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
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
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.
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. (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: (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. 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). 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.
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.
- Admonish One Another
- Comment on Son’s Facebook regarding ObamaCare
- Can We Stop This Creeping Jihad?
- Terrorism in Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood is being rejected
- Baby Jihad or Jihad by birth rate
- Our Wives Are In Charge HVAC Service
- The Arab World Fears the ‘Safavid’ | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- Report: EU Backing Away from Blacklisting Hezbollah | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- The not defendable borders of lesser Israel
- Allah and Muhammad quote Babylonian Talmud instead of Hebrew Scriptures
- Prominent U.S. Imam: New Caliphate Should Wage Jihad
- Yes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a Muslim Terrorist
- Business Services – Temporary Posts
- Christianity / God
- Daily Gospel
- Just Because :-)
- Pending Classification
- Societal / Cultural Issues
- Understanding Islam