Can’t we talk? No, we can’t

Bomb Throwers, by James Simpson, Sept. 9, 2017:

There is a new film out by Pamela Geller, Can’t We Talk About This? Those were the last words spoken by Theo Van Gogh as he was being murdered at 9 in the morning on a main thoroughfare in Amsterdam. I urge you to watch and support this film.

Van Gogh was a good friend of Pam’s. He had just completed a short film with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, titled Submission. It describes the treatment of women under Islam. Mohammed Bouyeri, a  Moroccan-Dutch Muslim, took offense at the film and shot Van Gogh as he was riding to work on his bike. Bouyeri then stabbed Van Gogh, cutting his neck in an attempt to behead him. He used a second knife to pin a note on Van Gogh’s body.

The note was addressed to Ali and others, including Jews, Netherlands politicians, and a long list of the usual suspects. Fraught with misspellings, the five-page letter started:

Dear miss Hirshi Ali,

Since your appearence in the political arena of the Netherlands you are constantly engaging in terrorizing Muslims and Islam with your remarks. You are not the first at this and will also not be the last who has joined the crusade against Islam.

With your defection you have not only turned your back on the Truth, but you also march along the ranks of the soldiers of evil. You mince no words about your hostility against Islam, and for this your masters have rewarded you with a seat in parliament.

They have found in you a companion in their crusade against Islam and Muslims.

A companion who gives them the “gunpowder” so they don’t have to do the dirty work…

Did you catch that? Hirsi Ali is terrorizing Muslims by talking about her treatment at their hands.

Right.

I would like to believe Mr. Bouyeri is just a maladjusted lunatic, but unfortunately he represents a familiar mindset and temperament among Muslims. A September 7th Time magazine interview quotes Yahya Cholil Staquf, one of Indonesia’s most influential Islamic leaders. What he says is so important I have reproduced a few of the Q & As here. It is especially important given Time magazine’s reach and its liberal readership:

Q:  Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?

A:  Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Q:  What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?

A:  The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.

Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century. (Emphasis added)

I put that last sentence in italics because in my Red-Green Axis presentations, I stress the inability of many Muslim refugees to assimilate. In fact, their goal is not assimilation but conquest. The interview continues:

Q:  A Western politician would likely be accused of racism for saying what you just said.

A:  I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. (Emphasis added)

Here again, Staquf reinforces my assertion that Muslims do not want to assimilate.

Leftists and establishment Republicans (but I repeat myself) claim that terrorist groups like ISIS are un-Islamic – that they have somehow “hijacked” an otherwise peaceful religion. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster asserts this in his defense of Islam. (Note: my exposé of McMaster reveals much more about this horribly unacceptable Trump advisor). Staquf has a blunt answer to this belief (italicized portions are my emphases):

Q:  So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?

A:  No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.

I cannot reproduce more of this interview here. Suffice it to say there are many more gems and I urge you to read the whole thing. I can only imagine the Time reporter’s pique at these repeated assaults on his idiotic, politically correct, left-wing presumptions. So as you might imagine, he had to get at least one swipe in against conservatives. He did so with his last question. But he got bitch-slapped on that one too: 

Q:  I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.

A:  And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.

“This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.” So here we have a very influential Muslim confirming everything we “Islamophobes” say about CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the whole Red-Green Axis infrastructure. Amen brother! We are sick of being called Islamophobes for telling the truth by spineless cowards afraid of their own shadows.

In her documentary, Can’t We Talk About This? Pam Geller communicates this message in her inimitably convincing manner. This is a must-see film, available for viewing on Vimeo now.

This message needs to get out.

Editor’s note: The idea that Islam can be viewed through the political lens of left versus right is a highly dubious proposition. See this article I wrote in 2013. -MV

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and author. His latest book is The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.

First Look: Pamela Geller Bus Ads for ‘Can’t We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech’ (Exclusive)

Pamela Geller/AFDI

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Sept. 5, 2017:

Thanks to a Muslim hate group, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), can run our pro-freedom ads again in New York City.

AFDI has tangled with New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority on more than one occasion. They refused to run our ads, we sued multiple times, and we won multiple times. So for the first time in NYC transit history, the MTA banned political and issue related ads: the Geller ban.

But then a Muslim hate group wanted to run ads for their political film despite the ban, so they, too, sued the city, claiming that their political movie, The Muslims Are Coming, was not a political or issue related ad. They sued and they won, and all I can say is thank you.

Because of this Muslim lawsuit, we can run our ads again. And so we have. And they are brilliant.

My new ads announce the imminent release of Can’t We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech, a shocking new film and follow-up video series detailing the concerted effort by international organizations to compel the U.S. and other Western countries to curtail the freedom of speech and criminalize criticism of Islam.

Featuring exclusive new interviews with me, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, Ezra Levant, Lars Vilks, Garland Muhammad cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin, and many other heroes of freedom, this web series will be the first ever to expose the war on free speech. It is certain to shock the American public and awaken many. These interviews reveal events at Garland and its aftermath that have never before been made public, and demonstrate how far advanced the war on free speech really is.

In this film, we’re setting the record straight about our Garland free speech event, at which we were not only targeted by Islamic jihadis but apparently by the FBI as well. But we’re doing much more as well: we’re telling the whole, as-yet-untold truth about the war on free speech.

Hollywood will never tell this story. The media will never tell this story. Our public schools and universities will never teach our children what happened. The truth must be told.

Can’t We Talk About This? is a follow-up to AFDI’s acclaimed 2011 documentary, The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks. This much-needed new web series gives viewers the inside story of what happened in Garland and why, and lays out the full and appalling details of the all-out assault on the freedom of speech that is taking place today – and why this may be the most crucial battleground today in the war for the survival of the United States of America as a free republic.

The web series also features seldom-seen news footage and revealing details not only of the Garland event and the jihad killers who wanted to wage jihad there, but also of the many other battlegrounds in the war for free speech that led up to the Garland attack, including the death fatwa issued in 1989 by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Salman Rushdie for his supposed blasphemy in The Satanic Verses; the assassination of Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim on an Amsterdam street in November 2004 for his alleged blasphemy; the Dutch newspaper Jyllands Posten’s cartoons of Muhammad, published in September 2005, which touched off international riots and killings by Muslims – and most disturbing of all, calls in the West for restrictions on the freedom of speech; the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s years-long struggle at the UN to compel the West to criminalize “incitement to religious hatred” (a euphemism for criticism of Islam); and the U.S. under Obama signing on to UNCHR Resolution 16/18, which calls on member states to work to restrict incitement to religious hatred.

Can’t We Talk About This? also covers lesser-known skirmishes in the war against free speech as well, such as Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris’ “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in 2010, after which Norris was forced to go into hiding and change her identity after threats. And it traces what immediately led up to the Garland event – most notably, the January 2015 massacre of Muhammad cartoonists at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris and the subsequent “Stand with the Prophet” event in Garland, at which Muslim groups gathered in the wake of that massacre not to defend free speech, but to complain about “Islamophobia,” while AFDI members and supporters protested outside.

We set out the media firestorm that followed the Garland event, as well as the attempts to kill me, and explain why the event’s detractors were all missing the point: the freedom of speech doesn’t apply only if you like the message; it applies to everyone. And if it is gone, so is a free society.

Can’t We Talk About This? tells the whole horrifying story of how advanced the Islamic war on free speech is, and how close leftist and Islamic authoritarians are to final victory and the death of the freedom of speech and free society.

Don’t miss the exclusive advance screening of Can’t We Talk About This? on September 5 on VIMEO. And if you’re in New York City, watch for our truth-telling ads. And please help us meet the massive expenses of our truth campaigns: contribute here.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Also see:

Did the FBI Want Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Dead?

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, March 30, 2017:

60 Minutes ran a feature Sunday night about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

60 Minutes also gave a nod to Sharia blasphemy laws by describing the contest as “provocative.” It was an art exhibit, featuring historical and modern images of Muhammad, some created by Muslims. It was only provocative to Muslims who believe in Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy (and brainwashed dhimmis). Was 60 Minutes implying endorsement of that death penalty? Why, yes. If our event was provocative, the shooters were justifiably provoked.

Meanwhile, CBS gave a lot of space to Usama Shami, the imam of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, from which the jihadis came, allowing him to exonerate the mosque of any responsibility for “radicalizing” the jihad attackers. 60 Minutes didn’t mention what Simpson’s friend Courtney Lonergan told the Arizona Republic: “Simpson would never waver from the teachings he picked up in the mosque and elsewhere….He was one of those guys who would sleep at the mosque. The fact that he felt personally insulted by somebody drawing a picture had to come from the ideological rhetoric coming out of the mosque.”

60 Minutes also doesn’t challenge Shami on his lies right after the attack, when he said that the jihadis were not regular members of the mosque.

Despite all the predictable politically correct whitewashing and appeasement, CBS did a good job of highlighting a curious and still unexplained aspect of the attack: the FBI clearly knew the attack was coming (although it didn’t bother to inform us or our security team), as the FBI agent was right there, following behind the jihadis, whom he had encouraged to “tear up Texas.” But even though they knew the attack was coming, they didn’t have a team in place to stop the jihadis. They had one man there, and one man only. The jihadis were not stopped by FBI agents, but by our own security team. If the jihadis had gotten through our team, they would have killed Pamela Geller and me, and many others. (They would no doubt have loved to kill Geert Wilders, but he left before they arrived.)

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and Soofi were determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped them train, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

But what was the FBI’s game in telling them to do that? Why didn’t they have a phalanx of agents in place, ready to stop the attack? Or did they want the attack to succeed, so that Barack Obama’s vow that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” would be vividly illustrated, and intimidate any other Americans who might be contemplating defending the freedom of speech into silence?

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They have ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Man pleads guilty to plotting to help Islamic State group behead popular conservative blogger

The Blaze, Sept. 22, 2016:

BOSTON (AP) — A man charged with plotting to help the Islamic State group pleaded guilty on Thursday to conspiracy charges, including a plot to behead conservative blogger Pamela Geller.

Nicholas Rovinski, of Warwick, Rhode Island, admitted he conspired with two Massachusetts men to kill Geller and attempted to recruit others to carry out additional violent attacks in the United States. The plots were never carried out.

Conservative blogger Pamela Geller (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

Conservative blogger Pamela Geller (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

A plea agreement between Rovinski, 25, and federal prosecutors calls for a sentence of between 15 years and 22 years. Judge William Young set sentencing for March.

Rovinski, who has cerebral palsy and walks with a limp, answered softly when asked by the judge why he decided to plead guilty instead of going to trial.

“I feel that in the interest of myself and the people of the United States I should pay for the crimes that I have committed,” he said.

Prosecutors said Rovinski plotted with David Wright, of Everett, and Wright’s uncle Usaamah Rahim, of Boston, to kill Geller, who angered Muslims when she organized a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, in May 2015. The contest ended in gunfire, with two Muslim gunmen shot to death by police.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Siegmann said Rovinski told authorities after his arrest that he, Wright and Rahim had agreed to kill Geller, who’s from New York. Siegmann said Rahim later told Wright he wanted to go after “those boys in blue,” a reference to police.

Rahim, who had been under surveillance, was shot and killed by authorities on June 2, 2015, after he lunged at them with a knife when they approached him in Boston, prosecutors said. Wright has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

Siegmann said that after Rovinski’s arrest in June 2015 he sent two letters to Wright in which he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group, talked about beheading people and told Wright he had recruited a fellow inmate to help “take down” the East Coast and the U.S. government.

“Can’t wait for them juicy necks,” Rovinski wrote, a reference to beheadings, Siegmann said.

Geller called Rovinski a “murderous thug” and said he was right to plead guilty.

“He still deserves the maximum sentence — until he proves he is not a danger to human beings who don’t accept his beliefs,” she said.

Rovinski’s lawyer, William Fick, said Rovinski was a “vulnerable young man” who was “seduced by extremist ideology.”

“He has unequivocally renounced violence and renounced terrorism,” Fick said after the court hearing.

Siegmann said Islamic State recruiter Junaid Hussain communicated instructions about the plot to kill Geller directly to Rahim from overseas in May 2015. Hussain was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Syria in August 2015.

Rovinski pleaded guilty to two federal charges: conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.

Theodore Shoebat Joins the Jihad, Says ‘Pamela Geller Is Worthy of Death’

df-2Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 14, 2016:

These are times that try men’s souls, and it happens occasionally that when tried, some souls reveal that they’re not what they appear to be. Several days ago, I received an email from an FBI special agent, saying that he wanted to speak with me and asking for contact information for Pamela Geller. The agent was looking for us, he told me when he got me on the phone, because he had a duty to notify us that the bureau had picked up word that a Muslim had mentioned our names and was looking for us in order to kill us. And now that jihadi has an unlikely ally, at least in wanting Pamela Geller dead: a putative foe of jihad terror, Theodore Shoebat.

Theodore Shoebat runs the website Shoebat.com, which many take as a reliable source for news of jihad activity that the mainstream media does not deign to report. Shoebat.com, however, has a reputation for sensationalistic unreliability: to take one notorious example, it posted a photo of a young German woman holding a sign reading, “Will Trade Racists For Rapists.” Amazing! Shocking! Astonishing proof of the suicidal stupidity of the European Left! There was just one catch: the sign was photoshopped. The original read, “Will Trade Racists for Refugees.” Shoebat.com never acknowledged this or retracted its original post.

In this, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Theodore Shoebat is the son of Walid Shoebat, who styles himself an ex-Muslim and reformed jihadist. Walid Shoebat, who certainly has demonstrated a broad knowledge of Islam and the jihad threat, has been challenged repeatedly, most notably on CNN, to substantiate his claims about his past. Several years ago I myself gave him a chance to answer all the charges against his veracity in a video interview; in purporting to do so, Walid Shoebat talked for a long time, said very little of substance, and left the principal charges of his own dishonesty unanswered. In personal exchanges more recently, I was struck by his dishonesty again.

And now this. In a video posted last Thursday, Theodore Shoebat says: “Pamela Geller is worthy of death.” Her crime? Appearing at a “Gays for Trump” event along with gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos at the Republican National Convention in July. For that, says the learned Shoebat the younger, “In Biblical law, in the government of Christendom, she is worthy of death.”

Is that so? Yes, says Theodore, because Romans 1:32 speaks of those who “having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” Pamela Geller is not homosexual, you see, but by appearing at the event, she gave “consent” to those who are, and thus she also is “worthy of death.”

Theodore Shoebat doesn’t mention that this passage refers not only to men who “have burned in their lusts one towards another,” but also to those who are guilty of “iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness,” and are “full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,” as well as “detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,” and those who are “foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy” (Romans 1:26-31). All of these people are, in the Apostle Paul’s view, “worthy of death.”

Why, then, do we not see Christians (or at least Christians outside of hysterical Hollywood fantasies) committing mass murder, bent on killing everyone who is envious, haughty, and disobedient to his parents? Because Paul’s saying that these people are “worthy of death” is not a call for mass executions and a reign of terror, but part of his argument that all people have sinned and are in need of the divine mercy.

In today’s overheated and jihad-preoccupied environment, however, Theodore Shoebat’s charge that Pamela Geller is worthy of death is not theological musing, but arguable incitement to murder. If his father was indeed a jihadi, Theodore’s words demonstrate that old habits and mindsets die hard, and aren’t always effaced by a change of creed: Theodore Shoebat, like his father in his jihadi days, apparently wants to see those who challenge his religious ideas dead, and thinks he is being righteous in calling for the deaths of those whom he hates.

In contrast, I oppose jihad terror and Islamic supremacism not because I want to substitute Christian supremacism for it, but because I believe in the extraordinary wisdom of the Founding Fathers in mandating that Congress shall not establish a state religion for the United States of America. In a society in which people will inevitably differ on fundamental questions, the idea that we must put up with one another and live peacefully despite our disagreements is our only alternative to a society in which the adherents of one religion (or secular belief-system) attempt to gain and enforce hegemony over their fellow citizens of other beliefs and creeds.

I don’t believe in Islam and don’t wish to live under a government that forces me to conform to its sensibilities; nor do I wish to live under a Christian government that forces non-Christians to conform to its sensibilities. This is not by any means to equate Islam with Christianity, or to engage in any moral equivalence between the two; Islam’s doctrines of warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers are without parallel in authentic or traditional Christianity. But that is not the Christianity of Theodore Shoebat.

Theodore Shoebat has substituted one tyranny for another. He represents what free people who wish to live in a free society must resist.

***

CJR: I stopped following or posting anything from Shoebat.com a long time ago for the reasons Robert Spencer outlines above. The Shoebats are religious zealots and they harm the reputation of the Counter Jihad movement. The recent change of my website banner was done in part to eliminate books authored by them in the original banner. (I also wanted to add Catastrophic Failure and Defeating Jihad)

“You’re Living Under the Sharia, and You Don’t Even Know It”

05af84ef275dce4f1cc31034ddc245c8123baaf8Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, Aug. 25, 2016:

As we reported on Monday, last Sunday the American Freedom Alliance sponsored a conference in Los Angeles, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” Among the most prominent speakers at the event were Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Below is a video of their back-to-back speeches.

Many thanks to Henrik Clausen for recording this video, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading it:

Also see:

HuffPo Columnist Lies, Downplays Sharia Law to Make It Acceptable

GettyImages-72166261-640x418Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Aug. 9, 2016:

Maryam Khan Ansari, who is identified as an “attorney and writer,” published a ridiculous piece in the Huffington Post Saturday: “What Is Sharia Law And Should You Be Scared? Why is Sharia such a scary word?”

Sharia is a scary word because sharia is scary.

The supremacist tenets of sharia law inform the creed apartheid, gender apartheid, Islamic Jew-hatred, codified bigotry, misogyny, free speech prohibitions and homophobia inherent in Islamic law. Sharia is scary because it is punitive, supremacist, racist and misogynist.

But Ansari says it’s scary because “for starters, it’s short and easy to pronounce. When you add the word ‘creeping’ in front of it, it starts to look even creepier. Especially since American people know very little, or nothing, about Islam, according to a Pew Research Poll.” She adds: “The word ‘Sharia Law’ has Americans conjure up images of guys with turbans.”

No, sharia law conjures up the images of girls murdered in honor killings, beheadings, slaughters of gays, non-Muslims, apostates, and secular Muslims, whippings, floggings, amputations, and public hangings commanded in Islamic law. “Guys with turbans”? Hardly.

It further erodes Ansari’s argument that she evokes the Sikhs. Sikhs have been brutally persecuted under the boot of Islam. Her article includes a picture of the actor and fashion designer Waris Ahluwalia, who is not a Muslim and follows a different religion called Sikhism. Waris is Sikh. I repeat, Waris is not Muslim, he is Sikh. But he wears a turban, so for Ansari’s purposes he must be Muslim, and he probably follows Sharia Law. Except that again, he is Sikh, not Muslim.

It gets worse. Ansari goes on: “But wait a minute― does anyone actually know what Sharia Law even is? I’m a lawyer and I’m Muslim, so people think I’m supposed to know Sharia Law. I bet many people probably think I follow it, simply because I’m a Muslim.

So, I thought I’d take the opportunity to set the record straight on Sharia Law. After all, who better to explain it than a Muslim lawyer?”

After that build-up, you would expect her to do what she promised to do: “set the record straight on Sharia Law.” Instead, she says: “I don’t know squat about Sharia Law. I don’t think many Muslims do. Yeah, you heard me. I’m a lawyer, I’m Muslim… And I still couldn’t tell you what Sharia law is all about.”

A Muslim who doesn’t “know squat about Sharia Law” is hardly fit to write about it, let alone attack those who oppose the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth. Muslims who don’t practice or “know squat” about sharia law are not the problem. Muslims who seek to impose it are the problem. Muslim countries that enforce are the problem.

Maryam Khan Ansari defending Khzir Khan puts her foot in her mouth, because Khan is a longtime proponent of sharia law and knows a lot about it. Journalist Paul Sperry reports:

In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called “Human Rights In Islam” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement.

Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”

Ansari keeps piling it on: “Sharia Law is a very complicated body of law (imagine, like, a very difficult to understand Tax Code) and it isn’t something that the average Muslim can understand in depth. And like American law, it doesn’t come from just one book. It comes from many different sources. So like American law, only (some) properly trained legal people can make sense of it.”

Nonsense. Everywhere sharia law is practiced, the penalties are the same: stoning for adultery, death for apostasy, amputation of the hand for theft, death for criticism of Islam. Everywhere sharia is implemented. It really isn’t complicated.

Ansari’s second “myth” is: “All Muslims believe in Sharia Law.”

No one believes all Muslims believe in sharia law. If that were the case, no Muslim who sought to impose it should be admitted into the USA. But we do see sharia being imposed here in America – with speech restrictions (under the guise of restrictions on “hate speech”), the Islamization of the public square, the Islamization of the public school, the Islamization of the workplace, and the Islamization/mosqueing of the neighborhood.

Islamic scholars know what sharia is. Islamic theologians know. And when they don’t, they consult Al Azhar scholars – Sunni Islam’s most prestigious institution. One principal English-language source for the content of Islamic law is Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Dr. Alan Godlas, Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia, calls it a “carefully translated manual of the proper practice of Islam (shari’a) according to the Shafi’i mad’hab. It has been an essential book in the library of any serious English speaking Muslim or scholar of Islam since its publication in 1991.”

Ansari also insists that Muslims don’t want to impose sharia in the U.S.:

Now, I’m sure there are some crazies out there who want to impose Sharia Law on everyone. There are a lot of crazy people of all races and religions. But just because they’re nuts, it doesn’t mean that they can actually make it happen. In fact, anyone who thinks that Sharia Law will ever take over the U.S. Constitution is a different kind of crazy. And crazy people, while scary, really can’t make the leadership of a country change.

More lies. Muslims fiercely work to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia. The Muhammad cartoons are the most obvious example. All over the Muslim world, secular thinkers, poets, writers, journalists, bloggers, and cartoonists have been targeted for death because they were critical of Islam. How many Muslims stood with us in Garland, Texas? Zero.

As a modern Muslim woman, Maryam Khan Ansari should work to oppose the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth and free the millions oppressed, subjugated and slaughtered under the boot of sharia. Instead, she is a slave to it, advancing gruesome, unforgivable lies in order to disarm the American people in the face of the gravest threat to our freedom that we have ever faced.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Pamela has more here