Sharia Law

Shariamerica

Shariamerica

The U.S. government has condemned the burning of the Qur'an. Yet the U.S. government has issued the burning of Bibles. How does this match up?

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership

 

St. Petersburg Times
By William R. Levesque
March 22, 2011
TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.
But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.
"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

St. Petersburg Times
By William R. Levesque
March 22, 2011

TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

Continue reading here

 

Democracy is a Relative Term

 

By Robert Spencer
February 15, 2011
Everyone is excited about the toppling of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  “This is a moment of huge opportunity,” enthused one noted analyst.  Another agreed:  “We will soon see a new Middle East materializing.”  The two analysts in question are Tony Blair and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—and that sums up the reigning confusion about what exactly has happened in Egypt, and what is likely to happen next.
Blair opined that “this is a moment of huge opportunity, not just for Egypt,” but for the entire Middle East.  “Despite all those challenges,” Blair added, “this is a moment when the whole of the Middle East could pivot and face towards change and modernization and democracy.”
Maybe.  Ahmadinejad, however, is envisioning a wholly different scenario.  He predicted that “we will soon see a new Middle East materializing without America and the Zionist regime, and there will be no room for world arrogance [that is, the West] in it.”
So who’s right?  Will Egypt become a Western-style pluralistic democracy, with equal rights for women, as well as for its sizable and embattled Christian minority?  Or was Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Ahmad Mersi correct when he declared that the Egyptian people want the rule of Islamic law?
Over the course of Egypt’s revolution, the mainstream media has been intent on downplaying the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Egyptian presidential contender Mohamed ElBaradei also minimized both the Brotherhood’s commitment to the draconian elements of Islamic law and its popularity, saying, “This is total bogus that the Muslim Brotherhood are religiously conservative.  They are no way extremists.  They are no way using violence.  They are not a majority of the Egyptian people.  They will not be more than maybe 20 percent of the Egyptian people.”
ElBaradei’s claim that the Brotherhood is not “religiously conservative,” although echoed by Obama’s clueless intelligence chief, James Clapper, is ridiculous on its face, and contradicted by numerous statements of past and present Brotherhood leaders, including Mersi.  Nonetheless, the Brotherhood has an 80-year history in Egypt, and in the course of 80 years, one may make a lot of enemies—soElBaradei’s lowballing of the Brotherhood’s likely post-Mubarak support within the country may not be very far off the mark.
Nonetheless, it may be able to steer post-Mubarak events in Egypt its way precisely because it is the foremost exponent of political Islam in Egypt.  A Pew Research Center survey conducted in Egypt in spring 2010 found that no fewer than 85% of Egyptians thought that Islam was a positive influence in politics.  Fifty-nine per cent said they identified with “Islamic fundamentalists” in their struggle against “groups who want to modernize the country,” which had the support of only 27% of Egyptians.  Only 20% were “very concerned” about “Islamic extremism” within Egypt.
In light of all that, it may seem puzzling that 59% of Egyptians affirmed that “democracy is preferable to any other kind of government.”  But while Westerners may assume that democracy refers in all cases to the implementation of Jeffersonian principles of limited government, tolerance, the free press, and popular accountability, all too often nowadays it has been reduced to mere head-counting—and in Egypt as well as elsewhere in the Middle East, the advocates of political Islam are the ones who have the heads.
That’s why Mohammad-Javad Larijani, secretary-general of the ironically named Iranian High Council for Human Rights, was able to express unqualified support for the Egyptian uprising:  “In my opinion, the Islamic Republic of Iran should see these events without exception in a positive light.”  He characterized the already-toppled Ben Ali government in Tunisia as “anti-Islamic,” and predicted that soon Tunisians would have a “people’s government.”  And in Egypt, Larijani said, “Muslims are more active in political agitation and, God willing, they will establish the regime that they want.”
The regime they want, by all indications, is an Islamic one.  A Kerensky-style interregnum featuring an uneasy democratic coalition enjoying little popular support may follow Mubarak, or the military may clamp down entirely on the protests.  But if the Egyptian people are allowed to express their will, almost certainly an Islamic regime will follow—with consequences that should give even Tony Blair reason to regret his enthusiasm.
Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, Stealth Jihad and The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran (all from Regnery-a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

By Robert Spencer

February 15, 2011

Everyone is excited about the toppling of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  “This is a moment of huge opportunity,” enthused one noted analyst.  Another agreed:  “We will soon see a new Middle East materializing.”  The two analysts in question are Tony Blair and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—and that sums up the reigning confusion about what exactly has happened in Egypt, and what is likely to happen next.

Blair opined that “this is a moment of huge opportunity, not just for Egypt,” but for the entire Middle East.  “Despite all those challenges,” Blair added, “this is a moment when the whole of the Middle East could pivot and face towards change and modernization and democracy.”

Maybe.  Ahmadinejad, however, is envisioning a wholly different scenario.  He predicted that “we will soon see a new Middle East materializing without America and the Zionist regime, and there will be no room for world arrogance [that is, the West] in it.”

So who’s right?  Will Egypt become a Western-style pluralistic democracy, with equal rights for women, as well as for its sizable and embattled Christian minority?  Or was Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Ahmad Mersi correct when he declared that the Egyptian people want the rule of Islamic law?

Over the course of Egypt’s revolution, the mainstream media has been intent on downplaying the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Egyptian presidential contender Mohamed ElBaradei also minimized both the Brotherhood’s commitment to the draconian elements of Islamic law and its popularity, saying, “This is total bogus that the Muslim Brotherhood are religiously conservative.  They are no way extremists.  They are no way using violence.  They are not a majority of the Egyptian people.  They will not be more than maybe 20 percent of the Egyptian people.”

ElBaradei’s claim that the Brotherhood is not “religiously conservative,” although echoed by Obama’s clueless intelligence chief, James Clapper, is ridiculous on its face, and contradicted by numerous statements of past and present Brotherhood leaders, including Mersi.  Nonetheless, the Brotherhood has an 80-year history in Egypt, and in the course of 80 years, one may make a lot of enemies—soElBaradei’s lowballing of the Brotherhood’s likely post-Mubarak support within the country may not be very far off the mark.

Nonetheless, it may be able to steer post-Mubarak events in Egypt its way precisely because it is the foremost exponent of political Islam in Egypt.  A Pew Research Center survey conducted in Egypt in spring 2010 found that no fewer than 85% of Egyptians thought that Islam was a positive influence in politics.  Fifty-nine per cent said they identified with “Islamic fundamentalists” in their struggle against “groups who want to modernize the country,” which had the support of only 27% of Egyptians.  Only 20% were “very concerned” about “Islamic extremism” within Egypt.

In light of all that, it may seem puzzling that 59% of Egyptians affirmed that “democracy is preferable to any other kind of government.”  But while Westerners may assume that democracy refers in all cases to the implementation of Jeffersonian principles of limited government, tolerance, the free press, and popular accountability, all too often nowadays it has been reduced to mere head-counting—and in Egypt as well as elsewhere in the Middle East, the advocates of political Islam are the ones who have the heads.

That’s why Mohammad-Javad Larijani, secretary-general of the ironically named Iranian High Council for Human Rights, was able to express unqualified support for the Egyptian uprising:  “In my opinion, the Islamic Republic of Iran should see these events without exception in a positive light.”  He characterized the already-toppled Ben Ali government in Tunisia as “anti-Islamic,” and predicted that soon Tunisians would have a “people’s government.”  And in Egypt, Larijani said, “Muslims are more active in political agitation and, God willing, they will establish the regime that they want.”

The regime they want, by all indications, is an Islamic one.  A Kerensky-style interregnum featuring an uneasy democratic coalition enjoying little popular support may follow Mubarak, or the military may clamp down entirely on the protests.  But if the Egyptian people are allowed to express their will, almost certainly an Islamic regime will follow—with consequences that should give even Tony Blair reason to regret his enthusiasm.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, Stealth Jihad and The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran (all from Regnery-a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

 

Shariah: The Threat To America

At the Islamic Association of Palestine’s annual convention in Illinois in 1996, Abdurahman Alamoudi declared: “I have no doubt in my mind, Muslims sooner or later will be the moral leadership of America. It depends on me and you, either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”    

 Will you let this country become a Muslim country? If you answer an unequivocal NO, read the newly released report by The Center for Security Policy, Shariah: The Threat to America. The report investigates the situation thoroughly. It questions the way our administrations have been handling things. And it challenges you to keep America American, not Islamic

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL TEAM B REPORT. Here are some excerpts: 

Shariah in America?! 

Evidence of the extent to which shariah is being insinuated into the fabric of American society abounds, if one is willing to see it. A particularly egregious example was the 2009 case of a Muslim woman whose request for a restraining order against her Moroccan husband who had serially tortured and raped her was denied by New Jersey family court Judge Joseph Charles. The judge ruled on the grounds that the abusive husband had acted according to his Muslim (shariah) beliefs, and thus not with criminal intent. 

Fortunately, in this instance, a New Jersey appellate court overturned the ruling in July 2010, making clear that in the United States, the laws of the land derive from the Constitution and the alien dictates of shariah have no place in a U.S. courtroom. Still, the fact that such a reversal was necessary is instructive.  

The Contemporary Threat: 

Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as “the path,” shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah 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. 

Shariah explicitly seeks to replace representative governance with an Islamic state, to destroy sovereign and national polities with a global caliphate. 

Under successive presidencies, the United States has failed to understand, let alone counter successfully, the threat posed to its constitutional form of government and free society by shariah. In the past, such failures were reckless. Today, they are intolerable. 

If shariah is thus viewed as an alien legal system hostile to and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, and as one which dictates both violent and non-violent means to a capable audience ready to act imminently, then logically, those who seek to establish shariah in America – whether by violent means or by stealth – can be said to be engaged in criminal sedition, not the protected practice of a religion. 

Ignoring this reality does nothing to mitigate the danger posed by shariah. Rather, its adherents regard their accommodation – even in the name of religious tolerance – as “submission” to their doctrine. The unavoidable result is a further emboldening of those who seek to impose their agenda on the rest of us, quite possibly by using force instead of stealthy, non-violent techniques. 

Muslim Support of Shariah:  

There are Muslims around the world – including some in Europe and the United States –who do support shariah by various means. These include:  

(1) by contributing to “charity” (zakat), even though, according to shariah, those engaged in jihad are among the authorized recipient categories for what amounts to a mandatory tax;

(2) by inculcating their children with shariah at mosques or madrassas;

(3) by participating in, or simply failing to report, abhorrent behavior condoned or commanded by shariah (e.g., underage and forced marriage, honor killing, female genital mutilation, polygamy, and domestic abuse, including marital rape).  

Creepy Muslim Brotherhood: 

Team B II believes that the role played in this regard by shariah’s most sophisticated jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood, is of particular concern. Steeped in Islamic doctrine, and already embedded deep inside both the United States and our allies, the Brotherhood has become highly skilled in exploiting the civil liberties and multicultural proclivities of Western societies for the purpose of destroying the latter from within. As America’s top national security leadership continues to be guided by its post-modernist, scientific, and high-tech world-view, it neglects the reality that 7th Century impulses, enshrined in shariah, have reemerged as the most critical existential threat to constitutional governance and the freedom-loving, reason-driven principles that undergird Western civilization. 

Worse yet, as this report documents powerfully, our leaders have failed to perceive – let alone respond effectively to – the real progress being made by the Muslim Brotherhood in insinuating shariah into the very heartland of America through stealthy means. Team B II believes that the defeat of the enemy’s stealth jihad requires that the American people and their leaders be aroused to the high stakes in this war, as well as to the very real possibility that we could lose, absent a determined and vigorous program to keep America shariah-free. To that end, Team B II sets forth in plain language who this enemy is, what the ideology is that motivates and justifies his war against us, the various forms of warfare the enemy employs to achieve his ends, the United States’ vulnerability to them, and what we must do to emerge victorious. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL TEAM B REPORT.  

What can be done? 

While detailed recommendations for adopting a more prudential and effective strategy for surviving shariah’s onslaught are beyond the scope of this study, several policy and programmatic changes are clearly in order. These include: 

• U.S. policy-makers, financiers, businessmen, judges, journalists, community leaders and the public at large must be equipped with an accurate understanding of the nature of shariah and the necessity of keeping America shariah-free. At a minimum, this will entail resisting – rather than acquiescing to – the concerted efforts now being made to allow that alien and barbaric legal code to become established in this country as an alternate, parallel system to the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant to it. Arguably, this is already in effect for those who have taken an oath to “support and defend” the Constitution, because the requirement is subsumed in that oath. 

• U.S. government agencies and organizations should cease their outreach to Muslim communities through Muslim Brotherhood fronts whose mission is to destroy our country from within as such practices are both reckless and counterproductive. Indeed, these activities serve to legitimate, protect and expand the influence of our enemies. They conduce to no successful legal outcome that cannot be better advanced via aggressive prosecution of terrorists, terror-funders and other lawbreakers. It also discourages patriotic Muslims from providing actual assistance to the U.S. government lest they be marked for ostracism or worse by the Brothers and other shariah-adherent members of their communities. 

• In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, extend bans currently in effect that bar members of hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan from holding positions of trust in federal, state, or local governments or the armed forces of the United States to those who espouse or support shariah. Instead, every effort should be made to identify and empower Muslims who are willing publicly to denounce shariah. 

• Practices that promote shariah – notably, shariah-compliant finance and the establishment or promotion in public spaces or with public funds of facilities and activities that give preferential treatment to shariah’s adherents – are incompatible with the Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines and must be proscribed. 

• Sedition is prohibited by law in the United States. To the extent that imams and mosques are being used to advocate shariah in America, they are promoting seditious activity and should be warned that they will not be immune from prosecution.  

• Textbooks used in both secular educational systems and Islamic schools must not promote shariah, its tenets, or the notion that America must submit to its dictates.  

• Compounds and communities that seek to segregate themselves on the basis of shariah law, apply it alongside or in lieu of the law of the land or otherwise establish themselves as “no-go” zones for law enforcement and other authorities must be thwarted in such efforts. In this connection, assertion of claims to territory around mosques should be proscribed. 

• Immigration of those who adhere to shariah must be precluded, as was previously done with adherents to the seditious ideology of communism.  

Such measures will, of course, be controversial in some quarters. They will certainly be contested by shariah-adherent Muslims committed to jihad and others who, in the name of exercising or protecting civil liberties, are enabling the destruction of those liberties in furtherance of shariah. 

Far from being dispositive, their opposition should be seen as an opportunity – a chance, at a minimum, for a long-overdue debate about the sorts of policies that have brought the West in general and the United States in particular to the present, parlous state of affairs. If this study catalyzes and usefully informs that debate, it will have succeeded. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL TEAM B REPORT.

 

Team B II: Shariah, the Threat to America

Team B II: Shariah, the Threat

This is the press conference for the release of the Center for Security Policy's report, "Shariah, the Threat to America."

It's Time to Fight Back Against Death Threats by Islamic Extremists

It's Time to Fight Back Against Death Threats by Islamic Extremists

by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff
Exerpted from Los Angeles Times, original article in full version here.
9/27/2010

Earlier this year, after Comedy Central altered an episode of "South Park" that had prompted threats because of the way it depicted Islam's prophet Muhammad, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris proposed an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." The idea was, as she put it, to stand up for the 1st Amendment and "water down the pool of targets" for extremists.

The proposal got Norris targeted for assassination by radical Yemeni American cleric Anwar Awlaki, who has been linked to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight and also to several of the 9/11 hijackers. This month, after warnings from the FBI, Norris went into hiding. The Seattle Weekly said that Norris was "moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity."

It's time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement's playbook. In the 1990s, abortion providers faced the same sort of intimidation tactics and did not succumb. Instead, they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE, passed in 1994 by solid bipartisan margins. A similar act is needed to cover threats against free-speech rights.

A federal law would do two things. First, it would deter violent tactics, by focusing national attention on the problem and invoking the formidable enforcement apparatus of the federal government. Second, its civil damages provision would empower victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights.

Such an act is overdue. Across media and geographies, Islamic extremists are increasingly using intimidation to stifle free expression.

In 2004, Theo van Gogh was butchered on an Amsterdam street in broad daylight for his film criticizing Islam's treatment of women. By 2006, it was reported that "dozens of people" across Europe were "in hiding or under police protection because of threats from Muslim extremists."

Some targets, including the coauthor of this Op-Ed, fled to the United States, where it seemed safer -- and so it is, for now. However, the stark truth is the United States was never immune and the situation is deteriorating.

In 1989, two American bookstores carrying Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" were firebombed. Spooked major chains took it off display. And there have been many more threats that received less publicity. Few have heard, for example, about Oklahoma atheist Sabri Husibi, who received death threats after writing a 2009 article critical of his former faith. His aged mother in Syria was warned she would never see him again. "Clearly shaken," he requested the paper that published his article clarify that he is critical of all faiths.

These kinds of threats have had a formidable chilling effect. Mindful of the retaliation others faced, Yale University Press, the Met, the director of the disaster epic "2012" and countless others have decided to preemptively censor themselves.

[…]

If we leave our artists, activists and thinkers alone to weather the assault, they will succumb and we will all suffer the consequences.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, is a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Nomad: From Islam to America." Daniel Huff is director of the Middle East Forum's Legal Project.

Original article in full version here.

Sharia Law And American Declaration of Independence The Same By Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Sharia Law And American Declarat

Sharia Law And American Declaration of Independence The Same By Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Die Hard World Cup Fans in Somalia

Die Hard World Cup Fans in Somalia

This week we saw the launch of the World Cup. The World Cup is basically the Olympics for soccer and it is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world. Fans around the world have been waiting four years to witness this monumental sporting event. Cheering on teams from countries around the world, the World Cup provides nations with the opportunity to express nationalism and patriotism while engaging in healthy competition.
Recently in Somalia, radical Islamists have gained control and imposed extremely strict rule that is unparalleled in the West. This week, two soccer fans were shot dead solely because they were watching a game, by the hands of Islamist militants from the rebel group, Hezbal Islam. Their house was stormed and fire was opened, two were immediately executed and 10 others arrested. Another local militia group al Shabaab, which has been recruiting Americans recently has banned the viewing of the World Cup, as they deem it "un-Islamic." 
But what does the World Cup represent? Peace, perhaps? Doesn't it include friendly competition that extends beyond conflicts between borders and religions? Apparently people in Somalia should be raising arms against the government to support al Shabaab instead of wasting time watching a game. But is this reason to murder?
This is as clear of an example as any that radical Muslims will not be reasoned with. The group routinely bans music and dancing, and now with sports, basically all fun is prohibited. 
It is said that the two victims had broken a law. What happens when the world ceases to live by a set of laws that are universally acceptable? With the increasing popularity of Shariah law in different enclaves in places like France or even regions of the United States, how can we uphold universal rights? The right to watch a sports game without fear of death is something that everybody should agree to. But clearly they don't.
Is it not the responsibility of bodies like the United Nations to implement human rights laws that stress across the globe? Is there no organization that can say as soon as Shariah law impinges on the health and safety of human beings it is unacceptable? As long as we continue to witness sports fans murdered, honor killings and child brides we have a problem. And so far it looks like that problem is Shariah law. 

This week we saw the launch of the World Cup. The World Cup is basically the Olympics for soccer and it is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world. Fans around the world have been waiting four years to witness this monumental sporting event. Cheering on teams from countries around the world, the World Cup provides nations with the opportunity to express nationalism and patriotism while engaging in healthy competition.

Recently in Somalia, radical Islamists have gained control and imposed extremely strict rule that is unparalleled in the West. This week, two soccer fans were shot dead solely because they were watching a game, by the hands of Islamist militants from the rebel group, Hezbal Islam. Their house was stormed and fire was opened, two were immediately executed and 10 others arrested. Another local militia group al Shabaab, which has been recruiting Americans recently has banned the viewing of the World Cup, as they deem it "un-Islamic." 

But what does the World Cup represent? Peace, perhaps? Doesn't it include friendly competition that extends beyond conflicts between borders and religions? Apparently people in Somalia should be raising arms against the government to support al Shabaab instead of wasting time watching a game. But is this reason to murder?

This is as clear of an example as any that radical Muslims will not be reasoned with. The group routinely bans music and dancing, and now with sports, basically all fun is prohibited. 

It is said that the two victims had broken a law. What happens when the world ceases to live by a set of laws that are universally acceptable? With the increasing popularity of Shariah law in different enclaves in places like France or even regions of the United States, how can we uphold universal rights? The right to watch a sports game without fear of death is something that everybody should agree to. But clearly they don't.

Is it not the responsibility of bodies like the United Nations to implement human rights laws that stress across the globe? Is there no organization that can say as soon as Shariah law impinges on the health and safety of human beings it is unacceptable? As long as we continue to witness sports fans murdered, honor killings and child brides we have a problem. And so far it looks like that problem is Shariah law. 


Click here to read about a personal story about a radicalized Somali American.  

Interview with a Sharia Executioner

Sharia Executioner

Sharia Law 101 - Glenn Beck reviews an interview with an executioner.