Tag Archives: Islamic Law

Believe Them When They Tell You Who They Are

Posted on by

On February 12th, PJ Media posted an article about a recent comment by Elham, described as a Member of Hamas and a Planner of a Suicide Bombing.

The article reports:

The video is of a hijabed woman, identified as “Elham, Member of Hamas, Planner of a Suicide Bombing,” explaining matter-of-factly that “we don’t only fight against occupation. Our goal is to spread Islam to all, everywhere.” This suggests that Hamas would not be satisfied with a Palestinian state, but would continue its war against the diminished Israel that would remain after the creation of a Palestinian state until the remainder were Islamized as well. What’s more, Elham’s statement amounts to a declaration of war against every state that is not governed under Islamic law.

Of course, there is no indication that Elham speaks for Hamas as a whole. However, many other Hamas spokesmen have said essentially the same thing. Last December, Fathi Hammad, a member of Hamas’ Political Bureau, also spoke of Hamas as having a universal mission beyond the destruction of Israel. He explained that “the [Palestinian] people have been soldiers throughout history. They are now preparing to liberate Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and I am saying this loud and clear: [The Palestinian people] are preparing to establish the Caliphate, with Jerusalem as its capital city, Inshallah. Jerusalem will not only be the capital city of Palestine as an independent state – it will be the capital city of the Islamic Caliphate.” 

The link above will allow you to view the video.

The thing we need to understand is that up until 1922 there was an Islamic Caliphate. It was the Ottoman Empire. When the Empire fell, Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) set up the secular state of Turkey in what remained of the Ottoman Empire. Some members of the global Islamic community were not happy about the fall of the Empire or with Turkey becoming a secular nation. Hassan al Banna, who lived in Egypt, formed the al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin, the Muslim Brotherhood. The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood was to unify all the Islamic states under a new caliphate and put all lands under Sharia Law. In the quote above, Elham is simply restating that goal. This basic philosophy is the reason Hamas will never be at peace with Israel.

 

Never Underestimate The Reach Of Radical Islam

Posted on by

In September 1099, Salman Rushdie published “The Satanic Verses.”

In an article posted Saturday, The Hill reports:

On Feb. 14, 1989, Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie. According to History.com, a fatwa can only be repealed by that same scholar, and Ruhollah Khomeini died in the same year he issued the call.

Under Islamic law, anyone killing Rushdie would be doing something that was in accordance with Islam. The person who attacked Salman Rushdie on stage Friday in New York believed that he was acting in accordance with his religion.

Msn reports:

New York police said a state trooper assigned to the event took a suspect into custody after the attack. In a news conference Friday afternoon, the suspect was identified as Hadi Matar, 24, of Fairview, New Jersey, according to New York State Police Maj. Eugene Staniszewsk.

The Hill also notes:

“The Satanic Verses” has also caused issues for those who have translated the work.

Hitoshi Igarashi, a Japanese scholar and translator of Rushdie’s novel, was stabbed to death in 1991.

The Italian translator of the novel, Ettore Capriolo, was injured in a stabbing in Milan in 1991. The Norwegian publisher of the book, William Nygaard, survived the assassination attempt when he was shot three times in Oslo in 1993.

When you hear anyone discuss the idea of allowing Islamic law to exist in America, remember that honor killings and killing of those who slander Islam (according to Islam, slander does not have to be untrue) are part of Islamic law. The attack on Salman Rushdie for telling the truth is one example of Islamic law.

 

There Are Some Things To Remember When Viewing The Truce In Afghanistan

Posted on by

Hot Air (and many other places on the Internet) are reporting today that America has signed a peace treaty with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The article notes:

The United States is set to sign a peace deal Saturday with the Taliban, its adversary in Afghanistan’s 18-year war. The deal marks a major turning point in a conflict marred by years of both military and diplomatic stalemate.

One provision of the agreement is the full withdrawal of American troops that is “heavily conditions based,” according to two U.S. officials who have been briefed on the deal. The officials declined to elaborate on what exactly those conditions are. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the deal publicly.

The article concludes:

This is something I was venting my frustrations about on Twitter yesterday. While I would be very pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, I can’t believe that the promises of the Taliban are worth anything. Also, even if they were being sincere, they don’t control all of the fighters in their country, so their ability to maintain a ceasefire is dubious at best.

I realize I’ve preached this line to all of you in the past, but I’ve not seen anything to sway my opinion much. The Taliban is just waiting for us to leave. If they have to wait another 14 months or another 14 years, they will. They’re very good at waiting for invading armies to grow frustrated and go home. They’ve been doing it forever. And as soon as we’re gone, they will tear now the new government and return to being a primitive, seventh century nation just as they’ve always been. At this point, we should probably just face up to that reality, use this deal as a ticket to pull our troops out and leave them to their own devices.

There are some things to remember when considering the war in Afghanistan. We made two major mistakes in that war that essentially cost us the moral high ground. Because we did not have the courage to face the problem of pedophilia in the country or to eliminate the poppy crop. Both would have been very difficult, but both would have had a positive impact on the blatant corruption in the country. Unless we were willing to overwhelm the population and stay long enough to change the culture, we were not going to be victorious there.

We also need to remember two of the basic concepts found in Islam–hudna and taqiyya. Reliance of the Traveller, which is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, states the following:

If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him Peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as it 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.

The purpose of a truce (hudna) was to give the Muslims time to stockpile weapons and become stronger.

In Islamic law, an obligation to lie exists if it is the only way to achieve an obligatory goal in Islam. Al-Taqiyya is based on a concept in Quaran 3:28 and 16:106. It is also found in the hadith,  the embodiment of the sunnah, the words and actions of the prophet and his family the Ahl al-Bayt (The Twelve Imams and the prophet’s daughter, Fatimah).

We are leaving Afghanistan. Under present conditions, that is a good thing. However, to believe that this will mean that Afghanistan will no longer be a disjointed terrorist state is naive. Afghanistan has never really experienced freedom under a central government. It is naive to believe that we can superimpose a central government that espouses individual freedom over what is currently there. We need to learn the lessons of the American revolution–unless the people are willing to fight for their freedom and respect the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God, they will never be free.

Note: the information in this article about the principles of Islam are taken from Stephen Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure. It is recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand the Muslim plan for worldwide Sharia Law.

 

Why Candidates For Office Need To Be Vetted Carefully

Posted on by

When the current House of Representatives was seated in January 2019, Ilhan Omar, Ellison’s successor as representative from Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, the newly-elected representative from Michigan, were both sworn into Congress using copies of the Quran. Why is that important? Because the Quran and the U. S. Constitution are incompatible.

On December 3, 2019, the Center for Security Policy posted the following Press Release:

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to announce the publication of a new monograph by Stephen M. Kirby Ph.D. entitled Islamic Doctrine versus The U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials. Dr. Kirby’s timely book anticipates the 2020 election season to come with a consideration of how starkly Islamic Law differs from the U.S. Constitution in a work that is at once informative, sober, and scholarly.

Building on a series of essays that author and scholar Dr. Kirby first published at PipelineNews.org, this new book from the Center expands on the myriad ways in which Islamic Law (shariah) is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution. After introducing an overview of Islamic doctrine in brief form, Dr. Kirby then focuses on six key Amendments to the Constitution as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. In choosing these six, he both educates and horrifies any who may not have been aware of the sheer physical brutality of shariah, even aside from its explicit and tyrannical antipathy to individual liberty, free speech, and concepts such as equality of all before the rule of man-made law and government by consent of the governed.

The Center’s publication of Dr. Kirby’s book could hardly be more timely, as Muslim Brotherhood/HAMAS front groups such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and its affiliate at Jetpac, Inc. make no secret of their intention to seed this country’s political electoral process with selected, vetted, and groomed candidates who are aligned with the Brotherhood’s jihadist agenda to foist shariah on an unwilling—but all-too-often unaware–-American electorate. Written in a lucid, readable style that takes the Bill of Rights Amendments 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, and 14 in turn to contrast them with the utter lack of those Amendments’ protections under shariah,  Islamic Doctrine versus The U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials provides a useful handbook for the patriot citizen who understand that shariah is antithetical to the Constitution, but would like some additional pointers to rebut the plethora of Islamic apologists and taqiyya operatives out there.

The final chapter of the monograph offers even more specific ideas for those who may attend an upcoming rally, speech, or townhall featuring a Muslim candidate for office at whatever level, from local to the U.S. Congress. Here, Dr. Kirby provides a set possible questions that might be posed (with courtesy and respect) to such a candidate to help discern exactly where that candidate stands with respect to the obligatory adherence to shariah that is binding on all Muslims.

The monograph is included in the article, along with links to buy the paperback or Kindle version or download the free PDF. Considering the many conflicts between the Quran and the U.S.  Constitution and the principle of taqiyya, this is a very timely work. The Quran advocates shariah law, which is totally antithetical to the rights of women and general personal freedom. As voters, we need to make sure we do not open the door for shariah law to come to America.

This is how women dressed in Iran before the Revolution:

Now dressing like that would get you arrested. We don’t want that here.

What Sharia Law Means To America

Posted on by

This is a screen shot taken from a video on YouTube:

MuslimPublicAffairsCouncilThis chart shows what has happened to our national security lexicon since 9/11. This is the result of recommendations from the Muslim Public Affairs Council who object to such terms as Muslim, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Jihad, etc. in our national security briefings. Their objection has nothing to do with truth–it has to do with the fact that using those words in conjunction with terrorism is offensive to Muslims. To ban the use of those words puts our national security apparatus in compliance with Sharia Law. Doesn’t that make you feel secure?

The video on YouTube  this was taken from is a briefing by Maj. Stephen Coughlin entitled “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law.”

In case the video magically disappears from YouTube, I am inserting it  here:

It is a long video, but it is well worth watching.

A Voice Of Wisdom Crying In The Darkness

Posted on by

According to the website AndrewCMcCarthy.com:

Andy is a former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, best known for leading the prosecution against the Blind Sheik (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other jihadists for waging a terrorist war against the United States – including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. After the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the U.S. attorney’s command-post near Ground Zero. He later served as an advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

A few years ago, I had the privilege of hearing Mr. McCarthy speak in Massachusetts. At that time he explained his approach to prosecuting the Blind Sheik. He explained that his staff began to look at the writings of Islamic scholars in an effort to provide that the Blind Sheik was acting outside of the tenets of Islam. Unfortunately, as the investigation of those tenets progressed, the evidence pointed to the fact that the Blind Sheik was actually following the tenets of Islam.

In a National Review Online article written today, Mr. McCarthy again explains how Islam is in agreement with the recent attack in Paris. He explains that the attack was not the result of extremism–it was in keeping with the basic tenets of Islam.

The article begins:

There are now at least twelve confirmed dead in the terrorist attack carried out by at least three jihadist gunmen against the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo. While it practices equal-opportunity satire, lampooning Islam has proved lethal for the magazine, just as it has for so many others who dare to exercise the bedrock Western liberty of free expression. Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 over a caricature of Mohammed that depicted him saying, “100 lashes if you don’t die from laughter.”

The cartoon was obviously referring to sharia, Islam’s legal code and totalitarian framework. Don’t take my word for it. Just flip through Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, the authoritative sharia manual. You will find a number of offenses for which flagellation is the prescribed penalty.

The article explains that Reliance of the Traveller is a renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture.

The article states:

In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements, including one from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank begun in the early Eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”). Perhaps more significantly, there is also an endorsement from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West.

In their endorsement, the al-Azhar scholars wrote:

We certify that the . . . translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. . . . There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. . . . May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.

There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.

Reliance of the Traveller is the definitive interpretation of Islamic scripture. So what does Reliance of the Traveller say about the kind of attack that occurred in Paris?

The article quotes Reliance of the Traveller:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

Please follow the link to the article at National Review Online to see what other teachings are part of basic Islamic law. According to the laws of Islam, terrorism is not extreme–it is a basic tenet of Islam.

The terrorists were doing exactly what Reliance of the Traveller told them to do to punish apostasy. Whether the western world chooses to believe that or not, it is a fact. We had better accept that fact quickly or we will either lose the right to free speech or deal with similar attacks in the near future. The choice is ours.