London Imam Choudary to Hannity: You Have ‘No Choice,’ Sharia Is ‘Coming to a Place Near You’

 

Truth Revolt, by  Caleb Howe:

On Wednesday night, Fox News’ Sean Hannity interviewed Muslim cleric, Imam Anjem Choudary, who made outrageous claims including direct threats against the United States, should give any non-Muslim pause, . His point of view closely aligns with ISIS and is all too common in Great Britain.

Not only is Choudary a controversial and high profile cleric, but his followers reportedly indoctrinated and radicalized Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, the main suspect in the barbaric beheading of James Foley. He also recently sent some terrible, treasonous tweets about Great Britain, for which there appear to be no consequences. Hannity highlighted one of those tweets at the beginning of the interview to set the tone.

Anjem tweet

During the interview the Imam did not temper his words with caution, but doubled and tripled down, going so far as to claim that the United States, too, would come under sharia law.

Among the more disturbing of his responses to Hannity’s questions were these:

“If the Americans bomb and murder hundreds of thousands of people, and they torture people, and they continue to do so in Guantanamo Bay, obviously this will have repercussions. I think it was your own master George Bush who said either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists. And you know, we’re not with America definitely, so we must be with the terrorists.”

On the persecution of Christians in Iraq:

“The Christians are actually queuing up to come back into Mosul because they realize life under the sharia is much better than the Nouri Al-Maliki regime which the Americans propped up and who was murdering and torturing the people in the region.”

On the implementation of ISIS’ goals:

“I’m afraid you are living in a dream world. The Sharia will be implemented in America. It’s coming to a place very close to you.”

Should women who commit adultery be stoned to death?

“Both men and women, if there are witnesses, or they are self-confession, of course they will be punished. In Islam there is punishment.”

Should gay people be stoned to death?

“Under the Islamic state, people will not be doing this relationship in the public community. If they do, then there will be punishment. Of course.”

On support of Israel’s self-defense:

“When you live in America, you can believe that. The rest of the world think you’re crazy.”

And the quote of the day. Sean says “I don’t want your sharia law, and neither does anybody in Great Britain that has a brain.” The Imam responds definitively:

“You will have no choice about it Sean. It’s coming to a place near you. It’s coming to a place near you.”

This is the voice of the enemy. To continue to turn a blind eye and deaf ear, as the American left and others would have you do, is simply absurd. It is hard to imagine what more an aggressive, militarized group can do to be clear that they are the enemy. At this point words like “non-interventionist” are just replacement words for “cowardice.”

 

More commentary on the interview:

UK’s Anjem Choudary Justifies Beheading of James Foley

UK Islamist cleric Anjem Choudary (center)

UK Islamist cleric Anjem Choudary (center)

By Ryan Mauro:

Anjem Choudary, an Islamist cleric in Britain, spoke to the Clarion Project and said reports linking him to Abdel Majed Abdel Bary, the British rapper identified as the Islamic State terrorist who beheaded American journalist James Foley. However, he justified the atrocity and endorsed the caliphate declared by the Islamic State.

Choudary denied ever meeting Bary or his father, an Al-Qaeda member involved in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa who was extradited to the U.S. in 2012 from Britain. Choudary said his group did protest the elder Bary’s prolonged detention in the United Kingdom since 1998.

He also rejected press reports that his organization radicalized Bary. Choudary said no one in his group ever mentioned meeting Bary and that he’s confident someone would have discussed it if they had.

Choudary told the Clarion Project that the beheading of Foley by the Islamic State is permissible under sharia (Islamic) law.

“Muslims who abide by the sharia and follow the jurisprudence do not make a distinction between civilians and army,” he said.

Read more at Clarion Project

DECLARE WAR ON SHARIAH

iraq-machine-guns-held-aloft-afpBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR., Aug. 24.2014:

The National Journal called earlier this week for the United States to “declare war on ISIS.” The magazine is right to argue for a new authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), a legislative vehicle that passes these days for a congressional declaration of war. It is wrong, however, to urge that the existing AUMF, which targets al Qaeda and “associated forces,” be replaced by one that focuses just on the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham/Syria, or ISIS, or the Islamic State in the Levant, or ISIL).

Nearly thirteen years after 9/11, it is past time to recognize that we are at war not with one group of “terrorists” or another. Rather, adherents to a doctrine or ideology they call shariah are at war with us. Shariah is, at its core, about power, not faith. While some small percentage (some estimates suggest ten-percent) of its dictates prescribe the religious practices, the rest of it defines comprehensively how every relationship must be ordered – between individuals, families, neighbors, business associates, all the way up to how the world is governed.

Most importantly, shariah obliges its followers to engage in jihad (or holy war). Don’t be misled by those who argue jihad means “personal struggle.” The Koran makes clear that jihad is “holy war.” And for shariah-adherent Islamists that war has two goals: the triumph of shariah worldwide and the establishment of what is, for want of a better term, a theocratic government to rule the entire planet according to that doctrine.

The jihadists may disagree among themselves about some points of theology (notably, differences that divide Sunnis and Shiites). They may be committed to the use of terrifying violence under all circumstances. Or, as in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, they may believe it is to be used where practicable, but insist on employing not so much non-violent as pre-violent, subversive techniques where terrorism will be counterproductive.

Whatever the banner under which these shariah-adherents wage jihad – for example, the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Ansar al-Shariah or Muslim Brotherhood – all these Islamists are our avowed enemies. That is not because of how we view them. That is because of their own doctrine which is endlessly reinforced in their mosques, via the Internet, through social media and other vehicles.

We can no longer kid ourselves, or otherwise avoid a harsh reality: While perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world – including it seems the majority of those in America – practice their faith without regard for shariah (they don’t want to live under it themselves and they do not seek to impose it on others), the authorities of Islam regard shariah as the true faith and consider these co-religionists to be apostates.

At the moment, fortunately, only a relatively small number are actively engaged in violent jihad. Many more, though, are doing what shariah demands of those unable or unwilling to wield the sword in holy war: underwriting those who do, through the practice of zakat (Islam’s obligatory contributions to approved charitable causes, one of which is jihad).

Unless and until we understand that shariah-adherent Muslims are inherently dangerous, we will be unable to define our enemy correctly. Unless and until we hold such Muslims accountable, we will not only restrict unduly the focus and effectiveness of our countervailing efforts.

Worse yet, we will actually encourage Muslims – whether states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, organizations or individuals – to associate with, underwrite, or in other ways enable deadly foes of freedom.

Some will respond that an AUMF focused on shariah is a formula for a “clash of civilizations.” The truth is that enemies of civilization – namely, those who adhere to and seek to impose, whether through violence or by stealth, brutally repressive, totalitarian, misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant and anti-constitutional shariah on others – have made no secret of their determination to conquer and destroy us and the rest of the civilized world.

Only by making clear that we are determined to fight back in defense of freedom will we have a chance of protecting our civilization against these enemies. By identifying the political-military-legal ideology of shariah as the defining ideology of those with whom we are at war – much as we did in the past against Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism, and communism – we have a chance of prevailing. And that chance will be greatly enhanced if we bring to bear now, as in the past, not only military but all other instruments of national power.

We will also incentivize Muslims who do not conform to this doctrine to join us in fighting those who accuse them of apostasy, a capital offense under shariah. If they do so, the likelihood of our early success improves still further.

So, by all means, let’s have a new authorization for the use of military force. Or better yet, a proper declaration of war approved by the Congress, authorizing the use of the full array of our economic, political, intelligence, strategic and military means of waging war. But for the sake of our civilization and freedoms, we must ensure that it correctly defines the object of our defensive war: those who adhere to and are trying compel us to submit to shariah.

WE MUST OBJECT TO THE AIM, NOT JUST THE METHOD

Islamic State (or ISIS or IS) is without doubt a particularly vile Islamist group.  Disavowed by Al-Qaeda for being too extreme, the group emerged in early 2013 and is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Baghdadi recently declared himself leader of a new caliphate which so far covers parts of Iraq and Syria. Islamic State intends to stretch its caliphate much further – including in to parts of Europe.

The atrocities committed by this jihadist group, in pursuit of their Islamic state, have been widely publicised.  Death squads have lined people up to be shot in the back of the head, people (including children) are reported to have been buried alive, beheadings are widespread, and women are being kidnapped and sold in to slavery.  Christians in Iraq have reportedly been ordered to “leave, convert, or die”.

It is the plight of the Yazidi people, a religious minority in Iraq, which has prompted the United States to respond with air strikes against Islamic State.  Around 50,000 people of the Yazidi minority have fled for their lives and many have been hidden away in mountains facing starvation and dehydration, as well as the threat of slaughter by the Islamist militants.

It is right that the US has responded to Islamic State with military strikes, and it is right that this group is condemned across the world for its brutality.  What has not been sufficiently condemned however, or even acknowledged, is the ultimate aim of the Islamist group, or the fact that groups all over the world share this aim – the creation of Islamic states under sharia law.  Until the world is ready to condemn this underlying motivation, confronting IS will merely paper over the cracks.

Across the globe, Islamist groups are fighting the same war: a war against freedom, human rights, and anything that doesn’t fit with their version of Islam.  It is the war being fought by Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram in Africa, by Hamas against Israel, and it is the war being fought by various Islamic groups in the west, whose methods may differ from the terrorists but whose aim is the same; the establishment of sharia law.

In the UK, sharia-advocating groups are widespread and are often entertained by our leaders as “moderates”.  The Muslim Council of Britain endorses sharia, as does the Muslim Brotherhood linked Muslim Association of Britain.  Senior figures in the Islamic Sharia Council (the largest ‘sharia court’ body in the UK) call for stonings and lashings and “jihad against the non-Muslims”.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which advocates a global Islamic state, can attract a crowd of 10,000 or so to Wembley stadium.  Islamists and jihadists routinely preach (and recruit) on British university campuses (Sharia Watch UK will soon release a report on Islamism in UK universities) and those speakers share the aim of Islamic State – a society governed by sharia law.

Islamism and the quest for sharia law is a global phenomenon.  It is present on every continent and is growing in power by the day.  It is aided by the stubborn refusal of Western leaders to acknowledge the underlying problem, which is the nature of the Islamic state itself.  This is a problem because it is fundamentally at odds with democracy, liberty, and basic civil rights.

To oppose the likes of Islamic State, and what is truly driving them, Western leaders are called upon to do something very powerful – to defend democracy, freedom, and civil liberties, and to do so without apology.

Currently, this looks to be sadly improbable

Vice News: Bulldozing the Border Between Iraq and Syria: The Islamic State (Part 5)

Published on Aug 13, 2014 by VICE News

On August 8, nearly three years after the United States pulled out of Iraq, President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes to commence on Islamic State positions in northern Iraq, as the group’s fighters advanced towards the Kurdish capital of Erbil. For six weeks prior to the strikes the Islamic State made stunning gains within Iraq, effectively dismantling the border with Syria and defeating the Iraqi army with little in the way to stop them.

In the final installment of VICE News’ unprecedented look inside the Islamic State, reporter Medyan Dairieh journeys 200 miles from the the group’s power base in the Syrian city of Raqqa to the border with Iraq. There, after defeating the Iraqi army manning the checkpoint, Islamic State fighters work further to bulldoze the border.

As they clear apart a barrier that divided Iraq and Syria, Islamic State fighters declare an end of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a nearly 100-year-old pact between France and Britain that divided up the Middle East. For now, that area between Iraq and Syria is part of a new territory: the Islamic State.

View parts 1-5 here

or watch:

The Islamic State (Full Length)

Vice News Documentary: The Islamic State (Parts 1-5)

Vice News

The Spread of the Caliphate: The Islamic State (Part 1)

 

Grooming Children for Jihad: The Islamic State (Part 2)

 

Enforcing Sharia in Raqqa: The Islamic State (Part 3)

 

Christians in the Caliphate: The Islamic State (Part 4)

 

Bulldozing the Border Between Iraq and Syria: The Islamic State (Part 5)

 

The Islamic State (Full Length)

 

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights

 

We can learn a lot about the Islamic world view by knowing what Islam thinks human rights are. Warning: it is not a good world for the Kafir.

By Bill Warner:

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights was a document put together in 1990 after the United Nations had come out with its Universal Human Rights. The Muslims looked at it and said: “We don’t like universal human rights. We will put together an Islamic document about human rights.”

We can learn something very interesting about Islam and about us as Kafirs from this document. It is a 2 to 3 page document that is based on the Sharia. It has some lofty language, which at first seems to be wonderful, until you look at it really closely. For instance, it starts off by saying that all human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah. What? Human beings are those who submit to Allah and that’s our first insight into the true nature of this doctrine. What about those who do not submit to Allah?

It goes ahead to say all men are equal in terms of basic human dignity. Well, not really because in the Sharia, there are Kafirs and believers and Kafirs are not treated equally under the Sharia.

The Cairo Declaration states that the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is forbidden to take away a life except for a Sharia prescribed reason. What might those be? Well there’s the usual ones, such as the penalty for murder. But then there are other reasons to take a life, which I personally don’t like. For instance, it’s allowed to take the life of a Kafir, if it is in jihad. That is wrong and doesn’t really give me a lot of rights. Another reason that you can kill somebody is, buried deep in the back of the Sharia text, is that both parents and grandparents shall not be considered guilty if they kill one of their children. So in other words, honor killings are built into the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.

It states that men and women have the right to marriage and no restrictions stemming from race color or nationality. What are we missing? Yes, religion! Because you see there are many prohibitions on Muslims. A Muslim woman is not supposed to marry a Kafir male, but a Kafir woman can marry an Islamic male, a Muslim male. Why? The children have to be raised as Muslims.

The Cairo Declaration says that a woman is equal to a man in human dignity. Right. But included in the Sharia are prescriptions on how a woman is to be beaten and the appropriate ways to do this. So much for equality.

It say that everyone shall have the right to enjoy their fruits of his scientific, literary, or artistic work. Well, not really. Because you see, any art which portrays Mohammed or Islam in a bad way is strictly forbidden.

Then we have one that sounds great. All individuals are equal before the law. But individuals are not equal under the Sharia. A Kafir cannot testify in a Sharia court against a Muslim. That’s the equality under the Sharia.

The Cairo declaration says that everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely. Try going to Pakistan and say something about Mohammed Muslims don’t like and you’ll see how much right you have to freely express your opinion. You’ll be dead.

The Cairo Declaration ends with a simple statement. All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this declaration are subject to the Sharia. It is a case where the little print takes away everything that the big print promises. Because there aren’t any rights and freedoms inside of the Sharia for the Kafir. Human rights are only for Muslims. Kafirs don’t have any rights because Kafirs are not humans. So much for the declaration of human rights under Islam.

IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank

IIITCSP, By Kyle Shideler:

Founded in 1981 following a summit by high level Muslim Brotherhood leaders, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) is the leading Islamist think tank in the world. Despite a federal investigation into its ties to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fundraising, members of IIIT continue to operate among the Washington policy community. This addition to the Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series examines the founding of IIIT, its disturbing ideology calling for “the Islamization of knowledge” and “civilizational battle,” and its troubling ties to terrorist organizations.

Read the paper at the link below:

Kyle Shideler and David Daoud: International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT): The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank | Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series | July 28, 2013 (PDF 14 pages, 245kB)

Philly Mosque Leader Attempts to Amputate Suspected Thief’s Hand

West Philly Mosque leader Merv Mitchell (aka Mabul Shoatz) pictured next to the Masjid Ar-Razaqq Ul-Karim mosque where he and the mosque's imam attempted to cut off the hand of an alleged thief. (Photo: Police)

West Philly Mosque leader Merv Mitchell (aka Mabul Shoatz) pictured next to the Masjid Ar-Razaqq Ul-Karim mosque where he and the mosque’s imam attempted to cut off the hand of an alleged thief. (Photo: Police)

Clarion Project, by Hana Rose

A Muslim leader at a West Philadelphia mosque was arrested last week for attempting to cut off the hand of a 46 year-old mosque member who he accused of stealing money from jars belonging to the mosque.

The mosque’s “emir,”  Merv Mitchell, who also goes by the name of Mabul Shoatz, was charged with criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault and related offenses after using a machete to try to detach the mosque member’s hand.

Although the victim, who was known to help organize prayers at the mosque, denied participating in theft, the emir and imam (who was unnamed) dragged the accused down a flight of stairs to the mosque’s backyard, held his hand down on a log and attempted to cut off his hand with a two-foot long machete.

Cutting off a thief’s hand is mandated by Islamic (sharia) law, “[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned as a deterrent [punishment] from Allaah.” (Quran 5:38)

They “swung at his wrist, cut through his skin and cut his tendons, but didn’t make it all the way,” said Lieutenant John Walker, a detective with the police department.

If it were not for the machete’s dull blade, the victim may not have even been able to receive the reconstructive surgery he is currently undergoing.

The mosque, called Masjid Ar-Razaqq Ul-Karim, is located in West Philadelphia. Police are looking for the imam who is said to be on the run.

ISIL Has Caliphate Dreams: The Eternal Muslim Ideal

The jihad terror organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) formally declared [1] a “re-creation” of Islam’s traditional solidary religio-political entity, the “Caliphate” in a pronouncement [2] issued June 29, 2014.

Here the flag of the Islamic State, the flag of tawhīd (monotheism), rises and flutters. Its shade covers land from Aleppo to Diyala.

book3

“State of the Islamic Caliphate” inscribed at the top of the alleged new “Caliphate” passport [4]. At the bottom, it states: “[If] holder of the passport [is] harmed, we will deploy armies for his service.”

ISIL’s rhetoric extolled its triumph over all infidels, with a particular emphasis on non-Muslims, and the attempted imposition of the totalitarian Sharia [5], in all its liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing barbarity. The jihad [6] terror organization also claimed [2] ISIL’s rule was restoring not only Sharia-mandated Islamic “justice” (for example, the destruction of Christian crosses, and extraction of the humiliating jizya [6], per Koran 9:29), but also local “stability,” and Islamic pride.

The Muslims are honored. The kuffār (infidels) are disgraced. Ahlus-Sunnah (the Sunnis) are masters and are esteemed. The people of bid’ah (heresy) are humiliated. Thehudūd (Sharia penalties) are implemented – the hudūd of Allah – all of them. The frontlines are defended. Crosses and graves are demolished.

The people in the lands of the State move about for their livelihood and journeys, feeling safe regarding their lives and wealth. Wulāt (plural of wālī or “governors”) and judges have been appointed. Jizyah (a tax imposed on kuffār) has been enforced. Fay’ (money taken from the kuffār without battle) and zakat (obligatory alms) have been collected. Courts have been established to resolve disputes and complaints. Evil has been removed. Lessons and classes have been held in the masājid (plural of masjid) and, by the grace of Allah, the religion has become completely for Allah. There only remained one matter, a wājib kifā’ī (collective obligation) that the ummah sins by abandoning. It is a forgotten obligation. The ummah has not tasted honor since they lost it. It is a dream that lives in the depths of every Muslim believer. It is a hope that flutters in the heart of every mujāhid muwahhid (monotheist). It is the khilāfah (caliphate). It is the khilāfah – the abandoned obligation of the era.

Despite subsequent dissatisfaction with ISIL, and its newly minted “Caliphate [2]”—already emerging [7] just 3-weeks after the regular Iraqi army and police forces of the al-Maliki central government were crushed, or fled—in the immediate aftermath of the Sunni takeover, 81.5% of Mosul’s predominantly Sunni residents felt more secure after the Sunni insurgents seized control of the city.

Hollow proclamations have followed suit from Muslim leaders claiming ISIL’s Caliphate “vision” [2] somehow distorted this idyllic historical Islamic institution. Sheikh Khaldoun Oraymet, secretary-general of Lebanon’s Supreme Islamic Council opined [8],

What ISIL is doing is in complete contradiction of the principles of the Islamic caliphate: a righteous caliphate which preserves the rights of all people, and respects all people and the opinions of others who are of different faiths, race, time and place.

Even the Jordanian jihad ideologist Issam Barqawi, known as Abu Mohammed al-Maqdessi, claimed [9] on jihadist websites, that ISIL’s leaders evidenced, “no manners,” voicing his main concern,  “What would the fate be of other Islamist fighters in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere?”, before adding the obligatory disclaimer,  that ISIL was “distorting religion.” Previously, ahistorical drivel from the Western Muslim “advocacy” group the Muslim Association of Britain, lionized both the Caliphate, and the corollary implementation of Sharia, as promulgators of “a peaceful and just society [10].” Moreover, Egypt’s current President al-Sisi—recently elected in a landslide [11] victory—extolled [12] the Caliphate in his 2006 U.S. Army War College “mini-thesis” as “the ideal form of government,” broadly

…recognized as the goal for any new form of government very much in the manner that the U.S. pursued the ideals of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” From the Middle Eastern perspective, the defining words governing their form of democracy [emphasis added] would likely reflect “fairness, justice, equality, unity and charity.”

Such warped apologetics are reminiscent [13] of the equivalent protestations [5] made to advance destructive Communist totalitarianism, “Communists, what have you made of communism?”

The prototypical Caliphate under Umar Ibn al-Khattab [6] (d. 644), the second “rightly guided” caliph of Islam, merits summary examination. During his reign, which lasted for a decade (634-644), Syria, Iraq and Egypt were conquered, and Umar was thus responsible for organizing the early Islamic Caliphate. Alfred von Kremer, the great 19th century German scholar of Islam, described [14] the “central idea” of Umar’s regime, as being the furtherance of “…the religious-military development of Islam at the expense of the conquered nations.” The predictable and historically verifiable consequence of this guiding principle was a legacy of harsh inequality, intolerance, and injustice towards non-Muslims observed [14] by von Kremer in 1868 (and still evident in Islamic societies to this day, nearly 150 years later):

It was the basis of its severe directives regarding Christians and those of other faiths, that they be reduced to the status of pariahs, forbidden from having anything in common with the ruling nation; it was even the basis for his decision to purify the Arabian Peninsula of the unbelievers, when he presented all the inhabitants of the peninsula who had not yet accepted Islam with the choice: to emigrate or deny the religion of their ancestors. The industrious and wealthy Christians of Najran, who maintained their Christian faith, emigrated as a result of this decision from the peninsula, to the land of the Euphrates, and ‘Umar also deported the Jews of Khaybar. In this way ‘Umar based that fanatical and intolerant approach that was an essential characteristic of Islam, now extant for over a thousand years, until this day [i.e., written in 1868]. It was this spirit, a severe and steely one, that incorporated scorn and contempt for the non-Muslims, that was characteristic of ‘Umar, and instilled by ‘Umar into Islam; this spirit continued for many centuries, to be Islam’s driving force and vital principle….With a strong hand, he held the reins of spiritual and worldly power, commanded with unlimited full authority over the political and religious activities of  Muslims, already many millions in number. Under him, the conquest of Syria was completed, Iraq and Persia were conquered as far as the Oxus and the borders of Hindustan, while in the west, Egypt obeyed him…

The jihad campaigns waged [6] in the era of Umar’s Caliphate, consistent with nascent Islamic Law (Sharia), spared neither cities nor monasteries if they resisted. Accordingly,when [6] the Greek garrison of Gaza refused to submit and convert to Islam, all were put to death. In the year 640, sixty Greek soldiers who refused to apostatize became martyrs, while in the same year (i.e., 638) that Caesarea, Tripolis and Tyre fell to the Muslims, hundreds of thousands of Christians converted to Islam, predominantly out of fear.

Muslim and non-Muslim sources record that Umar’s soldiers were allowed [6] to break crosses on the heads of Christians during processions and religious litanies, and were permitted, if not encouraged, to tear down [6] newly erected churches and to punish [6] Christians for trivial reasons. Moreover, Umar forbade [6] the employment of Christians in public offices.

The false claims of Islamic toleration during this prototype “rightly guided” Caliphate cannot be substantiated even by relying on the (apocryphal?) “pact” of Umar ( [6]Ibn al-Khattab) because this putative decree compelled the Christians (and other non-Muslims) to fulfill self-destructive obligations, including [6]: the prohibition on erecting any new churches, monasteries, or hermitages; and not being allowed to repair any ecclesiastical institutions that fell into ruin, nor to rebuild those that were situated in the Muslim quarters of a town. Muslim traditionists and early historians (such as al-Baladhuri) further maintain [6] that Umar expelled the Jews of the Khaybar oasis, and similarly deported Christians (from Najran) who refused to apostatize and embrace Islam, fulfilling the death bed admonition of Muhammad who purportedly stated: “there shall not remain two religions in the land of Arabia.”

Umar imposed [6] limitations upon the non-Muslims aimed at their ultimate destruction by attrition, and he introduced [6] fanatical elements into Islamic culture that became characteristic of the Caliphates which succeeded his. For example, according to the chronicle of the Muslim historian Ibn al-Atham [15] (d. 926-27), under the brief Caliphate of Ali b. Abi Talib (656-61), when one group of apostates in Yemen (Sanaa) adopted Judaism after becoming Muslims, “He [Ali] killed them and burned them with fire after the killing.” Indeed, the complete absence [5] of freedom of conscience in these early Islamic Caliphates—while entirely consistent with mid-7th century mores—has remained a constant, ignominious legacy throughout Islamic history, to this day.

GABRIEL: ISIS is a threat beyond Iraq, with Shariah as worldwide aim

A member of an Iraqi volunteer forces group joins training near the Imam Ali shrine in the southern holy Shiite city of Najaf, Iraq, Thursday, June 26, 2014, after authorities urged Iraqis to help battle insurgents. Shiite militias responding to a call to arms by Iraq’s top cleric are focused on protecting the capital and Shiite shrines. (AP Photo/Jaber al-Helo)

A member of an Iraqi volunteer forces group joins training near the Imam Ali shrine in the southern holy Shiite city of Najaf, Iraq, Thursday, June 26, 2014, after authorities urged Iraqis to help battle insurgents. Shiite militias responding to a call to arms by Iraq’s top cleric are focused on protecting the capital and Shiite shrines. (AP Photo/Jaber al-Helo)

Washington Times , Brigitte Gabriel, June 26, 2014:

There is a great deal of confusion and ignorance about the jihadist organization ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) which has been waging a terror campaign in those two nations for some time now, culminating most recently in the seizure of Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul.

ISIS isn’t acting out of anger over borders or “politics” as the West understands the term. ISIS has a specific goal in mind and that is the formation of an Islamic state ruled by Shariah.

This is very important to understand because this is a common goal of all the major jihadist organizations across the world. It is shared by al Qaeda, Hamas, Lashkar e Taiba, Abu Sayyef, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and others. The shared goal transcends any disagreements over borders and pure politics.

For instance, Israel could evaporate tomorrow and the overriding goal of the formation of Islamic states ruled by Shariah would not change a bit. It’s based in their thousand-year-old doctrine, which is far more fundamental and overarching than mere political ideology.

If we ever hope to win this war against radical Islam we better understand that the goal of establishing an Islamic state ruled by Shariah is based on doctrine and not just ideology.

Islamic doctrine is not derived from the thoughts or ideological vision of a man or woman brought to the fore in recent years. Islamic doctrine is based on the Islamic trilogy, the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira.

The Koran is the central religious text of Islam, believed by Muslims to be a direct revelation from Allah. The Hadith is a series of traditions documenting the teachings, deeds and sayings of the prophet Muhammad. The Sira is the biography of Muhammad, considered to have been the perfect man who set an example for all Muslims to follow always. In order for an individual to be a good Muslim, it is not enough for him to worship Allah, he must worship Allah in the same way that Muhammad did.

The name given to Islamic doctrine is Shariah. Not only does Shariah form the basis of the doctrine to which jihadists, such as those of ISIS, adhere, it is also the common goal of jihadists to establish rule by Shariah in an Islamic state.
All other considerations — economic, political and military — take a back seat to adhering to and establishing Shariah.

It is this doctrinal basis that is the key to understanding the threat from jihad.
Too often the West becomes tied up in contemporary considerations and issues that have nothing to do with doctrine and assign too much significance to them.
Islamic doctrine — Shariah — transcends geography, politics and even different Islamic sects. It is the common thread that ties Boko Haram in Nigeria to ISIS in Iraq and Abu Sayyef in the Philippines to Lashkar e Taiba in Kashmir.

Jihad is not a local phenomenon. When a variety of terrorist groups all wage violence for the same reasons, with the same goals, this should be considered a clue that there is something more at work here than just “local” conflicts.
Make no mistake — ISIS does not just pose a threat to Iraq. History has shown that when an Islamic state ruled by Shariah is established, such as Taliban Afghanistan, that state becomes a launching pad for jihad elsewhere.
Already we have seen reports that American jihadis have joined ISIS to fight alongside jihadists from around the globe. While the conflict in Iraq is portrayed in the Western media as a civil war, the truth is that most of the ISIS fighters are not Iraqi. They are jihadi warriors from around the world, including from the West.

What happens when these jihadists head home? Will they leave the war behind in Iraq and Syria? Or will they bring jihad home?
In warfare, your enemy’s reality becomes your reality and you must go to great lengths to understand your enemy. Unfortunately, we have largely failed on that score as a nation.

Our elected and appointed officials must come to terms with the doctrinal basis for jihad so we can properly and effectively defend America, protect American lives and face our enemies.

Brigitte Gabriel is an international terrorism analyst and the president of ACT for America.org.

INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE REVERSES SHARIAH COURT DEATH SENTENCE FOR SUDANESE CHRISTIAN MOTHER

Meriam Ibrahim and Daniel Wani - wedding photoBreitbart, by :

Earlier today, an appeal court in Sudan overturned Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag’s death penalty and released her from jail.

Ibrahim is the woman who had never embraced her absent father’s Muslim faith and whose mother brought her up as a God-fearing Christian. Shariah law demands that such a woman is an apostate and demands either execution or “reversion” to Islam. That, Meriam refused to do. She was willing to die for her faith.

This was her only crime—a refusal to convert or revert to Islam. This exceptionally beautiful woman was arrested and brutalized in a medieval fashion: Chained up in a dark dungeon and forced to give birth on the filthy floor of that very dungeon in chains. The fact that her husband is an American citizen and that her two children, including the daughter born while she was imprisoned, are also American citizens did not sway the Sudanese authorities.

What has? It is hard to say. International human rights groups and Christian groupslaunched campaigns on her behalf. An internet campaign which I quickly joined seems to have gathered some momentum, but internet campaigns do not open cell doors. Many articles were published, including mine at Breitbart, but that, too, does not usually open cell doors.

On May 24, 2014, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tweeted that “Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent.” On June 12, 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement about freedom of religion and noted that the Sudanese government has violated international law and human rights. He wrote: “The United States remains deeply concerned about the conviction and continued imprisonment of Ms. Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag.”

However, I have been told that the American Embassy in Khartoum would not get involved—at least, not publicly and not visibly.

On June 19, 2013, thirty eight Congressmen signed a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. This effort was spear-headed by two Republican Congressmen: Trent Franks and Frank Wolf. Thirty one Republicans and only seven Democrats signed this letter. Shame on the Democratic Party! Here is an African woman who is exercising her freedom of religion—a value that we in the West, particularly in America, hold dear.

Senator Ted Cruz called on President Obama to directly engage Sudan and call for her release.

And now, five days later, on June 23rd, a Sudanese Court has freed her and declared her innocent of all charges.

Really, what has opened her cell door? At this point, I cannot say. But one thing is clear: This is an international victory against Shariah law–and as Shariah law is imposed in a Muslim country. This is no small thing. The stand taken by Christian and human rights groups, coupled with the Republican-led coalition demanding that she be freed, helped.

Other questions abound as to what occurred behind closed doors. Did money change hands? if so, whose money? Have we traded away terrorists for Meriam’s freedom? Will we ever know? More importantly, will she now be protected from death threats? Will the American Embassy give her shelter? How will she get out of the country? Who will sponsor her for political asylum here? How many other Meriams will we have to rescue, campaign by campaign?

Meriam’s journey is not yet over, though she is free of the charges leveled against her. Laurie Jalbert, founder of the Christian group A Passion for Jesus who launched a petition to save Meriam, says now is the time for the White House to act to get Meriam and her children to America safely. “There are now death threats against Meriam and her lawyers,” she explained to Breitbart News, “Please continue to remember Meriam and her children as they still need to safely leave Sudan. Also, remember her lawyers who were courageous enough to represent her.”

Omaha’s Tri-Faith Initiative Mirrors “Pact of Umar”

Omar-450x300By Joe Herring and Dr. Mark Christian:

For those of you unfamiliar with Islamic history, Umar bin al-Khattab – the second Islamic Caliph – made an agreement with the subjugated Christians of Syria setting forth the conditions under which said Christians would be permitted to live in proximity to the conquering Muslims.

This Pact of Umar is the origination of the concept of dhimmitude, a dehumanizing status belonging to subjugated non-Muslims in Islamist societies.

The translation I have re-produced below comes from the stellar book by Raymond Ibrahim, titled Crucified Again.

In return for their lives, the Christians agreed:

Not to build a church in our city—nor a monastery, convent, or monk’s cell in the surrounding areas—and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslim quarters;

Not to clang our cymbals except lightly and from the innermost recesses of our churches;

Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayer or readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims;

Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims;

Not to congregate in the open for Easter or Palm Sunday, nor lift our voices [in lamentation] for our dead nor show our firelights with them near the market places of the Muslims;

Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it;

Not to prevent any of our relatives who wish to enter into Islam;

Not to possess or bear any arms whatsoever, nor gird ourselves with swords;

To honor the Muslims, show them the way, and rise up from our seats if they wish to sit down;

Adhere to these conditions and live. Break these conditions and all bets are off. While this pact was made in the early 7th Century, it is still considered relevant today as evidenced by its widespread application throughout the Middle East.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) certainly considers these conditions to be quite pertinent to the present-day conduct of interfaith relations. They are enforcing the conditions on the Christian residents of Syria, in addition to the regions they have recently conquered in Iraq.

According to the BBC, ISIS offers a heck of a deal – you must convert to Islam or if you remain Christian, you must accept dhimmi status and pay the jizya, (a tax for non-Muslims only) or… you can just be put to the sword.

As wildly enticing as the first or third choices may appear, most opt for door number two and live out their lives as second-class subjects. This is the hard-tyranny of Islamic supremacy. The inherently political and social nature of Islam and Sharia leave no room for other forms of intersection between believers and unbelievers.

This hard-tyranny is the hallmark of the Caliphate system. Freedom is an unknown concept; liberty is blasphemy in a system that crushes the individual into mortar paste for the building of greater Islam.

The global left views the advent of a new Caliphate as something akin to an Islamic version of the European Union, an economic and political alliance designed to trade with the rest of the world on an equal footing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Caliphate is a means toward an end; that end being Islamic dominance. The Caliphate is merely the structural entity that will administer Sharia throughout an Islamist-controlled world.

Considering the recent proliferation of “interfaith” initiatives throughout Western Europe and the United States, it seems prudent to give more than a cursory glance to the preferred ground-rules of the Islamists, and to examine the role such interfaith efforts might play in an expanding the Caliphate system.

One such interfaith initiative, here in Omaha, Nebraska intends to co-locate a Mosque, a Synagogue and a Church on the same campus.

There is a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOA) that governs the interaction between the three faiths that make up the Tri-Faith Initiative, as they call themselves. It lays the ground rules for everything from site planning, to building design and subsequent use.

Read more at Front Page

Joe Herring writes from Omaha, Nebraska and welcomes visitors to his website at www.readmorejoe.comDr. Mark Christian, a former Muslim, is the Executive Director of the Global Faith Institute, also based in Omaha.

Sharia and the U.S. Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam: Is Integration Working? Part II of III

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, June 18, 2014:

Some motives of the members of the British Law Society might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

What seems unpardonable is that our Western governments and institutions, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are reinforcing these abuses.

Pressure to incorporate Shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

Another apparent obstacle to integration seems to be the simple act, within circumscribed communities, of questioning. Questioning — as well as free speech and free thought — often seems to appear disrespectful and discouraged. A new effort to criminalize free speech internationally has in the past few years been promoted by, of all countries, the United States — led by then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in three closed-door conferences between 2010 and 2012. Clinton not only dusted off — but co-sponsored and actively promoted — the all-but-dead Pakistani resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 16/18, misleadingly named “Defamation of Religion.” The resolution is, bluntly, an attempt legally to internationalize Islam’s repressive “blasphemy laws.” Anyone who might wish to question or discuss Islam can be accused of “blasphemy” and possibly sentenced to death. Since the beginning of Islam, anyone who might take steps to leave Islam can be accused of “apostasy,” and sentenced to death. As Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said at the end of January 2013, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

What seems unpardonable is that it is our Western governments and institutions that are reinforcing these abuses.

 

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)

Moreover, in March 2014, the British Law Society set out guidelines for solicitors (roughly, U.S. lawyers) to help draw up “Shari’a compliant” wills, in defiance of the fact that Islamic rules on inheritance are deeply discriminatory. Muslim women will not be given an equal share of an inheritance. Non-Muslims, illegitimate children, divorced spouses, people who have not had Muslim marriages, and anyone outside the kinship-based set of recognized heirs, may not inherit. The ruling tells solicitors (and from them, the courts) to make exclusions from an 1837 law, which allows gifts to pass to the offspring of an heir who has died. This has been done to provide Muslims with separate laws that do not apply to other British citizens. These separate laws also relegate British law to an inferior position in such matters. The ruling has been done knowingly and for poorly thought-out motives by people who should know better. Some motives might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, giving them rights that others do not have, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

If this ruling is followed by others affecting marriage, divorce, the custody of children and much else, Britain will become a two-tier society in which Muslim men may marry four wives, keep concubines or, for the Shi’a, contract temporary (mut’a) marriages, while non-Muslim polygamists will be sent to jail. Needless to say, protests are already underway.

Pressure to incorporate shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

In the U.S., in 2011, President Obama appointed Professor Azizah al-Hibri to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Hibri, a professor at Richmond University, has a record of involvement in matters concerning the rights of Muslim women and human rights in Islam. But she is on record as saying that Islamic Law “is deeper and better than Western codes of law,” that the Qur’an inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Hibri has also argued that Islam is fully compatible with women’s rights, human rights, and democracy, something many in the West would strongly contest. Moreover, to appoint an Islamist to a post as commissioner on a body dedicated to religious freedom, a body that spends much of its time protesting the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries seems at the very least indecent. The very idea of religious freedom does not exist in the Qur’an, the hadith literature, or in any book of Islamic law. It is not enough to cite the famous line from the Qur’an 2:256, “la ikraha fi’l-din” [there is no compulsion in religion]. It has to be modified by the laws that enforce belief by threatening death to apostates, or by the conditions imposed on Jews, Christians, Hindus, pagans and other non-Muslims. They are given a choice to convert, die, or live as dhimmis: lower-class, “tolerated” persons, who pay a tribute, or tax, called a jizya, or “reward,” for not being killed. The Qur’an itself is explicit: “Fight those who believe not in Allah… [even] people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).