Joys Of Muslim Women

Joys of Muslim Women
By Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9.

The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the West World ( America and Britain ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and British Universities are now marrying Muslim men and subm itting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened American and British women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

Ripping the West in Two.

Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.

She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .

When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping shariah law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Shariah teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Shariah encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Shariah advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.

(In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. And Britain To elect the President by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA .. Dearborn Mich. Is one... And there are others....) ( Britain has several cities now totally controlled by Muslims)

I think everyone in the U.S. And Great Britain Should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. Some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. The peaceful support the warriors with their fina nces and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America and Britain are getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America .. (and Britain ) ..

When Will It Happen Here?

How Political Correctness Is Transforming British Education

by Soeren Kern
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3170/british-education-political-correctness#.UAQtSmOuuGk.facebook

In Cheshire, two students at the Alsager High School were punished by their teacher for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class.

In Scotland, 30 non-Muslim children from the Parkview Primary School recently were required to visit the Bait ur Rehman Ahmadiyya mosque in the Yorkhill district of Glasgow (videos here and here). At the mosque, the children were instructed to recite the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith which states: "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger." Muslims are also demanding that Islamic preachers be sent to every school in Scotland to teach children about Islam, ostensibly in an effort to end negative attitudes about Muslims.

British schools are increasingly dropping the Jewish Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, according to a report entitled, Teaching Emotive and Controversial History, commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills.

British teachers are also reluctant to discuss the medieval Crusades, in which Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem: lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

In an effort to counter "Islamophobia" in British schools, teachers now are required to teach "key Muslim contributions such as Algebra and the number zero" in math and science courses, even though the concept of zero originated in India.

In the East London district of Tower Hamlets, four Muslims were recently jailed for attacking a local white teacher who gave religious studies lessons to Muslim girls; and 85 out of 90 schools have implemented "no pork" policies.

Schools across Britain are, in fact, increasingly banning pork from lunch menus to avoid offending Muslim students. Hundreds of schools have adopted a "no pork" policy, according to a recent report by the London-based Daily Telegraph.

The culinary restrictions join a long list of politically correct changes that gradually are bringing hundreds of British primary and secondary education into conformity with Islamic Sharia law.

The London Borough of Haringey, a heavily Muslim district in North London, is the latest school district to switch to a menu that is fully halal (religiously permissible for Muslims).

The Haringey Town Council recently issued "best practice" advice to all schools in its area to "ban all pork products in order to cater for the needs of staff and pupils who are not permitted contact with these for religious reasons."

Local politicians have criticized the new policy as pandering to Muslims, and local farmers, who have pointed out that all schools in Britain already offer vegetarian options, have accused school administrators of depriving non-Muslim children of a choice.

Following an outcry from non-Muslim parents, the town council removed the guidance from its website, although the new policy remains in place.

At the Cypress Junior School, in Croydon, south London, school administrators announced in the school newsletter dated June 1, 2012 that the school has opted for a pork-free menu "as a result of pupil and parental feedback."

The announcement states: "Whilst beef, chicken, turkey and fish will all feature, as well as the daily vegetarian and jacket potato or pasta option, the sausages served will now be chicken rather than pork."

In Luton, an industrial city some 50 kilometers (30 miles) north of London where more than 15% of the population is now Muslim, 23 out of 57 schools have banned pork.

In the City of Bradford, a borough of West Yorkshire in Northern England where there are now twice as many practicing Muslims that there are practicing Anglicans, 24 out of 160 schools have eliminated pork from their menus. In Newham (East London), 25 out of 75 schools have banned pork.

Other pork-free schools include Cranford Park Primary School in Hayes (Middlesex), and Dog Kennel Hill Primary in East Dulwich (South London).

The Borough of Harrow in northwest London was among the first in Britain to encourage halal menus. In 2010, Harrow Council announced plans to ban pork in the borough's 52 state primary schools, following a switch by ten secondary schools to offer halal-only menus.

According to the UK-based National Pig Association, which represents commercial pork producers, "It is disappointing that schools cannot be sufficiently organized to give children a choice of meat. Sausages and roast pork are staples of a British diet and children enjoy eating them. If products can be labeled with warnings that they contain nuts and vegetarian dishes can be made and kept separate from meat dishes, [we] don't see why the same can't apply to pork."

Lunch menus are not the only area in which "cultural sensitivity" is escalating in British schools.

In West Yorkshire, the Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley has banned stories featuring pigs, including "The Three Little Pigs," in case they offend Muslim children.

In Nottingham, the Greenwood Primary School cancelled a Christmas nativity play; it interfered with the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. In Scarborough, the Yorkshire Coast College removed the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar not to offend Muslims.

Also in Cheshire, a 14-year-old Roman Catholic girl who attends Ellesmere Port Catholic High School was branded a truant by teachers for refusing to dress like a Muslim and visit a mosque.

In Stoke-on-Trent, schools have been ordered to rearrange exams, cancel swimming lessons and stop sex education during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. In Norwich, the Knowland Grove Community First School has axed the traditional Christmas play to "look at some of the other great cultural festivals of the world."

Meanwhile, the politically correct ban on pigs in Britain also extends to toys for children. A toy farm set called HappyLand Goosefeather Farm recently removed pigs in order to avoid offending Muslims.

The pig removal came to public attention after a British mother bought the toy as a present for her daughter's first birthday. Although the set contained a model of a cow, sheep, chicken, horse and dog, there was no pig, despite there being a sty and a button which generated an "oink" sound.

After the mother complained, the Early Learning Centre (ELC), which manufactures the toy, responded: "Previously the pig was part of the Goosefeather Farm. However due to customer feedback and religious reasons this is no longer part of the farm."

After a public outcry, however, ELC later reversed its decision: "We recognize that pigs are familiar farm animals, especially for our UK customers. We have taken the decision to reinstate the pig and to no longer sell the set in international markets where it might create an issue."

Think It Can't Happen Here?

Guess again ...

When nations and cultures ignore the early warning signs of the infiltration of radical Islam, they pay a very dear price. The UK has 85 sharia courts. France has over 750 “no go zones,” Muslim enclaves where even French police don’t enter.

Now the latest—a video of what is happening in Belgium.



We’re sure most people in Belgium never believed this could happen in their country. The path of least resistance for us Americans is to assume this could never happen here. But it already is. Just ask the Pennsylvania man who dressed up as a “zombie Mohammed” in a Halloween parade and was assaulted by a Muslim. To add insult to injury, a judge lectured the man who marched in the parade—calling him insensitive—and, astonishingly, dismissed the charges against the Muslim.

Someone must repeatedly sound the warning for America. That is the mission of ACT! for America. What can you do today to be part of our “early warning system?”

Recruiting A Terrorist

Sharia Involved IN US Court Cases

New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States


Washington, DC, May 17, 2011 - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.

The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.

On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

"These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded."


Key Findings:

• At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
  
  
• At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
  
  
• The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute: 21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.”
  
  
• The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.
  
  

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.

Mr. Gaffney added:

“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.

“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”

The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com

Justice Department Sues Chicago School

The Obama Administration Fights For Sharia Law
At The Expense of Public School Students

2010 December 15
by Joseph Klein

The 'Is it Legal?' segment of The O'Reilly Factor last night dealt with a disturbing decision by the Obama Justice Department that has received very little publicity. It is yet another example of the Obama administration's policy of accommodation to Islamic sharia law, irrespective of its impact on our own society.

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to sue a suburban Chicago school district for denying a Muslim middle school female teacher three weeks of unpaid leave to abandon her students and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. The teacher wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if he or she is able to do so.

Ironically, the Obama administration is suing over a practice that discriminates against women. Under Islamic law, a woman is not allowed to perform Hajj alone and must be accompanied by an adult Muslim Mahram (father, husband, son or brother etc.). And for an administration that claims it regards a quality education for our public school students to be one of its highest priorities, it is willing to fight for the "right" of a Muslim teacher to abandon the students in her charge so that she can trek to Mecca for a few weeks.

In any case, note that the religious requirement for a Muslim to perform Hajj is once in a lifetime if financially and physically able to do so. This teacher, Safoorah Khan, had no more than two years of service under her belt at the suburban Chicago school when, in 2008, she decided that she could not wait any longer to make her pilgrimage. After the school district twice denied her request, the teacher wrote the board that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj." She resigned shortly thereafter. In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which punted the case over to the Justice Department after finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred.

This week, Eric Holder's team in the Justice Department's civil rights division decided to bring the school district to federal court on Khan's behalf. The relief that the Obama administration is seeking is a court order requiring the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees' religious practices and beliefs, to reinstate Khan with back pay and pay her compensatory damages.

There is nothing "reasonable" in Khan's demand for making her pilgrimage on her own timetable. If anyone deserves "compensatory damages," it is the school system which has to defend itself against this frivolous lawsuit.

As usual, the Obama administration is pandering to accommodate the demands of the radical Muslim community. Obama is fulfilling his promise to the Muslim world, made during his Cairo speech last year, "to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit."

Khan saw fit to leave her students for about ten percent of the school year because she desired to perform her pilgrimage when, and for however long, she desired. Why now when Khan has a lifetime to fulfill her religious duty (provided that she has a male Muslim accompanying her)? And why did she ask for a three week leave when all the essential duties of the pilgrimage are normally performed in 5 to 6 days?

This isn't the first time that the Obama administration has gone out of its way to enforce special accommodations for Muslims. For example, as I described in my book Lethal Engagement, in response to complaints filed by Somali Muslim employees with the help of a Chicago-based chaptr of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided that JBS Swift violated their civil rights by dismissing those who refused to work during Ramadan because they were not permitted to take special time off during work hours for prayer. The demand would have disrupted work schedules, leaving their fellow non-Muslim workers to pick up the slack. The EEOC chose to send its decision by letter directly to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, showing their close relationship in the Obama era.

Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder are willing to subordinate American values of individual liberty, freedom of expression and equal treatment under the law in order to accommodate radical Muslims' special demands in "practicing religion as they see fit."

Radical Muslims are exploiting our democratic system and using the irreproachable shield of "religion" to disguise a barbaric system of oppressive sharia laws. Rather than accommodate them, Western democracies must instead challenge the ideas and methods of radical Islamists at every turn.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/15/the-obama-administration-fights-for-sharia-law-at-the-expense-of-public-school-students/

Did CAIR Help Our Cause?

Shining A Light On Shariah Creep

Posted 07:14 PM ET November 10, 2010

Islamofascism: The Council on American-Islamic Relations may wish it never sued to overturn an Oklahoma ban on Shariah law. Now the entire nation will get to see it and other Islamists' true anti-American colors.

CAIR is thumping its chest over persuading a Clinton-appointed federal judge to temporarily block Oklahoma from enacting a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering Islamic law when deciding cases. Fully 70% of Oklahoma voters passed the landmark measure.

But CAIR has ignited a legal firestorm that will likely rage all the way to the Supreme Court. Thanks to CAIR's latest bit of lawfare, Americans will get to hear a long overdue debate not just about the constitutionality of such bans on Shariah law but about the constitutionality of Shariah law itself.

This is not a debate CAIR wants to have, since it ultimately will have to defend the indefensible. It claims in a press release that Shariah law is "a dynamic legal framework" derived from Islamic scripture "and analytical reasoning." In fact, there's nothing reasoned about it. It's a medieval legal code that administers cruel and unusual punishments such as stonings, amputations and honor killings. Think the Taliban.

Shariah can be seen in action this week with Pakistan's death sentence on a Christian woman for blasphemy. Between 1986 and 2009, at least 974 people have been charged for defiling the Quran or insulting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

CAIR, which thinks free speech is a one-way street, is working with the Organization of the Islamic Conference on an international blasphemy law that would criminalize "Islamophobia," according to the book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America."

Shariah also permits wife-beating, something CAIR also knows about. Its sister organization, the Islamic Society of North America, condones it in its fatwas (or religious rulings) for Muslim Americans. More, CAIR distributes a book, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," which authorizes men to hit their wives.

CAIR says it's just a "civil rights advocacy group." But the Justice Department says it's a front group for Hamas and its parent, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.

"From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a recent court filing.

U.S. prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel millions to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.

"CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.

Federal courts found "ample evidence" linking CAIR to the conspiracy and are expected to unseal the dossier in coming weeks.

The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it's not a terror front. "Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," advised Assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

CAIR's leaders don't want a ban on Shariah law, because they have a secret agenda to institutionalize Shariah law in America.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper let it slip out to a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.

CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution. "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America."

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is an Islamic supremacist who thinks Muslims should run Washington: "Who better can lead America than Muslims?"

Islamizing America also happens to be the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood the radical, Cairo-based outlaw group the government says CAIR is fronting for. The founding archives of its U.S. branch, seized in an FBI raid and introduced as evidence in the Holy Land trial, reveal a "strategic goal" of "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house ... so that Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." The Brotherhood calls its plan a "grand jihad." CAIR argues in its suit that "the Shariah ban's purpose is to stigmatize, denigrate and segregate plaintiff's faith in the public's mind as something foreign and to be feared."

No, the goal is to make sure no Oklahoma judge considers Shariah law in rulings on domestic violence, family law, probate, free speech, contracts and other matters, as judges have in other states, to a wider degree in Canada and now on a routine basis in Britain. The ban is to prevent courts from legitimizing a religious legal system antithetical to the U.S. Constitution in the areas of freedom of speech, equality and humane punishment, among other bedrock Western principles.

Thanks to CAIR's lawsuit, all this can now be aired out for the public.

It's All About Sharia

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39797

NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law
by Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers
11/07/2010

NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour. It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.

A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed. Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.

In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.

Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam. After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?

Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law. The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.

The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam. Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009. And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.

When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred. The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world. The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.

Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise. But there is more here than meets the eye.

Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions. Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”

In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.

Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:

"Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.” Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns. I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence. It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”

Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing. Don’t shut down free speech. Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.

It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam. But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness. As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment.

Sharia: Threat To Security

A powerful new “Team B” report on sharia law, published by the Center for Security Policy, challenges the political establishment’s notions regarding the nature of the threat we are fighting.

The report team included two of our speakers at the ACT! for America 2010 National Conference & Legislative Briefing, James Woolsey and Andrew McCarthy.

According to a column authored by Woolsey and McCarthy, which appeared last week in The Washington Times:

It is time for a "Team B" approach to Islamist ideology. The strategy has worked before, against a similarly determined threat to freedom. In 1976, George H.W. Bush, then director of central intelligence, invited a group of known skeptics about the strategy of detente to review the classified intelligence regarding Soviet intentions and capabilities. The point was to provide an informed second opinion on U.S. policy toward the Kremlin.

The conclusions of this experimental Team B study differed sharply from the government's regnant theory. The skeptics found that, pursuant to its communist ideology, the Soviet Union was determined to secure the defeat of the United States and the West and to tyrannize the globe. Thus, not only was detente unlikely to succeed, but national-security policies undertaken in its pursuit exposed the nation to grave danger. The study was particularly persuasive to former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who would use it not only to challenge the detentist policies of the Ford and Carter administrations but to build the strategy that ultimately brought down the "Evil Empire."

Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat: Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism. Translated as "the path," Shariah is a comprehensive framework designed to govern all aspects of life. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of it as a "religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere - economic, social, military, legal and political. That regulation is oppressive, discriminatory, utterly inimical to our core constitutional liberties and destructive of equal protection under the law, especially for women.

Please click here to view a copy of the report. Even if you only have time to read the Executive Summary, your time will be well-spent.

Shocking NJ Ruling

Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html


Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

"Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal," by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed):

From today's opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:
The record reflects that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. [FN1] The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant's employment in this country as an accountant....

[Long discussion of the wife's allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. -EV]

Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her

this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.

After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant's mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff....[...]

While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant's advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff's contrary wishes.

Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff's domestic violence action....

The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

A close call. But no doubt more of this is to come.

Homosexuality Punishable By Death At Vanderbilt

Homosexuality Punishable By Death At Vanderbilt

Last week, a Vanderbilt University Muslim chaplain publicly acknowledged what those of us who study shariah Islamic law know.

Awadh Binhazim, when pressed on whether or not shariah Islamic law requires the death penalty for homosexuals, asserted that yes, it does.

Furthermore, he stated: “I don’t have a choice as a Muslim to accept or reject teachings.”

According to a January 29th WorldNetDaily article, Awadh Binhazim is listed on the Vanderbilt website as “Adjunct Professor of Islam at the Divinity School” and is described by Vanderbilt University officials as “the university’s Muslim chaplain.”

Homosexuals Must Die

And some believe death is too good ...

Barack Advisor Says Sharia Misunderstood ...

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood

By Andrew Gilligan and Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 8:00PM BST 08 Oct 2009

Link

President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".

They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

"The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases."

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood."

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir's website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration's determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.

During this week's broadcast, she described her White House role as "to convey... to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want."

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Miss Mogahed was “downplaying” Sharia Law.

“There is a reason sharia has got a bad name and it is how it has been exercised. Regrettably in the US there have been acts of injustice perpetrated against women that are driven by the Sharia-type mindset that women are objects not human beings,” she said.

She cited the example of Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo man who ran a cable channel aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes and was charged earlier this year with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce.

“Americans understand by example, it’s not as if we are an ignorant mass of people. Just as we don’t broad brush all Muslims, so should Dalia not downplay the serious nature of sharia law.”

A Virus Called Shariah

A virus called 'Shariah'

Center for Security Policy | Sep 28, 2009
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18189.xml

A Denver airport shuttle driver from Afghanistan who plotted to blow up subway trains in New York City. A Jordanian who tried to destroy one of Dallas' tallest skyscrapers. An American who thought he was detonating a truck bomb aimed at a federal courthouse in Springfield, Illinois.

Law enforcement authorities who successfully stymied these alleged attacks have been at pains to emphasize that there are no connections between the three.

Of course there are.

Maybe it will prove to be the case that the three men at the heart of these interrupted plots - Najibullah Zazi, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi and Michael Finton (also known as Talib Islam) - had no connection in a tactical or operational sense.

Still, it is absurd, and extremely dangerous, to insist that they are not connected in at least one way: What apparently animated all three of these suspects (and perhaps a number of others believed to have been involved in the New York plot who are still at large) is the seditious, supremacist theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls "Shariah."

Shariah requires its adherents to engage in jihad - the struggle to bring about the triumph of Islam worldwide through whatever means are available. Shariah explicitly calls for the use of violent techniques designed to instill terror in those who stand in the way of a global Muslim theocracy.

Lethal truck-bombs, pellet-laced explosive vests and backpacks and bombs or hijackers aboard aircraft have already been used for this purpose. It is a matter of time before vastly more destructive weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear) become available to jihadists who believe that, pursuant to Shariah, they are fulfilling Allah's will when they kill "infidels" or otherwise force them to submit to Islam.

Even more insidious, though, is what Robert Spencer calls "Stealth Jihad." This practice involves using myriad non-violent measures to insinuate Shariah into non-Muslim societies. Adherents demand such concessions as special treatment for them and their faith in public spaces, private corporations, schools, communities and government at every level.

The prime-mover behind these demands is the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that shares the violent jihadists' commitment to advance Shariah's end-state of a global caliphate, but seek (for the moment, at least) to do so non-violently. The successful prosecution last year of one Brotherhood front, the Holy Land Foundation, established that the organization's mission is "to destroy Western civilization from within...by its own miserable hand." (In the course of the trial, the government also identified virtually every prominent Muslim-American group as Brotherhood affiliates or "friendly" to its purposes.)

What happens as tolerant democratic societies try to accommodate themselves to the stealthy form of jihad, backed by the persistent threat of the violent form - if not its actual occurrence, can be seen in much of Western Europe. For example, France now has 751 zones urbaines sensibles - Muslim-only areas that amount to "no-go" zones for French authorities. In these zones, Shariah rules instead of the laws of the host government, at the expense most notably of women's rights, due process and public order (especially for Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims).

To be sure, accommodations to date to Shariah have not metastasized in the United States to nearly this extent. There are, however, numerous worrisome examples of concessions that have been made here, too. To cite a few: taxpayer-financed footbaths for Muslims installed at state universities; corporations providing Muslim-only prayer rooms and time off for prayers; government-sanctioned discrimination by taxi drivers against passengers deemed "impure" (haram) because they have alcohol or dogs; unhygenic practices in food plants to accommodate the preferences of Muslim workers; government-offered Shariah-compliant mortgages; Islamic proselytizing in public school curricula; etc.

The failure by U.S. and other governments' officials to recognize the connection between Shariah and jihad (of either the violent or stealthy kind) is like refusing to acknowledge that there is a common virus causing an outbreak of swine flu. How could the medical community hope to identify appropriate prophylactic measures (for instance: Keep kids in school or shut the schools down? Take antibiotics or not?) if it were not permitted to understand the nature of the virus. There would certainly be little chance of developing effective vaccines under those circumstances.

We face approximately the same problem if we require our law enforcement, intelligence, homeland security and military personnel to behave as though there is no toxic virus - think of it as the "anti-swine flu," since pork is the ultimate in haram under Shariah - animating those seeking to destroy us, our government and our freedom-loving way of life. At best, we will be able to stop some of the attacks the jihadists are plotting against us. We certainly will not be able to defeat the disease and thereby protect Western civilization from its potential for truly pandemic virulence.

Our natural allies in taking such a stance against Shariah are the many millions of Muslims around the world whose practice of their faith does not involve adherence to this medieval, barbaric and totalitarian program. Indeed, most Muslim immigrants in America came here to get away from Shariah in their native lands. Only by differentiating such Muslims from the carriers of this lethal virus can we hope to inoculate them against the spread of the disease - and enlist their help in protecting the rest of us by keeping American Shariah-free.

Islams' European Conquest

August 20, 2009
Islam's European Conquest: Is America Next?
By John Griffing

Islamic lands that were occupied by the enemies will once again become Islamic...We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once, and as it will be conquered again."
- Ali Al-Faqir, the Jordanian Minister for Religious Endowment

Britain, birthplace of parliamentary democracy, has fallen to Islam. Oxford, once home to the likes of C.S. Lewis, now houses a giant Eastern Islamic Studies Center. If this were the only Islamic addition to Oxford, the mood would be less somber, but when Oxford citizens are forced to awake every morning to the Muslim call to prayer with the full consent of the Church of England, nothing short of conquest has taken place.

Britain's Muslim demographic is now so dominant that the British government recently began to allow Islamic civil and religious law, known as Sharia, to be enforced along side British law.

But if religious tolerance is good, why is this a problem? Simple-this is not an issue of religious liberty. Islam is not designed to co-exist with western civilization. It is designed to conquer it.

Most would agree that Judeo-Christian values are consistent with Anglo-American tradition. Can the same be said of Islam? Even Muslims don't think so. The chief Justice of London's Sharia Court made this chilling statement:

If Sharia is implemented then you can turn this country into a haven of peace...Once a thief's hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. Once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. This is why we say we want to offer it to British society.

Statements like this have not stopped prominent British figures from endorsing Sharia. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Protestant equivalent of the Pope, called Sharia "unavoidable."

Under Sharia, non-Muslims are forbidden to even criticize Islam. This is significant, considering that a Policy Exchange Poll found that forty percent of British Muslims prefer to be governed by Sharia. Thirty-six percent believe that "apostates" from Islam should be punished by death. A Guardian Poll indicates that a sizeable number of British Muslims favor terrorist attacks on the United States and even England.[1]

There are presently 85 Sharia courts all across Britain, and, although initial defenders of the transformation claimed that Sharia courts would only exercise authority when consistent with British law, recent developments indicate that Muslims want Sharia pushed still further. Many Muslims advocate a separate police force due to the repeated embarrassment of rampant "honor killings."

Honor killings represent a new and growing form of homicide in many European countries, whereby Muslim families collaborate to kill fellow family members to restore honor. This practice is not alien to the US. Recently, a US Muslim man beheaded his wife, confessed to authorities, and still received a scheduled award from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Britain is not alone in its Muslim plight. In 2005, France experienced massive Muslim riots in 300 cities. Public buildings were firebombed, 200 policemen were injured, and 4,000 were arrested.[2] This is not unusual as a Muslim response to perceived offenses. Remember the Danish cartoons?

The central problem is assimilation. Most Muslims don't move to a country with the purpose of becoming real citizens of that country. Muslims don't want to be British or French. Muslims come for the wealth of the west, and to make the west Muslim. The evidence is transparent to anyone paying attention. The Parisian riots of 2005 were committed by second and third generation children of Muslim immigrants.

The ultimate aspiration of Muslims is total, global dominion within a theocracy known as a "caliphate." Be they peaceful Muslims or radical Muslims, all share in this goal.

And, incredibly, we cooperate with this reverse assimilation. Somehow we Westerners now feel compelled to assimilate with Muslims instead of expecting the reverse. Paris fashion runways have even begun designing and modeling "Muslim inspired head wraps and...tunics splattered with simulated blood in what some fashionistas dubbed carnage couture."[3]

The problem of Muslim integration is so sensitive that 751 areas have been willingly ceded to Islamic residents by the French government. Called "no-go zones" by many, these areas are off-limits to non-Muslims who value their lives. The UK is home to an indistinguishable number of "no-go zones," with violence toward non-Muslims increasing in once peaceful areas.

Dutch Muslims have such a grip on Holland that those who speak out must live in safe houses, like Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Yet the Dutch Minister of Justice still wants to make full Sharia an option on the next ballot, which would make Holland the first fully Islamic theocracy in the heart of Europe.

Germany could be next. Matthias Rohe, Judge on the Court of Appeals in Nuremburg wants to see full Sharia in Germany, saying, "we are ready to accept these kind of differences and would apply the norms." Many areas of Germany are now off limits to police and other uniformed personnel, as in France and the UK.

Muslim majorities will soon be a reality. By 2050, one out of every three people in Europe will be age 60 and over. The UN's Populations Division estimates that by 2050, if current birth rates are held, Europe will shrink by 200 million as a new Muslim majority dawns.

And now, onto this stage strides President Barack Hussein Obama, who advocates the European model for all aspects of American life; for the economy, for healthcare, and now, in our dealings with Muslims. We know where that road leads. It has been travelled by an entire continent now doomed to cultural and economic destruction.

Is this what we want? Do we really want European civilization, cultivated for centuries, to suddenly vanish? Do we really want American culture to disappear?

President Obama travels the world apologizing for America's very existence. He redefines Islam's historical goal as one of peaceful coexistence, its moral ethos as one of "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," despite the evidence to the contrary. He pledges that the US "never will be-at war with Islam," blindly ignoring the present strategic situation. He claims that we are the "biggest Muslim country in the world," despite the fact that 80 percent of Americans say they are Christian.

The US has steadily been bowing to Islamic pressure. Many US banks and investment firms have formally adopted Sharia Finance. Harold Koh, recent Dean of Yale Law School and current Obama Advisor to the Secretary of State, openly talks about the compatibility of Sharia with American legal precedent.

What is our fascination with Islam? Why are we so willing to capitulate to its aims without resistance? Can't western civilization continue to champion religious liberty without committing suicide?

Radical Islam is inconsistent with American ideals, plain and simple. No two ideologies that embrace concepts so divergent as global domination and freedom can hope to coexist. There can be no compromise.

Europe is among the walking dead; their future is an Islamic one. America, however, still has a choice if we have the courage to make it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Tony Blankley, The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Battle of Civilizations? (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2005), pp. 51, 55.

[2] Patrick J. Buchanan, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2006), 194.

[3] Molly Moore, "For the French Joie de Vivre Fades into Fear," Washington Post, 25 Mar. 2006, 1,13.

Islamists Urge Sharia Over Constitution

Hizb Ut-Tahrir: Shariah Takes Precedence over U.S. Constitution
Imam Promises to Fight "Until Islam Becomes Victorious or We Die in the Attempt"

IPT News
July 20, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1100/hizb-ut-tahrir-shariah-takes-precedence-over-us

Oak Lawn, Illinois - Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the international movement to re-establish an international Islamic state or Caliphate - kicked off a new campaign to win American recruits Sunday afternoon in this Chicago suburb. Nearly 300 people packed the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel for its Khalifah Conference on "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam" to listen to listen to HT ideologues blame capitalism for World War I and World War II; the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown; the current violence in Iraq and Afghanistan; world poverty and malnutrition and inner-city drug use.

A speaker identified as Abu Atallah even blamed capitalism for the late singer Michael Jackson's decision "to shed his black skin."

Hizb ut-Tahrir aims to restore the Caliphate that existed during the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk abolished it in 1924 in an effort to create a secular, Europeanized state.

Security at the conference was very tight. Oak Lawn police maintained a checkpoint outside the Hilton, and local police and HT's own security people had a substantial presence inside the hotel. In the ballroom where the conference took place, men and women were largely segregated, with men in the front and women in the back. This became a significant point of contention between HT supporters and several members of the audience who objected to this arrangement. At one point, an unidentified Hizb ut-Tahrir speaker became flustered over this line of questioning.

"Men and women," he blurted out, must be kept separate "to prevent people from behaving like animals."

A woman in the audience responded: "How does intermingling between men and women make you animals?" HT panelists didn't have a persuasive answer, and soon adjourned that session.

The conference was sometimes poorly organized. There was no list of speakers, forcing reporters to sometimes guess at the spelling of speakers' names. But HT certainly appeared to be serious about working for the larger goals of the conference: abolishing capitalism and imposing Caliphate rule over the world.

According to Hizb ut-Tahrir, the world's social and economic problems will not be fixed until the world is governed by Shariah and the government controls all major industries. Lenders would no longer be able to charge interest, which one speaker decried as a "poisonous concept." Charity, or zakat, was advertised as the way to alleviate "economic inequality."

"Secular capitalism has made me devalue my skin" and "has kept my family in ghettos," said one speaker, an African-American who went on to blame it for the fact that he smoked marijuana and his grandmother played the lottery. Capitalism, he added, is a form of economic "terrorism" and "causes us to be sent to mental hospitals." Barack Obama's presidency, he said, "is only a scheme or con" to trick people into thinking that things will get better under capitalism.

But time and again on Sunday, Hizb ut-Tahrir officials seemed to be playing slippery rhetorical games of their own - particularly when it came to the behavior of despotic Muslim regimes and terrorists. When a few skeptical audience members pressed speakers over the fact that Islamic governments in Iran and Saudi Arabia are despotic, conference speakers claimed those weren't "authentic" Muslim governments and that the CIA (and by implication, the capitalist U.S. government) was to blame for the problems in those countries. In an interview with WBBM-TV in Chicago, HT deputy spokesman Mohammad Malkawi refused to specifically condemn Al Qaida and the Taliban.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government and it insists it is only interested in instituting radical change by nonviolent means. But HT's alumni include 9/ll mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the late Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi and would-be Hamas suicide bombers, and the group's pro-jihadist rhetoric has led critics to label it a "conveyor belt for terrorists."

One Muslim American group issued a statement in advance of the conference condemning Hizb ut-Tahrir's radical ideology and challenging others to follow suit.

"Hizb ut-Tahrir preaches an ideology that calls for the destruction of the principles that America is founded on," said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy. "While their words are protected by our First Amendment, their actions and movement must not be allowed to take hold. The silence of American Islamist organizations like [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] CAIR and [the Islamic Society of North America] ISNA in condemning the ideologies of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their agenda of insurgency in America speaks volumes to their own, albeit, more camouflaged Islamist agenda."

HT's efforts to rehabilitate its image won't be helped by the menacing tone on display Sunday. One late-afternoon panelist suggested that modern industrial powers could fall to Muslims the way Mecca fell to Mohammed nearly 1,400 years ago.

A speaker identified by conference organizers as Imam Jaleel Abdul Razek said that if they offer us the sun, or the moon, or a nice raise, or a passport, or a house in the suburbs or even a place to pray at the job, on the condition that we stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life - we should never do that, ever do that - unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt." (To see the clip, click here.)

Later, the following dialogue ensued between the imam and a member of the audience over whether Shariah or the Constitution should be the supreme law of the land in the United States (click here to see the clip):

Audience member: "Would you get rid of the Constitution for Shariah, yes or no?"

Imam: "Over the Muslim world? Yes, it would be gone."

Audience Member: And so if the United States was a Muslim world, the Constitution would be gone?"

Imam: "If the United States was in the Muslim world, the Muslims who are here would be calling and happy to see the Shariah applied, yes we would."

Audience Member: "And the Constitution gone. That's all."

Imam: "Yes, as Muslims they would be long gone."

While Hizb ut-Tahrir's controversial message attracted demonstrators and some media attention, the group at least is open about its ambitions. It not only is determined to destroy capitalism — it would shred the United States Constitution as well in favor of Shariah law.

Arab Festival 2009: Sharia In The USA

A Christian organization was denied free speech rights to pass out leaflets at an Arab festival held on PUBLIC streets in Dearborn, Michigan.

Islamic Hate Preacher Gets OK

March 1, 2009
Islamic hate-preacher gets OK to march in London calling for the implementation of sharia

Out to "emulate the Prophet and his companions"

"The startling move comes just days after processions celebrating St George were banned for being racist" and "despite a previous demonstration in which some of his supporters chanted: 'Bomb the UK.'" All in the name of "diversity."

"Hate preacher get OK to run sharia law demo," by Tom Savage and Ross Kaniuk for the Daily Star, February 28:

HATE preacher Anjem Choudary will march in London today calling for Britain to adopt Islamic Sharia law.

The startling move comes just days after processions celebrating St George were banned for being racist.

Choudary was given the green light yesterday despite a previous demonstration in which some of his supporters chanted: “Bomb the UK”.

Publicity for the march, in the East End, carries 41-year-old Choudary’s personal mobile number and says the aim of the campaign is to “emulate the Prophet and his companions, by calling for Islam and speaking out against the oppression of man-made law”.

Bet Choudary can't wait till his band of muhajirun becomes strong enough, so they can begin emulating Muhammad's Medinan phase, that is, full blown jihad -- complete with British plunder and concubines. Too bad for him, though: he probably has to wait a few more years for that to be possible.

It says that Britain is full of “disbelievers” who are involved in prostitution, gambling, alcoholism and worshipping other gods.

The publicity says women are welcome to join the march but they must walk at the back of the procession as “strict segregation will be enforced”.

The demo comes 18 months after three of Choudary’s supporters were jailed for soliciting murder in a London protest against cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Denmark.

That was when some demonstrators chanted “Bomb the UK” and “Europe, you will pay with your blood”. Organiser Choudary was fined.

Today’s march won permission after a council withdrew funding for a St George’s Day parade in the Midlands – on the grounds that it was “racist”.

Parade founder Mark Cowles, 40, of West Bromwich, said yesterday: “I can’t believe Choudary’s event can go ahead.

“The British establishment is trying to take away the British voice but other cultures choose to force their way of life on us.”

Treasury Supports Sharia Financing

U.S. Treasury Department to Host
Shariah Compliant Financing Forum!!!

By Brigitte Gabriel

This Thursday, in association with the Islamic Finance Project of the Harvard Law School, the U.S. Treasury will be hosting a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.”

You read this correctly. As the humorist Dave Barry writes in many of his columns, “I am not making this up.”

Indeed, despite the fact that we in ACT! for America and others have been warning about the infiltration of shariah (Islamic law) into our society for some time, to witness how quickly it is happening causes me to tremble inside.

Our own U.S. Treasury is hosting a forum aimed at educating “staff from U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress, Department of Treasury, and other parts of the Executive Branch.”

So what is Shariah Banking you ask?

Sharia banking was created by radicals like Sheik Qaradawi, a terrorist who today is banned from entering the United States and Great Britain. Who today leads international Islamic Finance agencies. How does he describe Shariah Finance? "I like to call it Jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money."

Everything in me wants to shout from the highest house top “Will enough Americans wake up in time??? Have our leaders become so blinded with greed that they are willing to sell our soul, and endanger our national security, in exchange for Arab money?”

To view a PDF image of the official U.S. Treasury description and agenda for the forum, please click here.

According to the Treasury document, the purpose of this forum is “…to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.”

Speakers include:

Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari. If that name sounds familiar it’s because he is the person Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson designated to manage the government purchase of distressed assets called for in the $700 billion “bailout plan.”

Talal DeLorenzo. DeLorenzo is one of the half dozen most important shariah advisors. He is a product of the radical jihadist madrassa Jamia Uloom Islamia in Karachi. Among his many prior positions is the Director of Education at the Islamic Saudi Academy. If that name sounds familiar it’s because that academy was the focus of a U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Report earlier this year. That report documented material in the academy’s textbooks that, among other things, called for the killing of “apostates” from Islam and approved of the killing of “polytheists.”

ACT! for America put out two emails on this and some of our local members participated in a protest at the academy.

The Islamic Saudi Academy is also known for one of its more famous alumni, Ahmad Omar Abu Ali, who in 1999 was the school’s valedictorian and was voted “Most Likely to Be a Martyr.” Ali was later convicted on charges of terrorism and attempting to assassinate President Bush.

Rushdi Siddiqui. Siddiqui is the founder and ‘global director’ of the Dow Jones Islamic Market Index Group.

My dear members, the “Trojan horse” is within our gates. How we as the “grassroots” of America respond to this threat over the next year will greatly determine whether we begin to expel this threat or go the way of Britain and Europe.

We are now in the process of producing a video that details what Shariah financing is, its implications, who’s involved on Wall Street and our efforts to stop it. You will receive notice of it by email within a couple weeks.

We need your activism and involvement on every level to help us protect our country. Please forward our emails to your friends and family and urge them to subscribe to receive them directly. Get involved with our chapter network. We are going to need to organize on the grass roots level to put pressure on our banking system and even boycott some major banks to stop this Islamic shariah financing. More information will be forthcoming forth in the future.


Brigitte Gabriel

Tancredo Introduces Anti-Sharia Bill

Tancredo introduces anti-Sharia "Jihad Prevention Act"
September 19, 2008
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022771.php

In the wake of Britain's capitulation to Sharia, this is just the kind of law we need. I am very glad to see Congressman Tancredo doing this, and hope that it will at very least ignite a national debate about this issue.

"Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Measure in Wake of U.K. Certification of Islamic Courts," from Borderfire Report, September 19 (thanks to all who sent this in):

WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.
According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”

Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.

“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty,” said Tancredo. “The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.

Tancredo pointed to the results of a recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion as evidence that the U.S. should act to prevent the situation in Great Britain from replicating itself here in the United States. The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide.

“We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives,” concluded Tancredo. “If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.”