Israel – Islam

Israel is a front line in the Islamo-fascist global war against freedom

99.5% of U.S. Congress Commends Israeli Democracy

Arab and Iranian dictators oppress their subjects, sponsor half of the world’s major terror groups and imperil Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy. 360 million people in Arab states and Iran are entitled to the same freedom and prosperity enjoyed by Europeans, Americans and Israelis.

The Middle East includes 7 out of 19 of the most repressive regimes in the world and their weapons of mass destruction. It is also the hotbed of Jihad (Holy War), an ideology of world domination. The scourge of international terrorism now reaches far beyond the United States and Israel. Half of the world’s major terror groups are Arab and Iranian. 5 out of the world’s 7 state-sponsors of terrorism are Arab and Iranian.

In Arab and Iranian dictators’ propaganda there is almost no problem that is not caused by the existence of Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy. Most of the Arab and Muslim states do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

The freest Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East live in Israel. The Israeli government is the only one in the Middle East that is elected by free citizens — including Arabs and Muslims.

Israel is a free, Western country, which recognizes the individual rights of its citizens (such as their right to liberty and freedom of speech). It uses military force only in self-defense. The enemies of Israel, by contrast, are state sponsored terrorist organizations and dictatorships. They do not recognize the individual rights of their own subjects, much less those of the citizens of Israel. They initiate force indiscriminately in order to retain and expand their power.

Israel’s achievements are vast and have no parallel in any other country of comparable size or age. They have been reached against an unremitting threat of violence, war, terror and delegitimation that might have defeated any lesser people. In almost every sphere – economic development, technology, integration of immigrants and the maintenance of democracy – Israel should today be internationally heralded as a model for others to emulate.

Above all, Israel has pursued peace. In a mere 10 years it made a cognitive leap for which it would be hard to find a precedent. The “peace process” whose main watchword is “territories for peace”, involves a paradox whereby a minuscule democracy is being forced to provide its totalitarian enemies – scores of times its size – the only thing it lacks: territory. In exchange, the surrounding tyrannies are being asked to provide the one and only thing that they lack: peace. In 1990 Arafat’s PLO was a proscribed terrorist organization. By 2000 the Israeli prime minister had offered a Palestinian state in the whole of Gaza and 97 per cent of the West Bank, with east Jerusalem as its capital. Students of international politics hail the European Union as a triumph of peace over war. How many are aware that the attitudinal changes that took France and Germany centuries, were achieved in Israel in a single decade?

The case for Israel should be apparent even to thoroughgoing supporters of the Palestinians. Who else has offered them a genuine future? Egypt? Jordan? Syria? Lebanon? The Gulf States? It takes only a cursory glance at the history of the Middle East to realize that for the most part, neighboring dictatorships have ruthlessly exploited the Palestinians for their own ends with callous indifference to the consequences. Israel, alone in the Middle East, has attempted to construct, with and for the Palestinians, a viable and peaceful future.

Israel’s strategy of winning Palestinian hearts and minds failed because Israeli carrots could never overcome the intimidation applied by Palestinian terrorist regime’s sticks.

Fundamentally, Israel is the target of these terrorist organizations and despotic regimes precisely because of its virtues:

Oasis of freedom in a desert of Arab and Iranian tyranny
Oasis of independent judiciary in a desert of Arab and Iranian arbitrariness
Oasis of women rights in a desert of Arab and Iranian women discrimination

Terrorist in US – Salam al-Marayati

Salam al-Marayati

A founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director, Salam al-Marayati’s family moved to the United States from Iraq when he was a young boy.[1] He gained national attention in 1999, when then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt nominated him to serve on the National Commission on Terrorism. Gephardt later withdrew the nomination after a public backlash highlighted al-Marayati’s defense of terrorist acts and the groups who carry them out.[2]

Al-Marayati’s record on defending terrorist groups and extremists is substantial. During a 2002 speech at the State Department, Salam al-Marayati, said, “Rashid Ghannouchi is an example of those who promote this need for dialogue between civilizations, not confrontation.”[3] Ghannoushi was the head of Tunisia’s banned Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Al-Nahda Party and was convicted by a Tunisian court of responsibility for a bomb blast that blew the foot off a British tourist.[4]

In a 1999 PBS interview, he called Hizballah attacks “legitimate resistance,”[5] but later added “when a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, we stand very loudly and clearly against that Muslim that committed that act of violence.”[6]

Yet in 1996, he issued no condemnation for a man who crashed his car into a crowded Jerusalem bus stop, shouting Allahu Akbar. One person was killed and 23 others injured in the incident. The attacker was shot dead at the scene, something al-Marayati condemned as a “provocative act” and he called for the shooter’s extradition to the United States to stand trial.[7]

Al-Marayati has continued to attempt to minimize terrorist attacks by Muslims, decry U.S. government anti-terrorism measures, and blame anything he can on the state of Israel. For instance, on September 11, 2001, on a Los Angeles radio program al-Marayati said, “”If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”[8]

Two years later, in a March 2003 Los Angeles Times article, Salam al-Marayati blasted the FBI, stating that they had been targeting people on the basis of race and religion.[9] Ignoring several prominent terrorism cases across the country, he added, “That’s what they’ve been doing since the attacks, and we don’t know of any case that has resulted in the arrest, indictment or prosecution of a terrorist.”[10]

Commenting on the government’s actions against alleged terrorist financiers, specifically of Rafil Dhafir of Help the Needy (indicted in February 2003, convicted and sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2005) and his cohorts, in October 2004, Salam al-Marayati said, “It is a sham. You just hope at the end of a long battle these people can be vindicated because they did nothing wrong.”[11]

In response to the government’s recent refusal to grant MPAC’s request to release Holy Land Foundation, Benevolence International Foundation, and Global Relief Foundation funds to a third-party,[12] al-Marayati asserted, in 2004, that “the government…betrayed us.”[13]

At a fundraising dinner for Palestinian Islamic Jihad member Sami Al-Arian in Anaheim, California in 2006, al-Marayati said to the attendees, “So if we have this case where we are being dictated upon, not only on terminology, but dictated upon on who speaks for us, and our organizations, our charities, are shut down one by one. Therefore, brothers and sisters, there is a storm that is coming. That storm is going to be worse than Japanese internment.”[14]

Beyond the effect these words may have in causing hysteria, distrust, and fear in the Muslim-American community, al-Marayati has advised Muslims to shun FBI efforts to recruit informants. Speaking to an audience in Dallas in 2005, he stated, “We reject any efforts, notion, suggestion that Muslim should start spying on one another. In fact if you look at the Lodi case, the disaster of Lodi is that Muslims were reporting each other to the authorities saying, ‘Oh, this person is an extremist’ and the other camp saying the same things so both of them got in trouble. So, we are, this is the model not to follow.”[15]

MPAC, meanwhile, has issued policy papers which argue for the removal of Hizballah and Hamas from U.S. terrorist designations. The 1999 counterterrorism “policy paper” asks “…is Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which calls for the creation of an Islamic republic, a terrorist organization? Again, most of its members are not actively involved in terror.”

It then tries to minimize Hizballah’s brutal attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 — an attack which killed 241 U.S. military personnel:

“…this attack, for all the pain it caused, was not in a strict sense, a terrorist operation. It was a military operation, producing no civilian casualties — exactly the kind of attack that Americans might have lauded had it been directed against Washington’s enemies.” (emphasis added) [16]

The 2003 counterterrorism paper advocated removing Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizballah from the federal government’s list of designated terrorist groups. It reads:

Meanwhile, Arab states question Washington’s list of designated pro-Palestinian groups and humanitarian organizations. It is clear that the current terrorist threat to the US emanates from Al-Qaeda and not Palestinian groups. There is no evidence that Palestinian groups designated as terrorist organizations have any connections to Al-Qaeda. Yet the preoccupation with these groups raises the question as to whether targeting Palestinian groups serves true national security interests or is based on political considerations. [17]

[1] “Salam al-Marayati,” Muslim WaveLength Website (in association with IslamiCity and MPAC), http://www.islamicity.com/mpac/salam_al-marayati.shtm (Accessed August 17, 2007).

[2] “U.S. Muslim leader denies he’s terrorist sympathizer,” CNN, July 29, 1999, http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/29/terrorism.commission/ (Accessed August 17, 2007).

[3] “MPAC’s Speech on Moderation at the State Department,” January 28, 2002, http://www.mpac.org/popa_article_display.aspx?ITEM=178 (accessed August 23, 2004).

[4] Michael Binyon, “Britain Shuts Door on Fundamentalists,” The Times, January 5, 1996. Note: According to The Sunday Telegraph, Ghannouchi was “rounded up with several thousand other opponents of the Tunisian government following an alleged plot to assassinate the country’s president, Ben Ali, in 1991.” See: Con Coughlin, “Senators fight to keep sheikh out of the US State Department told of Islamic fundamentalist’s alleged links with terrorism,” Sunday Telegraph, May 22, 1994

[5] Salam al-Marayati, “Muslims in America.” NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, November 24, 1999

[6] Salam al-Marayati, “Muslims in America.” NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, November 24, 1999

[7] The Minaret, March 1996.

[8] Larry Stammer, “After the Attack: Jewish-Muslim Dialogue Newly Tested,” The Los Angeles Times, September 22, 2001.

[9] H.G. Reza ,”FBI Has a Pledge and a Request for Muslims,” The Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2003.

[10] H.G. Reza ,”FBI Has a Pledge and a Request for Muslims,” The Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2003.

[11] Renee Gadoua, “Muslim Vote’s Impact Weighed,” The Post-Standard, October 12, 2004.

[12] Gregory Vistica, “Frozen Assets Going to Legal Bills,” The Washington Post, November 1, 2003 and “Steve Emerson’s Self-Serving Distortions,” MPAC Press Release, January 28, 2004, http://www.mpac.org/news_article_display.aspx?ITEM=639 (accessed July 21, 2004).

[13] Audio recording, “The Shape of the American Muslim Community in the Next Decade,” MPAC, Houston, Texas, June 18, 2004.

[14] Salam al-Marayati, Audio Recording, Sami al-Arian Banquet Dinner, Anaheim, CA, March 12, 2006.

[15] ISNA Dallas Conference. July 1-3, 2005.

[16] “A Position Paper on U.S. Counterterrorism Policy,” Muslim Public Affairs Council, June 1999.

[17] “A Review of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: American Muslim Critique & Recommendations,” Muslim Public Affairs Council, September 2003. http://www.mpac.org/publications/counterterrorism-policy-paper/counterterrorism-policy-paper.pdf

War on America

These terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. – Marco Rubio US Senator, Florida

Persecution of Christians

Monday, December 13, 2010

Sparked By Marriage of Christian Youth to A Muslim Girl, Christians In Karachi Comes Under Attack From Islamists

By Jawad Mazhar
Special Correspondent for ANS, reporting from Pakistan

KARACHI, PAKISTAN (ANS) — Local Pakistani Christians and the family of a Christian youth are facing potential death threats and the terrorization of “dire consequences” following the elopement and marriage of a Christian young man who has converted to Islam and his young Muslim bride.

This state of affairs was revealed to ANS by Elvis Steven, a Christian lawyer and minority rights advocate.

Steven revealed that recently in Baldia Town (located in the western part of Karachi) and Saeedabad (also in Karachi), the homes of local Christians were attacked, women were abused and household item vandalized by Muslim fanatics belonging to the Hazara Tribe, Sunni Ittehad Tehreek and Jamaat-e-Islami, under the garb of “searching for a Christian youth.”

The lawyer added that they attacked because a Christian youth, identified as Zohaib Rahi (20) had recanted his Christianity and converted to Islam to marry a Muslim girl identified as Anum (18) at Baldia on November 20, 2010.

This was confirmed by first-hand information obtained by ANS from Pervaiz Rahi, the father of the young man who said that the couple had eloped to get married.

ANS was apprised through reliable local sources that the Muslim girl came from the Hazara tribe, a Persian-speaking ethnic group who live mainly in central Afghanistan. They are overwhelmingly Shia Muslims and comprise the third largest ethnic group, with 22% of the total population of Afghanistan. Over half a million Hazaras live in neighboring Pakistan.

Elvis Steven said that, although the Christian youth had contracted a court marriage and had become a Muslim, the people of the Hazara tribe “harbored a grudge against the local Christian family in particular and against all Christians of Baldia town generally.”

The father of the converted Zohaib Rahi said that instead of protecting the Christians from Muslim fanatics, Saeedabad Police Officers had launched a case against Zohaib and his family for allegedly abducting Anum.

Steven also blamed the local police for favoring Muslim men who were backed by Muslim radical bodies and added that the police were “reluctant to provide security to Christians.”

He alleged that Saeedabad Police and Rangers Police came forward to take security measures against Muslim radical groups only after police informers told them that radical Islamist militants were planning a massive armed attack against local Christians.

ANS sources confirmed that many Christians have since fled from their homes to save their lives and their houses could be seen to be locked.

St. Luke’s Church and St. Luke’s School administration were also threatened by the above Islamic fundamentalists and therefore St Luke’s School administration decided to keep the school shut for two days and reopened only after Rangers Police and Sindh province’s Saeedabad Police guaranteed their security.

Steven said all the local Christians were still “traumatized” and “most of them have fled from their homes.”

Replying to a question by ANS, Steven said this could have been another large attack on any of the Christian residential areas in Pakistan after the Shanti Nagar and Gojra massacre by militants.

He went on to allege that “countless Christian girls and women have fled to safe places because they were vulnerable to be raped by Muslim men.” He added that this was because the Muslims have threatened that, in case the Christian failed to produce “their girl” they would “abduct and rape Christian girls”

He also asserted that on November 27, 2010, in search of Zohaib and Anum, the Saeedabad Police raided the house of the maternal uncle of Zohaib, arrested four family members, “barbarically thrashed them” and later released them after receiving bribes of Pakistani Rupees 15000/– each (USD $179 approximately).

Elvis Steven appealed to the worldwide Christian community to pray for the local Christians and also urged the government and particularly the Shahbaz Bhatti led Blasphemy Laws Reforms Committee to recommend to immediately nullify the blasphemy laws which he said “were the greatest obstacle to forge the interfaith peace and harmony in Pakistan.”

He went on to say, “Local Christians are still terribly harassed and fearful for their families and lives.”

When approached by ANS, Nasir Sammi, the Police Chief of Saeedabad Inspectorate asserted, “The police is doing all it could to control the law and order situation in the area.”

Inspector Sammi went on to say, “The boy has sent his free-will conversion and marriage certificate to Saeedabad police officials and therefore calm and peace is likely to return to the area.”

The St. Luke High School was threatened to close down but it will resume its activities as Sindh Police and Rangers Police’s heavy contingents have been deployed in the area.
Jawad Mazhar is a Pakistani journalist specializing in writing about Christian persecution. He was born on November 28, 1976 at Sargodha’s village Chak and raised in Sargodha, a city in Pakistan’s Punjab province. He earned his Bachelors Degree from Allama Iqbal Open University majoring in computer sciences and has taught at various educational institutes in his country. He is also involved with “Rays of Development,” an organization working for minority rights in Pakistan. He says, “My aim is to help eradicate Christian persecution through my writing as I bring the plight of these brave people under the spotlight of the whole world.”

Introduction: Shariah Law

Introduction: Shariah Law

Shariah Law, also known as Islamic Law, is an all-embracing body of religious, social, political, and military duties that was written in the 7th century by Islamic extremists and virtually unchanged today. It is not “law” in the western sense, but instead a set of rules. The leaders of the Shariah-Islam movement are Shariah “scholars” or Imams who dictate that only Muslims who follow Shariah Law in its entirety are “true Muslims” worthy of going to a wonderful afterlife. Shariah, an Arabic word, literally means “the way”.

Shariah Law or a “set of rules” is one of the seven critical components of a successful political movement, in this case the political military movement of Shariah-Islam:

The seven supports for the political movement of Shariah-Islam are

Funding: Middle East oil wealth

Leadership: Shariah Scholars and Muslim Brotherhood

Strategic Plan: The Muslim Brotherhood Project 100-year plan

Unifying Evil: Western influences symbolized by “infidels”

Goal: Subjugate the world to Shariah-Islam to create Caliphate

Committed Membership: Shariah organizations & members

Rules: Written rules of Shariah Law

Shariah Law stipulates behavior regarding divorce, child rearing, hygiene, sexuality, marital concerns, finance, penal codes, sexuality, supremacy of men, subjugation of women, treatment of non-Muslims, dietary laws, hygiene, social relationships, banking, business, economics, contracts, pray and spirituality.

While there are five schools of Shariah Law, the two fundamental principles of each school remain the same. First is the submission of women to men, and second is the obligation to engage in Jihad to convert, kill or tax infidels to create the Shariah Caliphate or one world nation of Shariah-Islam. Jihad is waged against non-devout Muslims and non-Muslims.

Examples of Shariah Law include the following: (taken from the authoritative source Reliance of the Traveller, The Sacred Manual of Islamic Law.)

* Requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms
* Beating of disobedient woman and girls;
* Execution of homosexuals;
* Engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages;
* Requirement of the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape;
* Stoning of adulteresses;
* Lashing of adulterers;
* Amputation of body for criminal offenses;
* Female genital mutilation;
* Capital punishment for those who slander or insult Islam;
* Execution of apostates, or those that leave the religion of Islam
* Inferior status for all non-Muslims, known as Dhimmitude.
* Concept of Taquiyya: A Muslim may lie or deceive others to advance the cause of Islam.

Under Shariah, a Muslim is “devout” if he follows every aspect of Shariah. There is no ability to pick and choose; it is an all-or-none package according to Shariah Scholars.

Just because a person is Muslim, it does not necessarily mean he or she supports or chooses to live under Shariah-Islam. Many Muslims are brutally oppressed under Shariah Law, especially women, children and homosexuals.

The governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan rule by Shariah rule, as do militant organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and dozens more.

Shariah-Islam is not a religion. Shariah-Islam is a political totalitarian movement, like communism or apartheid, like all totalitarian movements, the hallmark of Shariah Law is heavy abuse of human rights. While Shariah has its roots in religion; its political goals clearly put it in the category of a militant political movement.

The success of any political movement depends on seven supporting structures: Funding, Leadership, clear Rules, a strategic Plan, committed Membership, a universal lack of respect and recognition of Human Rights and a focused Goal. (This is true of Communism, Apartheid, Nazism, and Shariah-Islam.)

* Shariah: an all-encompassing and in-transmutable system of Islamic jurisprudence, found in the Koran and the Sunnah, that covers all aspect of life, including daily routines, hygiene, familial roles and responsibilities, social order and conduct, directives on relationships with Muslims and non-Muslims, religious obligations, financial dealings and many other facets of living.
* Ird: the sexual purity of a woman that confers honor to her husband, family and community. Ird is based on the traditional standards of behavior set forth in the shariah code and includes subservience to male relatives, modest dress which could include veiling and the covering of the body, and restricted movement outside of the home. The loss of a woman’s ird confers shame upon her family and can result in ostracism by the community, economic damage, political consequences and the loss of self esteem.
* Zina: the Koranic word for sexual relations outside of marriage. Under shariah law, Zina is punished by lashings, imprisonment or stoning to death.
* FGM: female genital mutilation refers to the partial or complete removal of the female genitalia for religious and cultural reasons. It is practiced to preserve a female’s chastity and dampen her sexual desire. FGM is permitted in the Koran but required by the Shafi’i, one of the four schools of shariah law within Sunni Islam.
* Honor Killing: a murder, usually of a female, committed to restore the social and political standing of a family or community when it is believed that the victim has violated traditional behavioral expectations. Such violations can include improper covering of the body, appearing in public without a male relative chaperone, talking to an unrelated male, or exhibiting independence in thought and action. An honor killing can also be based on hearsay or gossip that is perceived as damaging to a woman’s relatives.
* Forced Marriage: a marriage that is conducted without the consent of one or both parties in which duress is a factor. Such duress can include violence or physical intimidation, psychological abuse, blackmailing, kidnapping, or threats of imprisonment or institutional confinement.

De Facto Shariah Law in America

Is the United States today a de facto shariah state? A close look at recent events points to some alarming conclusions about the tenets of shariah law taking hold in our once-proud constitutional republic and the unwitting, unequal application of existing U.S. laws. The result is that when it comes to religious expression, Muslims now enjoy more freedom of religion and speech under our Bill of Rights than non-Muslims. Equal protection under the laws of our country holds for Muslims far better than for non-Muslims. Several recent examples illustrate this point.

Christianity Suppressed

In October, students at a Chattanooga, Tennessee high school were told that their longtime tradition of praying at practice and before games would no longer be allowed. The school superintendent had called an end to prayer at all school functions following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

In July, students visiting the Supreme Court from an Arizona Christian school were stopped by police as they bowed their heads and quietly prayed for the justices. The students were standing outside the court building to the side at the bottom of the building steps. They weren’t blocking traffic, but an officer abruptly approached them and ordered them to stop praying immediately.

Four Christians were arrested in June for disorderly conduct at the Dearborn Arab International Festival after handing out copies of the Gospel of John. The four had stationed themselves five blocks from the festival and did not actively approach anyone, but instead waited for others to approach them. Still, police officers confiscated their video cameras and led the four Christians away in handcuffs to shouts of “Allah hu Akbar” from Muslim bystanders.

In June of 2006, an instrumental rendition of “Ave Maria” was banned at the Henry Jackson High School graduation in Everett, Washington. Despite Justice Samuel Alito’s protests, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider whether the case was an example of censorship of student speech.

In direct contrast to the above incidents, which limit Christian prayer and expression, numerous examples exist of special accommodations for Muslim activities and religious practices. These indicate an adherence to a separate and distinct policy for Muslims that mirrors the supremacist requirements of shariah law.

Islam Accepted

In the State of California, 7th-grade students at Excelsior Middle School in Discovery Bay, California adopted Muslim names, prayed on prayer rugs, and celebrated Ramadan under a state-mandated curriculum that requires instruction about various religions. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court again declined to hear legal challenges by concerned Excelsior parents, who complained that the instruction was actually religious indoctrination and that Christianity and Judaism were not given equal time and exposure. The curriculum has been upheld as appropriate multicultural material.

After Carver Elementary School in San Diego absorbed Muslim students from a defunct charter school in September 2006, a special recess was provided for the students to pray, classes were segregated by gender, and pork was removed from the school menu. A teacher’s aide at the school led children in prayer and was provided with a lesson plan allotting an hour of class time for Islamic prayer. In essence, Muslim students alone were privileged with public school time to practice their religion at an additional cost of $450,000 in public funds and a loss of instruction time.

In May, students at a Wellesley, Massachusetts middle school visited a local radical mosque and participated in a prayer session. Parents, who gave signed permission for students to visit the mosque, were not informed in advance that students would also be bowing to Allah and listening to lectures on Islam. Surprisingly, teachers did nothing to intervene as students participated and a mosque spokesperson denigrated Western civilization while glorifying and misrepresenting Islam, even falsely referring to the greater rights of women under Islam. Astonishingly, this occurred in a state that has prohibited the sale of Christmas items, including red and green tissue paper, at a school store and forced firefighters to remove a “Merry Christmas” sign from their station.

Over the last few years, the University of Michigan, a taxpayer-funded school, has provided separate prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, requiring bathroom modifications costing over $100,000, for Muslim observances.

At Minneapolis Community and Technical College, where religious displays, including those for Christmas, have been strictly prohibited, foot-washing facilities are being installed using taxpayer dollars after one student slipped and injured herself washing her feet in a sink. Director of Legal Affairs and President Phil Davis justified the disparate treatment of Muslims, explaining, “The foot-washing facilities are not about religion; they are about public safety.”

Muslims periodically block the streets of New York City, prostrating themselves in the middle of roadways and sidewalks undisturbed by police and other authorities. The resulting traffic jams are ignored, the double- and illegally parked vehicles are free of citations, and law enforcement officers are nowhere to be seen. Surely, practitioners of other religions or groups planning similar gatherings would be required to obtain permits for such an activity. Reportedly, the police have been ordered not to interfere with the Muslim prayer spectacle.

These special accommodations for Muslims effectively elevate the Islamic faith above that of Christians and Jews, reinforcing the message of the Koran — “Allah proclaims Islam over all other religions” (48:28), “Islam will dominate other religions” (9:33), and “Islam does not coexist with other faiths” (5:51). Muslims are required by the teachings of their faith to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims and Ensure worldwide submission to Islam — “The believers must make war on infidels around them and let the infidels find firmness in them” (9:123).

Under Islamic shariah law, Christians may not even speak to Muslims about Christianity nor provide them with any literature about Christianity. With the recent arrests of Christians in Dearborn juxtaposed with prostrate Muslim worshipers in Manhattan (where a mosque is planned at Ground Zero at the same location where a church will not be rebuilt), it appears that the principles of Islamic supremacy and prohibitions against Christian proselytizing have begun to gain traction in America.

Meanwhile, Christianity in America is withering as Bible study is eradicated in public schools, crosses are removed from the public square, and “winter holidays” replace Christmas celebrations. Remarkably, as Christianity is being dethroned and denied public expression, Islam is being unabashedly and openly promoted in what has been a Christian country for over two hundred years. It is truly remarkable that as American students chant prayers in Arabic in California’s classrooms, Christmas music and graphics that refer to both Christmas and Chanukah are prohibited in New Jersey.

Censure of Non-Muslims

Further, the First Amendment, free-speech rights of non-Muslims are being curtailed amidst the demands of Muslims who operate under few constraints. While non-Muslims are self-censoring out of fear and being shut down by authorities, Muslims enjoy almost unfettered rights to speak out.

For example, leading up to the 9th anniversary of the Muslim attack on 9/11, Pastor Terry Jones of Florida announced that he would burn the Koran in protest of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Not only was Jones’s life threatened by Muslims, but an Obama administration official asked him to cancel his plans. New York Governor David A. Paterson commented in response to Jones’ threat: “More and more, particularly this year, I feel that the memory of those who were lost is being disrespected.” However, Paterson did not criticize the Muslim threat on Jones’ life, nor the plan itself to build a mosque over the remains of the victims of Islamic terrorism killed on 9/11.

While Pastor Jones was punished by the loss of his mortgage and insurance and was presented with a bill for $180,000 for security by the City of Gainesville, Muslims avoided any public opprobrium even though twenty innocent people around the world died during Muslim protests against Jones. Like the response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons years earlier, the Koran-burning activity was suppressed and censured as disrespectful to Muslims. It was even compared to the burning of churches and synagogues. Yet Muslims who threatened violent reprisals against Jones were not warned that attempts to curtail First Amendment rights and even mayhem, assaults, or murder would not be tolerated and would be punished to the full extent of the law.

In another instance of free speech rights violations, when New Jersey Transit Authority (NJTA) worker Derek Fenton burned a Koran near Ground Zero on 9-11, he was promptly removed by authorities as much for the perceived insult to Islam as for his own safety. The very next day, he was fired from his job of eleven years.

In October, NPR reporter,Juan Williams was fired for expressing on Fox News a fear shared by the majority of Americans in a post-9/11 world — his discomfort about being on a plane with people who dress as conservative Muslims. Thanks to pressure from CAIR, a Hamas-supporting, extremist-linked organization, Williams was punished for this thoughtcrime and, without first talking to Williams, an NPR spokesperson broke the news on Twitter. Ironically, CAIR spokespersons are regular guests on NPR programs.

Cartoonist Molly Norris was forced to disappear after declaring April 20 “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Norris ignited a religious firestorm with radical Islamic cleric Imam Anwar al-Awlaki publicly ordering her execution. Under FBI recommendations and at her own expense, Norris went underground, changing her name and identity. She is no longer publishing cartoons at the publication where she has been a regular contributor.

Freedom of Speech for Muslims

Whereas Norris was forced to enter a witness-protection program in response to a fatwa against her, Islamic leaders enjoy unlimited freedom to spread their messages of hate within the United States. Some even receive protection at taxpayer expense, as did Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Egyptian-American Sufi imam who plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Rauf is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, endeavors to supplant U.S. law with shariah, and refuses to condemn jihadist groups and terrorism. In addition, he refused to sign a pledge revoking the mandatory death sentence for Muslim apostasy, has encouraged U.S. government officials to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas, and blames the United States for 9/11. Imam Rauf, who created the Shariah Index Project, which rates countries around the world on shariah compliance, has said that he believes in shariah supremacy.

Tariq Ramadan, a highly controversial leader in the fundamentalist Muslim world and the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna, visited the United States in April. As a keynote speaker at the Hamas-supporting Council on American Islam Relations and as a speaker before another Muslim Brotherhood organization, the Muslim American Society, Ramadan refused to condemn the shariah law provision that calls for stoning women for alleged improprieties or to denounce suicide bombing. Ramadan is suspected by U.S. intelligence of having ties to al-Qaeda. He espouses amicable messages of peace and respect when speaking with Western audiences, while endorsing Wahhabism and spreading hatred of the West to Arabic-speaking audiences.

Even Muslims targeted by our own government for their crimes receive protection. Anwar al-Awlaki, dubbed the “bin Laden of the internet” and suspected of having prior knowledge of 9/11 by having met privately with two of the 9/11 hijackers, has been defended by the American Civil Liberties Union. After President Obama approved placing Awlaki on a government assassination list, the ACLU initiated a lawsuit against the U.S. government challenging the order to kill him. This despite Awlaki being on the FBI’s Most Wanted List and his having met and corresponded with Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin. He trained the Christmas underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was the inspiration for Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square car bomber. In a recent video delivered to CNN, Awlaki stated that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against the United States.

Nine years after 9/11, in contrast to protections enjoyed by Muslims, individuals perceived by Muslims to have damaged Islam in some way have been threatened, fired, and publicly censured. This development indicates how far we have come down the road to dhimmitude, a subservient status in relation to Muslims. Clearly, if Norris had organized a Draw Jesus or Draw Moses Day, her life would be very much intact. If Juan Williams had talked about his fear of fundamentalist Christians, he would still be an NPR host in good standing. Had Jones burned the Old Testament, twenty people murdered by Muslims jihadists would still be alive, his reputation would be untarnished, and his financial situation would be undamaged. Had Derek Fenton burned a copy of the Old or New Testament, it is unlikely that the NJTA would have taken any action against him.

Islamization of America

We are witnessing a transformation of American society in which Islam enjoys a privileged place among the country’s religions. The sensitivities of the country’s 3 to 5 million Muslims are considered above those of non-Muslims. Non-Muslims even assist sensitive Muslims in the weeding out of potentially offensive statements or actions that could be remotely critical of Islam or Muslims. Since 9/11, Americans have been well-trained not to talk about Islam and terrorism or to use the word “jihad.” Publicly criticizing, voicing concern about, or even expressing fear about Muslim behavior or activities is forbidden. While other religions may be freely criticized, lampooned in cartoons, and denigrated by artwork, Islam is sacred, supreme, and beyond reproach.

Every effort is made in the United States to accommodate Muslims and engage them in interfaith dialogue and community affairs. Muslims may pray openly in public — on city streets and in airport terminals. Many U.S. government departments hold Iftar dinners to celebrate the end of Ramadan. The Ground Zero mosque will be built over the ashes of 9/11 victims, but the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed by Muslims will not. Non-Muslims enjoy no such privileges or special treatment in Muslim countries. They may not visit Mecca nor build churches or synagogues. U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia are prohibited from wearing visible religious symbols.

The foregoing examples, not exhaustive by any means, point to the fact that we are living under a de facto shariah law system in the United States today that has compromised the freedoms we have enjoyed under our Constitution — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Now, we no longer enjoy equal protection under the law. Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression. This has led to the stealthy introduction of shariah law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions.

Instead, claims of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bias are rampant. Yet consider the following: the Muslim atrocity of 9/11, the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim Abdulmutallab to detonate plastic explosive in his underwear on a Northwest Airlines flight in 2009, the massacre of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood by jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hassan in 2009, the failed bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad last May, the violent jihad plot in North Carolina planned by Daniel Patrick Boyd, the recent storming of a Baghdad church and murder of 58 Christians, the UPS plot to bomb synagogues in the Chicago area uncovered this past weekend, and countless other incidents over the past several years.

It is not irrational and biased to fear practitioners of a religion who are trying to kill non-Muslims based on teachings from their religion’s doctrine. Apologists for Islam whitewash these events, but Islamic teachings (Reliance of the Traveller, o4.9, p. 590) specifically state that a Muslim’s life is worth three times that of a Christian or Jew and fifteen times more than that of a Zoroastrian. (The Consulate General of India, Jeddah lists indemnities for Hindus and Buddhists at 1/15 that of Muslims). When non-Muslims so much as express any discomfort with Muslims and Islamic ideology, they risk public censure, financial ruin, loss of livelihood, and even death. The United States is truly under shariah law when it is forbidden and a punishable offense to call out Islamic doctrine for what it is.

Sharia = Sedition

Consider this a tutorial on why the active and purposeful pursuit of Shariah in the U.S. has implications for the federal criminal law of sedition (notably Title 18, Section 2385 of the U.S. Code) and why Jewish law and Christian dogma or Catholic canon do not. Specifically, I present here a brief discussion of whether such application of federal criminal law to Shariah would have an impact on the practice of Jews who observe Jewish law and the private adjudication of religious and commercial matters before a bais din or Jewish court of law (or, for that matter, Christians or Catholics submitting arbitral matters before private ecclesiastical boards or panels).

To begin, by Shariah we mean the authoritative and authoritarian corpus juris of Islamic law as it has been articulated by the recognized Shariah authorities over more than a millennium. The term Shariah as used herein, therefore, does not refer to a personal, subjective, pietistic understanding of the word or concept of Shariah. This latter understanding of the word Shariah is closer to its literal meaning in Arabic without any of the legalistic connotations it has developed as an authoritative institution in Islamic history; as it is currently practiced in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan; and as it is meant when referred to in the various laws and constitutions of most Muslim countries.

I have written extensively on the question of the practice or advocacy of Shariah by Shariah authorities as a violation of the primary federal sedition statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 2385) on the grounds that throughout the long 1200-year history of the development of Shariah, and across all five major schools of Shariah jurisprudence, five salient facts are embedded in a deep consensus among all authoritative Shariah authorities:

1. The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.
2. Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non- violent means. But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.
3. The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah’s law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.
4. The doctrine of Jihad is foundational because it is based upon explicit verses in the Qur’an and the most authentic of canonical Sunna and it is considered a cornerstone of justice: until the infidels and polytheists are converted, subjugated, or murdered, their mischief and domination will continue to harm the Muslim nation. And,
5. Jihad is conducted primarily through kinetic warfare but it includes other modalities such as propaganda and psychological warfare.

Much of my work in this area has drawn upon original Shariah-based works and the academic scholarship relating to that body of work, but also includes the scholarship of others. I especially owe much to Stephen Coughlin (Major U.S. Army Reserves, military intelligence) and his work for the Joint Chiefs while assigned to USCENTCOM.

Because Jihad necessarily advocates violence and the destruction of our representative, constitution- based government, the advocacy of Jihad by a Shariah authority presents a real and present danger. This is sedition when advocated from within our borders; an act of war when directed at us from foreign soil.

This is especially true because a Shariah authority commands the absolute allegiance of the Shariah faithful Jihadist. As Professors Frank Vogel and Samuel Hayes explain, both distinguished professors at Harvard University and proponents of Shariah-compliant finance, Shariah is not some personalized, subjective, pietistic approach to Islam but an institutionalized legal-political-normative doctrine and system:

Islamic legal rules encompass both ethics and law, this world and the next, church and state. The law does not separate rules enforced by individual conscience from rules enforced by a judge or by the state. Since scholars alone are capable of knowing the law directly from revelation, laypeople are expected to seek an opinion (fatwa) from a qualified scholar on any point in doubt; if they follow that opinion sincerely, they are blameless even if the opinion is in error.[1] (Emphasis added.)

Shariah, as it is described on its own terms, is fundamentally and critically unlike Jewish law and any form of Christian canon or ecclesiastical law. Specifically, because neither Jewish law (halacha) nor Christian canon or ecclesiastical law obligates the Jew or Christian, respectively, to violently impose theo-political tenets in lieu of the Constitution, there is simply no basis to apply the laws of sedition to the application of Jewish law or Christian dogma within private religious or commercial contexts. While Jews and Christians may advocate and petition their government for laws that reflect their moral and theological worldview (as may Muslims or atheists), neither Jewish law nor Christian dogma permits the forceful imposition of a theocracy in lieu of representative government or the replacement of our constitution with theocratic legislation.

The contrast between Jewish law and Shariah makes this point vividly. After the fall of the Jewish Commonwealth and the dispersion of the Jews into lands ruled by non-Jews following the Roman destruction of the Second Holy Temple (the current Exile, which includes the modern State of Israel), Talmudic and Jewish legal authorities developed several fundamental principles of Jewish law. The first is dina d’malchuta dina – or, the law of the land in commercial matters is the law (see, e.g., BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Baba Kama 113a, Baba Basra 54b, Gittin 10b, and Nedarim 28a). In other words, the sovereign’s secular commercial laws control Jewish law.

The second post-Exilic legal ruling which separates Jewish law from traditional and still quite contemporary Shariah is that Jewish law on its own terms no longer grants jurisdiction over criminal matters or any form of civil or administrative penalty to a Jewish bais din or court. At best, a Jewish court established by the community may render decisions about money judgments for actual damages as a kind of private arbitration (see, Rabbi Joseph Caro, SHULCHAN ARUCH, Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 1:1-2.) Thus, Jewish law does not allow a bais din, even in modern Israel, to issue a ruling that could have any penal or even compensatory function for non-money damages – such as embarrassment or shame.

It is also worth noting that there is no Jewish legal or normative doctrine for taking lives – others’ or one’s own – as a martyr in fulfilling Jewish law. Specifically, Jewish law requires a Jew to violate Jewish law and to follow the law of the land rather than suffer death except in three cases[2]: (i) if the local law requires a Jew to murder someone (fighting and killing in a legal war of the nation is of course not murder so Jews have no basis for resisting a military draft); (ii) if the local law requires the Jew to engage in some sexual perversion (incest, rape, or homosexuality); and (iii) if the local law requires the Jew to worship idols. But even in these three cases, a Jew must simply allow himself to be punished or martyred by the authorities for his refusal to violate one of these fundamental sins. That is, Jewish martyrdom is a passive act of resistance. There is no concept of a Jewish martyr who dies murdering his enemy.

Shariah turns the Jewish legal doctrine of martyrdom on its head. As noted above, Shariah demands that its law dominate and it is a fundamental crime under Shariah for a Muslim to adhere to a secular law that does not make clear that Shariah is the “highest law of the land”. If a Muslim adheres to a secular constitution deemed the “highest law of the land”, even if the secular constitution and the laws of the land allow for Shariah adherence, the Muslim is considered a Mushrik or polytheist – subject to capital punishment because he has implicitly acknowledged a law giver higher than Allah.[3] Moreover, according to Shariah, a Muslim is a martyr when he dies killing/murdering the infidel. There is nothing passive about the act which awards the Jihadist this appellation.

And, returning to the Jewish legal concept of “the law of the land is the law”, this Jewish legal doctrine is true according to most authorities precisely because a legitimate sovereign acting as a representative of its people passing laws for just and peaceful relations is participating itself in the divine plan for human existence. Jewish law recognizes this divinity and does not seek to deligitimatize secular or foreign law by rendering it, as Shariah does, an affront and illegal challenge to supreme divine law and punishable by death.

Further, the only method available to the contemporary bais din to enforce its rulings is by the imposition of a kind of communal excommunication (i.e., herem, niddui, or nezifah).[4] As a practical matter, because the post-Exilic Jewish legal structure is not hierarchical, no bais din can force its ruling on any other and this leaves even this enforcement action as little more than local, voluntary censure.

To a Shariah-adherent Muslim, however, contemporary Shariah has lost none of its political clout and continues to have the power of state action. Thus,

Since Islamic law reflects the will of [Allah] rather than the will of a human lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest to a secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and religious practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution (sic) matters, as well as many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the concern of the secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such thing as a separate secular authority and secular law, since religion and state are one. Essentially, the Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a religious entity established under divine law.[5]

To conclude, it should be clear with but a cursory analysis, because Shariah calls for the destruction of our constitutional republic and for our conversion, subjugation, or murder it is criminal. There simply is no basis to suggest that either Judaism or Christianity, or in fact any other well-known religious dogma or doctrine, falls within the statutory coverage of our extant laws criminalizing sedition.

Tenets of Shariah Law

Introduction: Tenets of Shariah Law

Shariah-Islamic Law is a military political doctrine written 1,200 years ago by Islamic authorities. The believers of Shariah-Islamic Law have created a movement like Apartheid in which a minority oppresses a majority.

The goal of authoritative Shariah-Islamic Law is to establish a one-world militant political Islam through Jihad. There are three forms of Jihad: Violent, Cultural, and Financial.

While this mission seems unfathomable, so did the events of September 11 just one day before on September 10.

Shariah is not a religion. It was created centuries after the written Koran, Islam’s holy book. Just because a person is Muslim and therefore follows the Islamic faith, it does not necessarily mean he or she supports or chooses to live under Shariah. Many Muslims are brutally oppressed under Shariah-Islamic Law.

Today, Shariah is the law of the land in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Nigeria and Indonesia. It is the ultimate authority among the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah.

There is NO freedom of religion, equal rights, children’s rights or freedom of speech under Shariah-Islamic Law. Criticism of Islam or leaving the faith of Islam is a crime punishable by death. Forced child marriages, the beating of disobedient wives, public hanging of gays, and persecution of those who do not believe in Islam (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, others) are tenets of Shariah law.

Tenets of Shariah-Islamic Law (From Reliance of The Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law, the authoritative Sha’afi school compendium of shari’a jurisprudence.)

Sharia on family law:

* Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men
* Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather
* Arab women may not marry non-Arab men
* Women may not leave the house without a husband’s permission
* Muslim men may marry 4 women, including Christians and Jews; Muslim women may marry Muslims
* Men may beat insubordinate wives

Sharia on Jihad and religion:

* Offensive war (military Jihad) against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
* Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
* Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.
* Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity “zakat”, but may be bribed to convert to Islam but
* Lying to infidels during Jihad, or to promote Islam, is permissible

Sharia on human rights:

* Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed
* Slavery is permitted and legitimate
* Muslim men have unlimited sexual rights over slave women, even married slaves
* Female sexual mutilation (cliterectomy) is obligatory
* Adultery is punished with death by stoning
* Women’s testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases)
* Non-Muslims may not testify in Shariah courts.

CREEPING SHARIAH-ISLAMIC LAW

The Shariah Supremacy movement does not have the goal of hacking off limbs and stoning women in the West. The goal of the Shariah political movement is to have political Islam become an important component of Western life, bringing with it: Shariah courts to maintain patriarchal power in the family structure, censorship of speech and press to eliminate “racism and discrimination” against Islam; control of western economies through investment by dictating “un-Islamic” and “Islamic” industries, and elevating the political importance of Islam far above any other religion.

Little by little Shariah is creeping into our society, as per the following examples:

* footbaths in banks & airports (Minneapolis)
* polygamy (USA & UK)
* forced child marriages (Europe & Canada)
* honor killings (USA, Canada, Europe)
* spousal abuse among Muslim immigrant populations (USA & Europe)
* Islamic holidays replacing American holidays like Labor Day (Tyson Foods)
* publicly funded Shariah-Islamic schools (Virginia, NY, Minnesota)
* companies creating Islamic prayer rooms (Wachovia)
* nurses required to turn beds towards Mecca five times a day (UK)
* elimination of wine and alcohol at hotels (Hyatt)
* separation of men and women for recreation activities (Harvard)
* taxi drivers refusing to pick up passengers with wine, alcohol or seeing eye dogs (Minneapolis)
* and a growing Shariah Finance investment market supported by Citibank, UBS, HSBC, Dow Jones, Standard & Pours, and nearly every national investment bank you can think of, which is branding “Shariah” as some innocuous religious accommodation required by “moderate” Muslims

Stealth Jihad

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985569?ie=UTF8&tag=robertspencer-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1596985569

Islamic Holy War

The Jihad: We’re All in This Together

Jews, Christians, Hindus: we must all hang together or we will surely be beheaded separately.

You have a problem. It’s a problem shared by Jews in Hebron, Serbs in Kosovo, Hindus in the Kashmir, Catholics in Lebanon, and Americans walking the streets of New York.

Consider the inter-connectedness of the following incidents, all of which took place in the past few months:

* In Indonesia, three Christian schoolgirls were beheaded.
* In Iraq, a Syrian Orthodox priest was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.
* In Somalia, a nun was shot to death as she left the hospital where she worked, tending the sick and dying.
* In Lebanon, just days ago, a cabinet minister was assassinated.
* In Britain, authorities uncovered a conspiracy in which native-born Brits plotted to blow up several trans-Atlantic flights, killing as many as 3,000.
* In Afghanistan, suicide bombers are at work again.
* In Iraq, they never stopped. Additionally, the week before last, a group of worshippers were abducted from a mosque, doused with gasoline and burned to death in what’s described as “sectarian violence.”
* In France, a high school philosophy teacher is in hiding after very credible death threats following publication of a September 19th commentary in Le Figaro.
* Some 139 people died in riots in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – following the publication of Danish cartoons.
* Europe is experiencing the worst wave of anti-Semitic violence since Kristallnacht. The former director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum reports there an average of 12 assaults a day on Jews in Paris.
* In Kosovo, 90 percent of Serbs gave been ethnically cleansed from the province since 1999. The rest live in a state of siege.
* In Mumbai, India, a series of blasts killed almost 200.
* In Gaza, terrorists recently celebrated the latest “ceasefire” by raining more rockets on southern Israel.
* And the leader of more than a billion Catholics received death threats and demands that he convert after giving a speech in which he called for a balance of faith and reason, and quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor.

What do the foregoing have in common?

To quote columnist Mark Steyn, in his excellent book America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It, it begins with an “I” and ends with a “slam.”

I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists. I am saying that almost all terrorists are Muslims – the mother of all no-brainers – and that Islam is a faith that is, shall we say, terrorism-friendly. I challenge you to name another faith in which your entry into Heaven is assured by killing those of another faith in a holy war.

I am not saying that Muslims are inherently bad people. Most Muslims are like most people everywhere. I am saying that there are elements in Islam that incline adherents to commit the crimes detailed a moment ago.

I am saying – and let me be clear about this – that a faith embraced by as many as 1.3 billion people worldwide contains within it the seeds of the evil we see all around us – seeds which require only the right conditions to germinate. It all goes back to the Koran.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the midst of a world war, one every bit as deadly as the Cold War, and with a potential for devastation to rival World War II. Actually, the Cold War is a bad analogy. For perhaps the 20 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, almost no one was willing to die for Communism. Today, ten of millions – perhaps hundreds of millions – around the world would gladly die, and kill, for Dar Islam.

But we make a fatal mistake if we think of Islam only in terms of suicide bombings, sniper attacks, death threats, forced conversions, female genital mutilation, honor killings, jihad-this and fatwah-that.

Every bit as important is what’s going on in maternity wards from Brussels to Bombay.

Of the 10 nations with the lowest birthrates, nine are in post-Christian Europe. And the ten countries with the highest fertility rates? That’s right – starts with an “I” and ends in a “slam.”

Fertility rates in the Muslim world look like this: Niger (7.46 children per woman), Mali (7.42), Somalia (6.76), Afghanistan (6.69), and Yemen (6.58). The Palestinian woman in Gaza who – at age 64 – just became the world’s oldest suicide bomber was the mother of nine and (at last count) the grandmother of 41.

Between 1970 and 2000, while the share of the world’s population represented by the industrialized nations declined from just under 30 percent to just over 20 percent, the share accounted for by the wonderful world of jihad rose from 15 percent to 20 percent.

Compared to the rest of the industrialized world, the United States is experiencing a veritable population explosion – with a birth rate of 2.11, just about replacement level. From there, it’s demographic winter as far as the eye can see: Canada (1.5), Germany (1.3), Russia and Italy (1.2) and not-so-sunny Spain (1.1). The latter three nations could cease to exist, as they are currently constituted, within the next 50 years.

According to a November 21, 2006 Washington Times story, by 2015, more than half the soldiers in the Russian Army will be Muslims. And you thought the Czar was bad! By 2020, over 20 percent of Russia’s population will be reading the Koran, religiously.

Within the lifetimes of some in this room, the UK, France Belgium, and the Netherlands could go Islamic green. For the present, Muslims comprise 10 percent of the French population. But of “Frenchmen” under 20, fully 30 percent share the faith of Osama bin Laden, Baby Assad, and Iran’s nut-cake leader.

You can talk all you want about population control being the happy result of higher standards of living, careers for women, sex education, contraception and access to abortion. In fact, it’s becoming the assisted suicide of the West. What it really comes boils to is this: Confident societies have babies. People with a sense of mission have children. Nations with a sense of destiny and faith in the future fill maternity wards, and nurseries and cradles.

Those that believe in God as a vague, philosophical concept (if He exists at all), don’t. Instead of the future, they put their trust in 401(k) plans, elaborate state welfare systems, and gated retirement communities.

There are still enough of those of us who care enough to act. But the hour grows proverbially late.

Everyone is so focused on their own thing that they miss the larger picture. Zionists rightly worry about Palestinian terrorism and fate of Israel should Judea, Samaria, and Gaza become Hamas-istan.

Serbs decry the destruction of ancient churches, monasteries, and shrines in Kosovo – not to mention the ethnic cleansing that followed NATO’s victory over Slobodan Milosevic – and worry about the province being permanently detached from Serbia.

Hindus anguish over the ongoing violence in Kashmir, supported by Pakistan, which has claimed more than 50,000 lives in the past 20 years, as well as terrorist acts in the rest of India.

Groups like Voice of the Martyrs meticulously document Christian persecution in the Muslim world. Lebanese Christians lament the demise of the last Christian country in the Middle East and Hezbollah creating a state-within-a-state. Coptic Christians complain about the treatment of their co-religionists in Egypt. And the beat goes on. But these are all part of a seamless chador. What happens in Kosovo affects the Kashmir. As Judea and Samaria go, ultimately, so go Lebanon and London.

In retrospect, it’s easy to see that a number of events in the 1930s were steps leading to the Second World War: Hitler’s rise to power, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, German and Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese conquest of Manchuria, and so on. It’s always easier to see the interconnectedness of events and the significance of trends in retrospect – well after the fact. But at least after Pearl Harbor, most Americans understood that they were at war. It’s been five years since this generation’s Pearl Harbor, and most of us still don’t have a clue.

When word of Pearl Harbor reached London, Winston Churchill called Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The conversation ended with the British prime minister telling the American president: “Well, we are all in this together now.” As indeed they were; as they probably had been since the early 1930s, though almost no one was aware of it at the time.

Well, my friends, we truly are all in this together – Jews and Catholics, Lebanese Christians and Hindus, Orthodox Serbs, and Indonesian Christians. Until we begin to understand that, we have no hope of countering the global jihad. When Zionists start caring about the fate of Serbs in Kosovo, when Hindus support Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (designated the West Bank), when Serbs stand up for Indian Kashmir, then we will begin making progress.

middle east info dot org

Taqiyya – Kitman – Islamic Lying

Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman) — Question: Are Muslims permitted to lie?

Summary Answer:

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur’an:

Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”

Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.

Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”

Qur’an (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”

Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”

Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”

Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true.

Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Qur’an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The near absence of Qur’anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur’an, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” – referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

Conquests of Prophet Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphate, 630-641

Related articles

• Diversity in the Counter-Jihad (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)