Khan-flict: Freedom Fighter Son, Sharia Supremacist Father

khizr-khan.sized-770x415xcPJ Media, by Andrew Bostom, August 2, 2016:

Army Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in action during an extended tour in Iraq. Deployed at Baquabah, Khan served in a force protection role and oversaw a unit securing and maintaining his base.

On June 8, 2004, Khan died after ordering his soldiers to stay back, and “hit the dirt,” when he approached a suspicious taxi. While Khan was moving towards the vehicle and motioning for it to stop, two men in the taxi detonated their explosives, killing themselves, Khan, and two Iraqi soldiers. Because of his heroic sacrifice, none of Khan’s soldiers were killed in the blast.

When Khan was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery, he received full military honors at the burial, and his commanding officer observed in a letter:

He died selflessly and courageously, tackling the enemy head on. We will not forget him and the noble ideas he stood for.

Simply put, Humayun Khan died defending the uniquely Western conceptions of freedom articulated in the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

All Americans must acknowledge and honor the Khan family’s grief as parents of a heroic soldier killed in action. Their anguished perspective requires special deference. But we should also take seriously the assertions made by Khizr Khan, Humayun’s father, and a lawyer, about the Constitution, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), which are contradicted by his own earlier published opinions.

Many Americans have their own copies of the Constitution (readers can get your own pocket Constitution here, for free, via Hillsdale College), and they know that Khizr Khan egregiously misrepresented what our founding document states regarding immigration in the 14th Amendment, as discussed recently by Byron York.

It was no doubt unintentional on Khizr Khan’s part that he appeared to attack the large majority of ordinary Americans who are concerned about the DNC’s support for admitting immigrants into the U.S. without background checks — even from countries with known risks for harboring jihad terrorists (i.e., like Syria). As a prime example, adequate databases for vetting Syrian Muslim refugees don’t exist.

Americans want to disagree without being disagreeable, and being hectored that we have “black souls” or lack compassion. We can have genuine, deep sympathy for the Khan family’s loss, and still disagree with Khizr Khan’s misrepresentation of the Constitution.

With all due respect for his deprivation, we must review Mr. Khan’s published articles asserting the supremacy of Sharia over other politico-legal systems. His opinions are antithetical to the principles in the Constitution that he waved at Americans during his DNC convention address, and that his own son died fighting to preserve.

Read more

Also see:

Robert Jackson on Sharia v. the Constitution

Constitution vs Sharia (1)National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 4, 2015:

I’ve been working my way through my friend Steve Coughlin’s invaluable new book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad (which I discussed a bit in this recent column on the San Bernardino terrorist attack).

In light of the sharia encroachment campaign to bend the First Amendment to the repressive blasphemy standards of Islamic law (the subject of my columns today and over the weekend), it is very much worth noting Steve’s unearthing of a 1955 statement by the legendary Robert Jackson – the former Supreme Court justice and Nuremberg prosecutor, who was United States attorney general under FDR:

In any broad sense, Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge – all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire – reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.

The passage is part of a Forward Justice Jackson wrote to a book called Law in the Middle East. He thought it was a subject we needed to be informed about.

Today, we don’t want to know about sharia – not the government, the commentariat, or the popular culture. As noted here time and again, foreign policy of the United States has for a generation proceeded on the absurd assumption that sharia and Western liberalism are perfectly, seamlessly compatible.

Indeed, that is the operating assumption of the new constitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq that the United States government helped write – constitutions that impossibly purport to protect civil rights while simultaneously enshrining sharia as a principal source of law. In Afghanistan, the government has, for example, convicted former Muslims for apostasy under the new Constitution – the apostates escaped the death penalty only by being whisked out of the country. In Iraq, since the American invasion and the new constitution it ushered in, the Christian population has decreased by more than 70 percent (from about 1 million down to around 250,000 to 300,000, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2015 Report, pp. 95-96). While the rise of ISIS has exacerbated religious persecution in Iraq, it was rampant even before the terror network came along. (See id. at 97: “The Iraqi government, under both former Prime Minister al-Maliki and current Prime Minister Haideral-Abadi, also has committed human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial killings of Sunni prisoners and civilians.”)

Tellingly, Islamic supremacists fully comprehend the fundamental incompatibility between Islamic and Western standards. In Cairo in 1990, the 57-government Organization of Islamic Cooperation (then known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference) issued its “Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.” This sharia supremacist proclamation was issued because the “Universal” Declaration of Human Rights presumptuously issued by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 was not consistent with Islamic norms.

Steve observes that the deeply flawed assumption of compatibility between sharia and the Constitution that undergirds our policy flows from “an absence of functional knowledge of Islamic law in America’s halls of power.” Why don’t officials inform themselves? Because, he opines, “our national security leaders have taken active measures to suppress both analysis and discussion of the topic, under threat of harsh sanctions.”

There was a time, not so long ago, when America’s national security leaders and legal titans grasped the need to be informed about Islamic law as it actually exists, not as they wished it were. Until we recover that understanding, we will be able neither to protect ourselves nor to know how and when to intervene in the world’s most volatile region.

Post Paris: Can Sharia Law and the Constitution Coexist?

quranconstitution

Published on Nov 18, 2015 PJ Media

After the terrors in Paris, Bill Whittle asks if we should just listen to our President and accept Islam as a progressive path for America… Can Sharia Law and The Constitution coexist?

Are Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota Surrendering to the Jihadis?

UTT, by John  Guandolo, Nov. 9, 2015:

The state of Massachusetts appears to have surrendered to Hamas; Hamtramck, Michigan now has a Muslim majority city council; and the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota is carrying the water for jihadis by putting the weight of the U.S. Attorney’s Office behind the terrorist’s information operation to silence those who speak truthfully about Islam.

UTT is again forced to ask the question – how long will Americans sit idly by while their elected officials (at all levels) surrender our nation, piece by piece, to our enemy?

Massachusetts

On November 12th, the day after Veteran’s Day, Hamas will be flexing it’s muscles on the steps of the Massachusetts State House in Boston by hosting a “Muslim Day.”

Participating in this event will be Massachusetts State Legislators Marjorie Decker and Sonia Chang-Diaz.

Decker Chang-Diqaz

Boston is the place where Patriots – the Sons of Liberty – tossed tea into the Boston Harbor in 1773 because we were being taxed by the British Crown without representation (Tea Act).

The citizens of Boston may want to consider throwing their elected officials into the Harbor for aiding and abetting a designated terrorist organization, namely Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

CAIR is a Hamas organization per the evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas, 2008).

The U.S. Department of Justice identified CAIR as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) Palestine Committee (Hamas).

Senator Ted Cruz (TX) and Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (FL) have recently filed legislation to designate the MB a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

Michigan
In Hamtramck, Michigan the city council is now two thirds Muslim, making it the first Muslim majority city council in America.

IC-Hamtramck-300x143Those who have been elected are Sharia-adherent Muslims and, therefore, their election is not Constitutionally allowed because they support a system of government that mandates an overthrow of our Constitutional Republic and a suppression/destruction of our liberties.

If recent history is any prediction of future events, we can expect the federal government to do nothing…unless of course Constitutionally minded citizens question this development in Hamtramck.

Meanwhile, unsuspecting citizens in the city of Hamtramck, who appear to be ignorant of the teachings of Islam and the repercussions of Islam in our society, believe the Muslim city council members have “accomplished a lot for the city.”

UTT is hopeful the people of Hamtramck have televisions so they can watch their coming future as they witness European cities being destroyed by these same people.

Minnesota
In keeping with the federal government’s overt support for terrorists, and their disregard for:  (1) their Oaths of Office, (2) the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence, and (3) the Constitution, the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota has joined forces with the international jihadi community to silence the truth and suppress the God-given rights of American citizens to freely express themselves.

lugerAndrew M. Luger, in an open letter in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on November 2nd, said “The current wave of Islamophobia needs to be stopped in its tracks. Minnesota has a thriving, patriotic and entrepreneurial Muslim population. By collectively rejecting attacks on Muslim Minnesotans, we can set an example for the rest of the nation.”

Interesting that Mr. Luger’s comments mirror the language of the global Islamic Movement which calls for “deterrent punishment” for anything that offends Islam.  This quote comes from the OIC’s 10-year plan.  The OIC, of course, is the largest voting block in the UN, and is made up of all 57 Muslim states on the planet.

Mr. Luger has likely never heard of the OIC.

The question citizens of Minnesota should ask Mr. Luger is:  “What Islamic Law have you read.”  He has not read any.  He is taking the Imams and Islamic leaders at their word, despite the evidence they are Sharia-compliant and many are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in the United States.

This is unprofessional conduct on Mr. Luger’s part.

“Islamophobia” is saying anything about Islam or Muslims they would dislike.  It is the implementation of the Islamic Law of Slander.  In Islamic Law (Sharia) Slander is a capital offense.

In case Mr. Luger has not noticed, human beings are being killed and silenced by threats of death (including in the United States) for “offending” Muslims.

It is reasonable to assume that if someone threatened to kill Mr. Luger, there would be a full investigation immediately opened and his office would pursue those threatening him to the fullest extent of the law.

Yet, Mr. Luger’s response to the threat of Islam in America is to commit to “stopping” free speech “in its tracks” when it comes to speaking about Islam.  Mr. Luger mistakenly takes the anger of the citizens as hatred towards Muslims, when actually it a demonstration of their frustration of dealing with the legitimate fear of a real threat (Jihadis) while those charged with defending our society (eg Mr. Luger) overtly side with the enemy.

The anger is directed at people like Mr. Luger.

The Road Forward

For Americans, there are difficult decisions which are no longer rapidly approaching – they are here.

Our leaders continue to sit on their hands while our enemies gather strength and prepare to wage war against communities all around America.  Yet, state houses (Massachusetts), cities (Hamtramck, MI), and U.S. Attorney’s like Andrew Luger surrender to or do the bidding of our enemy.

Where are the Sons of Liberty now?

Also see:

Shariah Incompatible With the Constitution

AP

AP

by Pete Hoekstra
IPT News
October 6, 2015

Note: Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra is the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Shillman senior fellow. This article originally appeared at Newsmax.

NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd in a recent exchange with a presidential candidate raised an issue that should be discussed not only by all of the candidates, but debated and analyzed by the American people.

Is Islamic law (Shariah) compatible with the U.S. Constitution?

The question has no simple answer, but we have three recent examples of where regime change forced national leaders to determine Shariah’s role in their governance, all failing to reach a definitive conclusion.

The first two followed interventions by the Obama administration, in one case actively and in the other passively, that facilitated the overthrow of stable authorities.

In Libya, NATO precipitated the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi’s 42-year dictatorship. In Egypt, the U.S. sent clear and unambiguous indications that replacing President Hosni Mubarak with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood would be acceptable, if not desirable.

In both cases new governments rose to power through American support.

I illustrate how events unfolded following Gaddafi’s deposition in my upcoming book, “Architects of Disaster: the Destruction of Libya.”

The U.S.-backed National Transitional Council – comprised of radical Islamist “moderates” that fought Gadhafi – appointed Sadeq al-Ghariani grand mufti during the civil war, a title that he retained after the shooting subsided.

Al-Ghariani, as grand mufti, the highest ranking official on Islamic law in a Muslim country, declared that Shariah would serve as the primary source of legislation and that any law contradicting it was invalid.

He legitimized polygamy, banned women from marrying foreigners, directed the Ministry of Education to delete passages on democracy and freedom of religion from school textbooks, and praised the militant group Ansar al-Sharia, which the U.S. blames for the Benghazi attacks that resulted in the murder of four Americans.

In addition, British officials accused al-Ghariani of encouraging jihadists with ideological ties to ISIS to overthrow the duly elected parliament.

Libya remains a bitterly divided failed state with one group supporting jurisprudence under the model created by Mohammad and another fighting for more democratic reforms while still pledging allegiance to Islamic law.

In Egypt, the government led by the Muslim Brotherhood focused on consolidating power rather than quickly imposing expanded facets of Shariah. However, the Muslim populace quickly rejected the actions and declarations of leaders dedicated to implementing stricter adherence to the fundamental teachings of the Koran.

Egyptians already dissatisfied with the economic performance under the stewardship of President Mohammed Morsi turned on him before he could impose what many believed was an agenda to introduce it gradually.

The sad irony is that in both Libya and Egypt, the Obama administration — a supposed champion of liberty and human rights — supported groups that wanted to ultimately enforce the code of law championed by Mohammed once they gained power.

Another irony is that while people in both countries are fighting and dying for political freedom and against more radical Shariah interpretations, that debate can’t even take place in the United States. Those who raise the issue are immediately labeled as Islamophobic.

Finally, the third example of Shariah is that inflicted by ISIS which allows for genocide of religious minorities in the so-called caliphate, an area comprised of large swaths of Syria and Iraq. Their practices are so barbaric that it’s difficult to imagine anyone in the U.S. defending them.

Other practices under ISIS’ application of the religious precepts of Islam include beheading and immolating captives, as well as selling “infidel” women as sex slaves. Here again other Muslims are fighting ISIS, for many reasons that include their obedience to Shariah.

The policies and laws executed by the grand mufti in Libya, the long-term agenda in the short-lived Morsi government in Egypt and by ISIS in its ideal Islamist Ummah are incompatible with the Constitution, period.

If such interpretations are unacceptable as many in the region indicate by their physical resistance, it is not difficult to understand why Americans are asking whether it could apply here.

How would Shariah work within the parameters of America’s founding document, and would the American Muslim community broadly embrace it?

Let’s ask all of the presidential candidates of both parties to hear what they have to say and allow a real discussion among American voters to begin.

Pete Hoekstra represented Michigan for 18 years in Congress, including as chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee. He currently serves as the Shillman senior fellow at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and is the author of “Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.”

America delights in Carson’s honesty on Islam

ben-carson1

WND, by Pamela Geller, Sep. 28, 2015:

Presidential candidate Ben Carson has been the victim of a media lynching for saying he would oppose a Muslim running for president. Carson is being savaged by the media for saying, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” and speaking about Shariah and taqiyya. But a new poll reveals that more than half of all U.S. voters agree with him.

Also, Ben Carson is up 6 percent in the national polls since he made these remarks. (Carly Fiorina, meanwhile, rightly suffered in the polls for denouncing Carson on Jimmy Fallon’s “Tonight Show.”)

This is one of those wonderful moments when the too-cute-by-half media cynically set up a gotcha journalism moment to trip up the GOP candidates to knock them down. It’s a media art form at this point.

A Washington Post “fact checker” went so far as to serve up taqiyya about taqiyya to “refute” Carson, asking a group of dishonest leftist and Islamic supremacist academics about Carson’s statements about taqiyya.

But it didn’t work. Not this time. John Nolte wrote in Breitbart that “obviously, Kessler’s world of experts is disturbingly provincial. If a left-wing academic says it, it must be true is not fact checking.”

That wasn’t the only way the Carson firestorm backfired, and beautifully. Because, finally, we were able to have a much-needed public conversation about jihad and Shariah, subject matters verboten by the Shariah-compliant gatekeepers of the American media. But the media are still going to go after Carson like ISIS on a Christian.

The GOP is the only one of the two parties that will even discuss the 800-pound elephant in the room: jihad and Muslim terrorism. Islamic supremacists and their leftist lapdogs in the media are waging their own jihad to silence this debate, and it is critical that we push back and support candidates who dare to speak against the gravest threat to our national security.

ISIS is here: ISIS sympathizers or jihadis have held up signs in Ferguson, Missouri, outside the White House and in Chicago. There have been several Islamic State-inspired jihad plots in the U.S. already.

The lines are drawn: Which GOP will stand up against terror groups in the U.S.?

Ben Carson is right. Electing a Muslim president would be dangerous. We have seen the Islamic pattern of previously moderate Muslims becoming devout and then aiding and abetting jihad. How could we be sure a Muslim president would not do the same?

And look at Barack Obama. Why do people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim? He claims he is a Christian, but his father and his stepfather were Muslims, and he was raised in a Muslim country. He went to an Islamic school and excelled in Quran classes while growing up in Jakarta.

Because of his upbringing, he is Islamophiliac, and his foreign and domestic policies reflect this. Obama’s advancement of Islam has been disastrous for freedom and freedom-loving peoples across the world. He has sided with jihadists in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Gaza and their counterparts in America, i.e. terror-tied CAIR.

Obama’s pro-jihad policies and his Shariah adherence (“the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”) tell us more about him than words or agitprop ever could. He rules like a Muslim leader. And the media wonder why so many people think Obama is a Muslim? Obama has banned the word “jihad” and any discussion of Islam from State, Defense and Justice Department vernacular and counter-terrorism materials.

He is denying that jihad is the enemy, while his Justice Department acts as the de facto legal arm for Muslim Brotherhood groups in America. And the Obama administration has held hundreds of meetings with U.S. Hamas front groups.

It’s not a question of “Islamophobia” or “racism,” or ignorance, for that matter. You can’t know what’s in a man’s heart, but “by their fruits ye shall know him, and so we know him.”

We must vocally and unequivocally stand by Ben Carson. This is a critical moment.

Also see:

‘MUSLIM PRESIDENT’ ISSUE SCORCHING REPUBLICANS

Dr. Ben Carson, retired brain surgeon and candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

Dr. Ben Carson, retired brain surgeon and candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sep. 24, 2015:

Is it possible for a “good Muslim” to also be a “good president” of the United States of America?

Ben Carson doesn’t think so, but the question divides the Republican Party along familiar lines – those preferring a more establishment candidate and those looking for an outsider.

While some fellow GOP candidates such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina have criticized Carson for saying he could not support a Muslim as president, an influential Iowa congressman sees it differently.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa – whose opinions carry weight in the Iowa GOP primary – said the comments would likely help Carson in his state.

“I wouldn’t expect those remarks would hurt Dr. Carson in Iowa. I think they help him,” King told the the Washington Post. “The people on our side who pay any attention to this at all understand Shariah is incompatible with the Constitution and that a sincerely devout Muslim – I might say, a devout Islamist — cannot seriously give an oath to support the Constitution, because it’s incompatible with his faith.”

Carson himself said Wednesday the flow of donations into his campaign coffers has accelerated since his controversial comment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday with Chuck Todd.

“I mean, the money’s been coming in so fast, it’s hard to even keep up with,” Carson said on “Fox and Friends.” “I remember the day of the last debate, within 24 hours we had raised a million dollars, and it’s coming in at least at that rate, if not quite a bit faster.”

The super PAC supporting Carson’s bid for the White House reported a surge in donations since his remarks Sunday, the Washington Times reported.

“We sent out an email to Carson supporters, and we’ve never had an email raise so much money so quickly — it’s unbelievable,” John Philip Sousa IV, who chairs the 2016 Committee super PAC, told the Times. “My phone has exploded over the last 48 hours – of people wanting me to pass on to Dr. Carson how much they respect his truthfulness and believe in the American system, and how absolutely not should anyone who believes in Shariah law come close to the White House. The people are on Dr. Carson’s side on this one – sorry, NBC, you lose.”

Carson said on “Meet the Press” that he believed Islam was inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Carson, “Do you believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”

“No, I do not,” Carson responded. “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Carson dismissed criticism from his fellow Republican presidential candidates Monday in a Facebook post.

“Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing,” he wrote. “Under Islamic law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed. I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced … I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for president.”

According to a June 2015 Gallup poll, 38 percent of Americans said they could not support a Muslim for president. Only atheists (40 percent) and socialists (50 percent) fared worse in the poll.

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, called on Carson to withdraw from the race, saying his comments were “a disqualifier … for the nation’s highest office.”

CAIR should immediately be stripped of its nonprofit status for taking sides in the political debate, said Dr. Mark Christian, a physician and former Muslim imam who converted to Christianity and emigrated from Egypt to America.

“CAIR is all over the place speaking against Ben Carson,” Christian, founder of the Global Faith Institute in Omaha, Nebraska, told WND. “Ben Carson says he can’t support a Muslim in the White House. For those who are upset by this, please tell me which of the current Muslim leaders in the Muslim world you would elect to be president here in the great land of America?”

Christian also points out that CAIR’s history of involvement in terrorism disqualifies it as a credible source. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2007, and more than a dozen of its leaders have either been convicted or investigated for involvement in terrorist activity.

See WND’s rogues gallery of terror-tied CAIR leaders.

The following is a rundown of what others are saying about Carson’s comments:

Read it at WND