Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Sharia creep’

New Study Shows That 80% of Mosques in America Teach Jihad Violence and Islamic Supremacism

06/08/2011 3 comments

By Robert Spencer – “In 1998, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi leader, visited 114 mosques in the United States. Then he gave testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999, and asserted that 80% of American mosques taught the ‘extremist ideology.’

Then there was the Center for Religious Freedom’s 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project’s 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule.

And now comes yet more confirmation that mosques in the U.S. are teaching these things, and again the percentage is remarkably similar: around 80% of mosques are found to be teaching jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism.

This study is extensive and detailed. Look over all the data. Above all, call upon your elected officials and the media to take notice — at very least, to ask pointed questions from local mosque leaders about the books they’re using and what they’re teaching in general. Call on them to require honest, verifiable answers.

It is likely, however, that this study, like the three preceding ones that I mentioned above, will be ignored. But don’t let that happen. Our freedoms depend on it.

‘Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques,’ by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi in Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2011:

Works by several respected jurists and scholars from the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence, dating from the eighth to fourteenth centuries, are all in agreement that violent jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation.[19] Such behavior is normative, legally-sanctioned violence not confined to modern writers with a political axe to grind. Nor does its presence in classical Muslim works make it a relic of some medieval past. While Umdat as-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler) may have been compiled in the fourteenth century, al-Azhar University, perhaps the preeminent center of Sunni learning in the world, stated in its 1991 certification of the English translation that the book “conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.”[20] While addressing a host of theological matters and detailed instructions as to how Muslims should order their daily routine to demonstrate piety and commitment to Islam, this certified, authoritative text spends eleven pages expounding on the applicability of jihad as violence directed against non-Muslims, stating for example:

The caliph … makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax.[21]

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim … because they are not a people with a book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax.[22]

The Fiqh as-Sunna and Tafsir Ibn Kathir are examples of works that were rated “moderate” for purposes of this survey. The former, which focuses primarily on the internal Muslim community, the family, and the individual believer and not on violent jihad, was especially moderate in its endorsement of violence. Relatively speaking, the Fiqh as-Sunna expresses a more restrained view of violent jihad, in that it does not explicitly call for a holy war against the West even though it understands the Western influence on Islamic governments as a force that is destructive to Islam itself.[23]

Nonetheless, such texts do express positive views toward the use of violence against “the other,” as expressed in the following:

Ibn Abbas reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said, “The ties of Islam and the principles of the religion are three, and whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever, and his blood becomes lawful: testifying that there is no god except God, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan.” … Another narration states, “If anyone leaves one of [the three principles], by God he becomes an unbeliever, and no voluntary deeds or recompense will be accepted from him, and his blood and wealth become lawful.” This is a clear indication that such a person is to be killed.[24]

Similarly in Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

Perform jihad against the disbelievers with the sword, and be harsh with the hypocrites with words, and this is the jihad performed against them.[25]

The survey’s findings, explored in depth below, were that 51 percent of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari’a-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence like the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent had no violent texts at all.

Be sure to read it all, and to keep it close at hand as a resource.” Read more.

Muslim Woman Calls for Killing of Unfaithful Wives … in California

06/06/2011 Leave a comment

“Is this a joke? Or has the mainstreaming of Sharia really advanced this far? If Shamci Rafani is real and not a hoax, is she a “moderate” because she is only calling for the killing of adulteresses, not actually carrying it out? Doesn’t this article give the lie to the oft-repeated claim that no Muslims in America support the elements of Sharia that contradict American principles and laws? Can we get a statement repudiating the stoning of adulteresses and rebuking Shamci Rafani from the “moderate” Muslim establishment? Honest Ibe Hooper? Imam Rauf? Anyone? Anyone?

And didn’t anyone at the Visalia Times-Delta stop and think before publishing this?

‘Unfaithful wives should be put to death,’ by Shamci Rafani in the Visalia Times-Delta…” Read more.

Categories: Radical Islam Tags:

Sharia Creep in the UK: Muslim Care Home Owner Bans Pensioners from Eating Bacon Sandwiches

06/06/2011 Leave a comment

“A Muslim care home owner has been branded ‘a disgrace’ after banning his pensioner residents from eating bacon.

The 40 pensioners – none of them Muslim – were shocked when all pork products were cut off the menu by owner Dr Zulfikar Ali Khan.

He stopped deliveries from the butcher who supplied the home for years and instead ordered halal-meat only from another firm.

The 40 pensioners – none of them Muslim – were shocked when all pork products were cut off the menu by owner Dr Zulfikar Ali Khan.

It meant that the elderly residents at the 40-bed Queen’s Care Centre in the pit village of Maltby, near Rotherham, missed out on traditional favourites like bacon sandwiches, sausage and mash, ham sandwiches and sausage rolls.

But the move has brought a furious reaction from the 37-strong staff – and the families of residents.” Read more.

Categories: Radical Islam Tags:

Mosques as Barracks in America

06/05/2011 Leave a comment

By Andrew G. Bostom – “Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan represents the triumphant Janus-faced approach to the fundamentalist global ‘Islamic revival.’ He and his pious forbears have now completed dismantling Turkey’s secular experiment, and achieved the full-throated re-Islamization of Turkish society, an insidious process begun already within the decade after Ataturk’s death, in 1938. When currying favor with gullible Western audiences, Erdogan burbles disingenuous ecumenical platitudes about the ‘Alliance of Civilizations.’ But in reality, this is an Islamization campaign promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, notably Saudi Arabia, which rewarded Erdogan, for his role in the Alliance, specifically, as ‘services to Islam,’ with the ‘King Faisal International Prize,’ considered the ‘Nobel prize’ of the Arab world. Regardless, Erdogan has always aroused his Muslim constituencies by brazenly appealing to their deep-seated jihadist sentiments as he did while mayor of Istanbul, in 1997, delivering a fiery speech that reminded the masses of these words from the poem ‘The Soldier’s Prayer,’ written (in 1912) by Turkish nationalist poet Ziya Gokalp:

The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.

Cited appropriately by successful opponents of minaret construction in Switzerland, such rhetoric should now resonate uncomfortably in America with the online release Monday June 6, 2011 of alarming survey data from a representative national sample of US mosques.

During August 2007, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) released ‘Radicalization in the West – The Homegrown Threat.’ This insightful 90-page report evaluated the threat that had become apparent since 9/11/2001, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna in upstate New York to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ. Based upon these case-study analyses of individuals arrested for jihadist activity, the authors concluded that the ‘journey’ of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadists began in so-called ‘Salafist’ (‘fundamentalist’ to non-Muslims) mosques characterized by high levels of Sharia-Islamic Law-adherence. The landmark study just published, ‘Sharia and Violence in American Mosques’ (Kedar M, Yerushalmi D. The Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2011, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 59-72) sought to expand considerably upon the NYPD’s post-hoc, case study approach-systematically gathering objective survey data, with much greater methodological rigor-and address these two a priori questions: I) Is there a robust association between observable measures of religious devotion, coupled to Sharia-adherence in US mosques, and the presence of violence-sanctioning materials at these mosques?; and II) Is there a robust association between the presence of violence-sanctioning materials at a mosque, and the advocacy of jihadism by the mosque’s leadership via recommending the study of these materials, or other manifest behaviors?” Read more.

Sharia Creep in Uganda: Legislation Pits Muslims vs. Christians Over Power of Courts

05/31/2011 Leave a comment

“KAMPALA, Uganda — Christians call a proposed religious law a sly attempt to favor Muslims in this predominantly Christian country and warn that it could promote Islamic fundamentalism. Muslims say the reaction to the bill just shows Islamophobia.

The Muslim Personal Law bill – which would give more power to Islamic Kadhi courts for Muslims on matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance – is straining relations between Uganda’s two largest religious groups.

Each side is vowing to resist the other to protect what both say are the fundamental rights of their respective communities.

The dispute also highlights an apparent contradiction between two sections of the Ugandan Constitution.

Muslims, who make up roughly 12 percent of Uganda’s 32 million people, point to Article 129 of the constitution, which explicitly allows for the creation of Kadhi civil courts. Under current law, Kadhi court decisions are not legally binding.

Christians argue that Article 129 conflicts with another section of the constitution, Article 21, which states that all people are equal under the law in all spheres of life. Institutionalizing the Islamic courts would give the country two parallel legal systems that would undermine the secular nature of the Ugandan Constitution, Christian leaders say.” Read more.

Categories: Radical Islam Tags:

ACLU Turns Blind Eye To Sharia In America

05/26/2011 Leave a comment

By Stephen M. Gelé, American Thinker – “Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s Human Rights program, recently co-authored an article on the Huffington Post attacking legislative efforts to prohibit the application of foreign laws inconsistent with the rights granted by the U.S. and state constitutions or state public policy.

The article posits a series of disjointed, hypothetical misapplications of the legislative efforts to prevent sharia from encroaching into our legal system.  Yet, the authors cite no actual examples of misapplications of laws already passed and in force, in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arizona.  The authors fail to distinguish this American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation from other legislative efforts, such as the Oklahoma constitutional amendment, which do not explicitly reference the protection of constitutional rights and public policy in prohibiting application of sharia or foreign law.

Further, the authors contend that these laws, explicitly protecting established constitutional rights, are superfluous because the First Amendment already protects these rights, and then allege that these laws violate the religious freedom granted by the First Amendment.  The authors thereby dangerously conflate the judiciary’s interpretation and enforcement of secular law with interpretation and enforcement of religious doctrine.  The freedom of religion and establishment clauses of the First Amendment do not address the application of foreign law, including sharia, in American courts, and, as demonstrated below, have not been applied to prevent such application.

Additionally, American courts have repeatedly held that freedom of religion does not require the judiciary to void secular laws which may incidentally conflict with religious doctrine, and that the First Amendment prohibits the judiciary from interpreting or enforcing religious doctrine.  For example, in the case of S.D. v. M.J.R., the New Jersey Superior Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judge who did not find sexual assault to have been proven when a husband admitted forcing his wife to engage in sex, because the husband lacked criminal intent as he was a Muslim, and sharia, as described by an imam, mandated that a wife submit to her husband’s sexual advances.  The New Jersey appellate court cited several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that held that freedom of religion does not include violating criminal laws, including Reynolds v. United States and Cleveland v. United States regarding polygamy, and Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith regarding smoking peyote, even when religious doctrine permits or mandates the prohibited practice.  The U.S. Supreme Court, in Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church and its progeny, have also consistently held that deciding disputes over religious doctrine violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.” Read more.

Goodbye to Rights Under Sharia

05/18/2011 Leave a comment

By Chris Merritt – “THE latest push to introduce sharia law in Australia has triggered an unlikely alliance by two professors of law with only one thing in common: they know a threat when they see one.

Civil libertarian Spencer Zifcak and constitutional monarchist David Flint are from opposing sides of the political spectrum. But they are united by a deceptively reasonable push for a form of sharia law in Australia.

These academics recognise what is at stake. If this push succeeds, it could undermine the centuries-old legal settlement that led to the Enlightenment and the rise of Western secular society.” Read more.

Categories: Radical Islam Tags:

Sharia Creep Down Under: Muslims to Push for ‘Moderate Variety’ of Sharia Law in Australia

05/17/2011 Leave a comment

‘Moderate variety’ of Sharia?  What exactly is that suppose to be?  Let’s see… Don’t stone women to death for adultery, just give them a few dozen lashes, or a couple hundred if the accusation is probably true?  Maybe she’ll die that way instead?  Don’t cut off a thief’s hand for stealing, only his finger?  Instead of there needing to be four male witnesses to substantiate a woman’s rape allegation, maybe there only needs to be two or three?  If it’s proven that she was raped, don’t give her 200 lashes for having premarital sex, give her 100 instead and/or a reduced prison sentence?  If someone converts from Islam to Christianity, don’t behead them, figure out a more ‘humane’ way to end their life?  

Give them a little now, and they’ll want a lot more later.  Sharia is the Islamist’s drug to which we must ‘Just Say No’ …

By Patricia Karvelas – “THE nation’s peak Muslim group is using the Gillard government’s re-embracing of multiculturalism to push for the introduction of sharia in Australia, but it says it would be a more moderate variety of Islamic law that fits with Australian values.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the government’s new multiculturalism policy, argues that Muslims should enjoy ‘legal pluralism’.

In an interview with The Australian, the organisation’s president, Ikebal Adam Patel, who wrote the submission, nominated family law and specifically divorce as an area where moderate interpretations of sharia could co-exist within the Australian legal system.” Read more.

Sharia Creep: University Of Western Ontario Offered $2 Million To Establish Islamic Studies Program

05/13/2011 3 comments

Revelation 17:1-2,5-6a, “Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.’ … And on her forehead a name [was] written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus…”

By Barbara Kay – “For various reasons, some good, many Western universities are keen to establish Islamic Studies programs. And for various other reasons, the same is true of Islamist organizations -which tend toward a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. To this end, with a professed goal of fostering ‘understanding’ of Islam, the latter offer hefty financial endowments to universities.

Some critics worry that such a scenario may be in progress at Huron University College, an affiliate of University of Western Ontario (UWO). Huron offers post-baccalaureate and professional degree programs in theology. The College recently accepted a $2-million endowment for a new Chair in Islamic Studies within the College’s historically Anglican Faculty of Theology. About half the money is to come via fundraising facilitated by the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), and the other, matching half from the Virginia-based International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). A cofounder of the latter group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007-2008 trial of Sami al-Arian, an Islamist academic linked to jihadism.” Read more.

Saudi Arabia’s Export of Radical Islam – “Over the last week [early January 2007], several items in the world news have highlighted the problem of Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally in the War on Terror, funding mosques which promote the same extremism and calls for jihad which create terror. There is a certain hypocrisy about the Saudis exporting any form of Islam abroad, as the undemocratic kingdom prohibits any symbols of other faiths from being imported. Crucifixes, Bibles are forbidden. Guest workers proliferate in the kingdom, but if any attempt to hold Christian prayer and worship, they are jailed.” Read more.

Saudis Funding Islamist Centers Of Hate – “… CAIR was co-founded by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, who were members of the Islamic Association for Palestine. Omar Ahmad has famously said: ‘Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.'” Read more.

Mosques Preaching Hatred Against ‘Kaffir’ Jews and Christians – “Channel Four sent an undercover reporter to the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, where he filmed secretly for four months. This mosque is the headquarters of the Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith. The preachers at this mosque were shown inciting hate against ‘unbelievers’, called disparagingly ‘Kuffaar’ or ‘kaffir’.” Read more.

U.S. Attorney: Feds Could Challenge Missouri Anti-Sharia Legislation

04/30/2011 1 comment

Why don’t they just get it over with, change the official date to 1432, give us a 355 day year, and replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law?

By John H. Tucker – “U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Richard Callahan visited the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis last night to address the fears and frustrations of Muslim Americans who worry they are being racially profiled and wiretapped — and to assure them that the Missouri Legislature’s attempts to ban Sharia law from being considered in state courts here could face Constitutional challenges.

Seated in front of a large Muslim audience during a town hall-style meeting at the Ballwin mosque, Callahan anchored a panel that included fellow federal attorneys (one of whom was Muslim American), as well as three members of the FBI.”  Read more.

North Carolina Bill Would Ban Courts from Using Sharia Law

04/29/2011 Leave a comment

Warning: The following proposal may hurt the feelings of wannabe Jihadists, their supporters, sympathizers, and the Obama Administration.

BY MICHAEL BIESECKER – “RALEIGH — A group of Republican legislators is backing a measure that would make it illegal for judges to consider ‘foreign law’ when making rulings in North Carolina’s courts.

Though the federal and state constitutions already guarantee the supremacy of U.S. law in domestic cases, primary sponsor Rep. George Cleveland said he is concerned that Shariah law could gain a foothold in American communities with sizable Muslim populations.

House Bill 640 makes no mention of the Islamic legal code. But Cleveland said Shariah would be defined as a ‘foreign law’ under his bill, and therefore banned from North Carolina’s courtrooms if the legislation he proposes is approved.”  Read more.


Dearborn’s First Amendment Barbecue

04/26/2011 Leave a comment

By Henry Payne – “By burning the First Amendment, Dearborn mayor John O’Reilly Jr. and his Wayne County cronies have managed to make nutty pastor Terry Jones a free speech hero, united the left-wing ACLU and right-wing Thomas More Law Center, stereotyped Muslims as intolerant zealots, and put Dearborn on the map as a bastion of small-town ayatollahs.

With friends like Mayor O’Reilly, who needs enemies?

O’Reilly’s outrageous action against the Quran-burning quack — resulting in a Wayne County jury’s conviction of Jones for planning a demonstration in front to the Dearborn Islamic Center on Good Friday — has made Dearborn the laughingstock of First Amendment constitutionalists everywhere.

‘We were arrested for something we had not done,’ said Jones, who has retained the conservative More Center in a lawsuit against the City of Dearborn.

‘This should have never come to this point to begin with,’ said Rana Elmir of the ACLU of Michigan. ‘The judge should have dismissed the case. It’s a complete abuse of the court process, and all those involved should be ashamed.’

‘(District Judge Mark Somers) should have thrown this case out of court immediately,’ agreed Wayne State Constitutional scholar Robert Sedler. ‘And (Wayne County prosecutor) Kym Worthy should know the law. People have a right to use the public street to express their views.’

Alas, Judge Somers only threw gasoline on O’Reilly’s fire by ordering Jones to stay away from the mosque for three years.”  Read more.