See this blog for background: Cut the Clitoral Relativism: Islam, Sharia, and Female Genital Mutilation/“Circumcision”
Breitbart, By Frank Gaffney:
Want to know what our Islamist enemies have in mind for America? Look at Europe.
Virtually every country there has found itself under siege from Muslims seeking to impose the supremacist Islamic doctrine they call shariah on everyone else. The preeminent organization promoting this agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood, now banned as a terrorist group in its home country of Egypt but prospering in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in what has been known as the Free World. In fact, as Egyptian courts hand down death sentences to those engaged with the Brotherhood’s violent efforts to overthrow the government there, ours is opening the door to asylum for those who have only engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism.
More insidious than the Muslim Brotherhood’s violence, however, is its stealthy subversion. In a 1991 strategic plan introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a senior member named Mohammed Akram described this form of warfare as “civilization jihad.”
In Akram’s words, the goal of the Brotherhood’s civilization jihadists is “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within… so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” His “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” lays out how this ambitious goal is to be achieved under our noses by penetrating and subverting “from within” the West’s civil society and governing institutions.
The London Telegraph reports that this campaign has just scored a major success in Great Britain. The country’s trade association for lawyers, the Law Society, has declared its members can begin drawing up shariah-compliant wills that will be enforceable in British common law courts.
Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.
The documents, which would be recognized by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.
Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Shariah principles, which recognize only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.
Such inroads are coming on top of the presence of something on the order of 87 shariah courts that operate side-by-side with Britain’s own judiciary. One of the U.K.’s most courageous opponents of such practices, Baroness Caroline Cox, said: “No longer do we have a single legal code in our society. Instead, alongside our own law, there is now effectively a parallel quasi-legal system operating within some Muslim communities.”
Think that cannot happen here? Think again. The Muslim Brotherhood’s largest front group in this country, the Islamic Society of North America, requires each of its chapters to maintain arbitration panels that serve as proto-shariah courts. It is a matter of time before Islamists and their apologists begin demanding that such courts be allowed to adjudicate disputes not just between willing parties but in cases where one party – most likely women and/or children – would prefer to have the protections of our Constitution.
Worse yet, as a study published by the Center for Security Policy in 2011 has documented, there have been at least 27 different instances in which U.S. courts have allowed the use of shariah law to govern – even where doing so has violated constitutional rights of the plaintiffs or defendants. (An updated version of this study now nearing completion indicates that, as of today, there are many more such cases.)
As a corrective to this civilization jihadist incursion into American jurisprudence, seven states have adopted legislation known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). If they wish to avoid the fate now facing British citizens who are likely to be denied their rightful inheritances and, in due course, other privations at the hands of shariah, every state in the country should adopt ALAC.
Of course, our Constitution’s Article VI declares that it is the supreme law of the land. But that will not long be the case if the civilization jihadists have their way. We must ensure that shariah is not allowed to undermine that constitutional precept – to the detriment of women, children, and the rest of us.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network, and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.
Saturday evening, Feb. 22nd, University of Pennsylvania Law School hosted the “Eighth Annual Muslim Law Students Conference,” on the topic of “MUSLIM OBLIGATIONS IN PROMOTING JUSTICE IN AMERICA.” Our interest in Islamic law as American citizens is to learn first-hand exactly what Muslim American law students are being taught.
The fairly innocuous and well-meaning title of the program masked the true intent, which we believe is to lull the audience and our society into a false sense of complacency regarding the real aims and effects of Islamic incursion in our society – which Stephen Coughlin covers in his must-read thesis, ” To Our Great Detriment.”
We were greeted with “As-Salamu ‘ Alaykum” (Peace be upon you), upon entering the conference and by each speaker, prior to presentation. What a comforting greeting. I responded with “Aslim Taslam.”
As is typically the case, conference attendees were highly educated and polite. This is a high-end mix of people who are difficult to fault on any personal level.
The attendees, primarily American and foreign Muslim law students, as well as a few foreign lawyers, presented a mixed canvas racially, yet each person is culturally Islamic and a member of the ummah, the global body of believers. The speakers and each future American lawyer we spoke with advised us that Islam has been misinterpreted for 1,400 years. Isn’t that amazing? As if we had no ability to study the history of Islam from both Muslim and non-Muslim sources on our own.
We are authoring this report in response to what we believe is attempted hoodwinking, enabled by the practice of Taqiyya and Kitman, forms of lying encouraged in Islam, if such lying is to be useful for the spread of Islam. No other religion/culture encourages its adoption by lying. But, because Islam is also a political theory that embodies military notions, the ability to further aims by deception is enshrined in the Qur’an and in Shari’ah, as it would be on the battlefield. The intended recipients of this mendacity were not only us, but the attendees and the law school itself.
The first speaker, Professor Faisal Kutty, presented us with a bogus definition of the terms “jihad” and “Islamophobia.” He spoke of jihad, as if it were apple pie with vanilla ice cream, splitting the term jihad into its normative components – the “Lesser Jihad,” meaning defensive or offensive military struggle, and the “Greater Jihad,” meaning, personal struggle for good against evil. She downplayed the importance of Jihad’s military meaning to relative insignificance, ignoring the vast majority of references in the Qur’an on Jihad, compelling Muslims to wage a military struggle as the Sixth Pillar of Islam.
Jihad is offensive. Duplicity and deception as tactics to throw off the opponent are inherent in Islam and that’s why Islam states that jihad is purely defensive. In fact, jihad was, and is still, used as the normative call to action in the military conquest of vast tracts of formerly Christian, Jewish ,Hindu lands within 100 years of its founding by Muhammad. That empire still stands in terms of the Islamic culture it forced on the conquered Nations and cultures.
The reality of jihad is that Islam considers itself to be supremacist and must triumph, be victorious, over all other religions and cultures. Islam compels Muslims to spread Islam to all corners of the earth, first by invitation, Aslim Taslam, which means, “Submit and Be At Peace.”
And, if that isn’t effective, then by the sword or forcing subject people to accept Dhimmi status. Living in dhimmitude relegates subjects to second-class status, with vastly diminished rights, including no right for the Dhimmi peoples to defend themselves. Muhammad conquered many with that simple statement, Aslim-Taslam, which was intended to strike terror into the hearts of those offered the choice, and it did. This is the beginning of the Muslim Mafia mentality, perfected by the Ikhwan, Wahhabis, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.
Likening it to the Mafia is no facile rhetoric. Islam offered three choices to the people of the book; Convert, Pay the Jy’izia tax or lose the right to life and property. So when Islam characterized this choice as the benefit of protection, one must ask, protection from whom? Obviously, the answer is protection from Islam, which reserved the right to take life and property if the conditions of conversion or the payment of the Jy’izia tax were not met. How different is this from the Black hand extorting protection money from the neighborhood grocer?
If Islam does not succeed in becoming the world’s only true religion, then Muslims will not have fulfilled Allah’s commands in the Qur’an. Thus, Muslims are obligated to proselytize Islam throughout the world through da’wa and Jihad. Whether violently or nonviolently, this is accomplished with 100% impunity from Allah, as per the Qur’an. One could make the comparison with Christianity being a proselytizing religion, but Christianity as found in the Gospels does not allow the use of violence to spread the faith, whereas, Islam specifically does. Muslims may quote the Koran saying, “There is no compulsion in religion.” But, that statement is superseded and abrogated by later statements in the Koran that enthusiastically endorse violent compulsion in the spread of Islam.
Professor Faisal Kutty went on to make further incredible claims, saying that Terrorism had only killed 5 people in the last ten years. In this, presumably he was referring to within the US, and ignoring events like Major Hassan’s slaughter of fellow military personnel at Fort Hood, Texas. But, he also ignored the more than 10,000 terror attacks worldwide, in the last 10 years; almost all committed by Muslims and in which, ironically, many of the victims were fellow Muslims as well. Thousands of Christians, Jews and Hindus were victims as well.
He also claimed that the popular definition of jihad is only accepted by the Taliban and by al-Qaeda, stating that they had sought to reinterpret the historical meaning of jihad to support their violent means. In this, he ignored 1,400 years of written teaching on Islam readily available from Muslim sources, as well as established treatment of jihad in recognized Sharia sources like, “The Reliance Of The Traveller,” Shafi’i Shari’ah , Section O9.1- Page 600 – Justice-jihad.
Read more: Family Security Matters
ISNA shouldn’t be judged by its pleasant media interviews. Its documented history is where the truth can be found.
BY RYAN MAURO:
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) always denies its Brotherhood connections and says it is “moderate.” Some ISNA officials downplay its origins, insisting that it has charted its own course independent of the Brotherhood. ISNA’s Fiqh Council, its body of scholars, says otherwise.
In 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported that ISNA officials say “Brotherhood members helped form those groups but that their overall influence has been limited.” When ISNA is unable to escape the facts, it downplays them.
The same Islamists that birthed ISNA as a Muslim Brotherhood front lead the organization. A 2009 Hudson Institute study concluded, “All but one of the individuals listed on the ISNA founding documents remain active either in ISNA or one of its affiliated organizations.” The Brotherhood lobby members “continue to exist in their original form.”
To understand ISNA, you must understand that its Islamist orientation requires it to adhere to sharia, or Islamic law. Another word interchangeable with sharia is fiqh. The website, OnIslam.net, explains that “fiqh is our understanding and knowledge of Allah‘s Shari`ah.”
When making decisions, ISNA and other groups look to authoritative scholars of fiqh or sharia. It is these scholars that stand behind the moderate “faces” of ISNA like President Mohamed Magid. If you want to know the true nature of ISNA, you must look at its Fiqh Council of North America.
Of the 17 Fiqh Council officials, 14 have strong Islamist records. That is all but one member of the Executive Council and all but two of the Council members. The remaining members are not necessarily moderate. In fact, their inclusion should be considered a strike against their credentials as “moderates.”
The Executive Council has seven officials. The one without an obviously Islamist track record is Vice Chairman Dr. Zainab Alwani. However, she still has been published by the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Association of Muslim Social Scientists, two U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities.
Read more at Clarion Project
As the Constitutional Convention was ending in 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Apparently, we can’t.
Last Wednesday, a U.S. appeals court ordered Google to remove “Innocence of Muslims,” the Muhammad video that Obama blamed for the Benghazi jihad attacks, from YouTube.
Freedom of speech in the age of jihad. Freedom of speech – another relic of the enlightened era before we entered this dark and sinister age.
Reuters reported that “by a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Google’s assertion that the removal of the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.” The cowards on the Ninth Circuit took us down to the level of the brute in a 2-1 vote.
The Ninth Circuit kicks America in the teeth. Again. The ruling was an affront to every freedom-loving American. How do liberal hypocrites look at themselves in the mirror? This ruling is wrong at the most basic level. This is a First Amendment case. And I thank Google for fighting it so vigorously. (Believe me, I despise so much of Google’s business practices, but this is a whole other thing.)
Cindy Lee Garcia, the clueless clown who sued Google to take down the Muhammad film trailer, is probably clucking and preening and patting herself on the back. But she knows not what she did. She’s another leftist lapdog furthering Islamic supremacism and Shariah law.
But the Ninth Circuit knows full well what it has done. The mother of all freedoms has been abridged so as not to offend savages. That’s where we are in America 2014, with the full support and approval of the president of the United States.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was a craven capitulation to the dictates of the Shariah, based on technical copyright law. Imagine if every actor and actress sued to remove a film in which the producer changed the story or their lines were dubbed. We’d have very little cinema (with the garbage Hollywood produces these days, not an altogether bad thing). Did Cindy Lee Garcia sign a release, or did she not? And if she didn’t, why not just blur out her craggy face and give us all a break?
Garcia should be suing the filmmaker, not Google. She is in the film for all of five seconds. He redubbed her. So what? If it were anything else, would she have subjugated herself in the service of such oppressors? Did she sign a contract explicitly laying out what exactly the film was and/or would be used for?
Google said, rightly: “The panel has adopted a novel interpretation of copyright law that will invite uncertainty and chaos for the entertainment industry, documentary filmmakers, amateur content creators, and for online hosting services like YouTube, allowing bit players in movies, videos, and other media to control how and when creative works are publicly displayed.”
But when it comes to appeasing enraged Muslims, it doesn’t matter what destruction these dhimmis cause.
When the morally superior Judge Alex “Cow” Kozinski isn’t taking a wrecking ball to our freedoms by ordering Google to take down videos, he’s posting photos of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal on his website.
The dhimmi judge who ordered Google to take down the YouTube video that set off our now constant companion – the hair-trigger violence of the Muslim world – is a pervert who won’t offend Muslims, but thinks nothing of degrading women and sharing his predilection for bestiality. Selective censorship.
First, the filmmaker was jailed (the only person jailed for Benghazi) for the expression of his ideas. Now Google is forced to submit to the Shariah – in America. RIP.
I pray Google takes this all the way, all the way to the Supreme Court. For the nation, for our freedoms, and against the tyranny of savages.
Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”
Western nations are facing what has been called an “epidemic” of forced marriages of their young Muslim women. While those who compel young Muslim women and girls into marriages could be charged with human trafficking offences and also in some cases placed on the national register of sex offenders, governments also should target for prosecution all those who are involved in the solemnisation of these illegal marriages.
This article first appeared in the March 2014 edition of Quadrant.
In 2008, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, (here) and Nicholas Phillips, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (here), both suggested that the UK could consider, in Lord Phillips’s words, “embracing Sharia law” because “there is no reason why Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution”. Williams commented: “it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system”.
However, two recent widely reported cases of marriage between Muslim men and under-age girls raise troubling questions about these assumptions. One case in New South Wales where an imam married a twelve-year-old girl to a twenty-six-year-old man with her father’s consent is before the court.
In another case involving a custody battle, however, a judgment has been made that questions the way Western jurisdictions interact with sharia marriage regulations, specifically in relation to the widespread practice of conducting private, unregistered religious marriages. A Sydney Muslim girl aged fourteen was forced by her parents to become the child “bride” of a twenty-one-year-old man. Her mother had told her she would “get to attend theme parks and movies and eat lollies and ice-cream with her new husband”. Instead she endured years of sexual and physical abuse and intimidation before fleeing with her young daughter. Her story only saw the light of day ten years after her wedding when she pursued custody of her daughter through the courts.
This “marriage” was never registered with the state: it would have been impossible to do so because the girl was too young to marry under Australian law. A particularly troubling aspect of her story is that she reported her predicament to her school teacher, who under Australian law was a mandatory reporter of child sex abuse, but it seems no report was made, and no intervention attempted.
In passing judgment in favour of the woman, Judge Harman invited the authorities to take matters further: the “groom” could be presumably be charged by the police with sexual offences against a child and placed on the sex offenders register. He and the girl’s father—who in accordance with Islamic tradition would have been the two parties to the marriage contract—could also be charged with trafficking offences. There would also almost certainly have been an exchange of money—the mahr—handed over by the man to the girl or her father in accordance with Islamic law.
The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, defines people-trafficking as:
the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, [or] servitude … The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth [above] shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth [above] have been used.
The forced marriage of a fourteen-year-old girl, as reported in this Australian case, fits the definition of trafficking. The girl was transferred from the custody of parents to that of her “husband” by use of deception, and he then kept her for the purpose of sexual exploitation and servitude, controlling her by violence and threats.
Pru Goward, the New South Wales Minister for Community Services and Women, has reported that there are around a thousand cases a year across Australia of women and girls being trafficked into forced marriages. She stated, “No ethnic group has a monopoly on violence against women, but some groups experience violence against women disproportionately.” Indeed. Some groups also perpetrate violence against women “disproportionately”, and it might be more accurate to speak of “religious groups” rather than “ethnic groups”. While there have been no official statistics reported on the religious affiliation of these victims of trafficking, it seems that a great many of the victims and the perpetrators involving in “marriage” trafficking have been Muslims.
Recent reports of a link between trafficking-for-marriage and Islamic marriages have not been limited to Australia. An investigation by ITV in the UK identified eighteen mosques—around one third of those approached by the reporter—where clerics were willing to conduct a wedding of a fourteen-year-old girl against her will.
Nazir Afal, Crown Prosecutor in the North of England, has reported that there are estimated to be 8000 to 10,000 forced marriages or threats of forced marriages of people against their will in the UK each year. Britain’s Forced Marriage Unit (see here) handled 1485 cases in 2012, 35 per cent of which involved girls aged seventeen or younger, and 13 per cent where the girls were under fifteen. A British government survey found that hundreds of girls aged eleven to thirteen had simply disappeared from school rolls.
Governments have been very slow to tackle the trafficking of women and girls for the purpose of forced marriage. Kaye Quek, in a recent article in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations, argues that multicultural ideals prevalent in UK society have made the authorities reluctant to criminalise this practice: they have preferred instead to treat these liaisons as violations of the women’s choice. Quek challenges the government’s preference for seeking civil remedies to forced marriages, and suggests that this is giving rise to a two-tier system of rights, in which it is acceptable for Muslim women to be sexually assaulted through forced marriage.
Mark Durie is an Anglican Vicar in Melbourne and a Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, Philadelphia. He is an authorised marriage celebrant.
by Samuel Westrop:
What chance do Muslim and non-Muslim students — who oppose the incitement to hatred against non-Muslims and the subjugation of women — have of exposing extremists such as Al-Kawthari, if he is pronounced a “representative voice of Islam” by academics who claim to be experts on the British Muslim community?
Extreme Islamic preachers do not only appear on university campuses at the request of radicalized students; increasingly, extremists are afforded a university platform, with all the credibility that comes with it, by the academics themselves.
The Centre for the Study of Islam, based at the University of Cardiff in Wales, for instance, has recently announced a lecture series starting this February. The Centre was opened in 2005 by Yusuf Islam, the former musician known as Cat Stevens who has called for apostates and adulterous women to be stoned to death. In keeping with that spirit, one of the presentations this February is to be delivered by Muhammad ibn Adam Al-Kawthari, who will be discussing “The Role of a Mufti in Modern Society.”
Muhammad ibn Adam Al-Kawthari. (Image source: YouTube video screenshot)
Speaking to Wales Online, the Centre’s Director, Dr Sophie Gilliat-Ray, said, “We’ve managed to attract some of the leading experts to offer thought-provoking insights into various aspects of Muslim life in the UK.”
In 2011 several student societies at the University of York actually organized a campaign against a proposed visit by Al-Kawthari to the University; they claimed he promoted intolerant and violent ideas
It seems he supports the killing of adulterers:
“If the crime of fornication is carried out by an individual who is sane, mature, Muslim and is married to a spouse who is also sane, mature, Muslim, and that their marriage is consummated, then the legal punishment is that he/she will be stoned to death (rajm). The Imam, witnesses and other Muslims would take part in the stoning. … If the crime of fornication is carried out by an individual who does not qualify to be in the above category, then the punishment is that he/she will be given 100 lashes. These whips and lashes will be spread over the body, avoiding the head, face and the private parts. A pregnant woman will not be whipped until she gives birth to her child and after her post natal bleeding (nifas). However, if she is to be stoned, then this may be carried out straight after giving birth.”
When asked, “When Is Jihad an Obligation on Me?” Al-Kawthari appears to encourage Muslims to travel and fight overseas:
“If the Muslims who are being attacked are incapable of defending themselves or they are neglectful, jihad becomes Fardh Ain [compulsory] for the Muslims nearest them and then those nearest them and so forth, until it becomes personally obligatory for all the Muslims of the East and the West … If the people of Kashmir, Chechnya, etc. are not capable of defending themselves or if they are neglectful, then Jihad will become personally obligatory on the Muslims nearest them, e.g. Muslims of Pakistan. If they are also neglectful or weak, then the Muslims nearest them, and so forth, until it becomes personally obligatory for all the Muslims.”
He advocates that thieves should have their hands and feet amputated:
“The penalty for the one who steals (when the above conditions are met) is that his/her right arm is amputated. If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then he will be imprisoned until he repents, but no further amputation will take place.”
When Kawthari was asked whether a lawyer should help an Iranian fleeing death by stoning in his home country for the “sin” of adultery or the “crime” of apostasy, Kawthari advised:
“It is thus clear from the above that, to leave your religion in order to get into a country is an extremely offensive and outrageous act and considered disbelief (kufr). To assist and aid such people will also be unacceptable, impermissible, and highly sinful.”
Al-Kawthari has also advised that, “Women should not come out of their homes unnecessarily,” and frequently expresses hatred against non-Muslims by advising: “Do not commence by greeting the Christians and Jews with Salam. If you meet one of them on a pathway, force them to walk on the side … The reason for this impermissibility of saying Salam to non-Muslims is to not show them respect.”
On another occasions, Al-Kawthari has claimed, “We live in an age where evils such as incest among the non-Muslims is becoming common.”
How is it, then, that Dr Gilliat-Ray, a claimed expert on British Islam, has chosen Al-Kawthari to be an “expert” voice of the British Muslim community?
Al-Kawthari is not the only problematic speaker invited by Gilliat-Ray. Other proposed lectures include presentations by Ajmaal Masroor, a supporter of Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood; and Ahtsham Ali, the former chairman of the Islamic Society of Britain, a Muslim Brotherhood group.
By inviting preachers such as Al-Kawthari to present their version of British Islam, then, Dr. Gilliat-Ray only serves to impose extremist ideas upon the Muslim community.
Read more at Gatestone Institute
By Rabbi Jonathan Hausman:
Re: HB 895 – Foreign Law; prohibit the application of foreign law in Georgia courts; violations of rights guaranteed natural citizens by U.S. and Georgia Constitutions
Dear Congressman Hightower,
My name is Rabbi Jonathan Hausman. I have a BA in Judaic Studies, MA in International Affairs concentrating on the Middle East (both degrees from The George Washington University), JD from Emory University (licensed to practice in the State of Connecticut and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), and my Rabbinic degree from Kollel Lomdei Torah of The Tifereth Israel Rabbinical Yeshiva. I spent a great deal of time living and studying in the Middle East having lived and worked in Israel and studied at The American University of Cairo. I read, speak and write Hebrew and Arabic, and am conversant in Jewish and Islamic sacralized texts and literature.
It has come to my attention that representatives of the Anti-Defamation League gave testimony opposing the aforementioned legislation SB 895 – Foreign Law; prohibit the application of foreign law in Georgia courts; violations of rights guaranteed natural citizens by U.S. and Georgia Constitutions
I write to you in response as one who possesses the unique skills to plumb the sources of two traditions (Judaism and Islam) along with the requisite legal training appertaining to US law and Constitutional governance.
Indeed, a comprehensive study was undertaken by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) in 2011 which uncovered the extent of the use of Sharia (Islamic Law) as the basis for legal decisions. 50 Appellate court cases from 23 States were reviewed in this study. Most of the cases referenced in this study involve Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process in cases dealing with divorce and child custody. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. However, all 50 Appellate decisions dealt with the application of Sharia in contravention to the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The CSP study’s findings suggest that Sharia law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Sharia law in U.S. state court cases; yet the Center for Security Policy found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases in 2011. The number of lower court decisions that did not result in appeals is not known as such cases are generally not reported.
With all due respect to the claims of the ADL that the aforementioned legislation’s supposed purpose is to counter the infiltration of our judicial and legal system by Sharia (Islamic) law while subsequently claiming that no Georgia court decision, or any other court decision, demonstrating an actual need for this legislation can be found is demonstrably incorrect.
Many have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Sharia law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; once again, the Center’s study found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Sharia was found to be applicable in these particular instances. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Sharia law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections. The complete study is available at http://shariahinamericancourts.com/
Some have also claimed that such legislation is applicable to all religious law. So, for instance, the observant Jewish community regularly uses religious tribunals (Batei Din) to resolve all kinds of disputes, including divorce settlements, which often are the basis for civil court divorce decrees and orders. But this legislation would prevent a Jewish couple in Texas from voluntarily using a Bet Din to resolve their divorce settlement, and also would invalidate an out-of state divorce based on a Bet Din arbitration. This is incorrect.
There is a basic Rabbinic principle that has operated since roughly the year 226 CE. That principle is known asDina d’malchuta Dina, the law of the country is binding and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law/Halacha. Rabbinical developments evidenced a practicality regarding dealing with and maintaining positive relationships with the governing non-Jewish civil society (e.g. Parthian and subsequent Sassanid Persian rulers of Babylonia) which surrounded the Jewish community. This extended to the Jewish communities of Europe and, subsequently, transplanted to the United States.
While it is true that Jews maintained their own courts in certain locales during certain historical periods whose decisions were enforced by the secular authorities, such Rabbinical court decisions always were set aside if there was a conflict with the society at large. As a member of the Rabbinate who engages frequently with many different issues regarding matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, property settlements, etc.), I can attest to one basic fact of legal life. If a Get (Jewish bill of divorce) is issued by a husband to a wife without a civil divorce, that couple is still married in every jurisdiction in this country. This is just one example amongst many.
Halacha/Jewish Law has this precept that one must be reconciled to changed circumstances regarding government, and that civil law is necessary for the functioning of the greater society. The result was an internal recognition of Judaism’s non-supercessionist and non-conversionary character. According to the Prophet Nehemiah, Jews should obey the laws of their rulers (Nehemiah 9:37). It extends to real property issues (after all, the government could/can confiscate property), common currency, taxes, recognition of administrative officers and documents and regulations issued by such authorities, as well as the appointed juridical positions within and outside of the Jewish community.
As for those issues dealing with personal piety (e.g. Kashruth, that is observance of the Jewish dietary rules), such only apply to Jews specifically and not to the world at large. There is nothing coercive vis a vis general society.
Sharia, on its face might be described as the religious code for living the moral system according to Islamic tradition; perhaps, in the same way the Bible would serve for Christians. The difference is quite stark, however.
Sharia refers both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life. It is immutable, perfect, unchangeable, static, and unchanging. Death penalty for apostasy, as well as homosexuality, adultery, freedom of speech issues when it comes to criticizing Islam or Muhammad or drawing satire cartoons, disfigurement for theft, depredations suffered by women (e.g. the increasing frequency of honor killings in the US protected under Shariah, female genital mutilation, child custody and absconding of minor children) and the irrelevancy of women’s testimony as well as lower percentage of inheritance and no rights regarding issues of child custody, plaintiffs exacting legal revenge (eye for an eye is taken literally), gambling, alcohol consumption all command exacting punishment under Sharia.
The only instance in the United States dealing with a criminal prosecution for female genital mutilation occurred in Georgia. Furthermore, there are known to be two cases of children of a marriage between a non-Muslim American mother and a Saudi Muslim father who absconded with the children because Sharia law dictates that custody resides solely with the Muslim father and male relatives.
The United States has a Constitution under which the government functions, and the Bill of Rights which protects basic human rights and freedom – rights derived from the Almighty according to the secular foundational documents of these United States – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of education and freedom to organize political parties. The pertinent question regarding Sharia is thus. Does Sharia, as a legal system act in consonance with the Constitutional legal principles so cherished by and supported by over two centuries of American case law or does it stand for a diminution of the rights of many segments of our population? If the latter, then legislation such as HB 895, The application of foreign law and foreign forum selection in certain family law proceedings certainly is one of the surest methods to protect the Constitutional rights of parties in family law matters under Georgia law and practice, as well as in front of the Georgia Judiciary.
Rabbi Jonathan H. Hausman
BA,MA, JD, Rabbinic Ordination
Ahavath Torah Congregation
Cc: Congressman Wendell Willard, Chair, GA House Judiciary Committee
Congressman David Ralston, Speaker, GA State House
Congressman Alex Atwood, Secretary, Public Safety and Homeland Security
In an unusual move, one of the suspects in the 2012-13 Via Railway terror plot has been allowed to give an interview to the Canadian National Post. That interview is remarkable because it explains the jihadist motivations behind the plot in clear and unambiguous language that leaves no room for doubt about “why they hate us.” Those who would confront and defeat this hate and the terror plots it inspires would do well to listen to the words of Chiheb Esseghaier.
Esseghaier was a Tunisian doctoral student at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, a branch of the Université de Quebec and a landed immigrant who’d come to Canada in 2008. His travel to Zahedan, in eastern Iran, caught the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), which launched a complex investigation that eventually led to the unraveling of a joint al-Qa’eda-Iran plot to blow up a passenger train over the Niagara River gorge. Esseghaier and fellow suspect, Raed Jaser (from the United Arab Emirates), were arrested in the conspiracy and now face terror charges in Canadian court. Over the months since their April 2013 arrest, Esseghaier has made a number of court appearances as well as public statements, of which the recent National Post interview includes just the latest.
Although thanks to good intelligence and police work, Canada to date has been spared the kind of horrific terror attacks that have made headlines elsewhere in the West (Burgas, London, Madrid, U.S.), there have been jihadist attempts, including the August 2010 Ottawa Parliament plot and the earlier 2006 Toronto 18 plot. National Post coverage of the Via Railway terror plot has been extensive and its multiple reports quoting the very vocal Esseghaier are revealing, even though it is clear the Post itself doesn’t understand what he’s been trying to tell them. Faced with the reality that their country, too, is a target, Canadians have been struggling to make sense out of Esseghaier’s simple pronouncement: “I am a Muslim.” The so-called “experts on extremism” consulted by the National Post weren’t much help: Prof. Lorne Dawson, ex-director of the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society, opined that Esseghaier’s views were “very comparable to what one might hear from a strident anti-abortion activist coming from a Christian perspective.”
In fact, Esseghaier is nothing like a Christian pro-life activist. In his own words, he has explained that he sees himself as a faithful member of the global Islamic ummah. He calls Muslim Afghans his “brothers and sisters,” because according to Islamic doctrine, national borders and the world order that Canadian and other NATO members seek to defend in Afghanistan are meaningless. He believes it is his duty to follow the commands of Islam, which obligate every Muslim to wage jihad as an individual duty (fard ‘ayn) whenever non-believers (kufar) invade Islamic lands. In his court appearances, Esseghaier repeatedly has asserted his allegiance to Islamic Law (shariah) and rejected the authority of Canadian law. Challenged by the National Post to explain why he plotted to kill Canadian and American rail passengers, Esseghaier accused Canada of “[making] lawful what God made unlawful…”], which is an explicit reference to Qur’anic verse 9:29, which says
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
It is critical that national security experts and leadership grasp what Esseghaier is trying to tell us. Pretending that authoritative Islamic law and scripture are not the doctrinal source of justification for Islamic jihad (terrorism), as does A Guide to Refuting Jihadism, just out from the Henry Jackson Society, only serves to blind and neutralize our ability to confront the shariah threat. Likewise, getting hung up on group names and affiliations misses the point that Esseghaier describes so clearly: Islamic terrorism is conducted not just to kill people but to establish the pre-conditions for the ultimate objective which is the universal enforcement of Islamic Law. The 5 February 2014 War on Error from Foreign Policy offers another good illustration. Starting out by making a valiant effort at sorting out the many off-shoot franchises of Usama bin-Laden’s original al-Qa’eda, this piece unfortunately winds up taking an already muddled topic and compounding the muddling. Terming Islamic jihadis “violent extremists” or al-Qa’eda “nihilistic” with “an outlier interpretation of Islamic Law” is to miss the point entirely. Esseghaier is obviously both well-educated and well-versed in the doctrine of his faith; he is also representative of jihadis the world over who are indeed violent, but neither extremists nor nihilists within the parameters of authoritative Islam. They seek well-defined objectives based on widely-available Islamic scriptures and do not hesitate to declare them and pursue them both openly and by guile.
It is not often that a self-avowed Islamic jihadi like Esseghaier is given this sort of platform. It behooves us all to pay attention to what he says.
Shoulder-to-Shoulder, an interfaith coalition allied with the Islamic Society of North America, is mobilizing its supporters against state legislation that stops foreign law from superseding the Constitution. The Islamists’ non-Muslim allies are helping frame it as an unnecessary, bigoted initiative that threatens all people of faith.
The coalition is holding a webinar on February 27. The announcement correctly notes that current legislation does not mention Shariah, though it is covered under the terminology of “foreign law.” Seven states have passed such bills since 2010.
Shoulder-to-Shoulder’s description makes it sound like the legislation is a ban on foreign law influencing judges’ decision altogether. It states:
“Most religious laws that influence these contracts (like Jewish Halakha, Catholic Canon law, or Islamic Shariah law) were not developed within the United States and would be considered foreign law under such legislation. While anti-Muslim sentiment is still the motivating factor behind these laws, Americans of every faith should be concerned about their impact on religious freedom.”
This is an easily refutable misrepresentation of the bills, based on the American Laws for American Courts draft legislation. It does not ban religious contracts like those mentioned by Shoulder-to-Shoulder, nor is it a blanket ban on foreign law. It only applies when there is a conflict between the U.S. Constitution and foreign law in court and it victimizes no one, especially not Muslims because Muslim-Americans are benefactors of it.
A 2011 study found 50 cases where Shariah or foreign law based on Shariah influenced the court case. The American Public Policy Alliance has a list of 10 cases where a Muslim-American party objected to the role of Shariah. The summary is as follows:
“In cases 1-3, the Appellate Courts upheld Shariah law; in cases 4-7, the Trial Courts upheld Shariah, but the Appellate Courts reversed (protecting the litigant’s constitutional rights); in cases 8-10, both Trial and Appellate Courts rejected the attempts to enforce Shariah law.”
ALAC is sometimes criticized as unnecessary and driven by unsubstantiated paranoia. It is hard to imagine that an American judge would ever rule give foreign law precedence over American law. The American Public Policy Alliance explains that the bill fixes a troublesome loophole:
Most states merely state that foreign laws and judgments that violate the state’s “public policy” shall not be recognized. But the courts consistently rule that the state legislature has the responsibility to articulate clearly what the state’s public policy actually is.
The ALAC website points out the hypocrisy of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In response to business dress codes enforced on Muslim-American women in France, CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper unwittingly supported the rationale behind ALAC.
“A discriminatory dress code implemented in France does not supersede American laws protecting the religious rights of American citizens,” he said. He said CAIR is “defending American law from foreign intrusion.”
The American-Islamic Forum for Democracy supports ALAC-type bills because it has seen how Shariah has affected Muslims in Europe. The bills’ purpose is not to pre-empt a hypothetical situation. It’s a reaction to what is actually happening right now.
A 2010 study found that Shariah courts in the United Kingdom lack accountability, to say the least. There are not clear standards for appointing judges and monitoring proceedings and rulings often conflict with British law. For example, British courts’ first priority is the interest of the child. Shariah courts rule that children automatically go into the custody of the father after a certain age.
The British Justice Ministry investigated Shariah courts and had to end give up because of a lack of cooperation from the court staffs.
The misrepresentations by Shoulder-to-Shoulder stem from its relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. The Foundation was another Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas. This isn’t six degrees of separation: The Holy Land Foundation operated within ISNA, according to a 2009 ruling by a federal judge.
ISNA said on its website last month that it “founded” Shoulder-to-Shoulder to counter increasing bigotry against Muslims. Elsewhere on its website, ISNA saysit “helped convene” the coalition of 28 religious organizations. Whichever way it is worded, the point is that Shoulder-to-Shoulder is largely a product of ISNA.
And who is the ISNA official leading its interfaith campaign and, therefore, its work with Shoulder-to-Shoulder? Former Secretary-General Sayyid Syeed, who is seen in The Grand Deception documentary saying in 2006, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.” His current job title at ISNA is National Director of ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances.
Read more at Front Page
Alongside their efforts to enforce authority and order and maintain security, the Islamist organizations in Syria’s liberated regions and their associated legal authorities also work to enact the shari’a, in an attempt to give these regions an Islamic character. To this end, they enforce shari’a law in matters of dress code, behavior during Ramadan, smoking (which is forbidden according to Salafi beliefs), and more – the ultimate goal being the establishment of an Islamic state in Syria. With regards to shari’a penalties, there is often a contrast between moderate statements and the harsh penalties actually imposed, which occasionally spark rage from the residents, who see these trends as foreign to the moderate religious character of Syrian society.
The following are examples of the organizations’ actions to enact shari’a law in the areas under their control.
A military judge for the shari’a authority in Aleppo said in a video posted May 23, 2013 on the authority’s Facebook page that the authority rules according to the Islamic shari’a, whose foundations are the Koran, the Sunna, the ijma’ (consensus of religious scholars), and logical deduction. He added, however, that the authority does not implement shari’a penalties at this time except in cases of armed robbery, “because there is no ruler today, and because we are currently in dar al-harb [lands not under Muslim rule].” A clerk for the shari’a authority, Abu Al-’Abbas, says in a video that the shari’a authority has banned smoking in its building and requires women who enter it to dress in a modest, shari’a-compliant fashion, but stresses that this authority has never arrested anyone for smoking, listening to music (also forbidden according to the Salafiyya) or violating the Salafi dress code.
In recent months, the shari’a authority in Aleppo has been trying to unite with another legal authority operating in the city – the United Legal Council – in order to create a single legal authority that would ultimately enforce the shari’a but in the interim would rely on the Arab League’s Unified Penal Code. The United Legal Council was established in December 2012 and deals with a variety of legal and civil matters. Some examples of its activity that have appeared on its Facebook page are: capturing two women who ran a prostitution ring; destroying tobacco; operating a rehabilitation prison, and selling medicine from pharmacies that have shut down. It met with the Aleppo shari’a authority in August 2013 to sign a unification agreement, but eventually did not do so due to the shari’a authority’s insistence that it be in charge of the judicial process. The text of the agreement, as posted on the United Council’s Facebook page, states that the Islamic shari’a would be the sole source of legislation.
In March 2013 the Emir of Jabhat Al-Nusra in the city of Tel Abyad in the Al-Raqqa Governorate told the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which supports the Syrian regime, that all the brigades in Tel Abyad had agreed to implement the shari’a in Syria via the local shari’a authorities, and that Jabhat Al-Nusra was willing to oppose any armed element attempting to prevent this. The article stated further that the emir had told Al-Akhbarexplicitly that Jabhat Al-Nusra was “fighting a jihad war” in Syria in order to establish “an Islamic state with the Koran as its constitution,” so as “to end the oppression of the people” and turn to shari’a law, but that “non-Muslims like Christians would enjoy personal liberties in Islamic Syria.’” The reporter related that, during the interview, the emir noticed a citizen holding a cigarette and told him that smoking was forbidden.
The Shari’a Legal Council in the Idlib Governorate, which was established in January 2013 and has taken control of 12 shari’a courts in the region, posted status updates on its Facebook page indicating its Islamic orientation. For example, a post from February 13, 2013 reads: “The United Legal Council in the Idlib Governorate announces that it will enact Allah’s law in the land, and will judge according to what Allah sent down [i.e., the Koran]…in order to defend the religion and [people's] souls, money, land and honor.” On August 18, 2013, the head of the council wrote on Facebook: “We want an Islamic state, and we will not accept a substitute. [When we say] ‘Islamic state’ we mean enacting Allah’s law in all domains of life, both religious and worldly. Enacting [shari'a law means] that Allah’s religion prevails in the land [and binds] everyone, in justice and equality. The repeated objections by some people to the establishment of an Islamic state sometimes stem from misguided good intentions, and [sometimes] from bad intentions, as [in the case of] the secularists, who admit this and who carry no weight in the ongoing debate.”
In November 2012, photos of what appears to be the headquarters of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (the name given to the religious police in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia) in Aleppo were posted on the internet. In addition, a video was posted showing a man who was said to be a Saudi driving through the streets and calling people to pray. The director of the information office of the Al-Tawhid Brigade – one of the large forces fighting in Aleppo – told Sky News Arabia that this authority is connected with the brigade’s “Revolution Security” and that its role is to handle all of society’s needs, in the domains of aid, healthcare, orphans, martyrs and prisoners. He denied reports that the authority has issued a ban on women driving (like in Saudi Arabia) which sparked public criticism.
Read more at MEMRI
- Life Under The Shadow Of The Islamists In Syria – Part I: Imposing Authority On The Residents (memri.org)
Video Report: U.S. Syrian Jihadist ‘Allies’ Establish Brutally Unjust Aleppo Sharia Courts (counterjihadreport.com)
“Advocacy group” tells Congress to bring in 12,000 Syrians THIS year, waive the security rules (refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com)
After taking over areas of northern Syria, the Al-Qaeda-linked group ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) instituted draconian, sharia-based laws and made known its expectations of the population to follow them.
“It is absolutely forbidden for women to sit on the chairs, according to the instructions of the authorities,” stated a prominent sign.
Other promulgations stated that women must wear the abaya and the burqa (coverings for the entire body and face), and that sweaters, jeans and makeup of any kind were strictly forbidden. Any type of smoking was forbidden upon the penalty of death.
Syrian rebels groups, including those associated with Al Qaeda, like the Nusra Front, are now fighting against ISIS. The fight is not so much over the end result – as the end goal of both groups is to establish a sharia-based Islamic state – but over tactics and strategy. It is a well-known battle between Islamists who believe in a gradualists approach (for example, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, who seek to win over world powers by purporting to be “moderates”) and the Salafists (“purists”) – this time being played out in the Syrian civil war.
As al Qaeda raises its black flag of jihad over parts of Iraq liberated from its clutches at the cost of enormous American blood and treasure, we are getting a taste of what President Obama’s serial national security fraud is wreaking around the world.
Remember back in the 2012 campaign when he told us, repeatedly, that al Qaeda was “on the path to defeat”? That was a deliberate fraud, meant to shore up his Commander-in-Chief credentials at a time when he (wrongly) thought they might properly be seriously challenged by Republican Mitt Romney.
Remember when the jihadists’ flag was flown over the U.S. embassy in Cairo and accompanied the murderous sacking of two American facilities in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? These events were symptomatic of our nation’s perceived weakness – a perception that is, as Donald Rumsfeld says, “provocative.” (The failure of the Republican leadership in the House to hold the Obama administration accountable for such outrages – or even to establish the truth about the latter – is the subject of a scorching letter from conservative leaders, families of the fallen and others delivered on Monday.)
Remember when Mr. Obama assured us that there were “moderates” among the Syrian opposition and that we should bomb their enemy, Bashar Assad, to punish him and, presumably, with a view to bringing them to power. As a practical matter, the only people who count among the “rebels” are Islamists, whose supremacist shariah doctrine requires them inevitably to seek our destruction.
The same goes for Assad’s Shiite backers in Iran and Hezbollah. They hate the Sunnis of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, like al Qaeda. But they are perfectly willing to make common cause against us whenever the opportunity presents itself. Think 9/11.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. We have been repeatedly deceived by Team Obama about the nature of the enemy we face. And our Islamist enemies have only grown more formidable, more numerous, on the march in more places and more emboldened by what they rightly see as our submission.
What is especially worrisome is that the wages of the ineptitude – or worse – of American leaders in the face of such threats are immensely increased by the fact that scarcely any among them are even aware that we face yet another kind of jihad: the stealthy type the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”
Read more at Center For Security Policy
Rohullah Qarizada is one of those Afghans you used to see a lot on American TV in the immediate aftermath of the Taliban’s fall. Trimly bearded, dapper in Western suit and tie, he heads the Afghan Independent Bar Association in Kabul. Did you know Kabul had a bar association? A few years back, I ran into one of the U.S. prosecutors who helped set it up, with a grant from the Swedish foreign ministry. Mr. Qarizada currently sits on a committee charged with making revisions to the Afghan legal code. What kind of revisions? Well, for example: “Men and women who commit adultery shall be punished based on the circumstances by one of the following punishments: lashing, stoning.”
As in stoning to death. That’s the proposed improvement to Article 21. Article 23 specifies that said punishment shall be performed in public. Mr. Qarizada gave an interview to Reuters, explaining that the reintroduction of stoning was really no big deal: You’d have to have witnesses, and they’d better be consistent. “The judge asks each witness many questions,” he said, “and if one answer differs from other witnesses then the court will reject the claim.” So that’s all right then.
Stoning is making something of a comeback in the world’s legal codes — in October the Sultan of Brunei announced plans to put it on his books. Nevertheless, Kabul has the unique distinction of proposing to introduce the practice on America’s watch. Afghanistan is an American protectorate; its kleptocrat president is an American client, kept alive these last twelve years only by American arms. The Afghan campaign is this nation’s longest war — and our longest un-won war: That’s to say, nowadays we can’t even lose in under a decade. I used to say that, 24 hours after the last Western soldier leaves Afghanistan, it will be as if we were never there. But it’s already as if we were never there: The last Christian church in the country was razed to the ground in 2010.
At this point, Americans sigh wearily and shrug, “Afghanistan, the graveyard of empire,” or sneer, “If they want to live in a seventh-century s***hole, f*** ‘em.” But neither assertion is true. Do five minutes’ googling, and you’ll find images from the Sixties and early Seventies of women in skirts above the knee listening to the latest Beatles releases in Kabul record stores. True, a stone’s throw (so to speak) from the capital, King Zahir’s relatively benign reign was not always in evidence. But, even so, if it’s too much to undo the barbarism of centuries, why could the supposed superpower not even return the country to the fitful civilization of the disco era? The American imperium has lasted over twice as long as the Taliban’s rule — and yet, unlike them, we left no trace.
Seven years ago, in my book America Alone, I quoted a riposte to the natives by a British administrator, and it proved such a hit with readers that for the next couple of years at live stage appearances, from Vancouver to Vienna, Madrid to Melbourne, I would be asked to reprise it — like the imperialist version of a Beatles cover band. The chap in question was Sir Charles Napier, out in India and faced with the practice of suttee — the Hindu tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Napier’s response was impeccably multicultural: “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
Read more at Steyn Online
- Intelligence estimate reportedly says US gains in Afghanistan may be lost by 2017 (foxnews.com)
- Op-Ed: Why Are America and The West Funding Sharia Law? (counterjihadreport.com)
Lessons of Iraq and A-Stan: Infidel Armies Can’t Win Islamic Hearts and Minds (counterjihadreport.com)
by CLARE M. LOPEZ:
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says the deal brokered in late November 2013 in Geneva between the P5+1 allows Iran to “continue its [nuclear] enrichment” activities. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says that the deal does not recognize a “right to enrich.” (Here’s the text of the so-called “Joint Plan of Action -http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/IranP5plus1jointplanofaction131124en.pdf - the Iranians are right.)
President Obama hailed the Geneva agreement as the most “significant and tangible” progress to date toward ensuring that Iran “cannot build a nuclear weapon.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Marzieh Afkham said “There is no treaty and no pact.” (It’s a “letter of intent,” say the Iranians.) For his part, the Iranian negotiator, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, exulted that the document explicitly recognized the inclusion of an Iranian enrichment program in the final deal (it does).
There’s at least one major point of agreement, however, for both Americans and Iranians (although it’s doubtful the U.S. negotiating team actually understands what it means). That single point of agreement is about the temporary nature of the pact/letter/Joint Plan of Action: first it was going to be for six months, then it would be for six months after a few more details were worked out, then the technical discussions in Vienna collapsed on 11 December, then Secretary Kerry said the talks would continue in a few days. And then Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini, formerly a political advisor to Iranian President Khatami and now a TV commentator, clarified everything.
“This is the Treaty of Hudaybiyya in Geneva,” he said, speaking on Syrian News TV on 11 December 2013. Although it is doubtful that any of Kerry’s advisers is even remotely familiar with this key episode in the accounts about Muhammad and the early Muslims, the Center for Security Policy explained the story in its 2010 book, “Shariah: The Threat to America.” The context is about situations in which Muslim forces might lawfully enter into a treaty or truce with the enemy. With troubling ramifications for current day negotiations, those situations demonstrate the centrality and importance of deceit in any agreement between Muslims and infidels. As it is recounted, in the year 628 CE, Muhammad (whose forces already controlled Medina) agreed to a 10-year truce with the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, primarily because he realized that his forces were not strong enough to take the city at the time. Islamic doctrine in fact forbids Muslims from entering into a jihad or battle without the reasonable certainty of being able to prevail. In such cases, as with Muhammad, Muslims are permitted to enter into a temporary ceasefire or hudna, with the proviso that no such truce may exceed 10 years (because that’s the length of the agreement Muhammad signed). And so, Muhammad agreed to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. But just two years later, in 630 CE, now with some 10,000 fighters under his command, Muhammad broke the treaty and marched into Mecca.
The authoritative ahadith of Bukhari provide context for Muhammad’s actions: “War is deceit,” is a saying Bukhari attributes to Muhammad (52:269). Another says “By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (Bukhari: V7B67N427) Yasser Arafat, head of the jihadist Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), provided one of the clearest examples in modern times for how this works. He understood his Islamic obligations well, as demonstrated by his repeated public references to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah following the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. And while Western political leaders missed the significance entirely, Arafat’s Arabic-speaking audiences understood perfectly that his Camp David agreement meant nothing more than a temporary hudna or ceasefire that would give the PLO the time it needed to build up its forces to renew the jihad against Israel…which is exactly what happened.
The shariah (Islamic Law) in general discourages Muslim forces from making a truce, citing Qur’anic verse 47:35, which says, “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost.” The main reason Islamic forces are to avoid ceasefires, treaties and the like is that “it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality…” Of course, the Iranians know all of this doctrine and history very well. The country’s constitution, in fact, dedicates its armed forces (the Army and the IRGC-Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) to “the ideological mission of jihad in the way of Allah…” So, when a senior political commentator such as Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini, who lives and works in Tehran, appears on an international TV broadcast interview and refers to the agreement (however tentative) reached by the P5+1 and Iran in Geneva as a “Treaty of Hudaybiyya,” we may be sure that he has chosen his words carefully. We also may be fairly certain that the Iranian regime and its sly and smiling Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, at least tacitly agree with Al-Hosseini’s characterization.
Read more: Family Security Matters