Malinstruction from Bloomberg & Rauf

Lessons From the Mayor and the Imam
Gde Dwitya Arief

The article in the Jakarta Globe triggered one of my Google Alerts. Like many articles that involve Islam, it contains some outrageous statements which must be refuted. The author is off to a great start with two big lies in the last sentence of the first paragraph

[...] "together remind us that Muslims are part of America and that Islam is not attacking the West."

 

Muslims are part of America

    Muslims who live here are not part of America, they are part of the Ummah al-Islamiyya: "nation of Islam".  Their nationality is Muslim, not American.  America and Islam are irreconcilable polar opposites.

    America cherishes equality; Islam exemplifies Arab supremacism. The second caliph made it clear: "But the Arabs concede supremacy only to us of the Quraysh, who are the centre of the Arab world by heredity and position."

    Equality includes gender; women are not enslaved in our culture, whereas in Islam, 2:223. Your wives are a tilth for you, [...]; 4:34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means.[...]  Women are chattle: fields to be plowed & planted.

    Women are deficient in intelligence; the testimony of two women is required to equal that of one man. 2:282. [...] And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her.[...] But Christians are not qualified to testify: Reliance of the Traveller o24.2[...]" (e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says, "Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),  and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying);"[...]

    America cherishes our republican form of government in which the people are sovereign. Islam is theocratic and holds that only Allah has the right to rule; it rejects man made laws.

Islam is not attacking the West

    Has Islam ever attacked anyone?  How did India, Yemen, Egypt & Spain become Islamic?  They were conquered.  Those conquests were performed by Muslims who were motivated by the doctrines of Islam: imperatives recorded in the Qur'an and exemplified by the hadith.  Those curseworthy doctrines are reflected in Islamic law.  Al-Shafi'i gave it the utmost clarity. "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

    America fist experienced Islamic aggression when she gained independence from England: the Barbary Pirates sacked our shipping.  Tripoli's Ambassador explained why.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

"But this is only true if we accept the charge that 9/11 was an attack on America by Islam."

 

attack on America

    Where did it happen?  New York City & Washington D.C. were in America when I last examined a globe; did they flee to Canada?

by Islam

    What were the 'Magnificent 19'?    Were they Catholics or Baptists?  How many of them were Buddhists?  And what was it they said while slitting throats?  "Allahu Akhbar!"    If they were not Muslims obeying Allah and emulating Moe, why did they act in his name??

"Here lies the core of the problem: the notion that Islam itself is the attacker. "

Islam itself is the attacker

    What a silly notion. Islam is a set of doctrines which dictate a predatory way of life, it is nothing without Muslims.  Believers perpetrated that attack because of what they believe: Islam.  Allah said "fight them". Moe said that he was "ordered to fight". Moe waged 86 raids & ghazwats.  Why did the Barbary Pirates attack us?  Get a clue.   

"In fact, this is what the terrorists who claim they represent Islam want us to think."

they represent Islam

    Islam is represented by its founder, who said "I have been made victorious with terror." Salafists emulate Moe. Al-Qaeda is salafist. Allah said that he would "cast terror" [8:12].  Allah said that he "cast terror" [33:26] so that the Muslims killed the men of a Jewish settlement and enslaved their widowss & orphans.  Terrorism: its what Islam is; what Muslims do.

"Islam is part of America and is entitled to the same freedom as any other religious group."

entitled to the same freedom

    Freedom of religion is for legitimate religions, not plunder cults.  Jihad is foundational & intrinsic to Islam, it can not be separated or isolated. Islam is all or nothing. 

13:36. Those to whom We have given the Book (such as 'Abdullâh bin Salâm and other Jews who embraced Islâm), rejoice at what has been revealed unto you (i.e. the Qur'ân) , but there are among the Confederates (from the Jews and pagans) those who reject a part thereof. Say (O Muhammad ): "I am commanded only to worship Allâh (Alone) and not to join partners with Him. To Him (Alone) I call and to Him is my return."  [Emphasis added.]

Offensive, aggressive warfare against disbelievers is an intrinsic part of Islam; participation in it is a religious obligation.  9:123. "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you,[...] "  It is not possible that the Establishment Clause should permit that!

Do we or do we not have a right to be secure in our persons & property?  Do we or do we not have a right to life?  If we do, then there is no right to practice or propagate Islam.  If there is a right to practice or propagate Islam, then all our rights are abrogated.  Get a clue!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

The sanctity of our blood and property and our rights are conditional on embracing Islam.  That says it all, exposing the liars.

"The imam has been working with the US State Department in promoting pluralistic and democratic Islam across the world."

 

pluralistic

    3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. 
"The Messenger of Allah stated that no two religions should remain in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Jews and Christians should be expelled from it, all praise is due to Allah. " [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Emphasis added.]

democratic

    33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.[Emphasis added.]

    The fatal facts bear repetition and Imam Rauf provides the opportunity.

“Let there be no mistake, Islam categorically rejects the killing of innocent people. Terrorists violate the sanctity of human life and corrupt the meaning of our faith. In no way they represent our religion. And we must not let them define us.”

rejects the killing of innocent people

    Define innocent!  Were the passengers on those airliners and the office workers in the towers innocent or not?

5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!.

What is the meaning of that second exception? Muslims won't quote the next verse; I will.

5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

What is the meaning of "wage war against Allah"?  Tafsir Ibn Kathir has the answer for us. [...]`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. [...]  [Emphasis added] If you contradict Moe or do not believe in Allah, you are waging war against them and may be killed.   Only Muslims can be innocent!

sanctity of human life

    Moe said something, which I already quoted: "then their blood and property will be sacred to us ".  Only Muslim life has sanctity! He was  commanded to fight us until we become Muslim. 

represent our religion

    One man, dead and damned, represented Islam, defining & exemplifying it.  What part of this do you not comprehend?

• I have been ordered to fight the people
• I have been ordered to fight with the people
• I have been ordered to fight the people till they say 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'
• I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah
• Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. 
• I have been made victorious with terror

Free Speech Has No Future

Cass Sunstein: The Future of free Speech, serialized in Little Mag, should serve as a warning of things to come if Obamination remains in power or is succeeded by another Socialist.  

    Sunstein discusses the concept of public forums, finding them crucial to our form of government. He hints at considering the means of communication as a public good.  Its a long way from Hyde Park to the internet, but Sunstein wants to conflate them. Examine his central concern.

"In a system with public forums and general interest intermediaries, people will frequently come across materials that they would not have chosen in advance – and for diverse citizens, this provides something like a common framework for social experience."

    In a small village, a single newspaper may serve as the local news source. One church, one fraternity, one school, one theatre  and one coffee shop may give the villagers shared experiences. But the USA is a great nation, not a small village.  There are many different institutions and services.  There are numerous newspapers, radio and television broadcasters, with divergent points of view and market niches.

    Consumers can and do choose, and "birds of a feather flock together", that is the way nature works.  Once the nation stared at Chronkite or Brinkley, and soaked up the same lies together.  Now we soak up lies from many different sources.

"All too many people are now exposed to louder echoes of their own voices, resulting, on occasion, in social fragmentation, misunderstanding, and sometimes even enmity. Perhaps it is better for people to hear fewer controversial views than for them to hear a single such view, stated over and over again. I now turn to this issue."

    Does Sunstein want to force Liberals to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News?  Yeah, right.  I have sampled Randy Rhodes, John Hightower, Larry King and others. They raise my blood pressure too much. Keith Olbermann would make my bladder burst. I'll continue to listen to Rush, Sean & Mark; if Cass disapproves, he can go to Hell.

"If greater communications choices produce greater extremism, society may, in many cases, be better off as a result. But when group discussion tends to lead people to more strongly held versions of the same view with which they began, and if social influences and limited argument pools are responsible, there is legitimate reason for concern."

    "Extremism in the defense of liberty..." What is the value in arbitrarily decreasing the intensity or changing the direction of our views? This is all about cementing Scialists in power.

"Consider discussions among hate groups on the Internet and elsewhere. If the underlying views are unreasonable, it makes sense to fear that these discussions may fuel increasing hatred and a socially corrosive form of extremism."

    Who is to judge what 'views' are 'unreasonable'?  Here come the thought police!

"This does not mean that the discussions can or should be regulated in a system dedicated to freedom of speech. But it does raise questions about the idea that “more speech” is necessarily an adequate remedy – especially if people are increasingly able to wall themselves off from competing views."

    What is the remedy?

"The basic issue here is whether something like a “public sphere,” with a wide range of voices, might not have significant advantages over a system in which isolated consumer choices produce a highly fragmented speech market."

    Should we be like a doctatorship with state run media feeding us a steady diet of propaganda? 

"The most reasonable conclusion is that it is extremely important to ensure that people are exposed to views other than those with which they currently agree, in order to protect against the harmful effects of group polarisation on individual thinking and on social cohesion."

    Yeah, that's the solution: remote controlled idiot boxes blasting opinions inimical to our own, holding us as a captive audience!

"For those who believe that the free speech principle has democratic foundations, and is not about consumer sovereignty, government regulation of television, radio, and the Internet need not be objectionable, at least so long as it is reasonably taken as an effort to promote democratic goals."

    The free speech principle is crucial to our form of government. Voters must be allowed to communicate relevant facts and opinion and debate them openly in order to make wise decisions on candidates and related issues. 

    In deprecating 'consumer sovereignty', Sunstein deprecates popular sovereignty as well.  The people are sovereign, we give limited power to the government for limited  amd well defined purposes.  The popular sovereignty and consumer sovereignty are inseverable; if either is lost, both are lost. We can not be free if artificially & arbitrarily deprived of choices.

    Sunstein advocaztes mandates & disclosure reports for broadcasters including: educational programming, closed captioning, free airtime for office seakers, coverage of local issues and allowing opposition views to be heard.

    He does not stop there. he advocates requiring web sites to provide links to web sites with opposing views and "allow competing voices to be heard".

    Adding insult to injury, Sunstein advocates 'voluntary self-regulation'.  The variety of competing viewpoints might be reduced by "a ‘code’ of appropriate conduct".   The code would include, allowing opposing views, avoiding 'unnecessary' sensationalism and offering arguments rather than quick 'sound-bytes'. 

    The 'code ' would be "encouraged but not imposed by government".  If the 'code' is not 'voluntarily' implemented, the government "might impose “must carry” rules on highly partisan Websites".  So much for 'voluntary self-regulation'.  When you urinate on my shoes and tell me "its raining", you insult my intelligence.

    The Unfairness Doctrine is rising from the dead, in a disguised and expanded form.  It is all about squelching dissent under color of improving social intercourse.  They might as well limit us to one political party for the purpose of promoting 'common experience'm unity & social cohesion.

    LibTards kvetch about 'balkanization' while practicing the politics of division: pandering to Mexicans, Queers, abortion fanatics & Islam and engaging in class warfare.  There is something rotten in Washington: Obamination. Wise up, rise up, speak out and turn them out in the next election cycle!

 

Hector Aleem Update 11/30/10

    In this report, it appears that the end of the trial is drawing closer, but retarded by transfer to a different judge and lack of funds for the lawyer.  The persecution of Hector Aleem illustrates the absolute necessity of defeating the push for blasphemy laws.  There is neither security nor justice for minorities where Allah's writ runs. 

    We learn from Reliance of the Traveller, o11.10 that saying anything negative about Islam, Moe or Allah carries the death penalty. Full understanding of the the issue requires reading  o8.1 & o9.14 to learn of the penalty  and o8.7 for the list of prohibited expressions.

    Two Europeans are currently on trial for revealing the truth about Islam and one was convicted earlier this year.  There is no right more precious than that of free speech because without it, we can not warn our fellows of approaching danger.  Shall we be led, "dumb like sheep to the slaughter"? 

   

Dear group members,

For the first time ever we are about to share some good news with you. As you all know that Our Father Hector Aleem is falsely accused of Blasphemy charge. And you also know that Sunni Tehreek (A terrorist organization) is behind that and lodged that case on our father. And you also know that when daddy was arrested, Sunni Tehreek lodged more cases on him (with different plaintiffs) to prevent him of getting out of the jail. But these other cases were lodged on him when he was in jail. Hector Aleem was arrested in January 2009 due to that Blasphemy case and after three months i.e. on April 2009 more cases were lodged on him which were some other criminal charges. Of course all these cases are false and there is no evidence against our father. That was done to prevent him from getting out of the jail and to increase tension for him and his family and to torture him mentally. Those cases are being processed along with that Blasphemy case. But the good news is that our father Hector Aleem has been released from three of those Criminal cases because there was absolutely no evidence against him. In the order the judge wrote “since two years there has not been any kind of evidence against Hector Aleem, and those cases were lodged against him due to the personal enmity of the plaintiff so he is now released from these three cases”. But he is still in jail due to that Blasphemy charge and some other cases which are still being processed. We are 1000% sure that our father Hector Aleem will be released from these other criminal cases too as they are all at the end and there is no evidence against him. But that Blasphemy case is still very dangerous because it carries death penalty if convicted. Blasphemy case is also at the end, and there are only final arguments left. But the judge who was processing the Blasphemy case has been changed, we don’t know if he has been changed by the government or what but the new judge is about to come. We don’t even know the name of that new judge and that’s why the processing has been delayed till 4th December 2010. Our lawyer is doing an awesome job but he is asking for the fee. We paid him a lot, but still he is asking for the fee and I think that he will continue to ask for the fee until our father is released from jail. Sunni Tehreek (A terrorist organization) announced that to all lawyers that “a person who take the case of Hector Aleem will be killed”. Now all other lawyers are afraid to take the case of Hector Aleem, there was another person from Pakistan who is a lawyer and was a member of this group agreed to take the case our father but when he saw the danger of Mullahs and that terrorist organization Sunni Tehreek, he refused to help us. Our current lawyer is the only lawyer in whole Pakistan who is brave enough to take our father’s case and says “my life and profession are in danger due to your case that’s why you will have to pay me whatever I ask you to pay, and if you wont pay me….I will stop working and will resume working when you will pay me” So we are in this situation. It all happened in front of you, nothing was happening when this group was started in April 2010 but now things are changing. You all have supported us this far, we need your support once again and hopefully when this time we will pay our lawyer his fee…our father will be released thanks to all of you. The example of Asia Bibi is in front of you, she is convicted and is about to be hanged to death. There are many protests going on in Pakistan against Asia Bibi and all Blasphemy victims, Mullahs want to kill them all. Because of this the heat on our father’s case is increasing. And there are 99% chances that Mullahs will gather outside daddy’s court again and will try to do something bad. So please don’t let the same thing happen to daddy like it happened to Asia Bibi. We are all very scared of this Blasphemy tension which is rising in Pakistan. Please pray for our father, pray for his safety and his release. Also please donate for our father Hector Aleem so that we can give that money to the lawyer and he will start his work again. You can donate any amount, even a few dollars helps. If you want to donate through pay pal then follow the link below and if you want to donate through snail mail then contact the Shouman who is in the Admin list. And if you want to donate through Western Union then you can contact Mehwish Aleem in the admin list. Some people might not like it but we desperately need your help. We also want to give daddy some warm clothes he doesn’t have warm clothes and Christmas is near you can send him some Christmas cards and encourage him but remember nothing should be written against Pakistan or Islam.

Here is the link to pay pal: http://tinyurl.com/hectoraleem

Thank you everyone,
God Bless You All

Mehwish Aleem

Fighting Terror

Education is key to fighting terror

The Bangkok Post gave that headline to an interview with Jean-Paul Laborde, who heads the U.N.'s Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office.  Click the link above to read the article, i am digging for coprolites. 

Terrorism has yet to be eradicated after lots of security and law enforcement efforts over several consecutive years, so integrated approaches which uphold the value of educational curricula, promotion of tolerance and protection of human rights are needed for medium-term and sustainable policies to better address the regional and global menace.

yet to be eradicated

    How do you hope to eradicate terrorism without eradicating those who perform it and those who direct them to perform it?

lots of security

    A balloon compressed at any point expands wherever it is not compressed. It is not possible to secure every potential soft target 24/7/365.

law enforcement efforts

    Terrorism is not a law enforcement issue, it is one component of warfare. Since it is inspired by sanctified doctrine and directed by both state and non-state entities, it must be combated on two battlefronts: ideological and military.  Whenever you arrest or kill one terrorist, others will come forward to replace him.

educational curricula

    We do not control the schools in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria or Iran. Their text books are not printed in our language. We can not dictate what content they inculcate or how they inculcate it.  The suggestion that it can be done demonstrates the rare height of arrogance achieved by bureaucrats.
   
    Schools in Islamic nations teach the sanctity, necessity & divine obligation of terrorism because they are Islamic. They teach the contents of the Qur'an, Sunnah & Sira because those texts define & exemplify Islam.  If you want to do something about that, eliminate Islam.

promotion of tolerance

    We stupidly tolerate Islam, which seeks to destroy or dominate us; there is no better sign of civilizational insanity.  Islam does not tolerate us because intolerance is ordained by Allah in his book and Moe in his Sunnah.  You can not inject tolerance into Islam because Allah said "whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him" [3:85] Moe said "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.'".  [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387]

protection of human rights

    Such as our right to live, secure in our persons and property; or the Muslim's 'right' to kill, enslave, rape, pillage and plunder. Moe said something about that in the hadith cited above, so I will quote the entire saying here. Read it slowly; let the full meaning sink in.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

ordered to fight the people

    What could possibly be less tolerant than that?

till they say

    Freedom of religion, anyone?

 then their blood and property will be sacred to us

    Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims. Life? liberty? Property?  Kiss them goodbye if you will not eliminate Islam from the earth. Its open season on us so long as Islam exists.

has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have 

    Only Muslims have rights. Got a clue yet??    

sustainable policies

    Slowly bleeding to death, sending our soldiers to fight an invisible enemy with suicidal rules of engagement is not sustainable.  Random pat downs & body scans are not sustainable. Waiting for the next bomb to detonate is not sustainable. Constant terror is not sustainable.  Paying tribute is not sustainable. What did President Jefferson do?

In the coming years, greater regional and international cooperation will be very much needed, or we will not have the whole picture of the terrorist groups.

regional and international cooperation

    You might begin by adopting Israel's airline security tactics and continue by accepting her check points and security wall instead of condemning them.

terrorist groups

    There is one terrorist group: Islam.

Violent extremism is still very well spread among the populations. If you don't do something now _ for example, promoting proper Islamic teaching _ in a year or two it will be more dangerous.

Violent extremism

    "Its Islam, stupid."  Islam is intrinsically violent, Allah's jihad imperatives are clearly stated in the Qur'an. [8:39, 9:29]  

proper Islamic teaching

    Islamic teaching consists of the Qur'an, Sunnah, Sira & Fiqh, exactly what they are teaching now: the 'religious obligation' to hate & exterminate Jews and conquer the entire world.  Anything that contradicts the Qur'an & Sunnah will not be accepted, it will be rejected as bida.

    The next coprolite incorporates the questioner's false premise which is included and italicized.

How do you balance recognition of expression of religious freedom and prevention of radicalism, especially in grass-roots education?

We need to promote a culture of peace and of tolerance.

While we speak about freedom of religion, we must address issues of tolerance to respect diversity.

religious freedom

    The right to practice one's religion is restricted to Muslims. Where Allah's writ runs, Jews & Christians are forbidden to build or maintain houses of worship, display crosses, ring bells, pray aloud in public and hold public processions & funerals.  They are not permitted to own or carry weapons, use saddles or testify in court  against a Muslim.

    The practice of Islam involves obedience to Allah & emulation of Moe. It is inseverable, not a la carte. Allah commanded: "fight them until". Jihad is an integral part of the practice of Islam. It can not be ignored, neither can it be stricken from the Qur'an. Believers fight in Allah's cause, killing others and being killed. [9:111] This little sample of fiqh may help you to comprehend the fatal fact.

"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

culture of peace and of tolerance

    As already demonstrated, peace & tolerance are polar opposites of Islam. They won't fit and can't be forced.

Of course, there is the insurgency in southern Thailand, but there needs transnational elements before the UN can get involved. Internal terrorism is not our issue.

transnational elements

    The insurgency in southern Thailand is Islamic. Islam is transnational, it crosses borders freely. U.N. bureaucrats are neither intelligent enough nor honest enough to acknowledge that fact.

fighting terror

    Terror is a psychological condition, imposed as a battle tactic for the purpose of rendering a victim incapable of mounting an effective defense.  When stung by a wasp, do you settle for killing the offending wasp?  No, you destroy the nest so that you will not be stung again.  Islam is the source of terrorism. Allah said "I will cast terror".  Allah commanded Muslims to maximize the strength of their army to "strike terror" in their enemies. Allah cast terror, resulting in the death, enslavement and dispossession of local Jewish settlements. Moe bragged that: "I have been made victorious with terror".

    It is not possible to fight terror, you must fight its source: Islam. Believers are motivated by Allah's promise of eternity in the celestial bordello and threat of eternity in the fire.  So long as there are Islamic believers , there will be terrorism.  You have three choices:

1. make them stop believing
2. make them stop breathing
3. suffer continued torment and eventual defeat & enslavement.

Defamation of Religions Resolution Passed in Third Committee

Draft was adopted with 76 votes in favor, 64 against and 42 abstentions.

GA Third Committee Revised Draft Resolution "Combating defamation of religions"Development [Eye on the UN]

The link is to an earlier version, prior to the substitution of vilification for defamation.  The Volokh Conspiracy indicates that it was the more recent  amended version which was approved.

76–64 with 42 abstentions. 
http://volokh.com/2010/11/24/un-general-assembly-passes-another-resolution-urging-nations-to-forbid-defamation-of-religion/
81–55 with 43  '09  26

-5    9            -1

Many of the news reports  mention the decreasing level of support for the resolution.  So it got five fewer votes in favor and nine more in opposition. Big deal, it still passed.  While the trend is encouraging, it is not satisfying.

    The U.N.'s press release is ambiguous, leaving uncertainty about the identity and content of the draft which was voted on.

The draft resolution on the Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, would have the Assembly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, as well as any incitement to religious hatred through the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media.  It would go on to emphasize that “no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned”.  Nicholas Nihon of Belgium, the main sponsor, noted with regret that in order to achieve consensus, the text carried no reference to the right of persons to change their faith, or not to adhere at all to any religion or belief.  Action on the draft was preceded by the introduction of another draft by Morocco on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, on combating defamation of religions that would, among several points, have the Assembly express deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism.

L.32/Rev.1   Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief  Oral revision not reflected in this version.

10. Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism; [combating defamation / vilification of Islam]

These similar provisions fly in the face of the Qur'an's five explicit and two implicit references to casting terror and two statements by Moe in which he bragged about winning with terror.  Have any of these idiots read The Qur'anic Concept of War? Why would a Pakistan army training manual use such language?

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only
a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into
the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be
achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet
and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon
the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

 

(i) To ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in
conformity with international human rights law, the freedom of all persons and
members of groups to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian
institutions is fully respected and protected;

The obvious connection with the Holy Land Foundation trial can not be ignored. Zakat of 2.5% is assessed on wealth and transactions. 1/8 of zakat is allocated to those "fighting in Allah's cause".

(l) To promote, through the educational system and other means, mutual
understanding, tolerance, non-discrimination and respect in all matters relating to
freedom of religion or belief by encouraging, in the society at large, a wider
knowledge of different religions and beliefs and of the history, traditions, languages
and cultures of the various religious minorities existing within their jurisdiction;

This provision is an obvious demand that our schools be used to indoctrinate students with hagiographic images of Islam, falsely portraying it as a "religion of peace"  They are waging war against us, trying to out breed & subvert us and we are supposed to tolerate it. Yeah, right.  We are supposed to respect a war cult whose members believe that they have a divine mission to conquer us. Yeah, right. 

    This vote by the third committee sets the stage for final passage by the General Assembly next month.  That will give Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and others immoral support for the local laws used to persecute minorities. 

    On a parallel track, running under the radar, the HRC's Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards is working on a protocol to inject the resolution's provisions into ICERD, giving them the force of international law.  Few know about this, nobody is doing anything to stop it. Now is the time to rise up and raise Hell!   For liberty's sake, sign, publicize, promote and share this petition:  International Qur'an Petition.

Combating Religious Hatred and Vilification

I had seen reports that the draft resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions had been edited to substitute vilification for defamation but I had not seen substantive details prior to last night.  One of my Google Alerts linked to an article which included a link to the amended resolution. 

   What is the big deal?  The State Department asserts that the USA rejects resolution on the basis of the concept of defamation of religions.  I presume that the edit is an attempt to throw a lifeline to Obamination.  Recall that while Obamination rejects defamation, he accepts negative stereotyping, which was substituted for defamation in the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution.  The OIC is tinkering with the semantics in hopes of sinning over some of the nay sayers and obstainers to their side. 

    None of the resolutions define the crucial terms, so I checked the on line dictionaries. A Google search turned up fifteen definitions of defamation.

• Seven definitions specify that the victim  is a person.
• Four definition specify that the statement must be false.
• Six definitions list slander as an element.
• Five definitions list libel as an element.
• Two definitions list calumny as an element.
• One of the definitions lists vilification as an element.
• Three of the definitions list malicious as an element.

    Next, I looked up vilification, receiving four results.

• Two definitions listed defamation as an element.
• One definition listed calumny as an element.
• One definition listed slander and libel as elements.

    Next, I looked up negative stereotyping , striking out. Removing the adjective resulted in fifteen definitions.  These are the best of the lot.

• A stereotype is a commonly held public belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals. The concepts of "stereotype" and "prejudice" are often confused with many other different meanings. ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
• stereotype - pigeonhole: treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; "I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European"
• stereotype - a conventional or formulaic conception or image; "regional stereotypes have been part of America since its founding"
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    To determine the meaning of those terms, as used in the resolutions, we must examine their context. 

• Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Who is defamed?  Is Islam a human person?  How does illustrating the cause--effect relationship of Islam to terrorism affront human dignity?  If Muslims find their dignity affronted by exposure of the truth about Islam, they can restore their dignity by converting to a pacifist religion.
   
    How does defamation lead to illicit restriction of freedom of religion?  The reference is obviously to the Swiss minaret ban and the French Burqa ban.  What do minarets have to do with freedom of religion?  In ancient times, they were watch towers. Muslims adopted them for the call to prayer. They also serve as a powerful symbol of Islamic supremacy.  But they are not mentioned in the Qur'an or hadith as religious requirements. 

    Visit Open Burhan to verify the literal translation and compare the other translations of 33:59. You can check the entry in an Arab/English dictionary to verify it.

• You, you the prophet, say to your wives and your daughters and the believers' women they (F) near (lengthen) on them from their shirts/gowns/wide dresses, that (is) nearer that (E) they (F) be known (better than being identified), so they (F) do not be harmed mildly/harmed, and God was/is forgiving, merciful.

If you want to know the real deal, read Sahih Bukhari 1.4.148. Its about Umar hassling Sauda, one of Moe's wives when she went out to answer a call of nature.

• 14. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the legislation necessary to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, [Emphasis added.]
  

    That paragraph contains two key phrases which, when compared to certain relevant public statements, give us the final clue.

The Secretary-General is concerned over the controversy that has been created by the publication of the Danish cartoons.  He believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10334.doc.htm

In plain language, Kofi Annan would have prevented the publication of the cartoons if it was in his power. That is the power they are seeking.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

    The Secretarys General told us that the Danish Cartoons did not respect Islamic religious beliefs and that Geert Wilders' documentary constituted hate speech and incitement to violence.

The cartoon of greatest concern depicts Moe with a bomb in his turban, implying that he was a terrorist.  Moe never had a bomb because he died prior to the invention of gunpowder. But he was a terrorist, by his own admission:

• Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331, Emphasis added.]
• I have been made victorious with terror [ Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220, Emphasis added.]

The hate speech and incitement in Fitna come from the Qur'an and clerics, not from Geert Wilders.

    Lets get down to the real issue of defamation, negative stereotyping. ¶ 24 contains a 28 item enumerated list. The seventh item is of interest.

• 7. Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

Fitna and the Motoons display that association; what is wrong with it?  Re-examine the quotes from Bukhari's collection of authentic sayings. Moe said that he won by terrifying his victims.  The Qur'an is not silent about this issue.

• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).

We shall terrorize the disbelievers. Click the link and read the context, it is one of aggressive conquest. 

• 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

What did Allah say he would do?  What did he order the angels to do? After reading this appetizer from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, click the link and read the entire passage.

• Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said, "In the aftermath of Badr, the people used to recognize whomever the angels killed from those whom they killed, by the wounds over their necks, fingers and toes, because those parts had a mark as if they were branded by fire.''
• 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

Compare the last clause in 8:57 to the last clause in 59:2.  The objective is to build a reputation for brutality; you will see the application in 59:13.

• [8:60]
  Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Build the biggest army you can to strike terror.  What is the "cause of God"? [hint]  Now we get down to the practical application of those verses.

• 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

  33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things. 

What did Allah say he would do?  What did he do?  What resulted?  Moe and his army killed the men of one tribe and enslaved their widows and orphans. But, of course, Islam has no connection to terror and human rights violations. Its the religion of peace.

• 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

What did Allah do to the Bani An-Nadir?  What is the meaning of the admonition?  Can you relate that to the lesson of 8:57?

• 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh). 

The Jews fear Muslims more than they fear Allah. Why is that?  Can you make the connections with 8:57 & 59:2?  How did Allah cast terror into their hearts?

    Those Muslims are supremely arrogant; they assume that we are ignorant, gullible fools who will believe anything if it is repeated with sufficient frequency. "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism".  Islam's scripture and tradition inform us that the statement from ¶ 24.7 is an accursed lie. They want to base international law on that lie, criminalizing  revelation of the fact that it is a lie!

    The true source of Islamic blasphemy law is Reliance of the Traveller.  Observe the penalty for apostasy.

• o8.1

  When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

  o8.2

  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Apostates are killed. What acts warrant their death?  Reliance lists twenty, these are particularly relevant.

• o8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

  (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

  -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

  -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

  -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
  

  -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

  -17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

  -18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

  -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

  -20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

    How do those rules apply to us as disbelievers?  When disbelievers are conquered and subjugated as dhimmis under Islamic supremacy, they are obligated by a treaty of protection. That treaty is violated if they perform certain acts listed in Reliance. Guess what the penalty is.

• o11.10

  The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
  

  -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

• o11.11

  When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14). 

• o9.14

  When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

    When the resolution is voted out of the third committee and passed in the General Assembly, it will not have the force of law, but it will add unwarranted legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws which are used to persecute religious minorities in several Islamic nations.

    Unfortunately, that is not the real threat to our liberty. This is:  Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards.  The cmte. will meet at the end of November for a week and a few days. Its purpose is to insert the resolution into ICERD through a binding protocol, giving it the force of  international law.  Last year, the cmte. bogged down in procedural matters. We have no way of knowing when it will finish its work, but when it does, we will be outvoted and the protocol will become law.

    Several blog posts about the ad hoc cmte. have been compiled.

• Ad hoc cmte Draft Document
• Ad hoc cmte on complementary standards:

    The resolution will be voted on in the cmte., the vote is expected to happen Monday or Tuesday.  The General Assembly vote should happen in December. Several human rights organizations are lobbying against it, but with little hope of success.   Besides signing the petition posted by Open Doors, there is not much we can do about it.

    Our best tactic is a counter attack: to raise the political cost of censoring us above Islam's threshold of pain.  As I showed you their egregious lie and proved it above, you can share that information with others.  Copy and cross post this blog post. Paste it into emails. Tell everyone who will listen about the injustice being perpetrated by the OIC. 

    Three international human rights covenants contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law.  The purpose of the International Qur'an Petition is to bring the vital facts to the attention of the public and the World Court. Please sign it and spread it. Cross post it on your blog or web site. Send it by email to  everyone you can hope to influence.

Melt the Construction Freeze and Flush It!

Yahoo News carried an AP story claiming that the U.S. put our pledge not to demand further construction freezes in writing. No mention was made of the other elements of the incentive package being reduced to writing.  We already know from experience that a vocal promise is not worth the paper it is not written on.  I would not put stock in a written promise from President Obama.

    It turns out that the advanced jet deal is a sale, not a donation and the delivery date is not fixed. That sort of open promise has no value because the Congress may scrap the program before the aircraft are built.

    The one year limit on the veto promise reduces its value to zero. Abbas  & co. need only refuse to negotiate and delay for a year before going to the Security Council.

    Lets get down to the critical false premises in the article.

resumed settlement construction in the West Bank.

They are constructing homes, additions and apartments, not building new settlements. Jews lived on that land for thousands of years prior to caliph Umar's conquest; and prior to Jordan's illegal seizure in 1948; there is no good reason why they should not live there now.  There is no good reason why Judea & Samaria should be judenrein.

east Jerusalem, where Palestinians envision their future capital.

They do not specify east Jerusalem, they demand Jerusalem as their capital. There is no legal, moral or historical basis for that demand. Only the Jews have mxsade that city  their capital.  From Umar's conquest to 1948, the Muslims never gave a damn about Jerusalem; they never made it a capital.  Why now?

    Recall Arafat's slogan: "One million martyrs marching to Jerusalem." ?  Why is that city worth a million lives to them?  It ain't Moe's nightmare.  Their interest is proscriptive.  Islamic conquest is meant to be permanent.  Israel's recovery of the city proves that Allah is an impotent idol.

Israel and the Palestinians are supposed to try to and work out a deal on their future borders

    Recall Arafat's slogan: "From the River to the sea."?  Those are the borders of Falestine, Israel is to be eliminated.  They don't want a state besides Israel, they want a vilayet in a restored caliphate, not a state. 

    Muslims will not negotiate peace with Israel because Muslims want conquest, not peace.

47:35. So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islâm), while you are having the upper hand. Allâh is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.

o9.16 [...] Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of members or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. [...]

Jer 6:14 They have healed also the hurt [of the daughter] of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when [there is] no peace. [KJ.V.  Emphasis added.]

If there are any men left in Israel who are not deracinated, let them rise up as one, shouting with a loud voice: "NO!".

Solving the Islam Problem: Slave Revolt

I am a Muslim But I don't Hate the Great America   By King Nazir Muhammad comes to us through News Blaze.

One Muslim who loves America because of its freedom & prosperity is not proof that all Muslims love America. Implying that it does involves over generalization.

Muslims that live in the middle-east cannot enjoy financial freedom the way it is enjoyed here.

    There is a reason why Muslims in Arabia can not enjoy liberty and prosperity: Islam and tyranny. If enough Muslims emigrate here, they will bring those troubles with them as they are doing in Europe.  The solution to their problem is not emigration, it is revolution.  In 1776, our founders did something unprecedented, they removed the ancient regime and replaced it with a representative republic with enumerated powers specified by a written constitution.  They outlawed theocracy and installed liberty. In doing so, they pledged their lives, fortunes and honors; many lost everything.  They planted the tree of liberty and watered it with their blood.

    If Muslims want liberty and prosperity, they must first shed the shackles of slavery. Allah's slaves are not free, they wear Allah's yoke and are compelled to follow his rules in every aspect of life.  The first prerequisite is apostasy. 

    The second prerequisite is no less life shaking or risky. They can not remain enslaved to patriarchal, military or feudal regimes and be free and prosperous.  In most cases,  violent revolution will fail.  Genuine regime opponents, seeking to remove, not supplant the regimes, need to  unify, multiply, and work within the political system to reform it. Change will be incremental, slow, and not immune to reversals.

    Indigenous Muslims need to begin studying economics, political science and comparative government.  To be successful, they must adopt what works in other systems and carefully reject that which leads to failure.  The horrific errors made by Afghanistan & Iraq should provide negative guidance.

I know that 9/11 slandered the reputation of Muslims in the eyes of Americans. But terrorists don't represent all Muslims.I am not one of them.

    Islam had a negative image in the perception of John Q. Adams and other American founders.  Our navy developed as a result of attacks by the Barbary Pirates.  It is reality, not image or reputation that is important.  While terrorists may not represent all Muslims, they represent Islam, obeying Allah and emulating Muhammad. Open your Qur'an and read Surah Al-Anfal 12, 57 & 60. Then turn to Surah Al-Ahzab 26-27. Turn next to Sahih Bukhari Volume 4,  Book 52, Number 220.   The problem is that Islam is an inseverable, take it or leave it package; refer to Surah Ar-Ra'd 36.  If you loathe terrorism, you must disassociate from Islam to avoid being a part of it.

Yes Islam is a radical religion and needs to be reformed.

    Islam is not radical, it is a violent predator, by design. If reformed, it would cease to be Islam.  Unfortunately, it can not be reformed. How do you reform perfection?  How do you reform a scripture and system that is fixed and immutable?  Reformers would like to strip conquest, genocide & terrorism from the Qur'an.  But Muhammad said that those who try it will be far, far from mercy .  He also said that if you abandon jihad as a way of life, that you will be cursed until you return to it.

If I have the power to ban Islam, I would change our radical beliefs.

    Unfortunately, you can do neither. You don't have the power to ban Islam, and you can change only your own beliefs. Can you, as a confirmed lover of freedom, inspire other Muslims with that same love, and convince them of the existential conflict between Islam and freedom?  If you can do that, perhaps you can ignite the spark of liberty and send it burning through the Ummah.

Al-taqiyya about Shari'ah Must Be Refuted!

The S-Word

Fearmongering about Sharia law in America needs to stop

By Avishai D. Don

Published: Thursday, November 18, 2010

    I did not find the article to be rich in substance, but a few points need to be raised.

The proposal was bolstered by a case in New Jersey in which the court considered Sharia law in its decision to deny a Muslim woman a restraining order against her sexually abusive ex-husband. That decision, thankfully, was overturned on appeal.

What if?  Suppose there was a technical error in the appeal, causing the original verdict to be upheld?  What if the appeals court failed to recognize the lower court's error?  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    After the negligence comes the sarcasm.

But it was enough to drive seven out of ten Oklahoma voters toward the “Save Our State” Amendment,” to “save” Oklahoma from, in the words of the bill’s main author, Muslims who desire nothing more than to take away “liberties and freedom from our children.”

A student, occupied with learning and passing exams, can be forgiven for being ignorant of Islamic doctrines & practices, but not for assuming that he knows everything about the subject. I was ignorant of Islam when I was a student, but I have learned a great deal in the last ten years.  Islam's strategic objective is total world domination: making the entire human race slaves of Allah. Islam does not recognize man made legislation, it demands the imposition of Shari'ah, derived from the Qur'an & Sunnah.

But the law exemplifies something far more insidious than bad public policy. Quite simply, there is a dangerous amount of ignorance in the United States about what Sharia law actually is. And until this misconception is corrected, as another concerned columnist so eloquently put it, the war on global Islamist terror will also continue be a war on American Muslims.

Basing American court decisions on the American Constitution, legislation & case law is not "bad public policy", it is common sense.  There is a dangerous level of ignorance about Shari'ah. That ignorance can be corrected by reading Reliance of the Traveller, Noah Ha Mim Keller's translation of Umdat Al-Salik, the Shafi'ite school's handbook of Fiqh.  The text includes certificates of authenticity and accuracy from scholars at Al-Azhar. 

In England, Shari'ah courts deal mainly with family law. Safe, sane and simple; no threat there, right?  Wrong!!!  Book m treats of the laws of marriage. Lets examine a sample.

m3.13: Guardians Who May Marry a Virgin to a Man Without Her Consent

Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

-1- The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride's father or father's father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission.

As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.

So much for the minimum legal age. So much for choosing your own lifetime mate.  Book n treats of divorce.  Who can do it?
Divorce is valid from anyDivorce is valid from any

n1.1

Divorce is valid from any:

(a) husband;

(b) who is sane;

(c) has reached puberty;

(d) and who voluntarily effects it.

A divorce is not valid from:

-1- (non-(c) above) a child;

-2- (non-(b) ) someone insane;

-3- or (non-(d) ) someone who is wrongfully coerced to do it, as when one is threatened with death, dismemberment, being severely beaten, or even mere verbal abuse or a slight beating if the person being coerced is someone whose public image is important and would thereby suffer. (O: Someone being forced should use words that give a misleading impression (def: r10.2) for his ostensible "divorce.'')

n2.1

A free man has three pronouncements of divorce (O: because of the word of Allah Most High,

"Divorce is two times, then retain with kindness or graciously release'' (Koran 2:229),

and when the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was asked about the third time, he said.

"It is Allah's having said, or graciously release''').

n3.1

The words that effect a divorce may be plain or allusive. Plain words effect the divorce whether one intends divorce by them or not, while allusive words do not effect it unless one intends divorce by them.

n3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce means expressly pronouncing the word divorce (O: or words

derived from it).  When the husband says' "I divorce you,'' or "You are divorced,'' the wife is divorced

whether he has made the intention or not.

(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions such as "The wife is divorced,'' or "The divorce is effected,'' mean just one of the three times (def: n9.0(N:) ) necessary to finalize it, unless the husband thereby intends a two-or threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words three times.)

 

 

Let divorce cases be handled by Shari'ah courts; great idea, ladies?   How about honoricide?  Book o treats of "justice". o.1 details retaliation for death or injury. There are certain cases in which no retaliation is due. Here they are.

o1.2

The following are not subject to retaliation:

-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );

-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

You can not execute a Muslim for killing a kuffar, an apostate or his own offspring. That's the law. It should be enforced, of course. It is so much superior to our man made laws.   How about the blood money to be paid for murder? 

o4.9

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury's type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim's indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

A Muslim woman is worth only one half of her Muslim husband. A Christian is worth only one third as much as a Muslim. What a great system, lets implement it!  

    Then there is the matter of eligibility to give testimony in court.

o24.2

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

(a) is free;

(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child's testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);

(c) is able to speak;

(d) it mentally awake;

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

"Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying);

(f) and who is outwardly respectable (O: respectability (muru'a) meaning to have the positive traits which one's peers possess in one's particular time and place. Sheikh al-Islam (A: Zakariyya Ansari) says, "Respectability is refraining from conduct that is unseemly according to standards commonly acknowledged among those who observe the precepts and rules of the Sacred Law." It is according to standards commonly acknowledged (def: f4.5) because there are no absolute standards for it, but rather it varies with different persons, conditions, and places, Such things as eating and drinking (A: in the marketplace or wearing nothing on one's head may vitiate it (A: though the latter is of no consequence in our times), as may a religious scholar's wearing a robe or cap in places where it is not customary for him to do so).

o24.7

The testimony of the following is legally acceptable when it concerns cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales:

-1- two men;

-2- two women and a man;

-3- or a male witness together with the oath of the plaintiff.

o24.8

If testimony does not concern property, such as a marriage or prescribed legal penalties, then only two male witnesses may testify (A: though the Hanafi school holds that two women and a man may testify for marriage).

 

Christians can't testify, nor can menial laborers and it takes two women to give evidence. What a great system! Other schools of Islamic jurisprudence are not exact matches, but are objectionable, none the less.  For example, the Maliki's Risala. Marry off your virgin daughter, unequal blood wit, female testimony, infidel testimony. Is that warm glow of Ivy League superiority holding still holding up?

   One senator had words of wisdom about basing rulings on foreign law.

I did want  to mention it in that connection. But lf me U.S. Supreme Court. ls not going to look to the laws of the Uunited States, including  the fundamental law of tho Unted Status, which In tho Constitution, but lnterpreting what is and is not constltutlonal under tha U.S. Constitution by looking at what foreign governments and foreign Iaws have to my about that same issue. I fear that bit by bit and case by case the Amerlcan people are slowly losing control over the meaning of our laws and the Constitution itself. It this trend continues, foreign governments may have a say in what our laws and
our Constitution mean and what our policies  ln America. should be.

Senator John Cornyn, March 20,2005, Congressional Record, Vol. 151, Pt. 4, pg. 5516

    International and Foreign Law Sources: Siren Song for U.S. Judges? By Chimène I. Keitner on page ten, cites legislation proposed in 2005 that would limit federal judges to domestic sources except for British common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Justices cited as favoring consideration of foreign law, cited by Chimène I. Keitner. include William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy.  Shari'ah is not mentioned in that article, but the same principle applies.

    For the grand finale, lets glance at the temporary injunction.

Munir Awad vs. Oklahoma  State Board of Elections;  Case No. CIV-10-1186-M

State Question No. 755, which was on Oklahoma’s November 2, 2010 ballot, provides: This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases.
It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law....

"Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the ban on the state courts’ use and consideration of Sharia Law violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Three elements are listed:

1. by Oklahoma’s official condemnation of his religion/faith as reflected through the amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution banning state courts’ use or consideration of Sharia Law,
2. by the invalidation of his last will and testament which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed, and
3. by the excessive entanglement of the state courts with religion that would result from the amendment as the state courts in implementing the amendment would have to determine what is and is not encompassed in Sharia Law.

Constitutional elements:

1. must have a secular legislative purpose,
2. its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
3. it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

    The amendment specifies the local sources of law and proscribes use of foreign law and Shari'ah. It is unreasonable to equate rejecting Shari'ah as an input to judical decisions with rejection of Islam. 

    Does any reasonable person believe that the amendment rejects or invalidates the plaintiff's last will and testament?  If his will is probated, it will be subject to state law, regardless of Shari'ah. Book l treats of inheritance. Only one third of the estate can be bequeathed, the rest is divided according to a complex formula. If you are crazy enough to want to figure it out, go to Book l.1.

    Entanglement?  All the courts need to do under the amendment is perform  their duties as they do now, considering the facts, law and constitutions but not Shari'ah.  There is no need for the courts to read Reliance, Risala or Hedaya, they just need to do their job. The complaint is obviously unfounded.

    The amendment has a constitutional purpose: preserving the primacy of the federal and state constitutions.  It neither advances nor inhibits religion, it prevents entanglement the court system with Shari'ah.  It does not foster government entanglement with religion, it prevents entanglement.