Tag Archives: Sharia

Losing Our Culture And Harming Our Young Girls

Posted on by

As the debate about accepting Muslim refugees into America continues, there is something we need to understand–assimilation of the new Muslim population cannot be assumed. There is one statistic that illustrates that the Muslims that are already here are not interested in assimilation, but instead are carrying out a practice that is illegal in America.

The Population Reference Bureau reported the following in July:

The ABC News piece, “Underground in America: Female Genital Mutilation,” quotes PRB’s figures revealing that 500,000+  women and girls are at risk of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the United States—more than twice the number of women and girls estimated to be at risk in 2000.

Mark Mather, a co-author on the PRB article and associate vice president of U.S. Programs, told ABC News: “There haven’t been new numbers made available for more than a decade. We knew the immigrant population had grown considerably over the past 10 years, so for a population changing so rapidly, it’s important not to wait to get more updated estimates.”

FGM/C is illegal in the United States. PRB looked at immigrant families coming from countries with a high prevalence rate of FGM/C, including places where 80 percent to 90 percent of women undergo the procedure. So the rapid increase in women and girls at risk reflects an increase in immigration from these countries—or daughters with parents from those countries—to the United States, rather than an increase in the share of women and girls at risk of being cut.

Advocates warn that the risk of FGM/C can go up during summer months—”vacation cutting”—when girls often travel back to their home countries, particularly in Africa, to visit family. PBS NewsHour cited the PRB data analysis, underscoring the risk of FGM/C being a particular concern in New York, which has the largest population of African immigrants in the country. In 2013, about 97 percent of U.S. women and girls at risk were from African countries, while just 3 percent were from Asia (Iraq and Yemen).

This is not a practice that is welcome in America. We need to make it clear to immigrants that this is unacceptable. If families want to come to America, they need to refrain from breaking our laws in the name of their customs or religion.

Haven’t These People Read The U. S. Constitution?

Posted on by

ABC News posted an article yesterday about Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s remarks in response to the killings in San Bernardino this week. The Attorney General is prepared to take decisive action.

The article reports

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged that the Department of Justice will go after hate speech that might incite violence against the Muslim community, she told a crowd of Muslim-Americans and supporters Thursday night.

“Obviously this is a country that is based on free speech,” Lynch told the audience at the Muslim Advocates dinner in Arlington, VA. “But when that edges towards violence…we will take action.”

Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group, asked Lynch to address concerns about an uptick in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate crimes.

Since 9/11, Lynch says that the Department of Justice has investigated more than 11,000 acts of anti-Muslim rhetoric, which have led to 45 prosecutions. “I think sadly, that number is going to rise,” said Lynch.

I truly believe that these people have their priorities backwards. She is prosecuting Americans for speech. Is she prosecuting those Muslims who are terrorists for their terrorism?

As I have written before, one of the interim goals of that part of the Muslim population that espouses the idea of a world-side caliphate is to bring non-Muslims under Sharia Law. Under Islam “Defamation of Islam” is a crime which can be punished by death. Defamation is defined as any statement the hearer regards as negative. Truth has no role in this decision. Under Sharia Law even the definition of slander is not concerned with truth–it is concerned with how the statement makes the hearer feel. Sharia Law and free speech are incompatible, and any attempt to limit free speech by anyone should be looked on very suspiciously.

The article further reports:

In recent weeks, Donald Trump advocated for a national registry of Muslim Americans — which he later denied — and claimed that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated after the September 11 attacks.

“The demagoguery has to stop,” Muslim American Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN), who introduced Lynch, told ABC News. Carson said that public figures make these remarks because they “get affirmation from being provocative.”

The fist statement is an outright lie, aimed at the low-information voter (see transcript of conversation that charge is taken from), the second statement has been documented to be true by Washington Post stories and videos taken from news reports at the time.

The bottom line here is that you can defame anything you want under the First Amendment. If you slander an individual, you may wind up in court; and if you slander a race, someone may decide you are an idiot, but you do have the First Amendment right to be an idiot if you choose to do so.

The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the U.S. Constitution–not undermine it. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the country–it is his (or her) job to uphold the law and the U.S. Constitution–not make up her own law.

Smile, You Are Being Manipulated

Posted on by

Right now there is a lot of discussion as to whether of not American should allow Syrian refugees into America. There are a lot of aspects to this problem, but one that may not have been fully explored is the political left’s use of Saul Alinsky‘s Rules for Radicals.

Rule No. 4 states:

The left is using the refugees as a wedge issue. They are following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4, which states: RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.).

America has had problems with Muslim refugees in the past. Here are links to two articles dealing with past problems: one from The Clarion Project and one from World Net Daily. In June of this year, The Center for Security Policy posted the following:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

…Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Understand that Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible. The Muslim definition of free speech is not compatible with the American First Amendment. Under Sharia Law, the definition of slander includes saying anything negative about Islam whether or not it is true. Slander can be punishable by death.

Many of the Somali refugees in the midwest have left America to join Islamic terrorists. The Boston bombers were refugees. The refugee issue is not as simple as letting anyone into America who is fleeing violence. It is something that needs to be handled cautiously and without politics. I am not sure our present leaders are capable of either.

Ignoring The Facts To Slant The News

Posted on by

On Sunday, NBC News reported that Dr. Ben Carson, who is running for President, does not believe that a Muslim should be President. The news is reporting this as if it were a horrible example of prejudice. It isn’t–it’s a comment from someone who understands Islam.

The article reports:

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would not support a Muslim as President of the United States.

Responding to a question on “Meet the Press,” the retired neurosurgeon said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution.

One of the basic tenets of Islam is the support of Sharia Law. This is coupled with a belief that any legal system not based on Sharia Law is invalid and does not have to be followed. Couple this with the fact that another part of Islam is taqiyya, Taqiyya is based on Quran 3:28 which states that lying can and should be used to confuse and split the enemy.  The result of this is that often when Islamic leaders speak, they have one message for infidels and one for the Muslim audience. Therefore, it would not be unrealistic to expect a Muslim candidate for President to lie to the American people about his intentions and then move to implement Sharia Law as soon as he was sworn in. A true Muslim would have no problem lying when taking the Oath of Office. If you don’t believe Sharia Law could come here, be aware that there are already Sharia advisory boards in the United States. It was also reported in a Center For Security Policy poll that 51% of American Muslims believe that American Muslims should have the choice of being under American or Sharia Law.

I agree with Dr. Carson’s statement that a Muslim should not be President of America. It is not a politically correct statement, but it is a true statement.

It Won’t Pay To Be A Non-Muslim In Seattle

Posted on by

On Monday, the Christian News reported that the Mayor of Seattle, Washington, has proposed Sharia law-compliant housing loans for Muslim residents. In case you are not aware of what a Sharia law-compliant loan is, it is a loan without interest. How many of us would like to take out a mortgage without interest?

The article reports:

“For our low—and moderate—income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law—which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money—there are limited options for financing a home,” the proposed plan reads. “Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions.”

“The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle,” it says.

Arsalan Bukhari, chapter executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the Puget Sound Business Journal that he believes that there are approximately two hundred Seattle residents who identify as Muslim that avoid taking out home loans because of their religion.

“[T]hey don’t want to pay interest,” he said.

Mayor Ed Murray mentioned the proposal at a recent press conference, which will go to city counsel for consideration.

“We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs,” he said.

Non-Muslim Americans will still be paying interest on the loans they take out. Aside from the fact that one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is to bring Sharia Law to America slowly, so that we won’t object to it, what about the Americans who will be paying more for their loans because of the Muslims who will not pay interest? This is stupid on many levels. Is beating your wife (legal under Sharia Law) now going to be legal in Seattle?

Thank God We Didn’t Feel That Way About The Nazis

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted an article today about President Obama’s latest speech about ISIS.The President stated, “Ultimately, in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaida is gonna also require us to discredit their ideology, the twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their ranks. As I’ve said before, and I know our military leaders agree, this broader challenge of countering violent extremism. Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they are defeated by better ideas. A more attractive and more compelling vision.”

“So the United States will continue to do our part by working with partners to counter ISIL’s hateful propaganda, especially online. We’ll constantly reaffirm with words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam, we’re fighting terrorists who distort Islam and whose victims are mostly Muslims.”

First of all, when someone is chopping your head off, that may not be the time to debate their theology with them. Second of all, until you take the weapons away from ISIS, they will continue to kill people and chop their heads off. Third, it is in the basic tenets of Islam to kill infidels or those who do not believe in Islam.

The problem here is that Islam is not being distorted. What we are seeing is in accordance with the Koran. The following is a quote from the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin:

Again, the people killing us claim they do so to wage jihad in the cause of Allah, to impose Islamic law and reestablish the Caliphate.

…The intention of sharia authorities today is to limit the knowledge of non-Muslims to what they are allowed to know about Islam. If we read the books which the enemy declares are the basis of his intentions, we will better understand the nature of the threat. Because the enemy knows he lacks the kinetic ability to defeat us in battle, it is of utmost importance that he prevent us from properly defining him. The primary objective of the enemy in the War on Terror is to keep us from understanding his threat doctrine by keeping us from looking at the fact of Islamic law–“the one organizing principle”–that he, in fact, states is the driver of his threat doctrine. Once we understand his threat doctrine, the game is up. This is true even if he is wrong in his interpretation of Islam and shariah.

This is a battle for western civilization. We need to fight it. I don’t want to send troops to the Middle East, but I am willing to seriously bomb all areas ISIS controls. I am sorry for civilian casualties, but ISIS is killing the non-Muslim civilians. This is a time to use excessive force, not to discuss theology. If Muslims who do not want to establish the Caliphate want to stand with us, that is fine. Otherwise, they need to understand that we will not let them establish the Caliphate or continue to kill innocent people.

The Need To Protect Free Speech

Posted on by

Free speech is something most Americans take for granted. We don’t necessarily agree with what someone is saying or approve of their language, but generally speaking, we respect free speech. Free speech is under attack in America from a number of directions. Some of them are very subtle and seem almost logical, and some are totally obvious. Both need to be dealt with quickly and openly.

As I have stated in previous articles, I am reading Stephen Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure, which is about the dangers America faces at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and other related groups. The book talks about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the human rights movement in the United Nations. The book explains that the OIC definition of human rights includes the provision that these rights have to be in compliance with Sharia Law. This means that any negative statements about Islam are not considered acceptable free speech, but are punishable by law and may result in the death penalty. The goal of the OIC is to bring non-Muslim countries under Sharia Law–in America that means ending the First Amendment right of free speech. We saw the OIC in action recently when Pamela Geller was condemned for a “Draw Mohammed” contest in Texas which resulted in violence. She was blamed for the violence–not the people who committed the violence. This was an attempt to turn public opinion away from the idea that all free speech is protected. There is nothing in our Constitution that protects us from being offended. However, the First Amendment does protect our right of free speech. The press response to what happened in Texas was a very subtle attack on free speech. It needs to be exposed and countered.

A more obvious attack on free speech was initiated by the U.S. Government recently against “Reason Magazine.” Reason posted an article yesterday telling the story.

The article gives the background of the attack on free speech:

For the past two weeks, Reason, a magazine dedicated to “Free Minds and Free Markets,” has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com.

The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.

Yesterday, after preparing an extensive legal brief, Reason asked the US Attorney’s Office to join with it in asking that the gag order – now moot and clearly an unconstitutional prior restraint – be lifted. This morning, the US Attorney’s Office asked the Court to vacate the order, which it did. We are free to tell the story for the first time.

The article at Reason further reports:

Regardless of the legal details, the growing government demand for user data and our own experience with court-enforced silence on a self-evidently ridiculous investigation raise important questions about free speech and the abuse of power.

Reason’s unmoderated comment space is rare among comparable publications and has, over the years, developed into a forum that is by turns exciting, intellectually advanced, outlandish, cringe-inducing, and more foul-mouthed than any locker room this side of the Crab Nebula. It is something to be celebrated as a voluntary community that can be engaged or ignored as the spirit moves you (we say that as writers whose work and physical shortcomings rarely escape unscathed from any thread). However trollish many of our commenters can be, they have created a sphere of free speech that delivers on one of the great promises of the Internet, which is unbridled expression, dialogue, and argument.

We took risks by creating an autonomous zone in which our readers are left to their own devices. Some of the risk is reputational—how many other serious outlets allow anonymous commenters to run riot as we do? Some of the risk is legal, as in the current situation.

One further note about anonymity in our comment threads. Commenting on our site requires registration using a working email address (which is hidden from public view unless a commenter chooses to have it displayed). We also log IP addresses. We do both of these things in order to fight spammers and trolls–people who have shown enormous determination in their efforts to disrupt the discussion. 

Our commenters are generally a tech-savvy bunch. It is likely that those who have a desire for a very high degree of anonymity are taking control of that themselves, using anonymous email addresses and tools to prevent us from logging IPs connected to them.

But Reason.com is not the dark web. Many of our regular commenters voluntarily display either personal website information or their email addresses. In fact, three of the six commenters subject to this very subpoena voluntarily displayed public links to personal blogs at Blogger as part of their comments, one of which further links to a Google+ page. Raising the question: How can the government view these so-called “threats” as so nefarious when people posted them in such a non-anonymous fashion? 

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is an amazing saga of an out-of-control government trying to conceal the fact that it is out of control. Thank you, editors of Reason for standing up to this threat.

 

Not All Religious Traditions Are The Same

Posted on by

Last Sunday, Fox News reported on the arrest of youth counselor Ahmad Saleem, one of twenty-two people arrested in an undercover child sex sting.  Ahmad Saleem is a Muslim youth coordinator and former CAIR community organizer. He is accused by police of traveling to the home of a minor he met online to have sex.

Unfortunately, Muslim men having sex with underage girls has been a problem in Britain. It looks as if the problem may have arrived here. In November I posted an article about Birmingham, England, where political correctness and fear of being called racist prevented the exploitation of teenage girls there since the 1990’s.

The article reported:

Britain’s Birmingham Mail reported last week that Birmingham’s City Council buried a report about Muslim cab drivers exploiting non-Muslim girls back in 1990.

…“The sad part of this story,” Jesson concluded, “is not the suppression of evidence but that the relevant organisations have failed to address this problem.”

Indeed so – and that is because of its racial and religious aspects. British authorities persist in seeing this as a racial issue, when in fact these cabbies only preyed upon these girls because they were non-Muslims, and thus eligible to become “captives of the right hand” (cf. Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50) and used as sex slaves.

CAIR and similar organizations will try to put the best face on the arrest of Ahmad Saleem as they can, but remember, according to Sharia Law, he did nothing wrong. Remember also, that the U.N. Human Rights law supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is compliant with Sharia Law (see previous article on this blog). This is what America is opening itself up to when it embraces the idea of Sharia Law. Human Rights under Sharia Law are not the same as Human Rights under the U.S. Constitution. Keep that in mind when you hear Muslim organizations and American politicians saying that Sharia Law will peacefully co-exist with the U.S. Constitution–it will not.

Islam Has A Problem With Free Speech

Posted on by

I am currently reading the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin. In the book, the Mr. Coughlin explains the Islamic view of free speech and human rights. One of the things he makes clear in the book is that in Islam, human rights and free speech must be subject to Sharia Law. Simply stated, this means that apostasy or slander can be punishable by death. Under Sharia Law, slander is defined as anything that makes the person hearing it unhappy–truth is not relevant in the definition. A recent story posted at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog illustrates this. The headline of the story is, “UC Berkeley Student’s Article Pulled Over Fears For Her Safety.”

This is the article:

If someone had told me six years ago that I would leave Islam and end up an atheist, I would never have believed him.

I was born and raised as a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim country — Pakistan — surrounded by other Muslims who were convinced that their religion was the one true religion. My family, in particular, followed moderate Sunni Islam, which is a more liberal approach based on the “Sunnah,” or Prophet’s teachings. That was the path I set out on. But now, as a Muslim apostate and atheist, my journey couldn’t have led me any further from what I once knew to be true.

Until I was 14, I simply accepted everything I’d been told about Islam. I was taught that being born into a Muslim family is a blessing and is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon someone. I initially thought the Sunni path I followed was the one true path, just like my Shia, Bori and Ismaili friends adhered to the teachings of the sects their families followed. I noticed how everyone around me claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, which made me question who was actually right. I started to view Islam — and religion in general — as something dogmatic, irrational, unscientific and, most of all, completely sexist.

A feminist since age 10, it’s always been hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my faith. Even though the Pakistani society in which I grew up was sexist, my family has always been very progressive. As a result, I never accepted the male superiority and traditional gender roles that were part of my society. For most of my teen years, I felt torn apart by my contradictory beliefs. On one hand, I was a radical feminist who supported gay rights. But on the other hand, I was a practicing Muslim whose religion was clearly homophobic and placed men above women.

At that point, I still believed in an all-knowing God, and I felt that if I learned more about Islam, I would be able to understand why it stated the things it did. I read the Quran with translation and countless books on Islamic jurisprudence. I started taking classes at Zaynab Academy and Al-Huda, two traditional Islamic organizations. The Islam they preached was not the liberal, fluid Islam of my parents: Instead, it followed the Quran very rigidly. While the moderate Muslims I knew never encouraged hijab or gender segregation, these institutions differed in their views. I started to follow a more ritualistic Islam, going as far as giving up listening to music and wearing the hijab.

Stifled by orthodox Islam, I decided to turn to a more liberal approach. I embraced Sufism, which is the mystical side of Islam, and began to see God as an entity of love. Feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud and Leila Ahmed, gave me a glimmer of hope that Islam and feminism could be compatible, although I later found their arguments very selective. On the other extreme, I read writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another ex-Muslim atheist, whose harsh criticism of Islam was not always justified.

After trying to understand Islam through a plurality of perspectives — orthodox, feminist, Sufi and liberal approaches — I decided to leave Islam, but by that point, I had realized that I didn’t need to look at things as black and white. I could leave Islam without dismissing it or labeling it as wrong.

Going through all of these versions of Islam has enabled me to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the religion. Islam is no monolith, and with more than 1.5 billion followers, it’s impossible to refer to Islam as a single entity. There are Muslim women who cover every inch of their bodies except for their eyes, and there are also Muslim women who wear short skirts. With so much variation amongst Muslims, it’s hard to determine who really gets to speak for Islam.

Despite being one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, Islam is still extremely misrepresented and shrouded with stereotypes. I want to address these stereotypes and portray Islam in all its diversity. I’ve experienced the religion firsthand and have also viewed it as an objective bystander. I probably spend more time thinking about God than most religious people; despite my skepticism, I’ve always yearned for a spiritual connection. I want to share what I’ve learned about Islam over the years. I plan to defend it and give credit where it’s due — Islam, after all, gave women the right to work and own property back in the seventh century — and I also plan to ruthlessly point out areas that need reform (yes, Islam does allow men to have four wives and sex slaves).

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Islam, it’s that my former religion, just like any other ideology, has its flaws. Religion should not be immune to criticism. It’s important to have an honest dialogue about religion and identify what can be improved — and that’s exactly what I plan to do.

The publishing of this article put the author’s life in danger.

The American First Amendment is at risk. According to the book Catastrophic Failure, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working with the United Nations since 2005 to subtly change the definition of free speech.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the world that America would not “criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.” (Page 309) Secretary Clinton supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education,, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.

Since the Muslim community seems to be the community that reacts to free speech with violence, we can see what this resolution is actually about. It is a quiet imposition of Sharia Law on non-Muslim countries. If my speech causes violence, I do not have the right to free speech. If my speech does not cause violence, it is acceptable. Logically it follows that since Christians and Jews do not kill people in response to negative statements, criticizing them must be acceptable as free speech. Since Muslims often respond to negative statements with violence, criticizing them is no longer legal.

This is the enemy we need to be aware of in America–the enemy that attacks our Constitution and freedom. It is a subtle attack that needs to be countered with truth and education. Unfortunately, our government and our mainstream media are not familiar with either of those concepts.

 

A Very Interesting Alliance

Posted on by

Front Page Magazine reported yesterday that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) coordinated its response to the terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The stated purpose (although in reality this is not necessarily the case) of the ACLU is to protect the civil liberties of Americans. I would assume that those civil liberties include free speech.

The article quotes a New York Times article:

Then she took calls from those she views as allies — other Muslim advocates, a Methodist minister, an organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union — to come up with a response that would walk a fine line: clearly condemning the extremists behind the attack, while also calling to account what they see as hatred decked out in free speech finery.

I know this may come as a shock to some people, but there is no law against hatred. There is also no reason to see a draw Mohammed contest as hatred–it is simply an exercise of free speech. The exercise of free speech is part of American law. If Muslims want to speak freely, they need to extend that right to those around them. If they don’t support free speech, I suggest they live somewhere other than America.

The article at Front Page Magazine observes:

You don’t normally denounce someone after they were nearly killed in an attack by your people, but that’s exactly what was going on here. As with Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo, elements of Muslim organizations that weren’t openly shouting “Death to America” instead doubled around to destroy sympathy for the targets of the terrorists.

And Salem is now pushing the ‘incitement’ line whose goal is to criminalize criticism of Islam. The ACLU’s organizer is apparently okay with that.

The New York Times swiftly spins this into Muslims being persecuted by being denied the power to impose Sharia law. Denying the power to oppress women is not usually considered oppression by the left… but there’s a special exception in there for Muslims.

I sense a double standard.

The Politics Of Destruction

Posted on by

Bobby Jindal is one of America‘s most successful state governors. He has been a major player in cleaning up Louisiana politics, he has worked to rebuild education in the state following the shambles left by Hurricane Katrina, and he has generally done an awesome job as governor. He is not yet running for president, but is considering it. Therefore, the Democrat-biased press must work to discredit him. Recently, Governor Jindal stated the there were ‘no-go zones’ in Europe. The press decided that was their point of attack. Never mind that much of the major media had reported on these zones in recent years.

Breitbart.com posted an article today weighing in on the subject.

The article states:

This has been reported for years. The New York Times reported in April 2002, “Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.” And Newsweek said in November 2005: “According to research conducted by the government’s domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 ‘no-go zones’ around the country–and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27.

Just two weeks ago, the New Republic wrote: “The word banlieue (‘suburb’) now connotes a no-go zone of high-rise slums, drug-fueled crime, failing schools and poor, largely Muslim immigrants and their angry offspring.”

No-go zones are not new news. There have been times in American history when certain areas were controlled by gangs or gangsters and similar things occurred. However, for the press to lie to Americans as if these zones did not exist and to minimize the threat that these zones may eventually come here is to fail to do the job the press is supposed to do. Our Constitution protects us to some extent, but even in America there have been incidents where American’s rights have not been upheld. In September, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a group of Christian evangelists who were forced to leave an Arab-American street festival in Dearborn, Michigan, in 2012. Their First Amendment rights were clearly violated.

Yes, there are no-go zones in many countries in the world, and yes, the purpose of this dust-up was to make sure Bobby Jindal would not be a credible candidate for president.

UPDATE:

Act for America posted the following map of the Paris no-go zones on Facebook:

nogozonesFrance

A Voice Of Reason In The Middle East

Posted on by

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi became President of Egypt in June 2014. He was elected by the Egyptians after the removal of President Morsi, who was attempting to move Egypt in the direction of a caliphate–including Sharia Law and persecution of Christians. The Obama Administration has not been overwhelmingly supportive of President el-Sisi, but has promised to deliver the military aid previously promised to Egypt.

During his presidency, President el-Sisi has moved to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, blaming the group for much of the political unrest in the country. Recently, he called for a revolution in Islam that would discourage the current violent aspect of the religion.

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday:

In a speech on New Year’s day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called for a “religious revolution” in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse.

“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims worldwide) should want to kill the rest of the world’s population—that is, 7 billion people—so that they themselves may live?” he asked. “Impossible.”

Speaking to an audience of religious scholars celebrating the birth of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, he called on the religious establishment to lead the fight for moderation in the Muslim world. “You imams (prayer leaders) are responsible before Allah. The entire world—I say it again, the entire world—is waiting for your next move because this umma (a word that can refer either to the Egyptian nation or the entire Muslim world) is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

I am sure President el-Sisi speaks for many Muslims when he says, “We have to think hard about what we are facing. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing, and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible.”

We need more Middle Eastern leaders like President el-Sisi.

This Is The Outcome Of Political Correctness

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Investors.com posted an article about recent events in Sweden. Sweden has an open-border immigration policy which resulted in the arrive of 100,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in the Balkans in the 1990’s, and  more recently, refugees from Iraq and other Arab countries settling there. Unfortunately, rather than rejoice in their new-found freedom, many of these refugees have brought the oppression of their former homelands with them.

The article explains what has happened:

The perils of multiculturalism and open borders have reached critical mass in Sweden. There are Muslim enclaves where postal, fire and other essential services — even police officers themselves —require police protection.

A police report released last month identifies 55 of these “no-go zones” in Sweden. These zones are similar to others that have popped up in Europe in recent years. They formed as large Muslim populations emigrating to politically correct and tolerant European states refuse to assimilate and set up virtual states within a state where the authorities fear to tread.

Soeren Kern of the Hudson Institute has documented the proliferation of these zones. They are de facto Muslim micro-states under Shariah law that reject Western values, society and legal systems. In these districts non-Muslims are expected to conform to the dictates of fundamentalist Islam or face violent consequences.

“A more precise name for these zones,” says Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes, “would be Dar al-Islam — the House of Islam or the place where Islam rules.”

This is not an imaginary tale about a small percentage of Muslims–this is something that is actually happening with the consent of a majority of the Muslim community. There have been no-go zones in France for decades.

Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion, and those Muslims who believe they are correctly following the Koran strive to set up Sharia Law in whatever country they settle. We have already had a court case where Christians were arrested for preaching near the site of a Muslim event in America (rightwinggranny). Many of our states have passed preemptive laws outlawing Sharia Law in their states. We need to aware of the fact that Islam is a conquering religion. Political correctness is not our friend in this matter.

I Guess Everyone Has An Achilles Heel

Posted on by

Yesterday the New York Post posted an article about the ISIS fighters. They do have a weakness–they are afraid that if they are killed by a woman, they will not go to heaven. This is amazing to me. Despite what President Obama says, ISIS is an Islamic organization–they believe in Sharia Law–that is the reason they have no problem with killing infidels. However, it is interesting to me that a religion that treats women as badly as Islam does has spawned men who are afraid that if they are killed by a woman, they will not go to heaven.

The article in the New York Post reports:

A 27-year-old female Kurdish fighter named Tekoshin fighting in northern Iraq recently gloated to AFP: “I think [ISIS] were more afraid of us than of the men.” The Kalashnikov-toting fighter added: “They believe they’ll go to hell if they die at a woman’s hands.”

Some women who have fled the brutal oppression of ISIS have been organized into special Women’s Protection Units in Syria to do battle.

Hend Hasen Ahmed, a 26-year-old female fighter in Syria’s Kurdish region, told Britain’s Telegraph during the ISIS siege of Mt. Sinjar: “We are being trained to use snipers, Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and hand grenades … For myself and for my people, I will go to [Mount] Sinjar to either die or live there freely.”

Radical imams have invoked interpretations of Koran passages to recruit jihadists, promising them a trip to paradise and 72 brown-eyed virgins if they die in battle or in what’s considered a martyrdom operation.

Seeing a woman staring at them down the barrel of a machine gun apparently isn’t what they had in mind.

I have very mixed emotions about sending women into combat–I think it goes against the natural feminine instinct, but it does make sense to me to see women standing to defend their country–it reminds me of a mother bear protecting her cubs–not something you want to mess with. With superman it was kryptonite; with ISIS it is women fighting to defend their country. We need to find a way to use this to our advantage.

Freedom For Meriam Ibrahim

Posted on by

CBN News is reporting today that Meriam Ibrahim has left Sudan and is currently in Italy. Mrs. Ibrahim was in prison in Sudan because she had married a Christian and was a Christian. Her father, who was not involved in her childhood, claimed that she was a Muslim and had converted to Christianity. In Sudan, that is a crime punishable by death. She was pregnant when she went to prison and was forced to give birth while in chains. She was freed because of international pressure on Sudan. Her husband is an American citizen.

The article reports:

Her release comes just one day after a congressional hearing about her plight, where religious rights advocates warned that her case is just one of many.

“She is the tip of the iceberg,” Zuhdi Jasser, vice-chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee.

“For every one case of Meriam Ibrahim, there are hundreds, if not thousands of those Sudanese and others who are victims of a draconian implementation of Sharia law that creates an existence for the Sudanese under the leadership of President Bashir that is really an abomination of religious freedom,” he charged.

Perkins (Family Research Council President Tony Perkins), who also testified before the House panel, agreed, suggesting the Obama administration has dropped the ball on addressing religious persecution.

“The United States needs to show more concern about religious hostility and persecution abroad, in particular the case with Meriam Ibrahim, where I think the response of the United States has been woefully inadequate,” Perkins told lawmakers.

Under Sharia Law Mrs. Ibrahim was eligible for the death penalty. There is no religious freedom under Sharia Law.

Why American Isolationism Is A Really Bad Idea

Posted on by

On July 18th, Gates of Vienna posted an article explaining why ignoring the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East is a major mistake. In the eyes of Muslims who believe in the Koran, there are certain privileges that come with the establishment of a caliphate and the existence of a caliph in charge of that caliphate. I need to explain here that there are no ‘moderate Muslims’ who believe in the Koran–the Koran makes very clear that the obligation of Muslims is to wage war on the infidels. There are many ‘moderate Muslims’ who discount what the Koran says and have no desire to wage war on the infidels, but unfortunately, they tend to be rather quiet.

The article at Gates of Vienna explains the dangers of a Muslim caliphate. The article quotes Egyptian-American scholar of Islam and Middle East history Raymond Ibrahim:

The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the “disbelieving” world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the “Muslim world”-from Morocco to Pakistan-was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.

A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions — economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis” — who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax [jizyah]; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim’s; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses-the jihad continues.

A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish — before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is also quoted in the article:

And now it [the caliphate] is here, although it is by no means clear, of course, that The Islamic State will be viable or long-lasting. If it is, however, the world could soon be engulfed in a much larger conflict with Islamic jihadists even than it has been since 9/11. For in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized — and indeed, has the responsibility — to declare offensive jihad against non-Muslim states. In his absence, all jihad must be defensive only, which is why Islamic jihadists retail laundry lists of grievances when explaining and justifying their actions: without these grievances and a caliph, they have to cast all their actions as responses to Infidel atrocities. With a caliph, however, that obligation will be gone. And the bloodshed in that event could make the world situation since 9/11, with its 20,000 jihad attacks worldwide, seem like a harmless bit of “interfaith dialogue.”

Unfortunately, there will come a time in the near future when America and Western Europe will have to stand up to a Muslim caliphate. It will have to be done before the population demographic in Europe changes enough to make it automatically part of the caliphate. If we wait too long, the Muslim population in Western Europe will reach a point where it represents the majority of the people in Western Europe. At that point, America (and Canada) will stand alone.

Meriam Ibrahim Has Been Released From Government Custody Again

Posted on by

CBN News is reporting today that Meriam Ibrahim has been released from government custody again in Sudan.

The article reports:

“She was seized at the airport by the National Intelligence and Security Services of Sudan who do not answer to criminal courts – they are outside the judicial system,” Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, said.

Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, says the Sudanese government has assured the U.S. that the family has now been released again. Harf said U.S. officials are continuing to work on getting them out of the country.

…The 27-year-old Ibrahim was originally sentenced to 100 lashes and execution by hanging because the government says her father was a Muslim. Therefore, under Islamic law known as Sharia, she’s not allowed to become a Christian, even though she contends she was never a Muslim in the first place.

It is becoming obvious that Mrs. Ibrahim will not be safe until she is out of Sudan. It is also quite possible that radical Muslims will be a threat to her safety if she comes to America. However, the right thing to do is to bring her, her husband and her children here and put them in the witness protection program to protect their identity. Sharia Law is nasty, and many Muslims believe in it. They believe that they would be serving their god by killing this woman because she is a Christian. Many years ago I knew someone who left an abusive Muslim husband and was put into the witness protection program to avoid an Honor Killing–her brother had vowed to kill her in the name of allah. Sharia Law is not something we want to allow in America.

Why We Need American Influence Around The World

Posted on by

Yesterday freedom-loving people in the world rejoiced because a Sudanese court annulled the death sentence of Meriam Ibrahim, who was in jail with her children for marrying a Christian and for “abandoning” the Muslim faith.. Unfortunately, the joy at her release was short-lived.

CBN News is reporting today that she was re-arrested Tuesday at the international airport in Khartoum while trying to leave the country.

The article reports:

The case drew outrage from the international community. Protesters recently gathered outside the White House to demand action by the Obama administration.

“She and the children should be reunited at home with her family rather than held in prison on charges of apostasy,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, calling Sudan to repeal it’s anti-human rights laws.
 
He also suggested that Sudan repeal any Islamic laws that go against basic human rights.
    
Meanwhile, the American Center for Law and Justice is calling Ibrahim’s arrest a “deeply troubling” development.

“The decision to take the entire family into custody is a violation of international law and we call on Sudan to release them without delay,”  ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow said in a statement.

This is the face of Sharia Law. This is what Muslims (even some ‘moderate’ Muslims) want to bring to America. Make no mistake, Sharia Law and religious freedom cannot co-exist. If you like your religion, you cannot keep it under Sharia Law. Americans need to stand strong for human rights in our own country and for people around the world. We need to exert a lot of pressure on Sudan for the treatment of this woman–her husband is an American citizen and her children are American citizens. Is American citizenship worth anything right now?

Sharia Law And Freedom Are Not Compatible

Posted on by

Yahoo News reported yesterday that Mariam Yahya Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman, has been sentenced to death for converting to Christianity.

The article reports the following statement by a Sudanese government official:

“Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Mariam Yahya Ibrahim has also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.

This sentence is appropriate under Sharia Law. It is considered a capital offense to convert to Christianity. Remember that this is the same Sharia Law that CAIR would like to introduce into America. Freedom and Sharia Law are incompatible. We do not want Sharia Law in America.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Watching Britain Lose Its Freedom

Posted on by

Today’s U.K. Mail Online posted an article about the introduction of Sharia Law into the British legal system.

The article reports:

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, an organisation that campaigns for strict separation of the state from religious institutions and equality of religion before the law, says the move is a backwards step that undermines British justice.

He said: ‘The UK has the most comprehensive equality laws in the world, yet the Law Society seems determined to undermine this by giving approval to a system that relegates women, non-Muslim and children born out of wedlock to second class citizenship.

‘Instead of running scared at any mention of sharia, politicians of all parties should face these issues square on and insist on the primacy of democratically-determined human rights-compliant law.

‘Laws determined by Parliament should prevail over centuries-old theocratic laws. We should have One Law for All, not allowing any law to operate which disadvantages any sections of the community.’

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch points out some of the problems with Sharia Law:

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

…Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”

Lady Cox said: “Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern.”

This is a serious step toward undermining the freedom of the citizens of Britain. Sharia Law includes such things as executing people for converting to Christianity and stoning rape victims. If the British embrace part of Sharia Law, will they be able to avoid having to live with all of the law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

With A Stoke Of A Pen And Without Congress

Posted on by

This is not a new story–it’s from last week, but I finally heard someone explain its importance to me in a way that I could understand. On February 5, the Daily Caller posted a story about a recent change in our immigration laws made by the Obama Administration. First of all, these changes did not go through Congress, they were made through the Executive Branch.

The article reports:

The Obama administration has issued new exemptions to a law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists who are believed to pose no threat from the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department published the new exemptions Wednesday in the Federal Register to narrow a ban in the Immigration and Nationality Act excluding refugees and asylum seekers who had provided limited material support, no matter how minor, to terrorists.

I listened to a terrorism expert today explain why this matters. Please endure a short history lesson to explain. The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development that provided millions of dollars of material and logistical support to Hamas was designated as a charity by President Clinton in 1995 (Executive Order 12947). On July 27, 2004, a federal grand jury in Dallas, Texas, returned a 42-count indictment against the Holy Land Foundation. Included in the exhibits filed by the government in that trial was the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan for changing America from a republic to a caliphate under Sharia Law.  You can google the document and read it. Those plans are well underway. Charges included: conspiracy, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, tax evasion, and money laundering. Included in that indictment was a list of unindicted co-conspirators including CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). CAIR is still recognized by many people as the legal spokesperson for Muslims in America. So what is my point? Muslim organizations that support terrorism seek legitimacy in the United States. They assume the profile of civil or charity organizations. We need to remember that the Muslim Brotherhood has the same goal as Al Qaeda–a world-wide caliphate under Sharia law. The difference in the two organizations is the method. The Muslim Brotherhood showed its method in its short-lived takeover of Egypt. That story is probably not over yet. Ideally, the Muslim Brotherhood likes to take over a country politically and then create a state ruled by Sharia Law. Like the Mafia, the Muslim Brotherhood is a ‘family’ organization that operates under its own set of rules.

Now back to the original point. We have deported Mafia members; we have not opened our gates to their family members. That is the appropriate reaction to members, family members, or contributors to that sort of organization. I suspect there will be some organizations that were named as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial whose members will be allowed to enter America who would have been barred from doing so before the law was changed.

The bottom line here is simple. We are not being smart about protecting our country.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Let’s Follow Their Example

Posted on by

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded by Hassan al Banna in 1928. The bylaws of the Muslim Brotherhood state include the following:

“The Muslim Brotherhood is an International Muslim body which seeks to establish Allah’s law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion which are namely the following:

…F) The  need to work on establishing the Islamic State:

G) The sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia.

The above is taken from the Official Muslim Brotherhood Website on 9/7/2010. It is referenced in the book, Shariah The Threat to America published by the Center for Security Policy in 2010.

Yesterday the Washington Post posted a story stating that the military government of Egypt has declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group. The military government of Egypt is correct. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in Egypt as an antidote to the secularization of Turkey after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The stated purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood is to form a worldwide caliphate under Sharia Law. It is implied in their by-laws that overthrowing existing governments is an acceptable means to this end. The military government of Egypt understands that fact and chooses not to be overthrown.

The article reports:

Deputy Prime Minister Hossam Eissa said that, in response to the bombing (a bombing Tuesday in the Nile Delta city of Mansoura), the government had decided to classify the organization as a terrorist group. Eissa did not provide evidence that the Brotherhood was involved in the bombing or any other recent attacks on security forces in Egypt.

“Egypt was horrified from north to south by the hideous crime committed by the Muslim Brotherhood group,” Eissa said, according to the AP. “This was in context of a dangerous escalation to violence against Egypt and Egyptians [and] a clear declaration by the Muslim Brotherhood group that it still knows nothing but violence.”

“It’s not possible for Egypt the state nor Egypt the people to submit to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism,” he added.

On Wednesday, a Sinai-based jihadist group, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, or Ansar Jerusalem, claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s bombing, which killed 15 people, including 11 police officers, in one of the deadliest such attacks in Egypt in years.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a peaceful organization. The government of Egypt has realized that. It is time America woke up and realized the danger the Brotherhood represents to America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Brand Of Negotiating Is This?

Posted on by

On Saturday, Breitbart.com reported that as part of the secret talks that took place before the agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, the United States released two Iranian scientists that were in prison in America. One of those scientists, Mojtaba Atarodi, had been arrested in 2011 for attempting to acquire equipment that could be used for Iran’s military-nuclear programs.

It is also reported that hikers Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer, and Josh Fattal were released in 2010 and 2011 as part of those negotiations. In 2012 the United States released Iranian prisoners Shahrzad Mir Gholikhan, Nosratollah Tajik, and Amir Hossein Seirafi. All three of these men had been charged with either weapons trafficking, purchasing illegal military equipment, or purchasing items to be used in Iran’s nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Americans Robert Levinson, Amir Hekmati, and Saeed Abedini remain imprisoned in Iran. Negotiating with the Iranian thugs is not the answer. I hope Congress passes tighter sanctions and totally cripples the Iranian economy. That will give the Iranians who support freedom the opportunity to overthrow the Iranian government. Please understand that the Iranian government is at the root of the majority of the unrest in the Middle East. That is why an alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia is forming to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and a delivery system. We have been fighting Iran indirectly since the Iranian revolution–they have supplied weapons to Taliban troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and are a major player in Syria.

The current Iranian government is not merely a threat to Israel–it is a threat to America and the entire world. The goal of the current Iranian government has not changed–that goal is the establishment of a world-wide caliphate under Sharia law. Another part of the philosophy of the current Iranian regime is that world chaos will usher in the return of the Mahdi. The Mahdi died in 874 and is believed to be living at the bottom of a well in Iran. The Iranian leaders believe that if they cause enough chaos he will return. These are the people we are negotiating with.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Freedom Of Speech Is Not Compatible With Sharia Law

Posted on by

On Friday the Center for Security Policy posted an article about Sushmita Banerjee, an Indian woman who wrote a bestselling memoir about the brutality of Sharia law and her escape from the Taliban. She has been killed by unknown militants in Afghanistan.

In an article in Outlook India.com from May 1998, she related her story. The article reported:

Here I must mention the case of a woman who called in a priest to pray for her son who was seriously ill. Members of the Taliban saw the maulvi going into the house. The woman and the priest were executed in public. They were taken to the square alongside the local police station and shot. The entire village was terrorised by the incident.

…Meanwhile, my brothers-in-law tracked me down and took me back to Afghanistan. They promised to send me back to India. But they did not keep their promise. Instead, they kept me under house arrest and branded me an immoral woman. The Taliban threatened to teach me a lesson. I knew I had to escape.

One night I tunneled my way through the mud walls of the house and fled. Close to Kabul I was arrested. A 15-member group of the Taliban interrogated me. Many of them said that since I had fled my husband’s home I should be executed. However, I was able to convince them that since I was an Indian I had every right to go back to my country.

The interrogation continued through the night. The next morning I was taken to the Indian embassy from where I was given a safe passage. Back in Calcutta I was reunited with my husband. I don’t think he will ever be able to go back to his family.

This is Sharia Law in action.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bias? What Bias?

Posted on by

On July 29, the Washington Times posted a story about a controversy involving a history textbook being used in an advanced placement course in Florida. The textbook devotes a 36-page chapter to Islam, but has no chapters on either Christianity or Judaism.

The article illustrates some of the bias:

Here’s an example: Muhammad and his armies’ take-over of Medina states depicted “people happily accept[ing of] Islam as their way of life. It leaves out that tens of thousands of Jews and non-believers were massacred by [Muhammad’s] armies. It’s a blatant deception.”

At the same time, the book depicts Jesus as claiming to be the Messiah — but writes as fact that Muhammad was the prophet, Mr. Workman said in the Townhall article. Students in the class are also taught about the Koran and pillars of Islam.

The article quotes a school board member:

“Some of the descriptions of the battles use the word ‘massacre’ when it’s a Christian battle and ‘takeover’ when it’s a Muslim battle,” said Amy Kneessy to Fox News. “In young minds, massacre paints a very different visual picture than a takeover or occupation — when in fact both battles were very bloody.”

At some point Americans will realize that Islam supports Sharia Law. Sharia Law and democracy are mutually exclusive. There is an effort by some in the Muslim community to undermine the American way of life and impose Sharia Law on America. Hopefully, the school boards in this town and other towns will continue to be vigilant in examining the textbooks the children are using.
Enhanced by Zemanta