. And just as we see in Europe, the new arrivals don’t assimilate and they live off the public dole.

20100715_SomaliMigrantsFor example, Family Security Matters reports that Somali immigrants have overwhelmed many small towns in America, creating their own enclaves. In some cases they’ve become the majority population – a population distinguished by being the least educated and most unemployed in the country, with evidence to show some have little motivation to become gainfully employed. When they first arrive, they are urged to go to towns where welfare is easy to access – places like Lewiston, Maine, a city of about 30,000 people.

At least before the invasion began.

The town provided welfare and public housing to Somali Muslims, many of whom were mothers with lots of children. And the Somalis came at a rate of about 100 per day.

The Somali population of Lewiston now exceeds 40,000.

In addition to Muslims from Somalia, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, a new wave has started arriving from Syria. The State Department expects “admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond.” It is expected that 9,000 or more Syrian refugees will arrive this year with a plan to bring at least 75,000 over the next five years.

syrian-refugees-protest (2)And as refugees flow in, our tax dollars flow out as the American tax payer funds the Muslim invasion, because when refugees arrive they are linked with a broad array of publically-funded services (food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized medical care, tutors, interpreters, and so on). In addition, charities (many of which are Christian or Jewish) that assist refugees receive federal grant money to provide additional support.

And where do these new immigrants from Islamic countries settle once they arrive? Well, just about everywhere and anywhere. The five states with the largest number of refugees are Texas, California, New York, Michigan, and Florida. But the situation is very dynamic and as numbers are updated, demographic shifts occur.

These were the top 5 states in FY2014. Right now Arizona is edging out Florida and Michigan has moved to number 3.

These were the top 5 states in FY2014. Right now Arizona is edging out Florida and Michigan has moved to number 3.

There are also regions of the country that participate in what is called the Preferred Communities Program. The program considers small towns and rural areas to be most suited to refugees and immigrants because small communities are best able to offer the kinds of services this new class of imports need. Or so they claim. And so we’ve got Somali refugees flocking to Cheyenne, Wyoming, in order to get easy-to-come-by Section 8 housing vouchers they take to other states. Those states either pick up the tab, or bill Cheyenne. And Cheyenne is running out of money. Duh.

So much for the taqiyya on the Preferred Communities Program website waxing poetic about the contributions these immigrants make to our society: “Refugees help communities learn and appreciate the many ways newcomers’ talents contribute to a richer, stronger society.”

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Maybe that was the case in another time in America. But not now in the age of multi-culturalism. Not with Muslim refugees with no skills, enormous needs, and a sense of entitlement. Oh, and for some, the desire to kill us.

DSC_8770-TrojanHorse-PSSo why are all of these Muslim refugees coming here anyway? Why aren’t they being taken in by Muslim majority countries? It would certainly make sense. After all, they’re much closer geographically, language barriers would be reduced, and local values and traditions are closer.

That Muslim majority countries have not opened their doors to these refugees is, I am confident, quite by design. This is about conquest. Otherwise known as Hijra, the Islamic doctrine of immigration. Hijra works in concert with violent jihad to overwhelm a society until Islam becomes the single dominant force.

And while Muslim refugees swarm into the United States as part of this conquest, Obama has twisted the knife even further by (1) easing requirements for potential immigrants who have links to “soft” terror, and (2) closing the door to persecuted Christians in the Middle East who have precious few options of where to flee. (Obama is also making it exceedingly difficult for French Jews to immigrate to the United States.) Per Investor’s Business Daily:

In another end-run around Congress, President Obama has unilaterally eased immigration requirements for foreigners linked to terrorism. (snip)

…By exempting five kinds of limited material support for terrorism, Obama instantly purges more than 4,000 suspects from the U.S. terror watch list and opens our borders up to both them and their families. (snip)

At the same time Obama opens the floodgates to them, he’s closing our borders to Christians fleeing persecution by Muslims in Egypt, Iraq and other Mideast countries.

Leave it to Obama to make a good situation bad. And then make a bad situation worse. He isn’t satisfied until he’s upped the ante so far imminent danger is at hand.

So we’re importing Muslims from Muslim majority countries who are traumatized, who don’t speak English, who have few skills, who follow the teachings of the Koran, many of whom want to spread Sharia law, some of whom actively support terror, and/or others of whom are or will become terrorists, while we’ve abandoned Christians trapped in the Middle East as they are slaughtered en masse.

To be blunt: We are importing Islamic terror. Not because every Muslim is a terrorist. But because enough of them are. And plenty more who don’t commit acts of terror support it – quietly at home or loudly in the street.

Below is a snapshot of where American Muslims stand on a variety of issues based on polls conducted over the past few years (see here, here, and here):

·      13% agree that some frequency of violence to defend Islam against civilians is justified.

·      19% are either favorable toward Al Qaeda or aren’t sure.

·      40% support Sharia law and believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution.

·      46% believe Americans who mock or criticize Islam should face criminal charges, with 12.5% in support of the death penalty for blasphemers, another 4.3% somewhat agreeing on the death sentence for those who insult Islam, and 9% unsure if the death penalty should apply.

In addition, to name a few additional points of concern among many (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here):

·      Mosques are proliferating across the landscape at breakneck speed, 80% of them preach jihad (through sermons and/or materials), and more than 95% of American Muslims attend such mosques.

·      Many American Muslims send their children to Islamic schools where they are indoctrinated in hate.

·      Many American Muslims have embraced Jew-hatred, as is written in the Koran.

·      There are compounds across America where Muslims receive jihad training.

·      Our prisons are breeding grounds for jihadists.

·      The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated every arm of our government as well as other major institutions.

So all-in-all, there are a lot of Muslims in America who are on board with Islamic law/jihad. It doesn’t matter if all of them are. Enough of them are.

What are we doing?!

We’re carefully planning our suicide, that’s what.

As Michael Walsh wrote at PJ Media: “There is no assimilating invaders who wish to replace your society with theirs, whether they call themselves ‘immigrants,’ ‘refugees’ or ‘asylum-seekers’…When it comes to the soul of a country, there really can be only one.”