The Outrages of Sharia

American Thinker, by  Eileen F. Toplanski, April 23, 2017:

As sharia continues to make inroads in America and Europe, we should take heed of Ralph Waldo Emerson who once wrote:
“[w]e began well.  No inquisition here. No kings, no nobles. No dominant church here, heresy has lost its terror.”
If only that founding reality of the American experience were understood by those who foolishly claim tolerance and acceptance for sharia law in this country — sadly, it is not.

The fact is, sharia is well entrenched in the Middle East and creeping forward to the West. The charge of heresy is imposed on any who would counter its mandates.  In the Muslim world, those who speak out for reformation have placed a bull’s-eye on their chests.  Consequently,

Ayatollah Boroujerdi has spoken out against political Islam and [has] been [a] strong advocate of the separation of religion and state, for which Iran sentenced him to 11 years as an Iranian political prisoner.

On September 23, 2014, Mohammad Mohavadi, prosecutor of the Special Clerical Court visited Ayatollah Boroujerdi in Ward 325 of Evin prison. Mohavadi informed him that the contents of Boroujerdi’s book were ‘heresy’ against the leadership and insulted the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Mohavadi continued that the punishment for these crimes is execution, and stated that all those who had a hand in publishing the book will also be killed. When Ayatollah Boroujerdi suggested an open, public debate with the Special Court regarding his views, Mohavadi announced that his office did not participate in debates, just trials and punishment [execution].

Iranian Kurdish prisoner Zeinab Jalalian was arrested on March 16, 2008 by the Iranian secret police. An Iranian court charged Jalalian with being a member of the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), a banned Kurdish group, found her guilty and sentenced her to death. Based on her alleged membership of that Kurdistan political party, she was accused of fighting God (mohareb) and given the death penalty.

The arts are being crushed, too.  Thus, “[a] Tehran Revolutionary Court has sentenced the poets Fatemeh Ekhtesari and Mehdi Moosavi to 9 years and 6 months and 99 lashes, and 11 years and 99 lashes, respectively, on charges of ‘insulting the sacred’ for the social criticism expressed in their poetry.” The flogging sentences were as a result “of their shaking hands with strangers (a person of the opposite sex who is not one’s immediate kin or spouse) [.]” Thus, “[t]hese sentences show that ‘repression in Iran is intensifying,’ said Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. ‘Hardliners aren’t just going after political activists, they are determined to stamp out any social or cultural expression with which they disagree.'”

Saudi blogger Raif Badawi was “arrested in 2012 and sentenced to ten years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and 1,000 lashes for ‘insulting Islam through electronic channels.'”  At the New Yorker, Robin Wright describes how the Saudi government “pulled a blogger named Raif Badawi from his jail cell in Jeddah, brought him to a square in front of a mosque, and administered the first phase—fifty lashes—of a public flogging.”

His crime? — “Badawi, . . . ran a Web site called Saudi Liberal Network, which dared to discuss the country’s rigid Islamic restrictions on culture. One post mocked the prohibition against observing Valentine’s Day, which, like all non-Muslim holidays, is banned in Saudi Arabia. (Even foreigners aren’t allowed to buy trees for Christmas.) Religious police, known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, have reportedly patrolled flower shops and chocolate shops to warn against selling items that commemorate an infidel celebration.”

Badawi’s site, “which the government ordered taken down, often pressed the Saudi monarchy to show the same degree of religious tolerance that is customary in the West.”

Suppression of expression is paramount in the Islamic world.  Yet, in Europe, as affirmed by Giulio Meotti, creeping sharia has advanced steadily, too. European writers, artists and museum directors admit that they are accepting their dhimmistatus by

  • removing the art work “Persepolis” because it combines a Persian Islamic rug and a female head.
  • veiling antique Roman statues in the Vatican to avoid offending Iran’s visiting President Hassan Rouhani.
  • censoring London’s Mall Gallery exhibition titled “Passion for Freedom” because it shows a family of toy animals living in an enchanted valley while in the background another set of toy animals are dressed as ISIS, ready to invade the idyllic view.  The installation entitled “ISIS Threatens Sylvania” was eliminated because of its alleged “inflammatory” content.
  • withdrawing a portrait of the Prophet of Islam from the Victoria and Albert Museum of London because a group of Muslims protested.
  • scrapping the dedication of a new section of the Louvre in Paris concerning the artistic heritage of Eastern Christians.  Recall that Eastern Christians have been systematically decimated by the Islamic State but the Louvre caved to fear.

According to Judith Bergman “[t]he West is submitting to blasphemy laws. Denmark, for example, has apparently decided that now is the time to invoke a dusty, old blasphemy provision. Denmark still has a provision in the penal code against blasphemy, but until now, it has only been used three times. The last time was nearly half a century ago, in 1971. Denmark’s Attorney General has nevertheless just charged a man for burning a Quran.”

Although “. . . blasphemy as a criminal offence has for centuries generally been considered a relic of the past” this is no longer the case in Europe. Thus, “[i]n a largely godless society, few people take offense to blasphemous comments or acts. Christians do not descend upon alleged blasphemers with guns and knives, and publishers do not worry about ‘offending Christians.'”

But a double standard is consistently maintained whenever Islam is invoked.

Robert Spencer in his booklet titled “The Muslim Brotherhood’s  Plan: Eliminating and Destroying Western Civilization from Within” quotes Muhammad Mahdi Othman ‘Kef who made this bold announcement:

I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.  Thus, ‘the Europeans and the Americans will come into the bosom of Islam out of conviction.’

This stealth jihad has one irrevocable goal — to eliminate Western civilization, mores, culture, and ideas.

Living under constant security watch, Ayaan Hirsi Ali dares to describe what the future holds for Muslim women.  Instead of heeding her prescient words, she is prevented from speaking to college students to explain that “men such as Sayyid Qutb, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, or Osama bin Laden . . . claim that their vision, based on sharia law, is in all ways superior to the norms prevailing in the West.”  Ignored by far too many in the West is that “[i]n Saudi Arabia, a woman’s testimony is usually not accepted in criminal cases and is worth half a man’s testimony in civil cases.”  Also, “[i]n Iran, married women cannot leave the country without their husband’s permission. After a child is seven years old, custody of the child automatically goes to the father [.] A mother also loses custody of her young children if she remarries. In 2016, the chair of Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology, an important advisory body, sanctioned ‘light’ wife-beating.”

And while feminist academics in the West would be expected to highlight this abuse, “or at least to enable students to think through the consequences of implementing sharia measures such as we see in Iran and Saudi Arabia” such is not the case. Instead, “[i]t is striking how many American university professors and students reject any analysis of a real conflict between enlightened Western values and unreformed sharia, even as Western civilization is mocked and its many contributions to human freedom and gender equality cynically dismissed.”

In fact, the left and the jihadist appear to be joined at the hip. This, despite recent reports in the international news media of gay men being jailed, murdered or tortured in the Russian republic of Chechnya, which is “a hotbed of Islamic honor killings, usually of young women, but of gay men as well.”

Michael Lucas, founder of New York’s largest gay adult film company, “referred to reports of gay men being murdered by relatives in Islamic honor killings in the Middle East, Europe, and at times the U.S.” Lucas asserts that he is referring to the Muslim world when he uses the word barbarians. He emphasizes that

We will not be able to change them but we have to protect our world and our way of life as vigorously as they protect their way of life. And yes immigration is a problem. Yes, on the left this is a very unpopular opinion. If we are taking (refugees and immigrants) we should not take from the pool of people that is so hostile to us. You know, people, they’re saying on the left, well, bring them here and they will enjoy our freedom and they will embrace gays. No, stay there, learn how to love gays and then come here.”

How many more atrocities and assaults on our way of life will it take for people to understand that sharia is an existential threat to our freedoms and our civilization?

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

Rita Panahi: Muslim video condones domestic violence the Left won’t touch

Reem Allouche and Atika Latifi stirred up controversy when they discussed how husbands could beat their wives in a Hizb ut-Tahrir video.

Herald Sun, by Rita Panahi, April 16, 2017:

IT’S hard to imagine anything more ludicrous than two Muslim women trying to defend their faith against claims of misogyny, by discussing the implements that husbands can use to beat their misbehaving wives and describing the abuse as “a beautiful blessing”.

Striking a blow for women’s rights everywhere, the women demonstrated the correct manner in which they should be hit and the type of tools appropriate for the job, including a small stick.

If it was a comedy skit it would bring the house down, but sadly what was posted on Facebook by the Women of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia was a serious discussion that served only to show the deep gulf that exists between devout adherents of the Koran and the Australian mainstream.

Atika Latifi was keen to dispel the notion that Islam has a women problem. She did that by advising the veiled female audience in Lakemba, and those watching the video, that wives who display “disobedience to the husband” can be hit, but only after being scolded and deprived of sex: “Advise them first; leave them alone in bed; and hit them. He is permitted, not obliged, not encouraged, but permitted to hit her. That is what everyone is talking about. It should not cause pain. Not harsh.”

Fellow panellist Reem Allouche, who disturbingly identifies herself as a primary school teacher, agreed that a husband disciplining his wife could “promote tranquillity” and that “Islam is not gender biased”.

Allouche told the audience that a husband could hit his wife if she strayed from the teachings of the Koran because “he loves his wife, he fears for his wife, it’s almost a natural consequence”.

Feeling empowered yet, ladies?

It’s easy to dismiss Hizb ut-Tahrir as extremists whose views are not shared by the wider Muslim community, but the fact remains that the discussion between Allouche and Latifi came after prominent Muslim leader Keysar Trad caused outage by saying husbands could hit their wives “as a last resort” if buying chocolates and flowers didn’t fix the problem.

It’s also worth remembering it was Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi that ABC host Yassmin Abdel-Magied sought advice from after her appearance on Q&A, where she claimed that Islam was “the most feminist religion”.

Yet there are no outraged feminists, Muslim or otherwise, aiming at the group’s meetings and lectures. The courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali — herself a victim of FGM, who campaigns for subjugated women in the Muslim world — was a target of Australian feminists but the hate preaching of Hizb ut-Tahrir doesn’t result in online video campaigns or street protests.

Trad, often presented as the moderate spokesmen for the Muslim community, is president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and a married father of nine who has spoken openly about his desire to take a second wife. Displaying incredible chutzpah, Trad was on Nine News to condemn the attitude of the women in the video. But simply attacking the women and ignoring the problematic passages in the Koran is too convenient.

If we are serious about tackling such viewpoints then we must look deeper at the belief system that not only permits but encourages this type of submission.

A statement by the Australian Muslim Collaborative claimed that “Islam categorically prohibits and denounces the abuse of women” and “any promotion of violence is against the spirit and letter of Islam”. But anyone familiar with history and the Koran would snicker at that.

Sheik Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, is one of the most influential scholars in the world and is among many Islamic theologians who are clear about how the Koran’s teachings about husbands disciplining wives should be interpreted.

“It is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas,” Al-Qaradawi explains.

“To be specific, one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behaviour and if he sees deviation only in what she must do or obey in relation to him.”

The AMC statement was signed by 30 prominent Muslims, including the president of the Australian National Imams Council, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, who in the past has expressed disturbing views about women, homosexuals and jihad, and The Project host and “terrorism expert” Waleed Aly who, despite being a lecturer at Monash University’s Global Terrorism Research Centre, speculated that the Boston bombings were the work of homegrown “American patriots” and seems bewildered about what motivates the Islamist terrorists of Boko Haram.

It’s extraordinary that Sheik Shady, who has said AIDS is a divine punishment for homosexuals, women should be “hung by their breasts in hell” and those guilty of adultery should be stoned to death, is judging the women in the video.

It’s also perverse that at a time when efforts to combat domestic violence see preschoolers exposed to contentious gender theories in the hope that they don’t one day become perpetrators or victims of violence against women, we have clear examples of ugly, problematic attitudes all but ignored by activists.

The Left’s disdain for the values that underpin Western secular democracies sees them continually give cover to Islamists. They would do well to heed Hirsi Ali’s words: “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”

Nashville-Murfreesboro-Franklin Metro Area One of Top 20 Places in U.S. Where Women and Girls at Risk for Female Genital Mutilation

The Tennessee Star, by Chris Alto, April 14, 2017:

Tennessee outlawed female genital mutilation (FGM) in 1996, but 2013 data collated in a Population Reference Bureau (PRB) report, shows that the Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin Metropolitan Statistical Area is ranked 20th in the country for the potential risk of FGM being performed on women and girls. Tennessee is number 18 in overall state rankings for risk to women and girls from FGM.

The Population Reference Bureau is a non-profit supported financially by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Girl Scouts of the USA, and the United States Agency for International Development and several other foundations.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) includes the terms FGM, female circumcision and female genital excision, under the broader heading of “female genital cutting:”

“Female genital cutting refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of female genitalia or other injury to female genital organs for any cultural, religious or otherwise nontherapeutic reasons. This practice is common in many refugee populations, particularly those from East Africa (i.e. Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan), although the practice is pervasive throughout the world. This controversial practice is considered a human rights violation by many, and it is illegal in the United States in people under 18 years of age.” 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, the metropolitan area with the largest Somali community in the country, ranks number 3 in the list of top 20 metro areas for FGM. Columbus, Ohio, the metropolitan area with the second largest Somali community in the country, ranks number 7 in the list of top 20 metro areas for FGM.

In Tennessee, FGM was criminalized in 1996 when Democrats Sen. Thelma Harper and Rep. Lois DeBerry (deceased), passed the “Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996” for the following reasons:

“WHEREAS, female genital mutilation is defended by both men and women in the cultures where it is practiced as a rite of passage and a social prerequisite of marriage as well as a method to control a woman’s sexuality; and

WHEREAS, while female genital mutilation is prevalent in many African and Middle Eastern countries, it also is found in some Asian countries and among immigrant populations in Western Europe and North America; and

WHEREAS, due to the immigration of people from countries where female genital mutilation is practiced, the mutilation has continued to take place in the United States. Usually the immigrants will either send their daughters back to the native country to have female genital mutilation performed or a group of them will pay to bring a midwife to the United States to perform the painful procedure on their young daughters…”

Federal contractors in Tennessee have been resettling refugees from countries including Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sudan, listed in the PRB report as among the “Top 10 Countries of Origin” where FGM is practiced.

Updating 1990 FGM risk in the U.S. estimates to 2012, the Center for Disease Control 2016 Public Health Report showed that “the total number of women and girls in the United States at risk for FGM/C or its consequences increased by 224%, from 168,000 to 545,000” concluding that:

“The estimated increase was wholly a result of rapid growth in the number of immigrants from FGM/C-practicing countries living in the United States.”

Despite being a crime in Tennessee since 1996, in 2011, twenty-one cases of FGM were reported in Tennessee. In 2012, Sen. Bill Ketron and Rep. Jeremy Faison updated the law to require that healthcare providers report cases of FGM to law enforcement.

This week, a doctor in Detroit was arrested for allegedly performing FGM on young girls brought to her from Minnesota.

U.S. based pediatrician and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Hatem Elhagaly (AKA “Hatem Al Haj”), listed as an Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) “scholar” issued a “fatwa” (an authoritative ruling on Islamic law) in 2006, saying that Islam sanctioned FGM as “better for the husband” and acknowledged that “the majority of the scholars regard [FGM] (preferable sunnah), some regard it allowable and some consider it wajib (obligatory)…” but advised that because FGM is illegal in the West, it should not be performed.

AMJA’s website states that it is a non-profit organization, “established in response to the growing need of an Islamic jurisprudence specific to Muslims in the West.” Fatwas issued by JAMare the “decisions and recommendations” issued by their scholars and experts and are intended to guide Muslims living in the West.

“AMJA’s influence reaches far beyond the walls of mosques and Islamic Centers. Its work strengthens the moral character of society by developing the leadership capacities of Imams (religious leaders). Equipped with continued passion and tenacity to their work, AMJA scholars, experts, and Imams lead the Muslim community into a better understanding of the practice of the religion of Islam in Western societies.”

Memphis cleric Yasir Qadhi, resident scholar at the Memphis Islamic Center and Dean of Academic Affairs of AlMaghrib Institute, is listed among “our experts” by the AMJA and is a regular presenter at the annual imam training conferences the organization hosts.

***

Also see:

CAIR’s Shibly Defends Islamic Apostasy Death Laws

Africa Security, April 16, 2017

CAIR’s Hassan Shibly is the ‘Boy Terrorist’ because the UAE declared CAIR a terrorist organization and a Federal Judge declared CAIR an un-indicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist funding trial in US History.

This video exposes the duplicity of Hassan Shibly, CAIR, and most importantly the true insidious nature of Islamic apostasy laws.

Hassan Shibly after hearing the gut wrenching story of how a young Dr. Masood was nearly killed by his parents and neighbors for converting from Islam to Christianity was handed a softball question by Mr. Kornman.

Hassan Shibly had the opportunity to condemn the Islamic apostasy laws that have brought much pain and suffering to millions over the last 1400 years. Instead, Mr. Shibly chose to imply that Dr. Masood was a liar and confirmed this by running away from Dr. Masood rather than engaging him in honest dialogue for the world to see.

I have heard Hassan Shibly and many other followers of Islam tell Western audiences that Islam is a religion of peace because the Qur’an says there is no compulsion in religion.

In an Egyptian TV interview Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most respected leaders in Sunni Islam said, ” If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today. Islam would have ended since the death of the prophet, peace be upon him. Opposing apostasy is what kept Islam to this day.”

It is these very same Islamic apostasy laws that hold Islam together through fear.

If the apostate is not killed for his apostasy, it is likely his/her family will disown them severing every familial and business lifeline the individual has ever known inside their community.

The fear of death for apostasy is a very strong motivator to keep the the followers of Islam in line to this day.

It is time for people of conscience to publicly condemn Islamic apostasy laws.

Codified Islamic texts, Umdat al-Salik aka Reliance Of The Traveller page 595 has Ijma or Consensus among Islamic scholars states, “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

o8.4 Reliance of the Traveller, p. 596 states, “There is no indemnity for killing an apostate, or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die.”

o8.4 says that there is no punishment for any Muslim who kills an apostate because that is killing someone who deserves to die.

If a Muslim leaves Islam it falls on that apostates family to kill the offender. If the family does not uphold their honor and kill the apostate then the responsibility falls on the immediate family, cousins, and then the community at large.

According to Islamic law there is no time limit for the execution order to be carried out, by anyone.

Now that you know the context of Islamic Apostasy Laws it becomes easier to understand why Hassan Shibly behaved as he did in this video.

Hassan Shibly and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) understand the severity and importance of Islamic apostasy laws, causing Mr. Shibly to ‘run away’ from talking with Dr. Masood on camera.

Islamic apostasy laws are Not compatible with our man made laws.

This is why Hassan Shibly’s gut reaction was to deny Dr. Masood’s story and requiring “verification”. Yet with Dr. Masood being no less than 20 feet from where this video was filmed, Mr. Shibly’s only safe play was to run away rather than confront and defend Islamic apostasy laws by engaging one on one with a man who nearly lost his life because of those same Islamic apostasy laws.

When I called Shibly a liar to his face he had two options. Most men would turn around and deny the charge of being called a liar with righteous indignation defending his honor, or run away.

Hassan Shibly, in this video, is the perfect object lesson of how a Muslim leader acts when being put in the position of having to defend his own words and the draconian Islamic apostasy laws.

Dr. Masood is 100% right when he says at 2:54 that the true nature of Islamic apostasy laws, “…paints not a good picture in the Western mind.”

It is time for individuals living in the West to condemn Islamic Apostasy Laws. More importantly, it is time for devout Muslims of conscience to render these archaic and horrific apostasy laws to the dustbin of history where they belong.

This topic is so important it doesn’t matter if you are liberal, conservative, communist, marxist, or even an anarchist – Islamic apostasy laws apply to each equally.

I hate to tell all you non-Muslims out there this but – Islamic Law is applicable to you as well especially when it comes to Islamic blasphemy laws.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Troops.

Minneapolis Muslims protest ‘sharia’ vigilante in Cedar-Riverside area

Abdullah Rashid, 22, a Georgia native who moved to Cedar-Riverside last year, says his group, General Presidency of the Religious Affairs and Welfare of the Ummah, is trying to enforce what he calls “the civil part of the sharia law” in the area.

Star Tribune, by Faiza Mahamud, April 13, 2017:

A man trying to impose what he calls “the civil part of the sharia law” in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis has sparked anger among local residents and Muslim leaders.

Abdullah Rashid, 22, a Georgia native who moved to Cedar-Riverside last year, has been making the rounds in the Somali-dominated neighborhood, telling people not to drink, use drugs or interact with the opposite sex. If he sees Muslim women he believes are dressed inappropriately, he approaches them and suggests they should wear a jilbab, a long, flowing garment. And he says he’s recruiting others to join the effort.

But local Muslim leaders are sounding the alarm. They are working to stop Rashid’s group, General Presidency of the Religious Affairs and Welfare of the Ummah, and have notified Minneapolis police, who say he’s being banned from a Cedar-Riverside property. Some say the group is preying on vulnerable young Muslims in a community that has dealt with national scrutiny around radicalization and terrorism.

“What he’s doing is wrong and doesn’t reflect the community at all,” said Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Minneapolis police received reports in February from concerned residents who saw Rashid in a dark green uniform that said “Muslim Defense Force” and “Religious Police” and had two flags associated with ISIS and other terrorist groups.

“We’ve had conversations with community members that live over there,” said Officer Corey Schmidt, a police spokesman. “Sometimes it takes a little bit of time to deal with it, but it’s something we’ve been monitoring.”

Abdullah Rashid is trying to enforce what he calls “the civil part of the sharia law.”

Jeff Van Nest, an FBI spokesman for Minneapolis, declined to comment.

In a recent interview, Rashid said he aims to turn Cedar-Riverside into a “sharia-controlled zone” where Muslims are learning about the proper practices of Islam and that “non-Muslims are asked to respect” it.

“People who don’t know me would say I’m a terrorist,” he said. “I’m someone who’s dedicated to Islam and trying to help the community all ways I can.”

But the Islamic Institute of Minnesota issued a statement Wednesday saying Rashid “does not in any way speak for the Islamic Institute of Minnesota or the Muslims in Minnesota.”

“We consider this matter as a dangerous precedent and a threat in our country and our way of life,” the statement said. “We ask our law enforcement agencies to consider this grave matter to protect Minnesotans.”

Permit to carry denied

Sharia law is a guide to daily life for practicing Muslims, derived from the Qur’an and the teachings of the prophet Mohammed. It tells Muslims, for example, what to eat and not to eat. Its interpretation and practice vary around the world.

Rashid, who was previously known as Devon James Miller, converted to Islam in 2009. He said he first started the religious police group in Georgia in 2013, and wants to grow it internationally.

He married a Somali-American woman, who had recently moved from Wyoming to Minneapolis, in 2015. They moved to Cedar-Riverside in 2016.

In late 2016, he applied for a permit to carry a handgun, which was denied by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, saying there was evidence that he is a danger to himself and others if allowed a permit to carry a gun.

Rashid sued, and court documents show he has had run-ins with law enforcement in the past. He was arrested as a juvenile in Walton County, Ga., for impersonating a police officer, and a school district reported he had harassed a 16-year-old classmate on Facebook, according to the documents. The school district report mentioned he had mental health issues, and his mother said he had been suicidal.

Rashid’s lawsuit was dismissed in March. He said he does not have a mental illness, and his wife, Kadro Abdullahi, said that Rashid is not mentally ill and that she supports his work. “He’s a man with a good personality and he loves Islam,” Abdullahi said.

But residents of the Cedar-Riverside Plaza complex have raised concerns about him, and management with Sherman Associates said they are aware of the group and working closely with law enforcement.

On Wednesday, Minneapolis police said the Cedar-Riverside Towers’ management is in the process of evicting Rashid, and security at Cedar-Riverside Plaza is advising him he’s not allowed to patrol the neighborhood or they will cite him for trespassing.

‘Against his ideas’

Rashid, who initially said he was working with Minneapolis police, said he is continuing his effort to provide security and protect Muslims’ civil rights. He said he has enlisted a group of 10 men, ages 18 and 25, to help him patrol the area.

Meanwhile some in the community are confused about what Rashid is doing.

Salma Mohamed, a mother of four, met with him recently at Brian Coyle Community Center, seeking advice on a custody case. A friend had referred her to Rashid, unaware of his controversial activities. She was startled by his uniform, she said, and his talk about terrorism and the young Muslim men who were convicted of trying to join ISIS.

“I was expecting the guy was a lawyer,” Mohamed said. “He just brought up things that weren’t even on the discussion table.”

On his website, Rashid posted a video titled “Never Trust Non-Muslims” by Anwar al-Awlaki, leader of an Al-Qaida affiliate in Yemen, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011. And he had initially listed the Masjid Shaafici Cultural Center in Cedar-Riverside address as his organization’s headquarters.

But the imam of that mosque, Abdighani Ali, said it has nothing to do with Rashid’s group. Ali said he plans to file a complaint with police.

“We’re against his ideas,” Ali said. “We always encourage our community to be a part of the society.”

Also see:

UTT Throwback Thursday: Sharia Overseas is Same Sharia in U.S.

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, April 13, 2017:

In the wake of the Palm Sunday killings of Christians in two churches in Egypt by Muslims, UTT repeated the truth that what happens overseas is happening or will happen here.

In the U.S., sharia-compliant behavior in the Muslim community is common.  This behavior includes: adult men marrying pre-teen girls, pedophilia, using zakat payments to fund jihad (“terrorism”), female genital mutilation, and others.

Attacking Christians is also sharia compliant.  It is lawful in Islam to do what the two Muslims did in Egypt last Sunday (Palm Sunday).  It is happening here as well.

This week, Khalil Abu Rayyan – a Muslim from the Detroit, Michigan area – pled guilty to weapons charges related to his plan to attack a Christian church and a hospital, as well as behead non-Muslims and skin them “like sheep.”

Read the Criminal Complaint for Rayyan HERE.

Where did Rayyan get the idea to kill and behead Christians?

From the most widely used text book on Islam used in U.S. Islamic junior high schools – What Islam is All About:  “Islam is not a religion, however, but a complete way of life…The basis of the legal and political system is the Shari’ah of Allah…The duty of Muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

What Islam is All About also has this to say about Jews and Christians:

“The Jews and the Christians are invited by Allah to examine and accept His last revelation.  If any do so, they will be fulfilling the ultimate purpose of all the Prophets.  If they reject it arrogantly and say Allah only sent revelation to them, then they close their hearts and invite destruction upon themselves.” (p. 82)

Sharia (Islamic Law) clearly states:  “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…”  (Um Dat al Salik, Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, o9.8)

Koran 5:51 legally controls relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, and states:  “O you who believe! Do not take friends from the Jews and the Christians, as they are but friends of each other.  And if any among you befriends them, then surely, he is one of them…”

The Tafsir legally defines every verse in the Koran.  Referring to Koran 5:51, the most authoritative Tafsir in Islam, Tafsir Ibn Kathir states:  “Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them.”

So a reasonable person can see where Khalil Abu Rayyan and others might learn to hate Christians and Jews.

So where did Rayyan get the idea to behead Christians?

“God revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.’” (Koran 8:12)

“When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads.” (Koran 47:4)

The most authoritative biography of Islam’s prophet Mohammad – The Life of Mohammad, by Ibn Ishaq – records that Mohammad participated in beheading 900 Jews at the Battle of the Trench.  Since the Koran commands Muslims to follow the “perfect example” of Mohammad for all time, it is easy to see how they might believe they are commanded to behead non-Muslims.

What happens overseas is happening or will happen here.  The Muslim Jihadis are doing what their god Allah commands them to do in the Koran and what their prophet set as a “perfect example” for them.

Where is the misunderstanding?  Where is the gray area?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islam’s Most Eloquent Apostate

ILLUSTRATION: ZINA SAUNDERS

WSJ, by Tunku Varadarajan, April 7, 2017:

The woman sitting opposite me, dressed in a charcoal pantsuit and a duck-egg-blue turtleneck, can’t go anywhere, at any time of day, without a bodyguard. She is soft-spoken and irrepressibly sane, but also—in the eyes of those who would rather cut her throat than listen to what she says—the most dangerous foe of Islamist extremism in the Western world. We are in a secure room at a sprawling university, but the queasiness in my chest takes a while to go away. I’m talking to a woman with multiple fatwas on her head, someone who has a greater chance of meeting a violent end than anyone I’ve met (Salman Rushdie included). And yet she’s wholly poised, spectacles pushed back to rest atop her head like a crown, dignified and smiling under siege.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia in 1969, is Islam’s most eloquent apostate. She has just published a slim book that seeks to add a new four-letter word—dawa—to the West’s vocabulary. It describes the ceaseless, world-wide ideological campaign waged by Islamists as a complement to jihad. It is, she says, the greatest threat facing the West and “could well bring about the end of the European Union as we know it.” America is far from immune, and her book, “The Challenge of Dawa,” is an explicit attempt to persuade the Trump administration to adopt “a comprehensive anti-dawa strategy before it is too late.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali has come a long way from the days when she—“then a bit of a hothead”—declared Islam to be incapable of reform, while also calling on Muslims to convert or abandon religion altogether. That was a contentious decade ago. Today she believes that Islam can indeed be reformed, that it must be reformed, and that it can be reformed only by Muslims themselves—by those whom she calls “Mecca Muslims.” These are the faithful who prefer the gentler version of Islam that she says was “originally promoted by Muhammad” before 622. That was the year he migrated to Medina and the religion took a militant and unlovely ideological turn.

At the same time, Ms. Hirsi Ali—now a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, where I also work—is urging the West to look at Islam with new eyes. She says it must be viewed “not just as a religion, but also as a political ideology.” To regard Islam merely as a faith, “as we would Christianity or Buddhism, is to run the risk of ignoring dawa, the activities carried out by Islamists to keep Muslims energized by a campaign to impose Shariah law on all societies—including countries of the West.”

Dawa, Ms. Hirsi Ali explains, is “conducted right under our noses in Europe, and in America. It aims to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and also to push existing Muslims in a more extreme direction.” The ultimate goal is “to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with Shariah.” It is a “never-ending process,” she says, and then checks herself: “It ends when an Islamic utopia is achieved. Shariah everywhere!”

Ms. Hirsi Ali contends that the West has made a colossal mistake by its obsession with “terror” in the years since 9/11. “In focusing only on acts of violence,” she says, “we’ve ignored the Islamist ideology underlying those acts. By not fighting a war of ideas against political Islam—or ‘Islamism’—and against those who spread that ideology in our midst, we’ve committed a blunder.”

There is a knock on the door. I hear hushed voices outside, presumably her bodyguard telling someone to come back later. To add to the mildly dramatic effect, a siren is audible somewhere in the distance, unusual for the serene Stanford campus. Ms. Hirsi Ali is unfazed. “What the Islamists call jihad,” she continues, “is what we call terrorism, and our preoccupation with it is, I think, a form of overconfidence. ‘Terrorism is the way of the weak,’ we tell ourselves, ‘and if we can just take out the leaders and bring down al Qaeda or ISIS, then surely the followers will stop their jihad.’ But we’re wrong. Every time Western leaders take down a particular organization, you see a different one emerge, or the same one take on a different shape. And that’s because we’ve been ignoring dawa.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali wants us to get away from this game of jihadi Whac-A-Mole and confront “the enemy that is in plain sight—the activists, the Islamists, who have access to all the Western institutions of socialization.” She chuckles here: “That’s a horrible phrase . . . ‘institutions of socialization’ . . . but they’re there, in families, in schools, in universities, prisons, in the military as chaplains. And we can’t allow them to pursue their aims unchecked.”

America needs to be on full alert against political Islam because “its program is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution”—with religious pluralism, the equality of men and women, and other fundamental rights, including the toleration of different sexual orientations. “When we say the Islamists are homophobic,” she observes, “we don’t mean that they don’t like gay marriage. We mean that they want gays put to death.”

Islam the religion, in Ms. Hirsi Ali’s view, is a Trojan horse that conceals Islamism the political movement. Since dawa is, ostensibly, a religious missionary activity, its proponents “enjoy a much greater protection by the law in free societies than Marxists or fascists did in the past.” Ms. Hirsi Ali is not afraid to call these groups out. Her book names five including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which asserts—and in turn receives in the mainstream media—the status of a moderate Muslim organization. But groups like CAIR, Ms. Hirsi Ali says, “take advantage of the focus on ‘inclusiveness’ by progressive political bodies in democratic societies, and then force these societies to bow to Islamist demands in the name of peaceful coexistence.”

Her strategy to fight dawa evokes several parallels with the Western historical experience of radical Marxism and the Cold War. Islamism has the help of “useful idiots”—Lenin’s phrase—such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has denounced Ms. Hirsi Ali as an “extremist.” She sees that smear as a success for dawa: “They go to people like the SPLC and say, ‘Can we partner with you, because we also want to talk about what you guys talk about, which is civil rights. And Muslims are a minority, just like you.’ So, they play this victim card, and the SPLC swallows it. And it’s not just them, it’s also the ACLU. The Islamists are infiltrating all these institutions that were historic and fought for rights. It’s a liberal blind spot.”

Western liberals, she says, are also complicit in an Islamist cultural segregation. She recalls a multiculturalist catchphrase from her years as a Somali refugee in Amsterdam in the early 1990s: “ ‘Integrate with your own identity,’ they used to tell us—Integratie met eigen identiteit. Of course, that resulted in no integration at all.”

Ms. Hirsi Ali wants the Trump administration—and the West more broadly—to counter the dawa brigade “just as we countered both the Red Army and the ideology of communism in the Cold War.” She is alarmed by the ease with which, as she sees it, “the agents of dawa hide behind constitutional protections they themselves would dismantle were they in power.” She invokes Karl Popper, the great Austrian-British philosopher who wrote of “the paradox of tolerance.” Her book quotes Popper writing in 1945: “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

I ask Ms. Hirsi Ali what her solution might be, and she leans once more on Popper, who proposed a right not to tolerate the intolerant. “Congress must give the president—this year, because there’s no time to lose—the tools he needs to dismantle the infrastructure of dawa in the U.S.” Dawa has become an existential menace to the West, she adds, because its practitioners are “working overtime to prevent the assimilation of Muslims into Western societies. It is assimilation versus dawa. There is a notion of ‘cocooning,’ by which Islamists tell Muslim families to cocoon their children from Western society. This can’t be allowed to happen.”

Is Ms. Hirsi Ali proposing to give Washington enhanced powers to supervise parenting? “Yes,” she says. “We want these children to be exposed to critical thinking, freedom, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rights of women.” She also suggests subjecting immigrants and refugees to ideological scrutiny, so as to deny entry, residence and naturalization to those “involved with, or supportive of, Islamism.”

In effect, Ms. Hirsi Ali would modernize the “communism test” that still applies to those seeking naturalization. “I had to answer questions when I applied for citizenship in 2013: ‘Are you, or have you ever been, a communist?’ And I remember thinking, ‘God, that was the war back then. We’re supposed to update this stuff!’ Potential immigrants from Pakistan or Bangladesh, for instance, should have to answer questions—‘Are you a member of the Jamat?’ and so on. If they’re from the Middle East you ask them about the Muslim Brotherhood, ‘or any other similar group,’ so there’s no loophole.”

Might critics deride this as 21st-century McCarthyism? “That’s just a display of intellectual laziness,” Ms. Hirsi Ali replies. “We’re dealing here with a lethal ideological movement and all we are using is surveillance and military means? We have to grasp the gravity of dawa. Jihad is an extension of dawa. For some, in fact, it is dawa by other means.”

The U.S., she believes, is in a “much weaker position to combat the various forms of nonviolent extremism known as dawa because of the way that the courts have interpreted the First Amendment”—a situation where American exceptionalism turns into what she calls an “exceptional handicap.” Convincing Americans of this may be the hardest part of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s campaign, and she knows it. Yet she asks whether the judicial attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s—themselves a reaction to the excesses of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s—might have left the U.S. ill-equipped to suppress threats from groups that act in the name of religion.

I ask Ms. Hirsi Ali if there’s any one thing she would wish for. “I would like to be present at a conversation between Popper and Muhammad,” she says. “Popper wrote about open society and its enemies, and subjected everyone from Plato to Marx to his critical scrutiny. I’d have liked him to subject Muhammad’s legacy to the same analysis.

“But he skipped Muhammad, alas. He skipped Muhammad.”

Mr. Varadarajan is a research fellow in journalism at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

***

***

Also see: