Eleven Reasons to Reject Sharia Law in Any Form

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

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

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

11. Shari’a condones slavery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE RIGHTS OF SLAVES UNDER ISLAM

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

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

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

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

WHO CAN BE MADE SLAVES UNDER ISLAM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Quran says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury.

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

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

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

Also see:

NJ Islamic Center to host Muslim Brotherhood Shari’ah event

3506095By Cultural Jihad, April 30. 2015:

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) has a history of being associated with Islamic radicals promoting terror …

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) advises that on May 2, 22015, the Islamic Center of Passaic County (Paterson, New Jersey) will host “Understanding Shari’ah: Sacred Principles for Human Development” in collaboration with the Fiqh Council of North America.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch notes the following about the council:

The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) is an organization comprised of Islamic scholars associated with the Global Muslim Brotherhood. As FCNA itself acknowledges, the organization grew out of the activities of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and later became affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), itself an outgrowth of MSA. FCNA maintains a relationship with other similar bodies in the Global Muslim Brotherhood including the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) as well as the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Saudi Arabia.Two individuals known to have been ECFR members, Jamal Badawi and Solah Soltan, are also known to have been associated with the FCNA.

Most of scheduled speakers for the May 2nd event are from U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organizations:

  • Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi (ISNA, NAIT)
  • Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah (ICNA)
  • Dr. Ihsan Bagby (ISNA)
  • Br. Azhar Azeez (President of ISNA)
  • Sh. Mohammad Qatanani (HAMAS)
  • Dr. Zainab Alwani (IIIT and daughter of MB leader Taha Al-Alwani)
  • Sh. Yasir Fahmy
  • Prof. Ebrahim Moosa

ISNA – Islamic Society of North America
ICNA – Islamic Circle of North America
NAIT – North American Islamic Trust
IIIT – International Institute of Islamic Thought

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) has a history of being associated with Islamic radicals promoting terror.  A 2013 Clarion Project reports:

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) was founded by Mohammad El-Mezain, who was convicted in 2008 for fundraising for Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation. It is led today by Imam Mohammad Qatanani, whose deportation is sought by the Department of Homeland Security.

Muhammad al-Hanooti was an imam at ICPC from 1990 to 1995.  He was president of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a pro-Hamas organization and Muslim Brotherhood front organization, from 1984 to 1986.

… [FULL ARTICLE]

In January 2014, the ICPC hosted Syrian Sheik Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi as part of an 11-city tour across America and co-sponsored by the Syrian American Council (SAC).   The Sheik al-Nabulsi supports suicide bombings and has labeled all Jews as combatants.

In 2014 we  reported on the lobbying efforts of SAC on Capitol Hill and its ties to the MB.

A top Shariah lawyer’s stunning response to the question: ‘Is there such a thing as moderate Islam?’

419gPOS7xaLThe Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, Feb. 26 2015:

We sat down with a leading Shariah lawyer from Iran, Daniel Akbari, to discuss his illuminating new book ”Honor Killing: A Professional’s Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources, in which he seeks to awaken Americans to the generally antithetical nature of Islam to Judeo-Christian society, and specifically Shariah-dictated domestic violence towards women — up to and including so-called honor killings — and how we in the West can prevent such atrocities.

During the extensive interview, which you can skip to here, we had a chance to ask him a series of questions on the nature of Islam, its goals, tactics, how Western Muslims become jihadists, and all manner of other topics.

But it was in response to a question on whether there is such a thing as moderate Islam that Mr. Akbari, a man who studied at the seat of Shia religious learning at the Tehran University School of Law, and specialized in criminal and family law before leaving Iran, gave perhaps his most stunning response of all, stating:

What Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey says is actually perfect and totally Islamic because Islamis Islam. We don’t have such a thing like — “radical Islam extremism” — many things that are said in Islam like beheading, like stoning, like flogging — they are not extremism acts, those are pure Islam.

…The second thing is, this is not “extremism,” this is “fundamentalism.” People who believe in [the] Koran understand it and practice it and take it serious.

About moderate Muslims, we have to…make a distinction between those people who come from Islamic backgrounds, come from [the] Middle East, their names are ‘Mohammed’…they might not believe in [the] Koran at all. They might just be atheists. They just come from that region.

Who are moderate Muslims in reality according to Akbari?

…Moderate Muslims actually are kind of like CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] people — people who are Muslim Brotherhood types…and these people fight for Islam, love it, but they give a peaceful feature, and good-looking [nature] to Islam, to…deceive Americans not to resist the process of Islam.

Sometimes they deceive Americans this way that “We are the same as your neighbor who is from the Middle East.” That neighbor might be an atheist, might be a Buddhist at heart. Just by nature and feature, people might assume [him or her] Islamic.

…Moderate Muslims, as we might know as Muslim Brotherhood, they are the backbone of jihad.

Without them, there…[are] not gonna be any jihadis. They support jihad financially. They recruit here for jihadists — they recruit in this country. They have their own Islamic centers. They go to jail and recruit for ISIS.

So without these moderate Muslims — I’m not talking about just people coming from [the] Middle East — I’m talking about those who fight for Islam, or those who love Islam and pay for jihadists and also support to…try to recruit people, or sympathizers. My point about moderates is kind of different than what Americans might say.

Moderates are not anybody from [the] Middle East with an Islamic name.

My point about moderates are people who have Islamic organizations in an organized way, fight to improve Islam, I call those people moderates. To my eyes, those moderates are no different than ISIS or other jihadists.

During the interview, we also had the opportunity to discuss a series of other topics with Mr. Akbari including:

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.

DEFEAT JIHAD SUMMIT Identifies the Enemy in Unusually Plain Language

Screen-Shot-2015-02-12-at-8.58.26-AM-300x147UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 13, 2015:

On Wednesday February 11th, the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. hosted the first ever “Defeat Jihad Summit” with leaders represented from across the world discussing the threat of Islamic Jihadis and how to build a strategy for victory.  This has never been done since the jihadis in Iran declared war against us in 1979.

Participating in this event were Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukaseyformer House Speaker Newt GingrichSenator Ted CruzRepresentative Steven King, Representative Mike Pompeo (Kansas), Representative Scott Perry (Pennsylvania), Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former Representative Pete Hoekstra, Leading 9/11 family member Deborah Burlingame, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard, Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson, Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, Claremont President Brian Kennedy, former Muslim Nonie Darwish, Muslim reformer Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Australian pastor Mark Durie, Andrew McCarthy (author and former Chief CT Prosecutor, NY), the Honorable Joseph Schmitz (Inspector General, Department of Defense, Bush Administration), Judge Jeanine Pirro, human rights attorney Deborah Weiss, author/journalist Diana West, Dr. Charles Jacobs (Executive Director, Americans for Peace and Tolerance), national security expert and CSP Fellow J. Michael Waller, CSP Fellow and strategic analyst Major Stephen Coughlin (US Army, reserves), Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, retired CIA case officer Clare Lopez, and leadership of the Center for Security Policy.

Understanding the Threat Founder John Guandolo participated in this program as well.

The focus of the program was to clearly identify the enemy the United States and the West is facing, and begin a discussion on building long-term solutions to defeating the Islamic Movement in all its forms.  The focus is total victory.

In summation, the threat we face is a global Islamic Movement whose doctrine is Sharia (Islamic Law).  Now subverting governments worldwide, conquering nations/regions across the globe, and barbarically killing hundreds of thousands of human beings on several continents, this massive threat continues to be minimized and given little attention by the current U.S. administration.

While the threat of China, Russia, the Progressive Movement, and others threaten our way of life, the Global Islamic Movement is at the forefront because it is conquering nations and barbarically killing men, women, and children, and literally acting as the agent of evil in the world today.

Truth, courage, faith and determination are watchwords if victory in this war is to be had.  The light of liberty and the survival of Western civilization depend on citizens of free nations coming to grips with the fact we are at war – a war we must win if our children and grand children are to enjoy the fruits and blessings of liberty as we have.

See the best highlights of the day in these two 9 minute videos below:

* Defeat Jihad Summit Highlights Part 1

* Defeat Jihad Summit Highlights Part 2

The Defeat Jihad Summit can be viewed in its entirety here.  The program begins at the 28:50 mark.

Petition: Examine whether Islam is antithetical to Human Rights

humanrights_pictures_human570

Faith Freedom, FEBRUARY 11, 2015

This petition urges the leaders of the Western and non-Muslim World and the UN to examine whether Islam is in fact antithetical to Human Rights law, and incites violence towards non-Muslims and apostates, incites hatred and the rejection of Civil Law. We the undersigned urge our Political Leaders and the United Nations Human Rights Council to examine whether Islam is an ideology rather than a religion and as such should be banned as a belief system in the non-Muslim world.

The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights ruled in February 2003 that Islamic Sharia law is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” The court said that a legal system based on Sharia law “would diverge from the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the rules on the status of women, and its intervention in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”  

Further, the European Court of Human Rights determined on July 31, 2001, that “the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.”

Sharia law is Islam. Islamic Theocratic regimes are founded upon Islam. In all its manifestations, whether in violent responses to ‘blasphemy’ such as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, or in forcing women to cover their faces, child marriage, beheadings or intolerance towards non-Muslims, Islam, Muslim nations, leaders and Islamic organisations are continuously flouting Human Rights laws.

This is evidenced today in Saudi Arabia‘s theocratic (religious) legal system enforcing regular beheadings, banning women from driving and the persecution of minorities, or the much better known barbarism of Isis which takes slaves of women and children and is currently engaged in the extermination of the Yazidi people and conquest of land in Iraq and Syria.

Muslim groups Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab in Kenya and Somalia terrorise and kill thousands. Iran regularly hangs and whips dissenters, is close to having a nuclear weapon and has stated its intention to destroy Israel. Jews have been expelled from Muslim nations and Christians continue to be persecuted and killed there for their religious belief.

Closer to home, Hizbut Tahir works to establish a global Caliphate and rejects UK law openly. ‘Islamophobia’ is shouted each time Islam causes another horror, in order to crush dissent and debate – regardless of the fact that Islam is responsible for oppression and slaughter, most recently in Paris – NOT non-Muslims.

We constantly hear Muslim voices condemning non-Muslim actions (such as publishing cartoons) – yet these are as nothing compared to the killing and oppression BY Muslims.

It is now incumbent on our political leaders and the UN to listen to the voices of non-Muslims and to ex-Muslim testimony in order to finally examine in a dispassionate manner Islam and its relationship to the non-Islamic world. Specifically we ask that a major enquiry is set up to examine whether or not Islam  will pose a threat to the freedoms and Human Rights which we have fought oppression to guard and which we hold so dear in the non-Muslim world.

There are now many Muslim groups wanting to establish Sharia law in the West and to make Muslim lands of our nations. The existent rulings by Strasbourg that there no place for Sharia law in a democracy must be upheld everywhere and it means too that non-Muslim nations should stop allowing the voices of Islam to demand special treatment or the silencing of dissent. Ultimately it is the purpose of this petition to ask our leaders to honestly examine whether Islam is compatible with Human Rights in non-Muslim nations. If it is found not to be it should be banned just as Nazism is banned.

People like Ayaan Hirsi-Ali and Serkan Engin have left Islam and as such are able to see it clearly. They compare it to a cult or to Nazism – NOT to a religion. Nazism is rightly condemned today, yet Islam has an even worse track record historically. Muhammad was a warlord who himself killed many people and persuaded his followers to kill any who didn’t believe in his new religion.

This tendency to kill non-believers is very evident in the history of Islam right through to the present day. Islam was started by Muhammad who was not peaceful nor tolerant – he had Jews and Christians killed. The fact that Iran has a stated aim to ‘destroy Israel’, and the rise of Isis and Islamic terrorist attacks on the West shows clearly that Islam uses the cover and protection of religious freedom to promote its hate-filled, intolerant and violent ideology.

If followers of the cult of Scientology were to begin beheading people and violently taking over large parts of the world there would be immediate calls to ban it. Yet there is a popular myth which our leaders and media maintain, that Islam is a religion of the same caliber as Judaism or Christianity. In fact whilst terrible things were done in the name of these religions – the Judeo-Christian faith model is based on strongly moral teaching. Jesus was so peaceful he allowed himself to be killed and abused rather than exhort his followers to kill for him. Islam is based on the example of a violent warlord who did exhort violence as the solution to non-believers.

It is Islam which leads to Islamism. The roots of the violence and persecution of other religions which we see both today, and in the history of the belief, are there plainly in the Koran and especially the Hadith or life of Muhammad.

Read the following from Bukhari, The Book of Jihad, and consider whether Isis and Boko Haram are in fact much more likely to be simply Muslims rather than radical Muslims – for they DO follow the life of their prophet:

‘He (The Prophet) had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered that nails should be heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the rocky land of Medina. They asked for water, but none provided them with water till they died.’ [3018]

Please sign this petition now, and share it widely, to ask our world leaders to stop calling Islam the ‘Religion of Peace’ when it is no such thing – rather it has a history of violence and conquest of non-believers which has not abated to this day.

Humanity itself and the freedom of Western civilisation is at threat from this fastest growing belief system which incites hatred, violence and oppression, intolerance and fear wherever it spreads.

Islam must be examined as a cult or belief-system which has always and is now a threat to Human peace and civilisation – NOT as a religion. If Sharia and Theocratic Regimes are disallowed under the Human Rights act then why is Islam given the respect of any other religion? Islam is the foundation of Sharia and Islamic Theocracies.

There is no place for such a belief system within the non-Muslim world. Please watch Ayaah Hirsi Ali’s account of Islam and read more on how Islam breaches Human Rights Law here.

Thank you for your time and please help us in this struggle to retain our basic freedoms, in the face of this violent oppressor which passes for a ‘religion’ when it is rather no more than a cult.

We would not allow Nazism to flourish again unchecked in our lands – we should therefore not allow Islam to place more and more checks on our behaviour until all we hold dear has been destroyed.

https://www.change.org/p/president-barack-obama-examine-whether-islam-is-antithetical-to-human-rights

Dr. Walid Phares: Jihad in Europe — Implications for European and American Security

 

Published on Feb 9, 2015 by securefreedom

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Thursday, February 5, 2015.

Blood on the Hands of Christian Leaders

coexistUTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 5, 2015:

Across the globe today, Christians are increasingly being forced underground, barbarically tortured and killed by the tens of thousands – 100,000 per year according to a Vatican report – by Muslims who claim they are waging Jihad in the name of Allah in order to impose Sharia (Islamic Law).  The words and deeds of a large number of Christian leaders, especially in America, reveal an ignorance of the true teachings of Islam and an unwillingness to boldly lead the disciples of Jesus forward in a way that follows what Jesus taught.

When Jesus said “Love thy enemy” he meant it – including the barbaric Muslim hordes crossing continents beheading children, raping women, and crucifying innocent people of many nationalities and faiths.  However, this command comes with the logical and reasonable imperative that you KNOW your enemies, and respond accordingly.  This is the same Jesus, after all, who admonishes his disciples to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.  It appears that far too many leaders of the flock of Jesus’ disciples are stuck on the “gentle as doves” part and may be forgetting the “wise as serpents.”

As has been detailed on many occasions at UTT, Islamic doctrine is clear, and there is unanimous consensus by Muslim scholars from the very beginning of Islam with regards to the definition of “Jihad” and it obligation to be waged until the entire world is under Islamic rule (Sharia/Islamic Law).  Elementary and Junior/Senior high school Islamic text books across the globe teach what Al Qaeda, ISIS, and all the jihadi organizations say Islam commands.  The most popular 7th grade text book in Islamic schools in America (What Islam is All About, written by Muslim Brother Yahiya Emerick) states jihad is one of the three “duties” of Muslims and “The word jihad is most often associated with the act of physically confronting evil and wrong-doing…If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to Paradise(p164).”  It further states “There is no separation of Masjid and state for the object of the Islamic state is the establishment of the Deen of Allah (Sharia)…The basis of the legal and political system is the Sharia of Allah (p381).”

Al Azhar University, the most prominent and oldest school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world, has always taught the purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.  There is no authoritative Islamic text on the planet that states otherwise.  That is the starting point for this discussion.

The Sharia (Islamic Law) also has unanimous consensus of Islamic scholars that lying to non-Muslims is obligatory in the pursuit of obligatory goals.  Jihad is obligatory and 100% of all Islamic Law only defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islam, Mohammed is considered the “insan al kamil” or “the perfect man.”  Mohammed himself said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat.”  Then Mohammed waged war against non-Muslims.

Christians were commanded by Jesus to love God and their neighbors (Mark 12:30-31).  No such proclamation exists in Islam.  Islamic teachings state the only reasons Muslims “build bridges” with non-Muslims is to bring them to Islam.  While Christians are called to bring the gospel to all people, they must do so with the knowledge and understanding of Islam so they can be “wise as serpents.”  Today, Christian leaders are befriending Muslims naively and in ignorance of Islam, and the enemy is having their way with the Christian community because of it.

When the leadership of the global Muslim community published “A Common Word” it was a part of an intentionally  campaign to deceive and fabricate common ground between the teachings of Islam and Christianity that do not exist.  Christian leaders who use this “common ground” as a base from which to open discussions with Muslim leaders do so at their own peril, the peril of their flocks, and at the peril of their faith.

Most frequently, Christian leaders meet Muslim leaders around the person of Jesus and the belief that we all worship the same God.

6a00d8341bffb053ef0133f40783fe970b-450wiIslam teaches “Allah has no son nor father and Allah has no partners.” (Sura 112/Sura 19:35-36)  Islam further teaches:  (1) at the end of days Jesus will return and break all crosses and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam; and (2) all Jews must be holocausted so that Muslims can enter paradise.  These are universal teachings from Bukhari, the most authoritative Hadith scholar in Islam, and has unanimous consensus from Islamic scholars.  [Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656; Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657]

For instance, Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425 states “Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig (Jews) and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government).”

The same God who calls the Jews his “chosen” people cannot be the same God who calls for them to be holocausted so that all Muslims go to paradise, nor can the God who calls Jesus his “son” and the savior of the world have him return at the end of time to cast all Christians to hell for not believing he was just a prophet and not converting to Islam.  Logic and reason do not allow these to exist simultaneously.

The teaching in Islam is that no original Jewish or Christian texts exists, so all Torahs and Bibles are fraudulent.  According to Islam, the Jewish and Christian scholars omitted, changed, and distorted the portions of the Old and New Testament which identified Mohammed as the final prophet of Allah, and that all prophets from Adam to Jesus are Muslim prophets.

Entering into “Interfaith dialogue” with Muslims and not understanding this is to walk into the lair of the wolves believing they are lambs.  Since all of the interfaith dialogue in the U.S. is organized by Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations – Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – this further highlights the folly of American Christian leaders who enter blindly into these relationships.

Across American colleges and universities Christian leaders are increasingly supporting Muslim Student Association (MSA) interfaith events, which may be the reason anti-Semitism is growing on college campuses here.  As a reminder, the MSA was the first national Islamic organization in America and was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood in 1963.  There are over 630 MSA chapters in all 50 states.  Their purpose is to recruit jihadis and support jihad.

The effect of these outreach programs has proven disastrous, to say the least.

jesus (1)Best selling author and internationally aclaimed Christian pastor Rick Warren speaks at Hamas fundraising events for groups like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – which Muslim Brotherhood historical documents state is the “nucleus” for the Islamic/Jihadi Movement in America and the Department of Justice identified as a fundraising source for the terrorist group Hamas in documents proferred in the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008).  When Mr. Warren invoked the name of “Isa” – the Muslim prophet Jesus  – at President Obama’s first inaugural prayer, thus equating the biblical Jesus to the Islamic prophet Jesus, he not only blasphemed the name of Jesus, he was acting as an agent of a designated terrorist organization to spread their disinformation.

Josh McDowell, another well-known Christian author and speaker produced a video entitled “Sharia Love” in which he praised Arab Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan for being “nice” because they acted nice when they spoke to him.  He neglects the reality that Dearborn has one of the highest concentration of jihadis in America.  While there are individuals who self-identify themselves as “Muslim” yet do not adhere to Sharia, it is not realistic and is condescending to assume the “vast majority” of muslims do not follow the very thing to which they say they subscribe – Sharia.  This type of touchy-feeling Christianity which disconnects itself from reason and logic has no place among the disciples of Jesus.

Recently, I had an exchange with a leading Christian leader and author who flatly denied Islam teaches the things that have been detailed above, and followed it with “My best friends are Muslims.”

This may explain why this “Christian leader” is pro-Palestinian and ignorant of true Islamic doctrine.  What is also noteworthy is that a large number of Christian leaders respond to the truth about Islam by immediately stating “there is violence in the Bible too” or they brush it off and stating we must just come together around the person of Jesus.  While Jesus can do anything and heal anyone, one must go into these relationships with Muslims from a knowledge of what Islam is and who Jesus is to them.

Islam understands language the way Sharia defines it.  Peace is the condition that exists when the entire world is under Islamic rule.  Justice is the justice obtained under Sharia.  And the Jesus of the Quran is not the Jesus of scripture.

In a recent trip to Arizona, my presentation was met with strong public outcry from known Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations.  Standing with them were many of the prominent Christian leaders in Arizona.

Across America we see numerous assaults on America’s Christians while Christian leaders, to a great extent, stand silent.  The Veteran’s Administration being ordered by the White House to cover all symbols of Christian faith in all of their offices is just one example.

In his seminal work, Strength to Love, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. admonishes Christians to be tough minded, incisive thinkers, and discerning in their approach to evil.  “This prevalent tendency toward soft mindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility…Soft mindedness often invades religion…Soft-minded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read, “Blessed are the pure in ignorance:  for they shall see God.”

It is time for the flock to demand their pastors, priests and rabbis speak the truth about Islam no matter what the cost.  We must do so in love, but we must also understand that love is not the mushy feeling in our bellies, but a decision and an attitude to take the actions of love.  Sometimes that means defending your home from the invader who seeks to steal, kill, and destroy.

Islamic Ideology: Identifying the Enemy

Shariah-4-UKBreitbart, by  ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, Feb. 3, 2015:

While America continues to face an expanding national security threat, President Obama has great difficulty in identifying the enemy that has been at war with the United States for over 35 years.

Using terms such as “violent extremism” and “workplace violence” does an enormous injustice to our military forces, as well as to all law enforcement agencies that must be prepared to confront the Islamic jihadis on a daily basis.  For example, the Obama administration directed all of our training manuals, that accurately portrayed the Islamic threat, to be purged by removing anything that didn’t portray Islam as a religion of peace.

Probably, the worst six words President George W. Bush ever uttered were “Islam is a religion of peace.”  He most likely was urged to make such a statement by his Muslim Brotherhood advisors who had already penetrated our government agencies during the Clinton administration.  Regrettably, those words are repeated by a number of Western leaders under the guise of political correctness and should be discarded.  Furthermore, the Obama administration’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood must cease.  They must be removed from all government agencies and those front groups, e.g., CAIR and ISNA, shut down.

The leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, has been at war with the United States since the November 1979 takeover of our Tehran U.S. embassy.  Since then, Iran has directed numerous “acts of war” against us, either using proxies (Hezbollah), or their own forces – acts of war that every administration, Republican and Democrat, has failed to find the political courage to respond.  Consequently, the surge of Islamic Fundamentalism, as espoused by the Ayatollah Khomeini’s evil regime, has continued to expand.

Iran has encouraged Islamic supremacists, both Shi’ite and Sunni, to take ever bolder action– as evidenced by the atrocities being committed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria today, the recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, Canada, and Australia as well as the incessant HAMAS and Hezbollah attacks against Israel.  While President Obama tries to make the case that these atrocities are not part of the Islamic religion, Chapter 2 verse 106 (on abrogation) of the Quran makes it very clear that the later, violent verses take precedence over the early, less violent verses.

The most dramatic action by the Islamic supremacists was the 9/11 hi-jacker terrorist attack, which was the most serious attack on the United States since the 7 December, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.  It resulted in the loss of almost 3,000 innocent American lives who were doing nothing more than going to work.  It should never be forgotten that this attack could not have been successfully carried out without the material and training support of the evil Iranian regime that succeeded its founder Ayatollah Khomeini.

To understand the threat we face today, we must be clear in the terms we use.  It is not violent extremism or even radical Islam: it is Islam itself, which has remained unchanged for over 1,300 years.  The former Turkish Prime Minister and current President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated it best when he declared “Islam is Islam.  There are no modifiers,” e.g., Islamic Extremism.

Clearly, any thinking individual understands that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that is bent on world domination under one religion and ruled by the draconian Shariah.  It is totally incompatible with the Western world’s concept of freedom and democracy, and our Constitution.  Furthermore, until it is understood that Islam is a political movement (similar to communism) masquerading as a religion, we will not be successful in combating the enemy.

As the Dutch politician Geert Wilders stated, the more Islam penetrates your society, the less freedom you have.  Therefore, our current unregulated Muslim immigration and asylum policies make no sense.  They must be revised along with effective measures to secure our open borders.

The real question is, can Islam be reformed to co-exist peacefully in the 21st century?  The problem is how to modify Shariah, which has not been done in over 1,300 years.  Clearly, it would have to be done cautiously, and by Sunni clerics as well as Shi’a.  Recently, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, in a New Year’s Day speech to the leading Sunni clerics, challenged them to reform Islam.  The atrocities being committed in the cause of advancing Islam are, in his view, giving Islam a bad image.  More importantly, such an initiative would be consistent with Egyptians reclaiming their rich heritage by thinking of themselves first as being Egyptians.

We should encourage President al-Sisi to follow up his challenge to the leading Sunni clerics by proposing that they form an Islamic Forum of leading Sunni clerics to address the reformation of Islam for the 21st century.  Unless such an effort is made, the alternative will be a consistent state of war (Dar al-Harb) against the infidels as mandated in the Quran.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

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

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

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

Quran Sura 4:56

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

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

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

taymiyya

***

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

NER,  by Hugh Fitzgerald

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

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

Read here.

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

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

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

***

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

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi  •  Feb 4, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

Notes

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

***

Why ISIS Used Fire to Murder the Jordanian Pilot

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boko Haram Discusses Baga Massacre, Ideology in New Video

 

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 28, 2015

The jihadist group known as Boko Haram, appears to have released a new video featuring an interview with the group’s spokesman Sheikh Abu Mus’ab Al barnawi. Regarding its recent successes in attacks on towns in the Lake Chad region Al Barnawi says:

As for it’s importance to us, it’s because of it removes that military presence from the lands of the Islamic state, and hence establish the Shariah of Allah in the region, and attain safety and security in it for Muslims. It’s known that those military complexes if they go to a place they corrupt it and injustice rules over it, and we by the Grace of Allah alone have managed to conquer this city and add it to the cities of the Islamic state in Africa.

It’s not immediately clear if Al barnawi means the term Islamic State in a generic sense, or if he is referring to the self-declared Caliphate represented by ISIS leader AbuBakr Al Baghdadi, but Boko Haram has increasingly utilized the flag and symbols of ISIS in its media presentations, and has expressed support for, if not allegiance to Al Baghdadi. In the video, Al barnawi is explicit regarding the group’s larger goals of establishing Sharia and expresses irritation at the insistence of the western media’s referring to the group as Boko Haram rather than by its official name Jama’aat Ahul Sunna wall el Daa’wa wal Jihad (Group for the Propagation of the Sunnah and Jihad). The Boko Haram spokesman also denied allegations that the group engaged in Takfirism (the practice of declaring fellow Muslims to be infidels), spending several minutes denying the claim.

We have come to give victory to AlSunna and to establish the governance of Allah on earth. As for accusing us of shedding Muslims’ blood that’s not true, and Allah is our witness. How do we fight them if we fight for their cause? When we entered the city that was what is called the stick carriers “Catodqora,” they collaborated with the armies of the false deity and carried their weapons, and stood by them. We fought who fought us, and they know they fought us, and when they saw our strength they fled the city, some by sea, some to the forests, and yet we send them this message: Who fought or didn’t fight us who comes repenting will be forgiven and we give him safety and security because we are a nation whose morals refuse to initiate harm on who doesn’t harm us.

“Stick carriers”, presumably refers to vigilante groups which have sprung up in some northern Nigerian towns in order to repulse attacks by the jihadist group. As is common in jihadist propaganda material, the focus of the group remains on the establishment of the Islamic State, and enforcement of Shariah. There are no references to corruption, disparity in oil wealth, or endemic poverty, the sorts of so-called “root causes” that drive State Department policy on Nigeria.

Video: Steve Coughlin Counterterror Training Education and Analysis

622022286
Center for Security Policy, September 13, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

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

 

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

 

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

Bobby Jindal’s breathtaking candor, needed leadership

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (Associated Press)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (Associated Press)

– – Monday, January 19, 2015

Today in London, Louisiana’s Republican governor said what has, to date, been the unsayable about Islam’s supremacist ideology known as shariah and the holy war, or jihad, it demands all of its adherents to engage in or support.

Bobby Jindal warned forthrightly that “A so-called religion that allows for and endorses killing those who oppose it is not a religion at all, it is a terrorist movement.”

Such straight talk has been all but absent from America’s national discourse, as politicians and the public alike have sought not to “give offense” to Muslims, or been silenced by threats of being tarred as “Islamophobes.” Grounded in reality and ever-more-warranted by the rising tide of jihadism, Mr. Jindal’s insights are creating new space for the kind of conversation that has been long overdue in this country, and the West more generally.

Indeed, it speaks volumes about the current state of this issue, as well as about the character and promise of the governor himself, that a man widely perceived to be an aspiring presidential candidate would be willing to set himself apart in this fashion and at this time. The American people are ready for the truth. They know they haven’t been getting it from either President Obama or the Loyal Opposition. And, especially in the wake of the murderous Paris attack on Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters and staff – and the teachable moment it represented about the threat shariah represents to our freedom of expression – politicians need to understand that being cowed by the jihadists is a formula for repudiation at the polls.

Now, it behooves Mr. Jindal and others, like Newt Gingrich and Joe Lieberman, who have in recent days called for a major course-correction in order to ensure that we defeat the global jihad, to offer an alternative approach. One option, which has the advantage of having been tested and proven successful against the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction, Soviet communism, has just been unveiled by the Center for Security Policy: the “Secure Freedom Strategy.”

***

Published on Jan 19, 2015 by JindalPressOffice

Also see:

 

It’s Time For The ‘Secure Freedom’ Strategy

1092263568CSP, by Frank Gaffney, Jan. 16, 2015:

A hard reality is finally sinking in across America: for a long time now – actually, for more than thirty-five years – the United States has been at war with an enemy sworn to its destruction.

It did not seek enmity or hostilities with them. Both are the product of forces that long predated the establishment of this country, to say nothing of its adoption toward the end of the 20th Century of certain policies towards the Middle East or other regions.

The enemy is the Global Jihad Movement. And it is inspired, guided, and enabled by the Islamic supremacist doctrine its adherents call shariah.

For much of this period, the U.S. government has pursued various approaches to the threats posed by that enemy – including selective military engagements, benign neglect, willful blindness, and outright appeasement. They have all shared one common denominator: They ignore the aforementioned realities and, as a practical matter, have exacerbated them.

Yet, no one has advanced a more reality-based, more practical and more effective way to counter, let alone defeat, this ideologically driven enemy.

Until now.

At the National Press Club at noon on January 16th, an ad hoc group of highly skilled national security professionals will unveil an alternative plan of action that has been proven effective in protecting us against relentlessly aggressive totalitarian ideologues in the one environment that matters: the real world. The resulting approach, called the “Secure Freedom Strategy,” is modeled after the one President Ronald Reagan successfully employed to take down Soviet communism and the Evil Empire it spawned.

The “Secure Freedom Strategy” offers a detailed prescription for a clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we confront and actionable steps for vanquishing it. Its key components include:

Understanding the Enemy’s Threat Doctrine: Having conclusively demonstrated that Sun Tse’s admonition that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t know still operates, the United States must now abandon past practice by adopting a realistic understanding of the enemy and its doctrine. That requires, in particular, clarity concerning shariah, the jihad it impels, and the various ways in which such warfare is being waged against us.

The Tiger Team makes clear that its use of the term shariah is informed by the practice of Islamic law by the recognized authorities of the faith since at least the 10th Century. (It is noteworthy that, when Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi complained publicly and courageously about the jihadist character of contemporary Islam, he did not berate so-called “radical extremists” of al Qaeda or Islamic State. Rather, he took to task the leading imams in Sunni Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican, al-Azhar University.) Such use of the term shariah, therefore, does not refer to an idiosyncratic, personal, or purely pietistic observance of Islamic law which may or may not conform to the entirety of established Islamic doctrine.

The jihadism of shariah is being advanced by both violent techniques and by means other than terrorism. We must, accordingly, be prepared to deal kinetically where necessary with the perpetrators of violent jihad. But it is also imperative that we contend no less effectively with what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – its stealthy, subversive effort to “destroy Western civilization from within…by [our own] hands.”

Establishing Our Objective: Next, the United States must enunciate a national commitment to – using a phrase President Reagan employed as the object of NSDD 75 – “contain and over time reverse” shariah-driven Islamic supremacism, including establishment of the Caliphate. The rising tide of shariah and various efforts to impose it here and abroad make abundantly clear an unalterable fact: America and, indeed, Western civilization cannot coexist with the Global Jihad Movement.

Reestablishing “Peace Through Strength”: Just as President Reagan did in his day, the contemporary hollowing out of the U.S. military must be reversed as a matter of the utmost priority. The perception of American weakness only reinforces our shariah-adherent enemies’ conviction that the time has come for intensifying jihad operations. It is also emboldening other adversaries, including Russia, China and North Korea.As the United States is not confronting simply terrorist organizations, or even their state-sponsors, but prospectively “peer competitors,” the rebuilding of American military power must be balanced across the spectrum of nuclear, missile defense, conventional and special operations forces. We must also continue to develop asymmetric capabilities (e.g., in space and cyber space) while correcting our most egregious vulnerabilities to these enemies’ asymmetric attacks (notably, electromagnetic pulse, cyberwarfare, counter-space, economic/financial warfare, smuggled weapons of mass destruction, etc.)

Counter-Ideological Warfare: As in the Cold War, America’s ability to challenge and neutralize its enemies’ animating ideology is at least as important as the task of countering their kinetic threats. Once we are clear about the nature and centrality of the shariah doctrine to the existential danger we currently face, the need for a serious and effective counter-ideological strategy becomes self-evident.Putting such a strategy into practice will require, first and foremost, identifying the Muslim Brotherhood for the explicitly jihadist organization it has always been and is now.

Continuing to treat its operatives and organizations (overt and covert) in America and overseas as “partners” because we are told they “eschew violence” is a formula for our incremental destruction. Wherever and as soon as possible, these foes should be neutralized as political forces. At a minimum, they must be denied access to U.S. government agencies, funds, arms and, via television cable packages, American household subscribers.

Intelligence Operations: We must take a page from the playbook developed during the Reagan administration by then-Director of Central Intelligence William Casey and use covert means wherever possible to counter, divide and undermine our enemies. To the traditional intelligence techniques should be added aggressive use of psychological operations, cyberwarfare and, where necessary, clandestine and special operations.

Economic Warfighting: As with the Reagan NSDD 75 plan, there must be a central economic/financial warfighting component to a new American strategy for defeating our time’s existential enemies. This component would include: constricting the principal source of revenues for the jihad – vast petrodollar transfers from Western nations to OPEC states; reversing the present practice of accommodating and even encouraging shariah finance, a technique employed by civilization jihadists to penetrate and subvert our capitalist system: and exposing shariah-inspired sovereign wealth funds as instruments of financial jihad.

Cyber Warfighting: Cyberspace is the new battlefield of asymmetric warfare where attacks across domains and technologies by the Global Jihad enemy, as well as peer adversaries, must be countered with 21st Century capabilities drawn from the best and brightest in the civilian, intelligence and military worlds.

Were these and similar policy priorities articulated by the Tiger Team to be adopted and executed appropriately, it should be possible to effect the necessary second step: the adoption by the nation of a true warfooting, a state of national commitment that will bring to bear the popular vigilance and support that will make it possible for the Secure Freedom Strategy to be fully executed.

If we are to have a prayer of bequeathing, as President Reagan put it, to our children and children’s children an America that is free – and not one that has submitted to the jihadists and shariah – we must get about the business of securing freedom in a strategic and time-tested way.

And we must begin to do it now.

Uploaded by theunitedwest

Secure Freedom Strategy v1.0

Press Release

Highlights

Executive Summary

FAQs

“Tiger Team” to unveil strategy for defeating Global Jihad Movement

3215722920Recommends Approach Reagan Used to Destroy Last Totalitarian Ideology Threat

Press release from Center for Security Policy:

(Washington, DC): Murderous attacks by Islamic supremacists in recent weeks in France, Nigeria, Australia and Canada have made obvious a fact long ignored by too many Western governments and elites:  The Free World is under assault by Islamic supremacists.

The perpetrators of this assault may have different organizational affiliations, alternative state-sponsors, divergent sectarian views about Islam or even be acting individually.  But they have two things in common:  They seek to impose their ideology or doctrine, shariah, on the whole world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And they intend to create an alternative form of governance, often called a Caliphate to rule in accordance with shariah.

Consequently, the United States and the rest of the Free World urgently needs to identify this Global Jihad Movement as our enemy and to bring to bear an effective, counter-ideological strategy for defeating this political, supremacist shariah doctrine.

The Center for Security Policy, which prides itself on being the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas,” has sponsored in recent months an informal “tiger team” modeled after an actual special operations A-Team drawing upon individuals with unique and necessary skill sets for the mission at hand: Adapting the strategy that defeated the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction: Soviet communism.

WHO:

Participating Members of the Secure Freedom Strategy “Tiger Team”:

  • Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former senior Special Operator and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
  • Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorist unit.
  • Kevin Freeman, Chartered Financial Analyst and best-selling author of Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Attacked the U.S. Stock Market and Why it Can Happen Again
  • Clare Lopez, Senior Vice President Center for Security Policy for Research and Analysis and former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service
  • Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert on information warfare and influence operations
  • David Yerushalmi, Esq., co-founder and partner, American Freedom Law Center, and expert on shariah
  • Fred Fleitz, career intelligence professional who served under William J. Casey at the Central Intelligence Agency
  • Moderator:  Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting) under President Reagan

WHERE:

National Press Club
Zenger Room
529 14th St NW, 13th Floor
Washington, D.C.

WHEN:

Friday, January 16, 2015, 12:00-1:30 pm  Luncheon will be served.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who formerly acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under President Reagan and now is president of the Center for Security Policy said of this effort:
President Obama recently justified his abandonment of decades of U.S. policy towards the despotic regime in Cuba on the grounds that, if it hadn’t worked, it needed to be changed.  It is beyond dispute that the policy he and his predecessors have pursued towards the Global Jihad Movement, its ideological wellspring – shariah, and its sponsors and enablers is not working.  In this case, we actually must make a change.
President Reagan’s successful counter-ideological strategy, formalized in his National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 75, is one that has worked in the past.  In the professional judgment of some of America’s finest national security professionals, as adapted in the Secure Freedom Strategy, the NSDD 75 approach can work now as well, if employed decisively against today’s totalitarian ideology and its adherents.

The Absurdity of Obama’s Violent Extremism Summit

!cid_1080AF456BC942CC997E2EC6E59FC94B@DonPCCSP, by Fred Fleitz, Jan 13, 2015:

How can a summit be held on a dire threat to international security when the host refuses to acknowledge the cause of this threat?  This question will hover over the summit on violent extremism that President Obama will hold at the White House next month.

French President Hollande was unequivocal over the weekend in stating that France is at war with radical Islam and jihadism.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after participating in the massive rally in Paris on Sunday held to demonstrate unity after the attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, police officers, and a kosher supermarket, “Radical Islam is an enemy to us all.”

By contrast, Obama officials still cannot bring themselves to say “radical Islam,” “radical Islamist,” or “Islamist terrorist.”  In response to direct questions during two Sunday morning talk show interviews last weekend, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to say the United States is at war with radical Islam.

Published on Jan 11, 2015 by Truth Revolt

It was painful to watch the tortured responses by White House and State Department spokesmen yesterday as they tried to explain why the White House will not focus on the threat from radical Islam at next month’s summit.  White House spokeswoman Marie Harf told Fox News this is because “there are people out there who want to kill other people in the name of a variety of causes.”

Adding to this absurdity, the credibility of President Obama and the United States in the war on terror took a major hit by the absence of the president and any senior U.S. official at the Paris rally.

Since President Obama refuses to acknowledge that radical Islam and its dangerous shariah ideology are behind the terrorist attacks in Paris and the atrocities of the Islamic State, next month’s White House summit will be just a photo op that will further diminish American leadership in the war with radical Islam.  Hopefully other world leaders will use the summit to talk some sense into Mr. Obama about the growing threat from radical Islam and how this threat will not be defeated until U.S. officials recognize it and agree to work with Europe and other countries around the world to combat this threat.

***

Also see: 

Screen-Shot-2014-03-26-at-10.06.49-AM-620x473