Sunday, May 15, 2011

Muslims, "Sharia Law" and Other Thoughts! (Part 2)

*******
*******
Shariah Law is a Muslim Killer - Now They Want to Use It On Us
H. R. 973: Prohibit foreign law from our U.S. Court system; protecting United States citizens, particularly women, from being tried under foreign law
Jerry McConnell
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The United States House of Representatives has 435 members, most of whom claim membership in the two major political parties as well as a handful or so that belong to splinter parties. Despite the philosophical differences between the two largest parties you would think that something that was assuredly good for the country as a whole would attract the support of a great majority of the entire 435 total membership.
But with this current perverse and contorted group of malcontents there is a standing rule of what is good is really bad and what is bad is really good; it all depends on who the proposer is. Thus if a measure is offered for legislation by a Republican, you can be certain that it will be rejected by the Democrats; the opposite generally always applies as well.
Though there are more RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) than DINOs. Because of this strictly political dichotomy many a worthy measure that would benefit the huge majority of Americans dies in committee or on a floor vote.
Such a conundrum of puzzlement currently exists with a proposed piece of legislation that is still boxed up in committee after two months of partisan bickering. This proposition is intended to give protection to every citizen of this country even if some do not have the stomach to approve legislation offered by the rival political party.
A ConservativeActionAlerts.com (CAA) online report on June 12, 2011 stated that in March of this year of 2011, U.S. Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) introduced H.R. 973, which would prohibit foreign law from our U.S. Court system; protecting United States citizens, particularly women, from being tried under foreign law. The United States Constitution would be the sole governing authority for all American courts and American citizens. She has only 56 co-sponsors. Why aren’t more Congressmen, and women, committing to this very important bill?
Every man and woman in America should be behind Rep. Adams’ bill, especially women, who would suffer most if Shariah Law makes its horrifying way into our court system.
CAA gave the following as an example of why we need this protection against Shariah Law: “In late May, four Muslim men were tried in London, England and were found guilty of a vicious attack against a local schoolmaster named Gary Smith, who was the head of religious studies at the Central Foundation Girls’ School, an academically prestigious school for girls ages 11 to 18. Mr. Smith’s head was smashed by a concrete block; his face was slashed by a knife; and his body was beaten by a metal rod. THIS IS WHAT SHARIAH LAW TEACHES…AND IT IS ALREADY HERE INSIDE THE U.S.A.
“Under Shariah Law, just about any words which are not in total agreement with Islam can be interpreted as blasphemy, a crime punishable by death. Obviously, the four men on trial in London were just trying to do their part in making the United Kingdom become “Shariah compliant.”
Muslim leaders living in the United States are already preaching the benefits of Shariah Law as CAA explains: “Imam Feisal Rauf, the original promoter of the Ground Zero Mosque, is currently on a national speaking tour explaining how Shariah Law leads to freedom and telling audiences that America is a “Shariah compliant state.” Rauf’s speech about the freedoms promised by Shariah Law is a good illustration of the strategy of “taqiyya,” or LYING to further the spread of Islam. Shariah has already infiltrated some of our court systems right here in the United States of America. And we must STOP this onslaught!”
I couldn’t agree more with Conservative Action Alerts (CAA). Under the direction of our anti-American usurper president, B. Hussein Obama, the numbers of Islamic foreigners being admitted into our country have increased markedly over the past years. Trying to get an exact number online is hideously time consuming so I will not even hazard a guess; but I will say that I think it is growing each year.
With this growth comes the reality that those people have occupying tendencies and desires to seize and take over vast areas of any country into which they immigrate. They are “clannish” to a great degree, refusing to mingle, and co-exist under a common bond or even under our national laws. They are insistent that we, the people of America, must bow to their demands. They even insist on installing their own set of laws, called Shariah Law, wherever they settle.
If we don’t stop this taking over of our lands, we will soon be much worse off than we were after their attacks on 9/11/2001.
CAA continues its report with this on Great Britain, “Finally, after years of ‘taking it on the chin,’ the United Kingdom is also voting on a new Bill that was introduced in the House of Lords THIS WEEK—-to outlaw Shariah Law where it conflicts with English law!
“Baroness Cox stated: ‘Equality under the law is a core value of British justice. My Bill seeks to stop parallel legal or ‘quasi-legal’ systems taking root in our nation. Cases of criminal law and family law are matters reserved for our English courts alone.
“Through these proposals, I want to make it perfectly clear in the law that discrimination against women shall not be allowed within arbitration. I am deeply concerned about the treatment of Muslim women by Shariah Courts. We must do all that we can to make sure they are free from any coercion, intimidation or unfairness. Many women say, ‘We came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here’.”
We must do the same here in the United States. They are not very gracious or thankful guests; their goals are to steal our land, force us to comply with their laws and then kill us if we don’t covert to Islam. Not my—and I hope not your kind of people.
Pressure your Congressmen and women to co-sponsor H. R. 973 until it grows from 56 supporters to 435 opposed to Shariah Law.
*******
Time to Change Tune on Official Multiculturalism
By Julieta Rasco
April 10, 2011
Posted in: CLOTA, News, Op-Ed
Licia Corbella
The Herald’s Editorial Page Editor
The Calgary Herald
About one dozen families who recently immigrated to Canada are demanding that the Louis Riel School Division in Winnipeg excuse their children from music and coed physical education programs for religious reasons. The families believe music is un-Islamic -just like the Taliban believe and then imposed on the entire population of Afghanistan -and that physical education classes should be segregated by gender even in the elementary years. The school division is facing the music in a typically Canadian way -that is, bending itself into a trombone to try to accommodate these demands, even though in Manitoba, and indeed the rest of the country, music and phys-ed are compulsory parts of the curriculum. Officials say they may try to have the Muslim children do a writing project on music to satisfy the curriculum’s requirements. The school officials have apparently consulted the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and they have also spoken to a member of the Islamic community suggested by those very same Muslim parents. In any event, the school district is trying to find a way to adapt the curriculum to fit the wishes of these families, rather than these families adapting to fit into the school and Canadian culture. Mahfooz Kanwar, a member of the Muslim Canadian
Congress, says he has a better ideas. “I’d tell them, this is Canada, and in Canada, we teach music and physical education in our schools. If you don’t like it, leave. If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole country you came from or go to another hellhole country that lives under sharia law,” said Kanwar, who is a professor emeritus of sociology at Mount Royal University in Calgary. That might be putting things a little more forcefully than most of us would be comfortable with, but Kanwar says he is tired of hearing about such out-of-tune demands from newcomers to our country. “Immigrants to Canada should adjust to Canada, not the other way around,” he argues. Kanwar, who immigrated to Canada from Pakistan via England and then the United States in 1966, says he used to buy into the “mosaic, official multiculturalism (nonsense).
He makes it clear, that like most Canadians, he is pleased and enjoys that Canada has citizens literally from every country and corner in the world, as it has enriched this country immensely. But it’s official multiculturalism -the state policy “that entrenches the lie” that all cultures and beliefs are of equal value and of equal validity in Canada that he objects to. “The fact is, Canada has an enviable culture based on Judeo-Christian values -not Muslim values -with British and French rule of law and traditions, and that’s why it’s better than all of the other places in the world. We are heading down a dangerous path if we allow the idea that sharia law a place in Canada. It does not. It is completely incompatible with the idea and reality of Canada,” says Kanwar, who in the 1970s was the founder and president of the Pakistan-Canada Association and a big fan of official multiculturalism.
Kanwar says his views changed when he started listening to the people who joined his group. They
badmouthed Canada, weren’t interested in knowing Canadians or even in learning one of our official languages. They created cultural ghettos and the Canadian government even helped fund it. “One day it dawned on me that the reason all of us wanted to move here was going to disappear if we didn’t start defending Canada and its fundamental values.” That’s when Kanwar started speaking out against the dangers of official multiculturalism. He has been doing so for decades. So, it’s no surprise that Kanwar is delighted with the recent speech British Prime Minister David Cameron delivered to the 47th Munich Security Conference on Feb. 5.
“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism,” said Cameron, “we have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds objectionable views -racism, for example -we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them. This hands-off tolerance,” said Cameron, “has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless and can lead them to this extremist ideology.”
Kanwar actually credits German Chancellor Angela Merkel for being among the first of the world’s democratic leaders to take the courageous step in October to say that official multiculturalism had “failed totally.” It appears leaders are getting bolder. During an interview with TFI channel on Feb. 10, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” Cameron ended his speech by saying: “At stake are not just lives, it’s our way of life.
That’s why this is a challenge we cannot avoid -and one we must meet.” That democratically elected leaders are at long last starting to sing a different tune on official multiculturalism is sweet music to Kanwar. Here’s hoping those poor kids in Winnipeg will get to hear some of it.
*******
New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases
News on the Net
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Washington, DC, May 17, 2011 - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study—
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “...There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.
Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.
The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.
On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
“These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.”
Key Findings:
At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute: 21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.”
The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.
Mr. Gaffney added:
“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.
“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”
The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.
For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.
*******
Allahu Akbar
Allahu Akbar represents the tribal pride of the Muslim, who in submitting to Allah
Daniel Greenfield
Sunday, May 15, 2011
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36491
No sooner does a Yemeni Muslim begin hammering on the cockpit door shouting “Allahu Akbar”, then the media speculates that he must have gotten confused looking for the bathroom. And on September 11, four groups of Muslim men with boxcutters got confused looking for the nearest post office.
The lead is invariably buried. Paragraphs fly by until it’s mentioned that the confused fellow may have been a Muslim. If it’s mentioned at all. And his cry of Allahu Akbar is translated as God is Great to render it more acceptable to readers. But like so many Islamic translations, it’s right enough to be wrong. Allahu Akbar doesn’t mean Allah is Great, in a “Isn’t ‘Allah and the Virgins of Paradise’ a great band”. It’s more like Allah is Greatest or Superior. And if you’re on the right side of the cockpit door, the one doing the shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ means that Allah is superior to your country and to you. And one of his followers is about to do his best to show you why.
News stories which, like fruit punch, carry 70 percent propaganda to 30 percent juice, are always eager to explain to their readers, that “Allahu Akbar” is just one of those things that Muslims shout at random occasions. Feel happy, shout, “Allahu Akbar”, feel sad, shout, “Allahu Akbar” till you feel better, feel a touch of homicidal rage against the infidels coming on, shout “Allahu Akbar” and open fire. If you believe them, then “Allahu Akbar” is the Swiss Army Knife of Arabic ejaculations. Whether you’re at a soccer game or a beheading, it’s the verbal black dress that fits any occasion.
The message of Allahu Akbar is the message of the Koran 61:9. “He it is who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” His messenger is Mohammed, the religion is Islam and the infidels who resist get beheaded or have planes rammed into their buildings.
Allahu Akbar represents the tribal pride of the Muslim who, in submitting to Allah, becomes greater than all the infidels who haven’t gotten around to falling on their knees and paying tribute to the ghost of a long dead pedophile. By asserting the exceptionalism of Allah and of Mohammed as his prophet, they assert the exceptionalism of all Muslims. The Slaves of Allah become the masters of the entire world. Not as individuals, but collectively.
George Orwell described a very similar phenomenon in 1984;
You know the Party slogan: “Freedom is Slavery”. Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone—free—the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal.
Islam is that utter submission. A frustrated act of individual suicide that in the case of a suicide bomber involves actual death. But by dying, he proves himself immortal in the collective. When Muslims boast that they don’t fear death, and even demonstrate it by committing suicide, what they are really doing is embracing a collective existence, by rejecting individualism they shout their omnipotence. The individual killing himself to become immortal is one of the perverse paradoxes of tyranny. And it lies at the heart of Islam.
The Takbir emphasizes Allah’s superiority, not to praise the superiority of their creator, but to assure themselves of their own superiority. In a slave culture, willing slavery becomes a badge of honor. The willing
slave is superior to the unwilling slave. In a slave culture there are no free people. Only ones higher up on the ladder. The house slave and the field hand. The eunuch bureaucrat and the stable boy, the Janissary and the street sweeper, the harem dweller and the woman lying moaning in a field after the armies of the Jihad have passed.
Muslim freedom is relative, not absolute. It is relative to the more comprehensive slavery of the non-Muslims under their dominion. And so for them in their own lands, slavery is indeed freedom. An illusory freedom that comes from the difference between their status and that of the non-Muslim.
That’s why the American model translates poorly to the Muslim world. Democracy to Muslims means the rule of majority. And they like that fine, so long as they are in the majority. And if they aren’t, they use the sword, the gun and the suicide bomb until they are. But notions of freedom or equality don’t translate. Muslims will tolerate Jewish or Christian populations at an inferior level—so long as they know their place. And their place is at the back of the bus. They are the slaves or the slaves of Allah.
Allahu Akbar is an assertion of individual superiority through collective superiority
Allahu Akbar is an assertion of individual superiority through collective superiority. “I am better than you because Muslims are better than you, and Muslims are better than you, because Allah is better than you.” It’s a long-winded way of getting to the point in English, but it’s concisely implicit in the Arabic.
The Libyan national anthem, ‘Allahu Akbar’, begins with a cry of “Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest” and neatly segues into “Allah is the Greatest Above the Conspiracies of the Enemies” and off to the usual killing and dying business. Allah’s superiority renders all others inferior. That’s the message of Allahu Akbar. And it’s shouted much more often as a battle cry, than by people looking for the bathroom in the cockpit part of the plane.
For the same reason it flies on the national flags of Iran, Iraq and the new Afghanistan (the Saudi Wahhabis go the extra mile by writing out the whole Shahada, but that is an elaboration which means much the same thing.
Conveniently this makes the national flags into sacred symbols, as hapless soccer ball manufacturers and one German brothel found out when they tried to promote international brotherhood and sales with the friendly use of Muslim flags. The brothel had meant to promote peace and love by including Saudi and Iranian flags among all the others in the World Cup, and the hooded Muslims who came bearing knives and sticks showed their own version of peace and love. For a religion that rewards mass murderers by fornicating with virgin demons in paradise, it was not so much a show of prurience as exclusivity. Only Islam holds the key to the eternal demon brothel of paradise. And to wave the Shahada or the Takbir above a mortal German brothel cheapens the value of a divine commodity, and blasphemously cuts into Allah’s monopoly.
The tactic of Islamic propagandists and their Western enablers has been to mainstream and normalize. In their translations, “Allahu Akbar” becomes “God is Great”. Not Allah, but God. And not Greater, but Great. The differences are significant. Every news story takes great care to explain that AA, (Allahu Akbar not Alcoholics Anonymous), is a common Arabic phrase shouted at various occasions. Which is true. Muslims don’t just shout Allahu Akbar when they’re killing people. The problem is that they do shout Allahu Akbar when they are killing people. And that shout reveals motive.
No one shouts Allahu Akbar when trying to get into a bathroom, but they do shout it when they think have a shot of getting into a cockpit. An invocation of omnipotence and a battle cry. “Know your place, infidels, Allah is on our side.”
The normalizers insist that Islam is no different than Judaism or Christianity, but what they can’t explain is the global body count, except by twisting the signposts around until it’s all the Hindus, Jews, Christians, Animists and Zoroastrians who are to blame for being murdered. And the body count like the “Allahu Akbar” pilots shows up as an anomaly on the normalizers’ radar. A blip that says something is wrong. The normalizers and their diligent pupils pay no attention to it, but everyone else does.
The normalizers say that all religions kill, but which religion hasn’t stopped killing. They say that all have made war in the name of religion—but who starts war in the name of religion today? They say that members of all religions have raped—but which religion’s founder openly kept sex slaves? They say that all religions have their bad seeds, but Islam began with a bad seed who used his religious authority to rob, rape and kill. To perpetrate ethnic cleansing and genocide. And over a thousand years later, that same religious authority is being used to rob, rape and kill in Africa and the Middle East. That authority is best summed up with a single cry, “Allahu Akbar.”
The Janjaweed militias who carried out much of the Sudanese genocide rode shouting joyfully, “Hail the name of Allah”. That much is recorded in the docket of the International Criminal Court. The hundreds of thousands murdered, countless more raped and mutilated, in the name of Allah. Indonesia’s 1950’s and ‘60’s massacres which claimed over a million lives began with shouts of “Allahu Akbar” and moved on to parading their heads around, disemboweling their bodies, burying them alive and even cannibalism. Obama’s beloved stepdaddy, Colonel Lolo Soetoro, likely played a role in directing these atrocities. And these are only two drops in an ocean of blood still flowing to Mecca. A red tide that threatens to sweep humanity away.
If Islam is no different than every other religion, and their deity is no different than every other deity, why are so many members of those religions and worshipers of those deities being murdered by the followers of a single religion. Not once or twice, but constantly. Year after year. A bloody faucet whose left handle reads ‘Allah” and whose right handle reads “Akbar” that never turns off. That bloody faucet is the best evidence that Islam is different and that its deity is different. Why else can’t the faucet be turned off?
*******
Islam Condones Wife Beatings and Other Horrors Against Women
Dr. Mahfooz Kanwar
Posted on 19/01/2011 by KGS
TRUTH TELLER! It’s what the Tundra Tabloids has been saying for years. Remember, the problem with fundamentalist Islam, are the fundamentals of Islam. KGS
Yes, Islam condones wife beatings
The issue of wife beating and gender inequality in Islam has become convoluted and highly controversial as many Muslims try to sugar-coat the ugly truths and others try to shed some light on the issue.
Soharwardy’s statement that “Beating one’s wife is not only wrong, it is criminal and completely un-Islamic” is incorrect. The Qur’an says that “men are in charge of women because Allah has made one of them (men) to excel the other (women), thus man’s superiority over women . . . good women are the obedient ones . . . admonish the rebellious women and banish them, and scourge them (whip them severely to inflict pain) (4:34) . . . smote them (hit or strike with the hand or with a weapon causing pain, beat them . . . (4:62)”.
Islam does not recognize gender equality. For example, polygamy is accepted in Islam, but polyandry is not. A woman’s testimony is considered half as worthy as a man’s in court; a son inherits twice as much as a daughter does. Muslim men may marry Muslim, Jewish or Christian women, but Muslim women can marry only Muslim men. In short, sharia law leads to the inhuman treatment of Muslim women by their husbands and others, especially in South Asia and the Middle East.
Higher education is emphasized more for sons than for daughters; in cultural honour killings, almost always women are the target for murder. Under sharia, divorced Muslim women get custody of their sons under eight years of age and daughters until puberty, and then the fathers take the children away. Sharia enabled one of the worst fundamentalists, the vile and ruthless military dictator, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, to put more than 15,000 rape victims in jail because they could not comply with the absurd Islamic condition requiring them to have numerous male witnesses of their victimization. They were charged with fornication and their rapists were let go free.
At birth, all infants are equal, but Islam makes then unequal; sharia is incompatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Soharwardy knows all of this to be true. It is in his Qur’an and other Islamic texts. I have no desire to hear useless excuses from mullahs for all these gender inequalities in Islam.
*******
Also See:
In Western Countries, the Burqa has become Questionable!
12 January 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post.html
and
Muslims, "Sharia Law" and Other Thoughts! (Part 1)
19 November 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/11/muslim-sharia-law.html
and
Muslims in America
26 July 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/07/muslims-in-america.html
and
Multiculturalism, Separatism: Serious Issues for Countries!
21 October 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/10/multiculturalism.html
*******