Swedish High Court Set To Approve Sharia Law For Divorce Proceedings

I have Swedish ancestors who are not only rolling in their graves but clawing at the surface to return and kick BOTH Swedish and Islamic ass.

The story comes from Sputnik News via The Religion of Peace.

Mahr or Less: Sharia Seeps Into Swedish Divorce Law

The Swedish Supreme Court may finally approve the tacit endorsement of Sharia Law when it rules on the validity of prenuptial agreements, according to lawyer Fatemeh Sanaei Nasab of the Iranian Ministry of Justice.

In an interview with Sputnik, lawyer Fatemeh Sanaei Nasab of the Iranian Ministry of Justice said that the Swedish Supreme Court will probably say "yes" to Sharia Law being applied to prenuptial agreements in Sweden.

The interview comes as the court deals with at least two cases related to whether the Iranian legislation is valid in the country.

In two separate cases, divorced husbands are at risk of being obliged to pay their former wives a hefty sum known as a mahr, or mandatory payment. Iranian brides receive it in the form of money or property from a groom or his father when a couple is married; the payment then legally becomes her property. In some cases, the bride must settle for an IOU.

In this regard, Nasab said that it is only natural that the cases are already on the table of the Supreme Court of Sweden.

"I think that as the issue of paying a mahr is related to the Iranian couples, it is quite logical that the court deemed it necessary to rely on Iran's legislative norms," she said.

Nasad added that the chances of the Iranian Sharia law being legally binding in Sweden will depend on how the international law agencies would look at the financial aspect of matrimonial relations, and what factors will be taken as a basis.

"If the Swedish Supreme Court decides to consider mahr under civil law and take into account national factors, I will estimate the chances of cultivating Iranian laws as very high as far as the court's final decision is concerned," she pointed out.
Swedish media reported that one case is related to a couple who married in Iran in 2006 and arrived in Sweden afterwards. The District Court ruled that the case should be handled in accordance with Swedish law, which means that an Iranian woman's former husband is not obliged to honor the mahr.

In another case, an Iranian woman claims that her rights would be infringed if she does not receive money amounting to about 1.5 million kronor (approximately $181,000), in line with the mahr payment, which is typically specified in the marriage contract signed during an Islamic marriage.

Syria: the jihadi town where 'brides' are snatched from schools

Fighters with Northern Storm guard the Sharia court that was controlled by ISIS in Azaz, Syria Photo: Yasmin Al Tellawy/ Corbis

From The Telegraph.

Syria: the jihadi town where 'brides' are snatched from schools


A year ago, the city of Raqqa in northern Syria was sprouting political activist groups and philosophical discussion circles. A “guerrilla gardening” squad promoted environmental awareness by planting vegetables in central reservations.

The liberals who made it a base after the rebels swept in and drove out the regime in March last year are gone, disbanded, accused of supporting democracy and other “kuffar” or infidel beliefs, their members living either underground or in Turkey.

The city has been transformed into a staging ground for displays of the harshest “justice” meted out by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), the jihadi group too extreme even for al-Qaeda that has imposed its rule over large parts of the country.

Refugees, women still living under its rule and men who have escaped from its prisons have told Telegraph of the life under the shadow of the extremist group’s black flag.

One woman, whose name the Telegraph knows but is withholding, described how she went to the recruiting office of an all-women jihad unit, formed from the women who have flocked to Syria from Europe and elsewhere to serve the cause, some with their children.

“I went inside their headquarters, which used to be the Christian church,” she said. “I asked what the conditions were to join. They said you have to be 18-25, unmarried, and you would earn 25,000 Syrian pounds.

“But if you joined you had the opportunity to marry one of the foreign fighters. However, they make sure you are a real jihadist.”

She said that outside she met four new recruits, three from Tunisia, and one Frenchwoman, who told her she was divorced and had brought her 12-year-old daughter and four younger sons to Syria to join the militants.

The opportunities for marriage in the Syrian jihad - and before “martyrdom” - is a recurring theme of the blogs and other online forums favoured by ISIS’s foreign fighters in Syria, many of whom write in English.

But the Raqqa woman and other activists from the town say that the imbalance of the sexes means ISIS has begun to “recruit” brides from local schools and colleges.

Among those who resisted, they say, was a 21-year-old student called Fatima Abdullah from a tribal area outside the city, whose brother had joined ISIS and persuaded their father to hand her over for marriage to a Tunisian. She refused, and when her family insisted, killed herself with rat poison. The story was confirmed by other activists from the town.

Since the beginning of January, rival rebel groups including western-backed militias still loyal to the original opposition Free Syrian Army have launched a counter-attack across the north of Syria to drive out ISIS.

Earlier this month, rebels all but completed an operation to remove the extremists from Idlib province while in Aleppo province ISIS have been forced into towns to the east. As they left their former strongholds they killed some of their prisoners, freed others, and loaded many more on to trucks and took them with them.

In Aazaz, a town between Aleppo and the Turkish border, ISIS retaliated for the FSA attack by beheading four captives from other militias and placing their heads on the plinth in the middle of the roundabout in one of the main squares, residents.

“We call it the beheading circle, now,” one, Anwar Mohammed, said.

A photograph of the heads, with a German fighter standing in triumph over them, circulated on jihadi websites.

Ahmed Primo, described how he was saved from a similar fate by a stray shell.

“I heard a voice calling my name for execution,” he said. “Then suddenly there was the sound of an explosion. The guards and the emir, the militia leader, were injured, and carried away. The next day the prison was liberated and I escaped.”

Mr Primo had previously been detained by the Syrian regime in his home city, Aleppo, and held for a month. Asked whether the treatment he received from ISIS, which included beatings, being bound and blindfolded for weeks at a time, and electrocuted in his testicles, was better or worse than his experiences under the regime, he said: “It is not a question of better or worse. It was exactly the same.”

ISIS split last summer from Jabhat al-Nusra, the recognised wing of Al-Qaeda in Syria, and in February was disavowed by Al-Qaeda’s leader, Ayman Zawahiri.

But by then its capacity to instill fear by its harsh punishments, and ability to attract fanatical fighters from abroad had enabled it to take control of large parts of northern Syria, with Raqqa province mostly under their sway.

Mr Mohammed, one of the early “citizen journalists” who sent reports of the initial uprising against President Bashar al-Assad to the outside world, was among Aazaz’s luckiest people. He had been seized from his home by ISIS fighters, taken to the group’s headquarters in Aleppo city, a former children’s hospital, for interrogation, and then detained in a prison in another town, Hreitan.

Light of build, he managed to escape one night by squeezing through the bars of his cell and lowering himself to the ground with knotted blankets. When he made it home - and across the Turkish border - his father said ISIS had visited him to tell him his son was to be executed as a spy.

Mohammed Nour, who ran the media centre in Aazaz from where reports by local and international journalists were filed after the town was “liberated” from the regime in July 2012, was the son of a man who had disappeared in the Assad regime’s prisons before he was born.

Last September, ISIS came for the son after it defeated Mr Nour’s Northern Storm brigade. Like his father, he has not been seen since.

His mother said she had visited al-Bab, a town to the south-east still under ISIS control, to try to find him. “I go to the prisons, like I did with his father,” she said. “They say to come back later.”

Now 49, she never remarried, and Mohammed is her only child.

What is perhaps most remarkable is that despite the brutality, many residents of north-west Syria still back ISIS. Samer Amori, Mohammed Nour’s uncle, said that people who supported the regime now support ISIS. A more convincing explanation is that by demanding control of all aspects of its subjects’ lives, ISIS did at least manage to impose some sort of order on a Syria that is becoming more lawless as the war progresses.

But for many men and women, particularly the liberal activists, who have suffered under both the regime and ISIS, the recent fighting has brought the third year of the uprising to deeply depressing close.

Mr Primo, electrocuted by fighters from the regime and Assad, said he had always believed the West would intervene, and that what had happened in Tunisia and Libya would happen in Syria. Now it is clear that with the country little more than a fighting ground for rival warlords, some not even Syrian, the West has little stomach for involvement.

“When I started out I could never have imagined anything like this,” he said. “These people, they do not have our way of life, or of thinking.

It’s very strange to us. I didn’t expect it would turn out this way.”

In Syria, Islamists Don't Allow Women To Sit In Chairs, In Saudi Arabia, Women Can't Use Swings

Apparently, in Syria and Saudi Arabia, the only time you are allowed to be on your ass as a woman is if you are servicing your husband.

The glowing report of the "honor" and "dignity" doled out to women in each of these two countries can be found at The Clarion Project (2nd story here).

Saudi Religious Police Prevent Women From Using Swings


A picture of the Saudi Arabian religious police stopping women in a public park from using the swings has gone viral in the Kingdom. News outlets and social media, abuzz with the story, have garnered opinions that both support and oppose the actions of the police (who are officially titled the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice").

Akhbaar24 news, who originally reported the story, said those who supported the actions of the police said "the swing could tempt passers-by to harass or attack them."


Syria: Islamists Forbid Women to Sit in Chairs

After taking over areas of northern Syria, the Al-Qaeda-linked group ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) instituted draconian, sharia-based laws and made known its expectations of the population to follow them.

“It is absolutely forbidden for women to sit on the chairs, according to the instructions of the authorities,” stated a prominent sign.

Other promulgations stated that women must wear the abaya and the burqa (coverings for the entire body and face), and that sweaters, jeans and makeup of any kind were strictly forbidden. Any type of smoking was forbidden upon the penalty of death.

Syrian rebels groups, including those associated with Al Qaeda, like the Nusra Front, are now fighting against ISIS. The fight is not so much over the end result – as the end goal of both groups is to establish a sharia-based Islamic state – but over tactics and strategy. It is a well-known battle between Islamists who believe in a gradualists approach (for example, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, who seek to win over world powers by purporting to be “moderates”) and the Salafists (“purists”) – this time being played out in the Syrian civil war.

Recent infighting between the rebel groups has left close to 700 dead, including 100 civilians (of which 21 were executed by ISIS in a children’s hospital in Aleppo).

The decision to fight ISIS by other rebel groups was in part made after the group took over El-Dana, a town in Syria’s northern district of Idib. As reported by a Syrian news station, ISIS terrorized the town, instituting the following new laws (in addition to the ones stated above):

All barbershops must be closed down. Men are forbidden from having short hair, wearing modern hairstyles or using hair products.
If a taxi driver tries to take an unfair price, his penalty will start from cutting off his hand to cutting off his head because, according to the laws of ISIS, he has "violated the interests of the people."
All signs and advertising for beauty salons for women are forbidden.
It is forbidden to visit female doctors.
Shops that employ women seamstresses will be closed if there is a man in the shop.
It is forbidden to open places of business during prayer times. Violators will be punished.
Female clothing may not be shown in shop windows and only women are allowed to work in these shops. If a man is found on the grounds, the shop faces closure.
Men are forbidden from wearing low-waist jeans.
Shops found selling cigarettes will be burned to the ground.

Saudi survey shows men blame women for rising cases of molestation

From Emirates 24/7 via The Religion of Peace.

Saudi survey shows men blame women for rising cases of molestation

Saudi men believe women are to blame for the rising cases involving molestation of females on the grounds they are seduced by women’s excessive make up.

The findings were included in a survey conducted by the Riyadh-based King Abdul Aziz Centre for National Dialogue and involved 992 males and females.

The survey, carried by Saudi newspapers, found that 86.5 per cent of the men polled believe that women’s exaggeration in wearing make-up is the main cause of the rise in molestation cases in public places in the conservative Gulf Kingdom.

About 80 per cent of the total persons polled believe lack of deterrent penalties and the absence of specific anti-molestation laws are also to blame for the phenomenon.

The report said 91 per cent of the respondents, all aged above 19, believe another key factor is the “poor religious sentiment” while nearly 75 per cent said the problem is caused by lack of awareness campaigns and warning notices at most public places.

Afghan police rescue woman from Taliban stoning

From DAWN.

Afghan police rescue woman from Taliban stoning



KUNDUZ: Police in a remote northern Afghan village rescued a woman from being stoned to death after she was condemned by the Taliban for allegedly cheating on her husband, officials said Tuesday.

Taliban militants, who often run informal justice systems in rural Afghanistan, handed down the death penalty on the woman after her husband accused her of having an affair.

“When police rescued her, she was locked in a room in a compound that was used as a Taliban base,” Sayed Sarwar Hussaini, police spokesman for Kunduz province, told AFP.

He said the rescue operation in the village, a militant stronghold, was launched after the woman's relatives told police the Taliban had sentenced her to death.

The husband, a supporter of the Islamic insurgent group, handed her over to the militants on Friday.

The incident happened in Dasht-i-Archi district of Kunduz, a province where the Taliban have had an active presence in recent years after they were ousted from power nationally in 2001.

“The Taliban were preparing to stone her when the police reached the compound. The Taliban ran away and the woman was rescued. She's now in police protective custody,” Hussaini said.

Enayatullah Khaleeq, a spokesman for the Kunduz provincial administration, confirmed the rescue and gave a similar account.

“Her husband was with the Taliban. He had divorced his wife and, perhaps to justify this, he accused her of cheating on him and wanted to get her killed by the Taliban. We are investigating this,” Khaleeq told AFP.

The Taliban, the biggest militant group behind a 12-year insurgency in Afghanistan, implemented a harsh version of Sharia law during their rule of Kabul between 1996 and 2001, stoning women to death and chopping off thieves’ hands.

In July last year a 21-year-old woman was stoned to death in a Taliban-controlled village just 60 kilometres (35 miles) north of Kabul, sparking international condemnation.

Britain to become first non-Muslim country to launch sharia bond

Britain continues its path down the road to full blown Sharia and Muslim status.

G_d save the Queen.

(Hat Tip:  Poppy from Scotland)

The story comes from The Telegraph.

Britain to become first non-Muslim country to launch sharia bond


Britain is set to become the first non-Muslim country to sell a bond that can be bought by Islamic investors in a bid to encourage massive new investment into the City.

David Cameron will say in a speech on Tuesday at the World Islamic Economic Forum in London that the Treasury is drawing up plans to issue a £200m Sukuk, a form of debt that complies with Islamic financial law.

The new sharia-compliant gilt will enable Britain to become the first non-Muslim country to tap the growing pool of Islamic investments that is forecast to top £1.3 trillion by next year.

The Prime Minister will say that it would be a “mistake” to miss the opportunity to encourage more Islamic investment in the UK and that the City of London should rival Dubai as a centre for sharia-compliant finance.

“When Islamic finance is growing 50pc faster than traditional banking and when global Islamic investments are set to grow to £1.3 trillion by 2014, we want to make sure a big proportion of that new investment is made here in Britain,” Mr Cameron will tell an audience of senior officials from Islamic countries.



Among those at the meeting are Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, King Abdullah of Jordan, Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain.

The World Islamic Economic Forum has never been held before in a non-Muslim country and highlights the growing role London is playing in the Islamic finance industry.

The London Stock Exchange is preparing to launch an Islamic Market Index to help the managers of sharia-compliant funds identify new investment opportunities.

The UK’s plans to issue its own Sukuk could lead to billions of pounds of British gilts being sold to Islamic investors, enabling the Treasury to diversify away from its traditional sources of funding.

“For years people have been talking about creating an Islamic bond – or Sukuk – outside the Islamic world, but it’s just never quite happened,” Mr Cameron will say. “Changing that is a question of pragmatism and political will. And here in Britain we’ve got both.

To comply with sharia law, Islamic investors are forbidden to receive interest. Sukuks avoid this problem by ensuring the fixed return investors receive on the debt is linked to the profit generated by an underlying asset.

The value of Sukuks already listed on the London market has reached $34bn (£21bn) over the past five years with nearly 50 bonds quoted by the London Stock Exchange.

Sharia-compliant funds have already been used to fund some of the capital’s largest developments, including the Shard and the Olympic Village.

More than 20 banks currently offer Islamic financial products and services in the UK, more than any other Western country, with the number expected to grow further.

The Government has put securing links with growing financial centres in Islamic countries and fast-growing Asian markets at the heart of its plans for the City.

Earlier this month the Chancellor, George Osborne, announced a deal with China to make London a leading centre for the growing trade in renminbi-denominated assets and to make it easier for Chinese banks to set up investment banking operations.

Kansas City: Muslim attorney launches sharia law practice

It's no longer creeping, America.  It's here.  To stay?

The story comes from Creeping Sharia via The Religion of Peace.

Kansas City: Muslim attorney launches sharia law practice

Even as anti-Shariah legislation roils statehouses, including in Missouri, one Kansas City attorney has launched a new practice precisely in that field.

Ahsan Latif said that, like any good businessman, he saw a need and is now filling it.

“It’s a way of allowing Muslims to fulfill their faith commitment and also at the same time getting comfortable with lawyers and law,” Latif said.

Latif, an associate at MKL, is adding Shariah services to his practice precisely at a time when some state legislators are feverishly working at keeping it out of their borders.

The Missouri Senate on Wednesday voted to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of SB 267, the so-called “Civil Liberties Defense Act,” which would have voided any court arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency decisions that are based on foreign law, and which are “repugnant” and “inconsistent” with the state and U.S. constitutions.

The House, however, failed to muster the votes needed for an override.

The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Brian Nieves, R-Washington, has insisted the bill is not anti-Shariah. In an email request to discuss the bill, referring to “Shariah” law, the Senator’s executive legislative assistant, Jessica Johnson, replied, “checked with the Senator, and he has no idea what you are talking about and has no knowledge of a Sharia law bill.” A subsequent request to discuss SB267 was met with: “I spoke with the Senator and he has no interest [in] talking with you about this.”

Few Missouri lawyers list themselves as focusing on Shariah law, but it’s a bit more common in other areas of the country with higher Muslim populations.

Quality reporting. Just how many lawyers do list themselves as focusing on sharia law? Apparently Latif isn’t the only one waiting for a sharia problem to arise in Kansas City.

Despite the controversy, Latif downplayed any fear he or other firm members may have of any negative reaction about his new practice area.

“I’m not particularly worried about any backlash,” Latif said. “The way I look at it, the best possible thing I can do is go out there and represent myself and my religion in the best way possible with my clients and in the community.”

Latif, who is Muslim and grew up in Lexington, where his father practiced medicine, said he believes the call to ban Shariah law is grounded in fear of “other,” of something different than what many in the U.S. have grown up with and are familiar with.

Latif is the vice president of crescentpeace.org and on his web page links to an area mosque – likely his own – that had posted on its website:

The Islamic Center of Johnson County, Inc., unequivocally affirms the Qur’an and the Sunnah as its eternal and ultimate constitution.

“When these issues come up, the average person in America doesn’t have the context of understanding, and it becomes much more ‘out there’ than it is,” Latif said. “And it’s sad because it’s distracting and because it gets tied up in what people are doing overseas, and it becomes something ‘other’ or ‘dangerous,’ when, in reality, it’s a difference between cultural practices.”

We bet it’s distracting to point out the evils of Islamic sharia law and how women and children are brutalized by it. Latif wants to cash in on sharia.

Latif said his Shariah legal services, which for now will focus on estate planning, including trusts, are constructed within the context of U.S. and state laws.

Shariah lays out how those of Islamic faith should distribute their wealth after death, including a stipulation that up to one-third of all estates must be bequeathed to charity — oftentimes a mosque — but which also provides a means for distribution to non-Muslim family members and loved ones. The remaining two-thirds of the estate are distributed in strict accordance to Shariah law to Islamic family members.

And under sharia law, a woman is worth less than a man so may get nothing.

The laws governing the distribution are so complex, Latif said, that he and other lawyers practicing Shariah estate-planning use computer programs with algorithms designed to sort it all out.

“It gets complicated because it depends on so many factors, but there are certain areas where we have leeway, including the development of certain kinds of trusts that are developed under scripture and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad,” Latif said.

Ah you see. Sharia is so complicated that computers are needed to figure it all out. And Americans – of which Latif claims to be one – just don’t have the context to understand sharia. But if any of this were true, how could he understand it? Being an American and all. And how have Muslims applied sharia for 1,400 years without the use of complex computer algorithms? Wonder how much this guy charges per hour. Muslims beware.

Faizan Syed, executive director of the St. Louis chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he was delighted to hear of Latif adding Shariah services to his practice.

“That’s very positive, and I’m happy that we’re seeing that in Kansas City,” Syed said. “You have to realize that the practice of Shariah in the sense of legality is always under the civil law affecting such areas as burials, estates, marriages, divorces, estate planning. And U.S. law has always allowed for multiple religions in civil law, and it’s good to see an attorney addressing that because it will protect clients and their religious beliefs.”

As for the death of SB267, Syed said CAIR is pleased to see it go down in defeat.

“We’re very happy that freedom of religion and the practice thereof is protected in Missouri,” Syed said.

Jennifer Mann – like 99% of clueless and careless reporters – fails to tell readers that in 2012 Syed wrote about imposing sharia law on Americans who he deemed to commit blasphemy against Islam or Muslims. Details in this February 2013 post: Director of CAIR Missouri wants to prosecute Americans who insult Islam…using sharia law.

And, in a sense, Syed agrees with the bill’s sponsor Nieves that SB267 was broader than just Shariah.

“Not only would it have affected Shariah, but also canon law and Jewish rabbinical law, anything that was quote, unquote ‘foreign law,’” Syed said. “We hope that now the Missouri Legislature can focus on issues that are of real consequence to citizens and make laws that tackle those issues instead of addressing a ‘fix’ for issues that don’t exist.”

If this was a “fix” for issues that don’t exist, then how could there be a need for a law firm or firms that focus on sharia law? You can’t have it both ways. But that is how sharia creeps.

Filipino Maid Working In Saudi Arabia Gets 100 Lashes By the Whip For Getting Pregnant Out of Wedlock

The story comes from Director Blue via The Religion of Peace.

(file photo)

Saudi worker receives 100 lashes after getting pregnant: Wendy Davis unavailable for comment.


An overseas Filipina worker (OFW) received 100 lashes in Saudi Arabia because she had a child with a man who was not her husband.

In an interview aired on 24 Oras on Monday, the 29-year old woman said she was lashed 100 times on the back after being convicted of immorality under the Sharia or Islamic law... [under which] women who get pregnant out of wedlock face imprisonment or a penalty of lashes to be determined by courts

...The Filipina worker said she had to go through the pregnancy alone as she was immediately abandoned by the man who got her pregnant when he discovered she was with child.

It was only after she gave birth that authorities discovered she was unmarried.

“Nanganak po ako sa ospital na pinagtatrabahuhan ko, Nalaman po nila na wala akong asawa. Pagkatapos noon, ni-report nila ako sa pulis,” she said.

The Filipina worker said she was sentenced to one-year imprisonment but received lashes instead as a result of being pardoned.

In 2010, another Filipina worker was sentenced to receive 100 lashes after becoming pregnant as a result of rape.


Texas state legislator Wendy Davis could not be reached for comment at press time. Although since the events in question did not relate to fourth-trimester abortions, I guess I'm not surprised.

Popular Muslim Imam: Working Towards Sharia for America

The creep of Sharia continues in America...slowly, surely.

The story comes from The Clarion Project.

Popular Muslim Imam: Working Towards Sharia for America

Sirhaj Wahhaj is not on the fringe. Major Muslim-American organizations put him on stage as a voice of wisdom.

In 2011, popular Imam Siraj Wahhaj offered Muslims a recommendation: Don’t talk about Sharia Law because “we are not there yet.” He didn’t argue for an interpretation of Sharia that is permanently compatible with the West. Instead, he advised that Muslims be quiet for now, in accordance with the Muslim Brotherhood’s doctrine of "gradualism."

The most unsettling thing about Wahhaj’s sermons is that he’s extremely influential. He isn’t on the fringe. These quotes are known, but major Muslim-American organizations still put him on stage as a voice of wisdom.

“The trap we fall into is having a premature discussion about Sharia when we are not there yet,” Wahhaj said at the 2011 annual Islamic Circle of North America-Muslim American Society convention.

Wahhaj’s past, less-restrained preaching about Sharia law replacing the U.S. Constitution proves that he isn’t talking about Sharia as a personal code of conduct, like praying five times a day and abstaining from alcohol. He is talking about a political system. Consider what he has said when he wasn’t under the microscope as much:

“Islam is better than democracy. Allah will cause his deen [Islam as a complete way of life], Islam to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen.”

“If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir and give allegiance to him. Take my word, if eight million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us,” he said in 1992.

“You don’t get involved in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics are a weapon to use in the cause of Islam,” he said in 1991.

Wahhhaj made the remark about “a premature discussion about Sharia” at the annual joint conference of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim American Society. He frequently speaks at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations and he has served on its national board.

His mosque’s website says he’s been a Vice President of the Islamic Society of North America since 1997 and was on the board of advisors for the North American Islamic Trust from 1989 to 1993, a group that holds the deeds to one-fourth of the mosques in America. He is also the “Amir” of the Muslim Alliance in North America.

Yet those that bring up the quotes of Wahhaj and his allies are blasted as anti-Muslim bigots. From the beginning, Wahhaj has whipped up fears about “Islamophobia” by preaching that the U.S. government is persecuting innocent Muslims at home and abroad.

In a sermon shortly after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he told the audience that the U.S. government is dispatching undercover agents to mosques in America and around the world to frame Muslims. He suggested that the U.S. government and possibly Israel were behind the bombing. Wahhaj was listed as an “unindicted person who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the attack.

The “real terrorists,” Wahhaj said, are three entities: The U.S. government, big business and the media.

“America is one of the greatest terrorist nations on this earth but you know, they hide it with magic. They pretend to be so nice,” he said.

Wahhaj was preaching the same message after 9/11 eight years later, but he presented it as something new. He said, “What began as a legitimate fight against terrorism, and every Muslim would join in that fight against terrorism … has now become an attack on Islam.”

On February 25, 2011, Wahhaj was recorded speaking at a Muslim Students Association event at the University of Central Florida. He said, “What is the punishment according to the Koran for those who commit fornication? What’s the punishment? Lashes, 100 lashes. Not stoning.”

In an earlier sermon, he said, “If Allah says 100 strikes, 100 strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it’s the obedience of Allah and his messenger—nothing personal.”

Again, this is proof that Wahhaj’s message hasn’t changed; only how it’s presented has been changed.

And that’s why four more quotes, taken from a tape of a 1992 sermon in Brooklyn and reported in Muslim Mafia, remain as relevant now as they were then:

“We don’t need to arm the people with 9mms and Uzis. You need to arm them with righteousness first. And once you arm them with righteousness first, then you can arm them.”

“I will never tell people, ‘Don’t be violent.’ That’s not the Islamic way.”

“If we go to war, brothers and sisters—and one day we will, believe me—that’s why you’re commanded [to fight in] jihad.”

“Some Muslims have lost the desire to fight…Muslims have become soft. And they love the soft life. And they hate death. And that is why all over the world Muslims are getting their butts kicked—except those Muslims who fight back like in Afghanistan.”

Temporary restraint is often mistaken for genuine moderation. As Wahhaj said in 2011 regarding talking about Sharia Law, “we are not there yet.”

Just Because Barack Hussein Obama Is Helping the Islamists In America Doesn't Mean Your State Can't Stop Them

From The Clarion Project.

Taking Action: State Initiatives to Combat Islamism in the U.S.


The failure to confront the Islamist ideology on the federal level does not mean that nothing can be done. States laws are now taking on this task.

The failure to recognize, let alone confront, the Islamist ideology on the federal level does not mean that nothing can be done. An increasing number of states are passing or considering legislation designed to take on this task.

Below are five initiatives you can promote in your state:

American Laws for American Courts

In 2011, the Center for Security Policy released a studied titled Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study found 50 appellate court cases in 23 states where Shariah-based legislation from 16 foreign countries contradicted American law.

The primary victims of this “conflict of law” are Muslim-Americans. A review of 10 cases where Shariah-based law and American law clashed in court found:

“In cases 1-3, the Appellate Courts upheld Shariah law; in cases 4-7, the Trial Courts upheld Shariah, but the Appellate Courts reversed (protecting the litigant’s constitutional rights); in cases 8-10, both Trial and Appellate Courts rejected the attempts to enforce Shariah law.”

The American Public Policy Alliance explains that unclear state law has resulted in “the courts and the litigants hav[ing] repeatedly failed to recognize that comity to a foreign judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles…”

American Laws for American Courts is model legislation that prohibits courts from putting foreign law before American law. This has often been described as “Anti-Shariah” legislation, but it doesn’t even mention Shariah or Islam. Its purpose is to protect Americans from being abused by any kind of foreign law.

American Laws for American Courts has been passed in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas and Oklahoma. It was recently passed by the Alabama legislature as a constitutional amendment and will soon be put to a vote by the people. In Missouri, the legislature will meet in September to try to override the Governor’s veto of the bill.

Free Speech Defense Act

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi billionaire named Khalid bin Mahfouz because her book linked him to terrorism-financing. Because 23 copies of the book were bought online in the United Kingdom, Mahfouz was able to exploit the U.K.’s libel laws and sue Ehrenfeld even though she lives in America. Altogether, he targeted 45 publishers and journalists and only she refused to settle.

In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Committee warned that loose libel laws “discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as ‘libel tourism.’”

Federal legislation called the SPEECH Act, also known as “Rachel’s Law,” has been passed but there is a glaring loophole that could result in Americans being denied a trial in U.S. courts.

The Free Speech Defense Act protects the First Amendment rights of Americans from foreign libel tourism. A modified version of this legislation has been passed in South Dakota, New York, California, Illinois, Florida, Utah, Tennessee, Louisiana, Maryland and Oklahoma. It is pending in the South Carolina legislature.

Andy’s Law

“Andy’s Law” is named after Private William “Andy” Long, a soldier who was shot to death by an Islamist terrorist outside of a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas in 2009.

On June 1, 2009, terrorism literally hit home in Little Rock, Arkansas when a jihadist terrorist, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe) shot two US Army soldiers outside a recruiting office in a shopping mall. Private William “Andy” Long was killed. Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula was wounded.

To fully comprehend the true nature of the threat of terrorism, one must understand that, though Muhammad has been labeled a “lone wolf,” such terrorism does not happen in a vacuum.

Before he became Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, Carlos Bledsoe was recruited. He was indoctrinated. He was selected to receive training in the far off land of Yemen and, after that training, he committed horrible acts of terrorism in what he himself termed “jihad.”

Terrorism doesn’t just happen. Terrorism is committed and terrorist acts are perpetrated by individuals who are motivated and trained. In some cases they are funded directly, but all of the activities involving recruitment, indoctrination and training cost money.

All of these types of activity form material support for terrorism. Not only did Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad commit a horrific act of terrorism, but others provided support that eventually led to his act. For that, those people should have been made to pay. Unfortunately, there was no specific mechanism to see to it that they should pay.

Andy’s Law was designed to change that.

The law allows for seizure of the assets “including money, used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through” terrorism. This would empower law enforcement to prevent terrorists, or attempted terrorists, from keeping their assets.

The bill also creates a civil cause of action against terrorists by victims that allows victims to recover actual damages, treble damages and attorney fees. The pain of the terrorist attack does not end with the healing of wounds. Victims suffer financially, further exasperating their emotional stress. Inspired by the documentary Losing Our Sons, this legislation permits the distribution of some of the seized terrorist assets to the victims to help cover damages and legal fees.

This law would allow victims of terrorism to sue those who committed the terrorist act; those who provide material support for the terrorist act; those who make a terrorist threat; those who falsely communicate a terrorist threat; those who hinder prosecution of terrorism; those who expose the public to toxic biological, chemical or radioactive substances, or those who use a hoax substance.

Current state laws do not clearly establish such a cause of action. Further, some states lack their own RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ) statute, which in some other states would provide some remedy. The federal RICO statute does not provide meaningful remedies because it only allows damages for business losses and property damage, and not for personal injury or wrongful death.

By passing Andy’s Law, Arkansas has set the example for other states, in particular Tennessee, where Carlos Bledsoe became Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and empower state and local law enforcement, as well as victims of terrorism to not just prosecute the perpetrators of acts of terrorism but also those who provide material support—funding, recruitment, indoctrination, training and other forms of support--which lead up to those acts.

Forms of this legislation have been passed in Arkansas and Louisiana.

Disclosure of Foreign Gifts to Higher Education Act

It is not rare for Middle Eastern money to make its way to American universities. This legislation does not prohibit foreign gifts, but requires their disclosure by public colleges and universities so they can be held accountable.

The legislation does not stop Islamist groups in the U.S. from making donations to universities, with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked International Institute of Islamic Thought being a prime example. However, it goes a long way in establishing transparency.

This law has been passed in New York, Louisiana and Utah.

Female Genital Mutilation Act

This legislation specifically outlaws the act of female genital mutilation, sometimes euphemistically referred to as “female circumcision.” It is a common and brutal practice in the Islamic world.

The passing of this bill stiffens penalties for this crime. To avoid state penalties this crime, perpetrators of FGM have transported their victims who are minors across state lines. This bill closes that loophole.

A total of 21 states have outlawed this practice, with Louisiana and Kansas being the most recent additions. The bill is pending in Pennsylvania.

Australian Muslim Mentor Convicted of Whipping Convert

From The Clarion Project.

Australian Muslim Mentor Convicted of Whipping Convert


As a Sharia punishment for drinking and drug use, Christian Martinez was held down and whipped 40 times with an electrical cord.

A Muslim man in Australia was sentenced to prison for a minimum of at least 16 months for whipping a Muslim convert who he was mentoring. The whipping was carried out as a Sharia (Islamic) punishment after the man admitted to drinking alcohol and taking drugs.

The case is believed to be the first of its kind in Australia relating to such a punishment given out according to Sharia law and subsequently used as a defense in a court of law.

Wassim Fayad, 45, and three young accomplices broke into convert Christian Martinez's house and whipped him 40 times with an electric cord while the three other men held him down on his bed.

Magistrate Brian Maloney sentenced Fayad to a maximum two years' imprisonment for assault and inflicting bodily harm, while giving the accomplices suspended 18-month sentences each, finding that they were duped by Fayad.

The defendants told the court that they were following Sharia (Islamic) law when they held Martinez down and whipped him on the back.

Martinez told the court that he had called Fayed, his religious mentor, to admit that he had spent a night out drinking and taking drugs. Sharia law prohibits alcohol and recommends whipping as a punishment for several offenses.

Martinez allegedly also asked him for help getting off drugs. Fayed told him, "That means I'm going to tie you up, brother, because that's what you need."

Fayed and the other offenders then proceeded to break into Martinez's home in the middle of the night. Fayed lashed Martinez on the back as the others held him down. Martinez, who had originally consented to the punishment, changed his mind in the middle of the whipping and begged the men to stop. He was in serious pain for about a week after the incident.

In court, the judge based his ruling on the fact that Martinez had withdrawn his consent; he also expressed doubt that Martinez had given his consent in the first place. In addition, since whipping a person with an electrical cord can cause serious bodily harm, a party cannot consent to an act that is unlawful or criminal according to Australian law.

Fayad's lawyers immediately filed an appeal and were seeking bail pending the outcome of the appeal hearing.

German Courts Ruling According to Sharia Law

 German Muslims pray at a pro-Islam demonstration in Cologne where radical preacher Pierre Vogel spoke. (Photo: © Reuters)


The creep of Sharia marches on....across Europe, across America, across the West.

The question is - can it be stopped?  Or should the question should be...does anyone CARE if it is stopped?

The story comes from The Clarion Project.

German Courts Ruling According to Sharia Law


An encroachment of Islamic law into the German legal system sets a dangerous precedent in Europe.

An appeals court in northwestern Germany has decided a contentious divorce case based on Islamic Sharia law.

The ruling is the latest in a growing number of court cases in Germany in which judges refer or defer to Islamic law because either the plaintiffs or the defendants are Muslim.

Critics say the cases -- especially those in which German law has taken a back seat to Sharia law -- reflect a dangerous encroachment of Islamic law into the German legal system.

In the latest case, the Appeals Court [Oberlandesgericht] in Hamm, a city in German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, ruled on June 2 that whoever marries according to Islamic law in a Muslim country and later seeks a divorce in Germany must abide by the original terms set forth by Sharia law.

The case involved a 23-year-old Iranian woman who married a 31-year-old Iranian man in Iran according Sharia law in 2009. The couple later immigrated to the German city of Essen, gave birth to a daughter but then separated in 2011. A lower court in Essen granted the woman a divorce in November 2012 and the husband appealed the decision.

The appeals court in Hamm sided with the woman because, according to the German judge, the couple agreed to abide by the principles of Sharia law at the time they were married and thus the case should be decided according to Islamic law, regardless of whether the couple was now living in Germany.

The court ruled that the woman was legally entitled to talaq, an Islamic means of obtaining a divorce by reciting the phrase "I divorce you" three times. The court also said the husband had violated the original terms of the Islamic marriage agreement by failing to provide financial support for his wife for a period of six months.

The ruling has opened another round in a long-running debate about the role of Islam in German jurisprudence.

Supporters of the decision say it is fair and consistent with Article 14 of the Introductory Statute to the Civil Code [Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche, EGBGB], which states that the law governing a marriage generally should be the law of the country in which the marriage took place. But critics of the ruling say it should not be the role of German courts to enforce the arcane provisions of Sharia law.

In a similar but separate case, the appeals court in Hamm announced in April 2013 that it had overturned a previous decision by a lower court in Dortmund and ordered a 33-year-old Iranian man to pay his estranged 29-year-old wife (also an Iranian) the equivalent of 800 gold coins as part of a divorce settlement.

That case revolved around a couple who were married in Iran in 2001, immigrated to Dortmund and later obtained German citizenship. The couple separated in 2007.

As part of the marriage agreement, the husband had promised to pay his wife a dower of 800 Bahar Azadi gold coins payable upon demand. The court ordered the husband to pay €213,000 ($280,000), the current equivalent value of the coins, in compliance with a marriage contract he signed in accordance with Islamic law, despite the fact that both individuals are now German citizens.

In February 2011, Germany's Federal Labor Court [Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG] in Erfurt ruled that a Muslim supermarket employee was legally entitled to refuse to handle bottles of alcohol on religious grounds.

The case in question involved a 47-year-old Turkish man who had been employed at a supermarket in the northern German city of Kiel since 1994. The problem had begun in 2003, when the man was assigned to work in the beverages department, but refused to stock the store's shelves with alcoholic drinks, based on the argument that Islam forbade him from any contact with alcohol. In response, the store manager reassigned the employee to stock milk bottles in the dairy department, but the man complained that he was not accustomed to working in a refrigerated environment, so he frequently called in sick. The man was eventually sent back to work in the beverages department, where the conflict over the alcohol bottles intensified. The employee was eventually fired in March 2008.

In a decision that generated considerable controversy in Germany, the court ruled that the supermarket was unjust in firing the employee and was obliged to offer him an alternative position that did not conflict with his religious beliefs. The court rejected the argument set forth by lawyers representing the supermarket that the man should have been able to do his job without a fuss because Sharia law forbids only the drinking of alcohol, not the touching of bottles. The court noted that the employee had become increasingly religious and that any direct or indirect contact with alcohol would have been offensive to him.

In another case, in March 2007, Christa Datz-Winter, a judge at the Family Court [Familiengericht] in Frankfurt,cited the Koran in a divorce case involving a 26-year-old German woman of Moroccan origin who had been repeatedly beaten by her Moroccan husband. Although police had ordered the man to stay away from his estranged wife, he continued to abuse her and at one point threatened to kill her.

While not denying the facts, Judge Datz-Winter nevertheless refused to grant the divorce, arguing that a woman who marries a Muslim man should know what she is getting herself into. In her ruling, the judge quoted Sura 4, Verse 34 of the Koran, which justifies "both the husband's right to use corporal punishment against a disobedient wife and the establishment of the husband's superiority over the wife."

The ruling generated so much outrage that the judge was removed from the case.

In Kassel, the Federal Social Court [Bundessozialgericht] approved the claim of a second wife for half of her dead Moroccan husband's pension payments, which the man's first wife wanted to keep all to herself. Although polygamy is illegal in Germany, the judge ruled that according to Sharia law, the two wives must share the pension.

In Koblenz, the Administrative Appeals Court [Oberverwaltungsgericht] granted the second wife of an Iraqi living in Germany the right to remain permanently in the country. The court ruled that after five years of a polygamous marriage in Germany, it would be unfair to expect her to return to Iraq.

In Düsseldorf, an Appeals Court [Oberlandesgericht] ordered a Turkish man to repay a €30,000 ($40,000) dowry to his former daughter-in-law, in accordance with Sharia law. In Cologne, a judge ruled that an Iranian man must repay his ex-wife's dowry of 600 gold coins, based on the Sharia law followed in Iran.

In Munich, a Local Court [Amtsgericht] decided that a German widow was entitled to only one-quarter of the estate left by her deceased husband, who was born in Iran. The other three-quarters of the inheritance should go to relatives in Tehran. The court ruled that because the man did not have German citizenship, Sharia law applies to the division of the inheritance.

A growing number of German legal experts are now sounding the alarm about the rise of a parallel Islamic justice system in Germany.

In an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, Mathias Rohe, an expert in Sharia law at the University of Erlangen, discusses the rapid spread of Islamic law in German jurisprudence. He describes Sharia law as a "highly complex system of Islamic religious and legal norms" and warns, "We must be careful that we are not creating parallel [legal] structures."

According to Joachim Wagner, a German legal expert and former investigative journalist for ARD German public television, Sharia law in Germany is far more widespread than most people realize, and that this "parallel justice system" is undermining the rule of law in Germany.

In a 236-page book entitled "Judges Without Law: Islamic Parallel Justice Endangers Our Constitutional State," Wagner writes that, in addition to the use of Sharia law in German courts, Muslims are also establishing a shadow justice system, with Islamic Sharia courts now operating in all major German cities.

Wagner writes that Muslim jurists often seek to settle criminal cases out of court -- without the involvement of German prosecutors or lawyers -- before law enforcement can bring the cases to a German court.

Settlements reached by the Muslim mediators often mean perpetrators are able to avoid long prison sentences, while victims receive compensation in line with Sharia law. When cases are tried in German courts, victims are often pressured to make sure their testimony in court does not lead to a conviction, according to Wagner.

In an interview with the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, Wagner describes the Islamic shadow justice system in Germany as "very foreign, and for a German lawyer, completely incomprehensible at first. It follows its own rules. The Islamic arbitrators aren't interested in evidence when they deliver a judgment, and unlike in German criminal law, the question of who is at fault doesn't play much of a role."

When Der Spiegel asked why it was wrong for two parties to try to resolve a dispute among themselves, Wagner replied: "The problem starts when the arbitrators force the justice system out of the picture, especially in the case of criminal offenses. At that point they undermine the state monopoly on violence. Islamic conflict resolution in particular, as I've experienced it, is often achieved through violence and threats. It's often a dictate of power on the part of the stronger family."

Wagner says political correctness is contributing to the rise of Sharia law in Germany. In an interview with the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, Wager states: "I've studied 16 recent crime cases here with Muslim citizens involved. In almost 90% of all cases where Muslim arbitrators were commissioned, the perpetrators were acquitted by German courts or the cases were dropped altogether by the prosecution for lack of evidence. It's an alarming finding, and it throws a bad light on our courts."

Majority of Netherlands Favors Ban on Sharia Law

From Family Security Matters.

Majority of Netherlands Favors Ban on Sharia Law


Polls don't mean that much unless there are political parties and leaders willing to implement them. The Netherlands may represent the first time that the counterjihad stars have aligned in a single country. Wilders' popularity is rising and tolerance for Islamic terror is declining.

More than three quarters of the Dutch (77 percent) believe that Islam is no enrichment for our country. More than two-thirds - 68 percent - say that there is enough Islam in the Netherlands. It is striking that a majority of voters from all political parties (from PVV to VVD, CDA, D66, PvdA, SP and 50plus) share this view.

PvdA is the Netherlands Labour Party. SP is the Socialist Party.

A poll conducted by the research bureau of Maurice de Hond (the Dutch equivalent of Gallup), commissioned by the PVV, among a representative sample of over 1,900 people also shows other striking results:


A majority of 55 percent favors stopping immigration from Islamic countries.

63 percent say: no new mosques.

72 percent favor a constitutional ban on Sharia law in the Netherlands.

64 percent say that the arrival of immigrants from Islamic countries has not been beneficial to the Netherlands.

Nearly three-quarters – 73 percent – of all Dutch see a relationship between Islam and the recent terror acts in Boston, London and Paris.

PVV leader Geert Wilders: “The results are very clear. The Netherlands has had enough of Islam. The majority do not want new immigrants from Islamic countries, nor any new mosques. They think that Islam is no enrichment for the Netherlands and say: Enough is enough. I will confront the Dutch government with these findings and demand that we finally stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands. For a long time is has been claimed that anti-Islamic opinions are extremist. It is clear now that a majority of our people supports them!”

Maybe the new gates aren’t in Vienna after all.

Iranians Change Sentence For Adultery From Stoning To Sometimes Stoning and Sometimes Hanging

 

Gotta love the Iranians - the world has been in an outcry over the stonings in Iran for those convicted of adultery so the Iranians came back and changed the penalty by saying that the judge MAY choose another execution method if he wants...that's usually hanging in Iran, but it doesn't MAKE the judge change the method from stoning.  But hey, I'm sure all of the human rights organizations will applaud the mullahs now for such a humane response.

The story comes from The Telegraph.

Iran amends law on stoning for adultery


The controversial practice, in which stones are thrown at the partially buried offender, has provoked outcries from human rights organisations, international bodies and Western countries urging Iran to abandon it.

An article of Iran's Islamic new penal code, published earlier this week, states that, "if the possibility of carrying out the (stoning) verdict does not exist," the sentencing judge may order another form of execution pending final approval by the judiciary chief.

The article does not explain what is meant by the possibility of stoning not existing.

In Iran, executions are normally carried out by hanging.

Under Iran's interpretation of Islamic Sharia law in force since its 1979 revolution, adultery is punished by the stoning of convicted adulterers.

Women are buried up to the their shoulders, but men only up to their waists. They are spared if they manage to free themselves before dying.

Murder, rape, armed robbery and drug trafficking are also punishable by death in Iran, which has one of the highest annual execution counts in the world, alongside China, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

At least 150 people may have been stoned in Iran since 1980, the International Committees against Execution and Stoning said in 2010.

According to local media, MPs had removed stoning altogether from the bill that they adopted. But the hardline Guardians Council of clerics and jurists, which must approve all legislation before it enters into force, reinserted it, with the new amendment.

The United Nations has urged Iran to ditch stoning as a method of execution, with its experts saying last year that adultery does not constitute a serious crime by international standards.

World criticism reached a strident pitch in 2011 when reports said a married woman, Sakieneh Mohammadi Ashtiani, was about to be stoned over "illicit relationships" with two men.

Iran halted the stoning, but Mohammadi Ashtiani, sentenced in 2006, is serving a 10-year sentence on separate charges of complicity in the murder of her husband in a lovers' spat.

Her stoning could still be carried out. In December 2011, a local judicial official said that judiciary chief Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani had decided "to wait to get the view of other religious scholars" before making a final decision.

The last reported case of stoning was in 2009, when an unidentified man was stoned to death in the northern city of Rasht.

That came despite a directive in 2002 by then judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi to suspend the practice. His call failed to force any changes to the penal code.

ISNA Reinvents 'Sharia' for Western Consumption

From The Clarion Project.

ISNA Reinvents 'Sharia' for Western Consumption


The latest issue of the Islamic Horizons magazine of the Islamic Society of North America, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, has an article with an interesting message: The U.S could learn from Islamic law if it weren’t for the “Islamophobes” bashing Sharia.

The theme of the article is that “Islamophobes” are twisting the meaning of Sharia, and it is up to Muslim-Americans to set the record straight. In a game of semantics reminiscent of the campaign to get the media to stop using the word "Islamist" and the "My Jihad" campaign, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is now turning to the words “Sharia” and “fiqh.”

The article argues that critics are actually talking about siyasa, or Islamic administration. Sharia is “divine” and fiqh is Islamic legal rulings. Yet what the article doesn’t explain is that Siyasa is fiqh and fiqh is part of Sharia.

Once readers are told that these are three separate things, they are open to their redefining. Most importantly, fiqh is framed as a system of jurisprudence superior to the West. This fits into the theme of ISNA’s parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood, that Islam is not just a faith but an alternative civilization.

Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Brotherhood, once said, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

ISNA’s magazine first argues that fiqh is not a theocratic “system of governance” because “unlike our Christian cousins, Muslims never merged ‘church’ and state.”

The article even blames the failures of Sharia-based governance on Western influence:

“The governments of most Muslim-majority countries follow the western nation-state model that centralizes all lawmaking power with the state. Unfortunately, when these states legislate selected fiqh rules (misleadingly labeled ‘Sharia’), they effectively act as theocracies because they use state power to declare and enforce ‘Sharia’ with little or no recognition of fiqh pluralism.”

In other words, Muslim theocracies exist because they were too Western.

As for “fiqh pluralism,” according to respected authorities on Sharia, this is referring to the fact that there are four Sunni schools of thought, each having their own divisions—but all of these disagreements are over details within the Sharia framework.

Reliance of the Traveler, an authoritative book on Islamic law endorsed by the top Sunni theological institution and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity) states, “The four Sunni schools of Islamic law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’I, and Hanbali, are identical in approximately 75 percent of their legal conclusions.”

The Encyclopedia Brittanica explains that after these schools of jurisprudence were formed by the year 1258, “All subsequent generations of jurists were considered bound to … the unquestioned acceptance of their great predecessors as authoritative and could, at most, issue legal opinions drawn from established precedents.”

After ISNA’s article misleadingly compartmentalizing Sharia, fiqh and siyasa, the overall package of Islamic law is presented as something that could actually improve America as it becomes more diverse. Here are two quotes from the article:

“Rather than being a threat to American rule of law, Islamic legal theory could provide valuable insight into how to honor multiplicity without giving up individual values and identities, or unity of the whole.”

“When it comes to dealing with diversity, America could learn a lot from Islamic law, if only it could stop painting it as something that it is not.”

This message isn’t new for ISNA, it’s only that now it’s being said more delicately. ISNA’s Secretary-General from 1994 to 2006, Sayyid Syeed, was recorded in 2006 saying, “Our job is to change the Constitution of America.” That’s not the language of someone who is talking solely about spirituality and morals.

Muzammil Siddiqi is one of ISNA’s founders and was its President from 1997 to 2000. He remains listed as a member at large of the Board of Directors. In 1996, he said that Muslims “should participate in the [democratic] system to safeguard our interest and try to bring gradual change for the right cause … We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

If you are thinking that these “rules” may be referring to an inner spiritual struggle against sin, consider what else Siddiqi’s said (in 2001):

“The criminal law of the Sharia is not practiced here and it is not even required for Muslims to practice the criminal law in a non-Islamic state … Once more people accept Islam, insha’allah, this will lead to the implementation of Sharia in all areas.”

The last part of this statement confirms the fact that the siyasa and fiqh are components of Sharia. The ISNA magazine’s claim that they are separate is debunked by ISNA’s own leadership.

It is often assumed that such deceptive word-play is not approved of by Islamist doctrine. Yet, here’s what the Reliance of the Traveler ruled regarding that matter:

“[I]t is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible … and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

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

The core belief of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists is that their faith is a political doctrine for an alternative civilization. It is Allah’s guide to prosperity and the key to any civilization’s success is to follow it.

When ISNA says that America would benefit from Sharia/Islamic law, it is recommending compliance with this political doctrine. American Islamists tout this recommendation as a sign of patriotism because, in their mind, compliance with Sharia is good for America.

Instead of using the U.S. as a model for reform in Islam, ISNA’s article views Islam as a model for reform in the U.S.

Qatar Funding Jihadis in Global Sharia Push

From The Clarion Project.

Qatar Funding Jihadis in Global Sharia Push


As the Syrian civil war continues to tear that country apart, with possible use of chemical weapons (by somebody) reported and certain commission of atrocities on all sides, calls for Western and especially U.S. intervention are mounting.

Some want a “no fly zone” so that Bashar al-Assad’s forces can be prevented from aerial bombardment of his people, civilians and rebels alike. Some want the Obama administration to arm the rebels directly (or at least more directly than it already has been for the last year or more). Some, like U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), want both a no-fly zone and more weapons for the rebels. Sen. Graham has even pushed for the insertion of U.S. ground forces into the Syrian conflict.

The trouble is that most U.S. lawmakers realize there just aren’t a lot of good candidates among the rebels whose victory would actually advance core U.S. national security interests in the region. Where in Syria is there a capable, credible rebel force openly dedicated to anything but Sunni Islam and Islamic Law?

Aside from some out-funded, outgunned and outmanned militias among the umbrella Syrian Free Army (SFA) that have been identified and met by Major General Paul Vallely, USA (ret.), thanks to decades of inaction and neglect of pro-Western voices by U.S. leadership, the most powerful forces now opposing the Assad regime are Islamic jihadis, sponsored by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other theocratic regimes.

The loss of SFA commander Col. Riad al-Assad in March 2013 to a bomb that left him seriously injured and out of the fight was a critical blow to opposition forces not aligned with either the al-Qa’eda militia, Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since at least October 2012, when it first warned that most of the weapons being shipped to the rebels by Qatar and Saudi Arabia were going to “hard-line Islamic jihadists,” even the New York Times has been sounding some well-considered notes of caution about calls for deeper U.S. involvement. Following up in April 2013, Times journalist Ben Hubbard reported that “nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of” but rather that “[a]cross Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists.”

So, acknowledged hard-line Salafis like al-Qa’eda and Saudi Arabia aside, what might be expected in Syrian territory seized by Qatari-backed (i.e., Muslim Brotherhood-aligned) fighters?

While ostensibly a U.S. ally, Qatar in fact shares little with American core principles such as gender, ethnic and faith equality, genuine pluralism, tolerance, individual liberty or liberal secular democracy.

For starters, Qatar is an authoritarian monarchy whose legal system is dominated by sharia (Islamic) law. Article I of the 1972 Qatari constitution declares with finality that “its religion is Islam and the Islamic Shari'a is the main source of legislation.” Qatari judges are graduates of Saudi schools of Islamic jurisprudence or Egypt’s al-Azhar University. Qatar’s sharia courts have full jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters over both Qatari nationals and resident or visiting Muslims from other countries.

The reach of Qatar’s draconian sharia mandate obviously extends beyond its Muslim subjects, however, as Dorje Gurung, a Nepali chemistry teacher at Qatar Academy in the capital of Doha, found out recently. In early May 2013, Gurung was jailed pending felony charges for insulting Islam. The accusation resulted from Gurung’s interaction with some insolent and undisciplined students at the school who had launched racist taunts and even a physical assault against him. Freed after an international outcry, the veteran Tibetan-Buddhist educator who’d been educated by Jesuits in Italy, and taught in Australia, Britain and the U.S., could have faced up to seven years in prison had he been convicted.

None of this should come as any surprise, given Qatar’s identification as ‘banker to the global jihad’ and ‘home away from home’ for Yousef al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s senior jurist (as I wrote in a January 2013 piece for the Clarion Project, here).

As owner and home base for the Al-Jazeera , Qatar also provides the satellite television and news outlet of choice for a panoply of jihadist groups, from al-Qa’eda, HAMAS and Hezbollah to the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar, quite simply, is a jihadist state, not a moderate one. Its objectives mirror those of official Islam for the last 1400 years—and of its Muslim Brotherhood guests since that group’s 1928 founding: Establishment of Islamic government and enforcement of Islamic Law (sharia).

Qatar’s co-sponsorship with the U.S. administration of the 2011 Libyan revolution that was dominated (and won) by al-Qa’eda-affiliated militias predictably ushered in a chaotic post-Qaddafi situation in which Muslim Brotherhood thugs on the streets and al-Qa’eda militias across Cyrenaica demand what they fought for: Strict application of sharia.

The so-far unavenged murderous September 11 attack against the U.S. mission in Benghazi by the al-Qa’eda affiliate, Ansar al-Shariah, has spawned a spike in al-Qa’eda threats against U.S. Embassies in Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

Christians and their churches are under assault across Libya, something that happened rarely, if ever, under Qaddafi. Islamic Law, the Islamic Law of Qatar, al-Qaradawi and the Brotherhood, in fact, demands the suppression of all non-Muslim expressions of faith, especially free speech and proselytizing.

In Syria, Qatar’s investment in the rebellion, estimated by some to be as much as three billion dollars, increasingly is being seen for what it most likely is: An attempt to buy influence and build networks among the jihadist opponents of the Assad regime in order to shape the post-Assad battlespace.

What Qatar’s ruling al-Thani family wants in Syria is the same outcome it sought by backing the Tunisian Brotherhood party, al-Nahda, and the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt: Qatar-friendly Sunni Islamic government under sharia law. While the Sunni Islamic part of this objective is shared by the Saudis and other backers of the Syrian rebellion, divisions and rivalries among the anti-Assad opposition mean that the post-Assad period almost inevitably will be at least as contentious as the rebellion itself.

Continuing civil war seems unavoidable, not just against the stay-behind insurgent cell networks being set up by Shi’ite Iran and Hezbollah, but among Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the rest of the competing opposition interests which already are visibly splintering even before (perhaps well before) Assad goes down.

Syria is a morass of intra-Islamic hatreds at the moment. While disposing of Iran’s only real ally in the region and severing a critical land bridge to Lebanese Hezbollah and Islamic jihad’s front line against the State of Israel surely are worthy objectives, trading an Iranian proxy for yet another new Muslim Brotherhood outpost is not.

Muslim Brotherhood: Convention to Protect Women is Anti-Islamic

So, let's talk about the REAL war on women...

The story comes from The Clarion Project.

Muslim Brotherhood: Convention to Protect Women is Anti-Islamic


The Muslim Brotherhood’s official website in Arabic has published an article highlighting the comments of a senior Egyptian Islamist scholar criticizing the United Nations Violence Against Women Convention for violating Islam and promoting Westernization.

Dr. Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Mahdi, a member of Al-Azhar University’s Council of Senior Scholars and head of the Sharia Association, was reacting to the endorsement of the U.N. convention by Dr. Mervat Al-Talawi, the leader of Egypt’s National Council for Women.

Dr. Al-Mahdi said that the U.N. convention is part of a war on Islam and that women are treated better under Sharia than Western law. He claimed “that Islam has given women a place of honor, and has allowed them to take part in the country’s awakening, while in the West, the women have to search for employment and rely only on themselves. Islam, on the other hand, has given women partners or husbands to take care of them.”

In other words, women in the West are oppressed because they are allowed to work and to be self-sufficient. He also said that their roles as mothers, wives and daughters are protected under Sharia.

Al-Mahdi’s description of a woman’s place under Sharia Law is a good example of how Islamists present the issue of women’s rights. In their view, Sharia Law brings true freedom, justice and equality to women. When they use those comforting terms, they are actually talking about Sharia-based governance.

This word-play was apparent when the Egyptian constitution was being drafted. Originally, Article 68 read as: “The state shall take all measures to establish the equality of women and men in the areas of political, cultural, economic and social life, as well as other areas, insofar as this does not conflict with the rulings of Islamic Shariah” (emphasis mine).

This article was scrapped when it received negative attention, but more carefully-worded sections accomplished the intended purpose.

The constitution makes Sharia the law of the land. Other language sets the stage for enforcement of Sharia.

Article 10 states that “the family is the basis of the society and is founded on religion, morality and patriotism.” The government must “preserve the genuine character of the Egyptian family, its cohesion and stability, and to protect its moral values, all as regulated by law.”

Article 11 states that the government “shall safeguard ethics, public morality and public order, and foster a high level of education and religious and patriotic values…”

The Islamists' claim that Sharia protects women is both patronizing and ingenuous, and their characterization of a convention against the abuse of women as a violation of Islam is extremely telling.