Tag Archives: Sharia Law

Why Cultures Matter

Posted on by

On Monday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article that illustrates one of the really negative aspects of Sharia Law.

The article reports:

A five-year-old girl who was raped by a stranger has been murdered by her family in a so-called ‘honour killing’, according to reports.

The young girl’s parents allegedly killed their daughter in ‘cold blood’ after she was kidnapped and raped by an unidentified man in the Al-Shahba area of Syria on November 18.

The child’s body was found in a garbage container in Manbij, north Syria, on January 27 before being transferred to Al Furat Hospital which lies in eastern Aleppo.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) have said that Internal Security Forces have arrested several family members of the girl.  

The girl’s parents have denied killing their daughter and investigations are ongoing, the SOHR added.

The article concludes:

Just days after the video of Eida’s murder emerged on social media, a 16-year-old girl was strangled to death by her father in another so-called ‘honour killing’ after she was raped by a relative.

The girl was identified as Aya Muhammad Khalifo by the Violations Documentation Center in northern Syria.   

Following the murders, hundreds of women protested against the ‘honour killings’ in the city of Hasakeh by marching down streets. 

Protester Evin Bacho, a member of the Kurdish feminist group Kongra Star, said: ‘We condemn these crimes in the name of tradition or religion.’

Honor killing is an acceptable practice under Sharia Law. Honor killings have happened in America in Islamic communities that practice Sharia Law. This is a practice that should never be condoned here or anywhere else. Western culture would have taken the five-year-old girl who was raped and worked to help her heal from the trauma. Sharia Law says she has dishonored her family (despite the fact that she was the victim–not the perpetrator) and deserves to die. Cultures matter.

The Cost Of Telling The Truth

Posted on by

On Thursday, Jihad Watch posted an article about some recent statements by Samuel Hayek, the chairman the Jewish National Fund (JNF UK).

The article reports:

British Labour MP Alex Sobel has called on Samuel Hayek, the chairman the Jewish National Fund (JNF UK), to resign or be removed from office for offensive anti-Muslim remarks.

Speaking to the Jerusalem Post in early December, Hayek said Jews should start planning to leave Britain because “Jews who are unable to protect their assets, Jews being discriminated against badly is something that could quite easily happen – that is happening.”

Hayek claimed one of the reasons for the rise of anti-Semitism in the UK is shifting demographic patterns and that Muslim immigration threatens the future of Jews in the UK and Europe as whole.

“I am not against any minority or against Muslims in the UK or Europe, but against anyone who spreads hatred that harms Jews,” Hayek said; adding, “That is how I see the near future evolving.”

Anyone who has read the Koran understands the Muslim hatred of Jews.

The Hadith quotes the Prophet Mohammad as saying” The Resurrection of the dead will not come until the Muslims will war with the Jews and the Muslims will kill them…the trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, here is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'”

History reminds us that when Hitler said that he would exterminate the Jews no one believed him. That reluctance cost millions of lives. Now when a religion openly states its intention to kill Jews, it would serve us all well to pay attention.

The definition of slander in Sharia Law is saying something that the hearer does not like. It does not matter if what is said is true or not. What Samuel Hayek said is true–the increasing Muslim population in Britain will eventually pose a threat to the Jewish population–Jews in France have been under attack by Muslim immigrants for a number of years. The efforts to cancel out what Mr. Hayek is saying are an example of ‘creeping sharia’–cancelling out anyone who says anything negative about Islam.

Sharia Law In America

Posted on by

There are many aspects of Sharia Law that are different from American Constitutional law. One of the more obvious is the conflict between the concept of free speech and the penalty for blasphemy. On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article about a bill that was recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives that will move America in the direction of Sharia Law.

Congress.gov (you have to go to the site and put in the bill number as the specific link expires) describes HR 5665 as follows:

Passed House (12/14/2021)

Combating International Islamophobia Act

This bill establishes within the Department of State the Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia and addresses related issues.

The office shall monitor and combat acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement in foreign countries. The bill establishes the position of Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Islamophobia, who shall head the office.

The bill also requires certain existing annual reports to Congress about human rights and religious freedom in foreign countries to include information about Islamophobia, such as information about (1) acts of physical violence or harassment of Muslim people, (2) instances of propaganda in government and nongovernment media that attempt to justify or promote hatred or incite violence against Muslim people, and (3) actions taken by a country’s government to respond to such acts. The office shall coordinate and assist in preparing these portions of the reports.

No funds made available pursuant to the bill may be used to promote or endorse a boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement ideology (i.e., economic measures against Israel or Israel-related individuals or organizations) or used to promote or endorse a Muslim ban.

It is no surprise that the bill is sponsored by Ilhan Omar.

The American Thinker reports:

The actual text of the bill not only seeks to eradicate blasphemy against Islam around the world – and solely against Islam at that – but even requires the federal government to reorganize some portions of the State Department along the lines of an Islamic religious institution which will be responsible for interpreting the Quran.  For example, the text of the bill mandates that “[t]he Secretary of State shall establish within the Department of State an Office” and the “purpose” of the office is described as “[m]onitoring and combating acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur in foreign countries.”  That is, the State Department is required to create an office that is a cross between George Orwell’s Big Brother and the Taliban.

The word ‘combat’ in the text of the law is problematic but fits in perfectly with the concept of waging violent jihad against the countries deemed to have committed blasphemy against Islam.  Almost every dictionary defines the word primarily as an action pertaining to war.  While the internet firm Google’s dictionary defines ‘combat’ as “fighting between armed forces,” Cambridge Dictionary defines the word as “a fight, especially during a war.”  According to Collins Dictionary, “combat is fighting that takes place in a war.”  This is no hyperbole as the State Department has a long history of supporting Islamic terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.  Former Assistant Secretary of State, Robin Raphel, ran her office as though it were an outpost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and she lost her security clearance when she was investigated for counterintelligence activities.  Little wonder then that Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, used the term “Rogue State Department” and President Donald Trump described the State Department as the “Deep State Department.”

This law is not consistent with our Constitution.

This Is What Desperation Looks Like

Posted on by

Remember when you were a child or were raising children and anything bad that was done in the house was done by “not me”? It seems as if the Biden administration learned that lesson well. They are desperately trying to avoid responsibility for the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Afghanistan.

Yesterday Breitbart reported that CBS News is claiming that climate change is responsible for strengthening the Taliban. Really? President Jefferson was dealing with the Barbary Pirates during his term as President. Did climate change strengthen them?

The article at Breitbart reports:

CBS News has blamed “climate change” for abetting the Taliban in their rise to power in Afghanistan, insisting that global warming has forced farmers into debt and into the arms of the Taliban.

In a risible report that has been compared to spoofs in the Babylon Bee and the Onion, CBS News asserted last week that Afghan farmers struggle to maintain productive crops and thus have to borrow funds to survive.

“When Afghans can’t pay off lenders, the Taliban often steps in to sow government resentment,” CBS News declared in its airtight “gotcha” report.

“If you’ve lost your crop and land or the Afghan government hasn’t paid enough attention then of course, the Taliban can come and exploit it,” the article states, citing Kamal Alam, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center.

CBS News does not bother explaining how “drought” and “flood-ravaged soil,” which have been a constant in Afghanistan for ages, are suddenly the result of “climate change.” They seem to assume that any weather-related phenomenon, no matter how commonplace, must somehow be related to global warming.

The article concludes:

In 2014, Charles B. Strozier, professor of history at the City University of New York, asserted that “environmental stressors and political violence are connected in surprising ways” and suggested driving hybrid cars as a way to thwart the Taliban’s war on girls.

“If more Americans knew how glacial melt contributes to catastrophic weather in Afghanistan — potentially strengthening the Taliban and imperiling Afghan girls who want to attend school — would we drive more hybrids and use millions fewer plastic bags?” Strozier asked rhetorically. “How would elections and legislation be influenced?”

I hate to disagree with the learned professor, but Islam has been waging war on women long before the automobile was invented. Sharia Law is the basis for the Taliban’s war on girls. Sharia Law goes back to the founding of Islam. While limiting our carbon footprint is an admirable goal, it will not improve the lives of the women left behind in Afghanistan.

Something I Never Would Have Believed Could Happen In America

Posted on by

On Friday, PJ Media reported the following:

Everything is bigger in Texas, including the egregious miscarriages of justice. The Blaze reported Wednesday that Collin County, Texas, District Judge Andrea Thompson “effectively denied a U.S. citizen,” a Muslim woman named Mariam Ayad, “her constitutionally protected due process rights, choosing instead to order her to appear before an Islamic tribunal where her testimony is considered inferior. And when her lawyers sounded the alarm — the judge doubled down.” Islamic law, Sharia, taking precedence over U.S. law — in Texas? Celebrate diversity!

Ayad was trying to get a divorce from her husband, Ayad Hashim Latif. Sharia stipulates that while a man can divorce his wife simply by telling her three times that he is divorcing her, a woman has to seek the permission of Muslim clerics and make her case for a divorce before them. There is, of course, no such provision in U.S. law, but when Ayad told Latif that she was going to seek a divorce, he told her that she had signed an Islamic prenuptial agreement that stated the marriage, and any possible divorce, would proceed according to Sharia provisions.

Mariam Ayad contends now that she was tricked into signing this agreement, and thought that what she was signing was something else altogether. Her lawyers state that American law should supersede it in any case. Thompson, however, ruled that the prenuptial agreement was binding, and thus Ayad will have to go through the Islamic Association of North Texas to get permission to divorce. According to The Blaze, this decision was in “complete disregard of both federal and state law.”

This case isn’t over: Ayad is appealing at the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas….

The article goes on to list some of the aspects of Sharia Law that contradict the U.S. Constitution–the Qur’an declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man, the Qur’an teaches that men are superior to women and should beat those from whom they “fear disobedience”, the Qur’an also allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls, the Qur’an rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter. You get the idea. These ideas have no place in America.

The article concludes:

Non-Muslims in several states a few years ago tried to outlaw the elements of Sharia that interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms, not Islam as an individual religious practice. These anti-Sharia measures were aimed at political Islam, an authoritarian ideology at variance with the Constitution in numerous particulars: Sharia denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. That is what people wanted to restrict, and the elements of Sharia that contradict Constitutional freedoms were all they want to restrict. But of course these efforts met furious opposition and were denounced as “Islamophobic.”

Meanwhile, Sharia really does deny equality of rights to women. But to oppose that is “racist.” So Mariam Ayad just has to suffer, you see, for diversity.

It’s interesting that the court was willing to embrace Islamic Law, which is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution while at the same time many of our courts are pushing Judeo-Christian laws and values, which are the basis of our Constitution, out of the public square.

This Is Actually According To Sharia Law

Posted on by

ABC News is reporting today that Fox News host Jeanine Pirro was taken off the air for remarks made about Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar.

These are the remarks:

“Think about it: Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran, 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” Pirro said on her show last week. “Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Sharia Law is antithetical to the United States Constitution. Sharia Law does not support Freedom of Speech, equality for women, equal rights for all religions, and believes in the killing of homosexuals. Those ideas are not in tune with the U. S. Constitution. The fact that Jeanine Pirro was taken off the air for telling the truth is much more in line with Sharia Law than American Law. Under Sharia Law, slander is anything that offends the hearer–it doesn’t matter if it is true or not–if the hearer is offended, it is slander.

We need to put the speech police out of business or we will totally lose our freedom. The question Jeanine Pirro asked was a perfectly logical question. I am sure pressure was put on Fox News by CAIR and other Muslim groups (threatening lawsuits, etc.) to take her off the air to make an example of her. It is sad that Fox News did not have the backbone to stand and fight for free speech in America.

People In Glass Houses…

Posted on by

Ilhan Omar has been in the news recently for implying that a pro-Israel lobbying group — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — is paying US politicians to support Israel. AIPAC does not directly contribute to political campaigns, but does make contributions through a number of political action committees (PACs) and does lobby. That is no different than many other organizations. Her criticism is interesting, however, when you look at her donors.

Sara Carter is reporting today that Ms Omar received tens of thousands of dollars from PACs and lobbyists.

The article reports:

According to the records of the Federal Election Commission, last summer Omar received nearly $60,000 from PACs.

One PAC from which Omar received thousands of dollars in 2018 is the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 2009 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism-financing trial in American history.

And CAIR not only has a PAC, it is a lobbying organization. On Jan.10, CAIR hosted the Community Congressional Reception at which Omar spoke.

In all, Omar received tens of thousands of dollars from lobbying groups. None of her money came from AIPAC or the NRA or the fossil fuel industry; That must be a coincidence.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Holy Land Foundation trial, here is the link to one of the government exhibits introduced in the trial. This exhibit outlines the plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to undermine the government of the United States and replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law. CAIR is listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in this effort. That is where some of this Congresswoman’s  campaign money is coming from. She should be removed from the Foreign Relations Committee–she does not represent the best interests of America.

Not Here. Not Now.

Posted on by

Yesterday BizPacReview posted an article about something new on the streets of New York City–the Muslim Community Police.

This is a picture of one of their cars:

The article reports:

Some New York City residents were shocked last week to see vehicles with the words “Muslim Community Patrol” emblazoned on them cruising the streets like police squad cars.

The article includes a number of tweets by people concerned about this community patrol.

This is the response to those tweets:

These tweets reflect a belief among some Americans that the Muslim community wants to usurp America’s constitutionally based system of law and replace it with that of Sharia, a religious law derived from the religious precepts of the Islamic religion.

While these fears may sound outlandish, they stem from actual examples of Sharia being practiced in the United States. A perfect example of this occurred in 2010, when a federal judge appointed by former Democrat President Bill Clinton ruled that it was unconstitutional for Oklahoma to bar state courts from considering the application of Sharia law in their rulings.

Another example happened just last year, when a Minnesota Muslim man intent on imposing Sharia law in his local community reportedly began patrolling his neighborhood and confronting anyone who dared to violate Islam’s strict rules and dress codes.

At the time local authorities received reports about a mob of Muslim men walking around with uniforms that read “Muslim Defense Force” and “Religious Police.”

How is this legal and who is paying for the cars? Please read my article on The Holy Land Foundation Trial if the idea of a Muslim Community Patrol is acceptable to you. This could easily be the start of some very bad things.

Europe’s War On Free Speech

Posted on by

Many years ago I met Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at a dinner in Stoughton, Massachusetts (story here). She told her story of being charged with hate speech for teaching a course about Mohammad that included identifying him as a pedophile (story here).

Today, Reason posted an article about a decision by the European Court of Human Rights that most knowledgeable observers recognize as the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. The title of the article is, “European Court: OK to Criminalize Calling Mohammed a Pedophile.”

The article reports:

The case, decided yesterday by the European Court of Human Rights, is E.S. v. Austria — I assume from the facts and from the initials that this is the Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff case. Here’s the court’s own summary:

Criminal conviction and fine for statements accusing the Prophet Muhammad of paedophilia: no violation

Facts – The applicant held seminars with the title “Basic information on Islam” at the right-wing Freedom Party Education Institute. At one such seminar, referring to a marriage which Muhammad had concluded with Aisha, a six-year old, and consummated when she had been nine, she stated inter alia “[Muhammad] liked to do it with children”, “the thing with Aisha and child sex” and “a 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”

In 2011, as a result of these statements, the applicant was convicted of disparagement of religious precepts pursuant to Article 188 of the Criminal Code. She was sentenced to pay a fine of EUR 480, or serve 60 days of imprisonment in the event of default.

The domestic courts made a distinction between child marriages and paedophilia. In their opinion, by accusing Muhammad of paedophilia, the applicant had merely sought to defame him, without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty or that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. In particular, the applicant had disregarded the fact that the marriage with Aisha had continued until the Prophet’s death, when she had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty.

The thing to remember here is that there is no regard for truth here.  What Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff said about Mohammad is true, but according to Sharia Law, any speech that a Muslim does not like can be considered slander. In a country under Sharia Law, you can be executed for slander. Is Europe moving toward a Sharia Law definition of slander by calling it hate speech? In America we have the First Amendment (at least for now). We need to protect our First Amendment rights because they are somewhat unique–even in the western world. In Britain and Canada pastors have been charged with hate speech for quoting the Bible on such issues as homosexuality. Their pastors are not free to share the Bible in its entirety. In America we need to make sure we elect leaders who will abide by the Constitution and protect free speech.

I strongly suggest you follow the link above to read the entire article at Reason. The thought that you can go to prison for telling the truth is chilling.

 

Numbers That Are Important To America’s Future

Posted on by

This article is a summary of recent information found in a book titled, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam by Dr. Peter Hammond. The book deals with the goals of Islam and the fact that it is not a religion, but a political system.

Dr. Hammond states, “The primary aim of Islam is not spiritual but political.”  Dr. Hammond explains the process of Islamization–the method by which Islam changes a free country into an Islamic state which controls all aspects of the lives of the population.

This is the progression according to Dr. Hammond:

At 1% of any given country, Muslims will be regarded as a peace loving minority and not as a threat to anyone…

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs…

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats…After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning…At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare.

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels…After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide.

We are currently watching this progression happen in Europe. We need to be careful and avoid it in America. Sweden is one example of what happens when Muslim immigrants do not assimilate.

Ingrid Carlqvist of The Gatestone Institute has stated:

It may have finally begun to dawn on the people that Swedish Sweden will soon be lost forever, and in many areas replaced by a Middle Eastern state of affairs…No one, however, seems to have asked the crucial question upon which Sweden’s future depends: Is Islam compatible with democracy?”

There is no country where Islam is dominant that can be considered a democracy with freedom of speech and equal justice under law.

These are the things we need to consider as we struggle with revising America’s immigration policies.

Losing Our Moral Authority

Posted on by

In 2004, the country of Afghanistan set up a constitution. The idea of having a free state was encouraged by America, as we had a substantial number of troops there and were trying to establish a viable government.

The constitution Afghanistan set up to be the law of the land contained the following:

Article One

Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two

The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rituals.

Article Three

No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.

Article Four

National sovereignty in Afghanistan shall belong to the nation, manifested directly and through its elected representatives. The nation of Afghanistan is composed of all individuals who possess the citizenship of Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan shall be comprised of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkman, Baluch, Pachaie, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and other tribes. The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan. No individual of the nation of Afghanistan shall be deprived of citizenship. The citizenship and asylum related matters shall be regulated by law.

There is something here that is important–Article Three states that “no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion on Islam in Afghanistan.” In other words, Sharia Law is the law of the land according to the constitution of Afghanistan. We need to understand that Sharia Law and democracy (i.e. freedom) are incompatible. Sharia Law does NOT allow the free exercise of religions other than Islam. Sharia Law considers saying that Jesus is the Son of God as blasphemy, punishable by prison or possibly death. Sharia Law prohibits the sharing of Christianity–considering it blasphemy. There is no room for personal freedom in a constitution that upholds Sharia Law. That is the constitution that we allowed Afghanistan to write when we were trying to establish a viable nation. As bad as that was, we did something far worse.

On Thursday, The Hill posted an article with the following headline, “Watchdog: Troops say they were told to ignore Afghan child sex abuse.” I have another source that tells me that the troops were also told not to interfere with the poppy crop. Think about that for a minute. I understand that the poppy crop is the major industry of the country, but it is a major source of trouble around the world. Wasn’t there a way to retrain the farmers to plant something less harmful? I also understand that pedophilia is part of the Afghan culture, but it bothers me that we let it continue uninterrupted. If we were there helping the country get out from under the grip of the Taliban, didn’t we have a responsibility to uphold some sort of moral standard–regardless of the ‘cultural norm.’

I am ready for America to leave Afghanistan. However, if we choose to stay there, we have an obligation to help the people of the country find their way out of the fifth century. We can’t bomb them back to the stone age–they are already there. If we are going to continue to sacrifice money and American lives for the people of Afghanistan, we need to begin to change some of their basic customs. Pedophilia and poppy growing are ultimately moral issues. If we can’t stand for the moral issues in Afghanistan, we have no moral authority to be there.

Protecting Our Young Women

Posted on by

This article was posted in The Daily Caller last month. I missed it, but I am posting it now because I think it is important.

Wikipedia states:

In 1996 the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Act made it illegal to perform FGM on minors for non-medical reasons, and in 2013 the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act prohibited transporting a minor out of the country for the purpose of FGM. In addition, 24 states have legislation banning FGM. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all forms of the practice. The firstFGM conviction in the US was in 2006, when Khalid Adem, who had emigrated from Ethiopia, was sentenced to ten years after severing his two-year-old daughter’s clitoris with a pair of scissors.

Unfortunately, some of the Muslim residents of America choose to ignore the law. Last week I posted an article about some recent arrests for performing FGM. We need to remember that Muslims who believe in Sharia Law believe that it supersedes the U.S. Constitution. They do not feel bound by the federal ban on FGM.

The article in The Daily Caller reports:

The American Civil Liberties Union launched a vocal opposition this week against a Maine bill criminalizing female genital mutilation (FGM), Mainely Media reports.

Republican Rep. Heather Sirocki is sponsoring the bill, saying that it would classify performing FGM as a Class B crime in the state, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. The bill would also punish the parent or guardian of the victim.

However, the Maine ACLU staunchly opposes the protection. ACLU spokesman Oamshri Amarasingham said that the risk of mutilation isn’t worth expanding Maine’s criminal code. The Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault also supported the ACLU, arguing that FGM is not happening in Maine.

…The bill, LD745, only criminalizes the practice on those under 18. It does not apply to adults who choose to undergo mutilation, “though it probably should,” Sirocki said. If the bill passes, Maine would be the 25th state to protect its residents against FGM.

Sirocki said that the Committee of Criminal Justice and Public Safety was divided in its support of the bill, but eventually recommended the bill favorably with a 7-5 vote. The Maine House of Representatives will first review the bill, then it will go to the members of the state senate.

FGM is a brutal practice, often done without anesthesia, that can result in serious health problems for women later on. It does not belong in America. I don’t understand why the ACLU is not protecting young women from being subjected to this practice.

 

What Did You Learn In School Today?

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted a story today about Middle School students in a southern Indiana school who were taught that living under Sharia Law is wonderful.

The article reports:

The assignment provides a reading passage ostensibly written by a 20-year-old woman named Ahlima who resides in Saudi Arabia.

Ahlima says she feels “very fortunate” to be governed by Sharia law — the notorious Islamic penal code which, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, includes the practice of cutting off the hands of criminals who steal. She observes that she is about to become some guy’s second wife. She supports the repressive clothes women in Saudi Arabia must wear. “I understand that some foreigners see our dress as a way of keeping women from being equal,” Ahlima writes. “I find Western women’s clothing to be horribly immodest.”

The article points out that Ahlima is an imaginary character invented by Sharon Coletti, the president of InspirEd Educators, and based on someone Ms. Coletti saw interviewed on a television program.

The article states:

Coletti, the creator of the assignment, defended her work.

“If I can shape something so that kids have to decide for themselves, once I get them involved in the situation, they never forget it,” the former social studies teacher told The Courier-Journal.

Coletti, who describes herself as a practicing Christian, also said she hopes her materials help student to become “patriotic” and “problem-solvers.”

However, the fictional story of 20-year-old Ahlima who is becoming a second wife and loves to wear repressive clothing is apparently no longer for this world after the Highland Hills Middle School kerfuffle.

Coletti said she will retire the assignment and related material going forward because she doesn’t want to court bad press.

The same assignment has caused parents to be angry in the past. In 2011, parents in Smyrna, Georgia accused Coletti of “indoctrinating” middle school children with the Sharia lesson.

Where are the feminists when you need them?

We need to teach our Middle Schoolers that all cultures and legal systems are not equal. We need to stop apologizing for western civilization. Western civilization is not perfect, but it provides more freedom and opportunity for all people, including women, than Sharia Law. According to Sharia Law, a man can have more than one wife. All a man has to do to divorce his wife by declaring “I divorce you.” She has no say in the matter. The testimony of a woman in court is worth less than the testimony of a man in court under Sharia. Under Sharia Law, the murder of infidels or taking them as sex slaves is allowed. Under Sharia Law, pedophilia is acceptable. There is no religious freedom under Sharia Law.  Under Sharia Law, allegiance is to Islam–not to a country or the set of laws of that country. That is why Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are incompatible.

Teaching school children that Sharia Law is a good thing is teaching them that women have no value. Is that really the lesson we want to teach our young women?

Misquoting The Constitution For Your Own Gain

Posted on by

It’s amazing to me how some politicians ignore the U.S. Constitution until they want to make some sort of attack on their opponents. Then they freely misquote it. We have seen a lot of recent examples of this, but there is one that really bothers me.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today illustrating how Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton either misunderstands or chooses to misuse the U.S. Constitution.

The article reports:

Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.
The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.

Just a few personal observations…If your religion requires that your religious rules supersede the U.S. Constitution, maybe you should find another place to live. If your religion has its own set of strict rules that condone honor killing, female genital mutilation, stoning of rape victims, marriage of women under the age of thirteen, and killing of homosexuals (all against American laws), maybe you should not come to America and expect to follow your religious rules. The obvious question here is, “What is the difference between a religion and a political movement?” Which is Islam?
The article concludes:
Promotion of assimilation and fidelity to the Constitution have been historical bedrocks of immigration policy. Indeed, before immigrants are naturalized as citizens, they must swear what is pointedly called an “oath of allegiance.” It calls on them to renounce any foreign sovereigns by whom they have been ruled, and to honor our Constitution — principles that are inimical to sharia supremacism. We should resist a categorical ban on Muslim immigration; but nothing in the Constitution prohibits the commonsense vetting of immigrants for beliefs that are antithetical to our principles, regardless of whether the immigrant perceives such beliefs as religious or political in nature.
We should welcome immigrants who embrace our principles, seek to assimilate into our society, and are value-added for — rather than a strain on — our economy. But if, in an era of jihadist violence, we cannot seriously vet immigrants to determine whether they fit this bill, it would be better to have a categorical ban. And if, based on an illiterate construction of the Constitution, the political class insists that its fictional “no religious test” rule forbids not only a categorical ban but the heightened scrutiny of Muslim aliens, it would be better to prohibit immigration across the board.
The United States government’s first obligation is to shield the American people from foreign threats, not to shield foreign threats and render the American people defenseless.

We should welcome refugees who want to come here and become Americans. We should encourage those who want to bring their culture with them and not assimilate to immigrate to a country with a culture similar to the one they left.

Houston, We Have A Problem…

Posted on by

Newsmax posted an article today about the number of ISIS terror attacks thwarted this year in the United States.

The House Homeland Security Committee has the following map posted on their website:

TerrorThreat3TerrorThreat2This is not comforting.

Newsmax reports:

And a year after the U.S.-led coalition began airstrikes against ISIS, they “have largely failed,” according to the monthly “Terror Report Snapshot” released Tuesday by the Republican members of the House Homeland Security Committee.

…Here are some other facts from the report:

  • Since 2014, ISIS has been linked to 14 terrorism plots and 63 arrests or indictments in the U.S.
  • Since early 2014, the majority of jihadist plots in the U.S. have included plans to kill police or U.S. soldiers.
  • Islamic State terrorists have inspired or directed 55 terrorist plots or attacks against the West by the end of July, including 14 in the United States.
  • Nearly twice as many ISIS-linked plots have occurred against the West so far this year — 35 — than in all of last year, which had 20.

What happened in Florida was the result of the Koran’s teaching about homosexuality. In countries ruled by Sharia Law, homosexuals are routinely thrown off of buildings with their hands tied. Execution is seen as the appropriate punishment for homosexuality under Sharia Law.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported:

Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled nearly 30,000 Afghan migrants on green cards. According to Pew, nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) support sharia law as official law.

As legal immigrants, these migrants will be granted lifetime resettlement privileges will be given automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Between 2001 and 2013, the United States permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim immigrants throughout the United States.

In the next five years, without changes to our autopilot visa dispensations, the U.S. will permanently resettle a Muslim population larger than the entire population of Washington D.C.

Islam as practiced according to the Koran is not a religion of peace. There are peaceful Muslims, but they are afraid to speak out about what is going on in many of the mosques. The Obama Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye to what is happening in our mosques. Have you ever wondered how small Islamic communities have the money to build large Islamic centers and mosques? Many of them are funded through the Islamic Society of North America (named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial) or funded indirectly through Saudi Arabia (the country that financed the 911 hijackers). Western civilization is under attack. Both the Sunni and Shiite Muslims want to set up a worldwide caliphate run by Sharia Law. Their only disagreement is about who will control the caliphate and where it will be headquartered. It is time for America (and the rest of western civilization) to wake up and pay attention.

Maybe We Are Screening The Wrong People

Posted on by

In early April of this year, I posted an article about security at American airports. The article was based on a Judicial Watch story and included the following:

In all of the cases, airport workers used their security badges to access secured areas of their respective facilities without having to undergo any sort of check. As if this weren’t bad enough, last month government records obtained by the media revealed that 73 employees at nearly 40 airports across the nation were flagged for ties to terror in a June 2015 report from the DHS Inspector General’s Office. The files identified two of them working at Logan International Airport in Boston, four at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and six at Seattle-Tacoma International in Washington State. Here’s the government’s explanation for letting the potential terrorists slip by; the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) didn’t have access to the terrorism-related database during the vetting process for those employees. You can’t make this stuff up!

Now we learn that only three of the nation’s 300 airports—Atlanta, Miami and Orlando—require employees to undergo security checks before work, even though there’s an epidemic of illicit activity among this demographic.

Today, the Center for Security Policy posted a short discussion of the recent loss of EgyptAir Flight MS804. This is the discussion:

Frank Gaffney discussed the issue on Secure Freedom Radio with Fred Fleitz, the Senior Vice President for Policy and Programs at the Center for Security Policy. As a former CIA analyst, Fleitz has an extensive background in analyzing such matters. Gaffney asked him to break down what we know so far:

“From what I’ve heard so far Frank, it looks like this probably was not the result of technical difficulties. There’s evidence that the plane tried to make some strange right and left and 360 degree turns shortly before it fell from the air. There are fishermen who said they saw a fireball so obviously the plane exploded before it crashed so it is looking like this is an act of terror and my concern as a former intelligence analyst is that this raises real questions about whether Jihadis have found new ways to penetrate airport security, both by getting their members as employees and possibly by finding technical workarounds to ways to detect bombs placed on aircraft.”

Gaffney pointed out that many American airports have staff members in various positions who may embrace Sharia Law which obliges them to embrace Jihadi philosophy and wonders if we have “lost our minds” on this issue. Fleitz responded:

“Well, you’re raising a question no one wants to talk about, I mean Western societies, we want to be tolerant, we don’t want to tar and feather every Muslim employee as a Jihadi but we know the French and British have identified people with ISIS sympathies working at airports. This is a problem in this country. Congressman Peter King was on the radio this morning talking about how TSA is finding this is a real problem, they’re trying to ferret out people who appear to have sympathies with ISIS or al Qaeda working in these sensitive positions and these are people behind the scenes, baggage handlers and mechanics who could easily put a weapon on a plane.”

Gaffney stressed that they obviously weren’t talking about all Muslims but pointed out that there is a difference between modern post-Sharia Muslims and those who embrace a medieval view.

There is a good possibility that whatever brought down EgyptAir Flight MS804 was put on the plane while it was on the ground. The plane made numerous stops before it left Paris for Egypt. It is time for all countries to take a close look at their airport workers. Planes that are flying at 35,000 feet do not fall out of the sky for no reason. Even if you lose all power, you have a chance to glide down safely. We need to pray for the families of the victims, and we need to learn quickly from the mistakes that allowed this tragedy to happen.

Recent Fairy Tales I Have Encountered

Posted on by

Breitbart.com is reporting the following today:

Peter Altmaier who is both the German federal refugee coordinator and a member of Angela Merkel’s own Christian Democratic Union party (CDU) said that Mrs. Merkel will convert these misogynistic migrants’ attitudes toward women into something more in line with German progressive attitudes, reports the Kurier.

He sat on a panel at the Munich Security Conference Friday when a local politician told him that many migrants in local asylum centres refused to listen to the instructions of female workers and refused food and money from them demanding that they would only accept aid from fellow men.

Altmaier answered the question by saying that the asylum workers should tell each migrant who does not listen to a woman that he must respect women like he would respect Chancellor Merkel. “you have to explain to him that there are hundreds of thousands of “Angela Merkels” in Germany who have just as much to say,” and that they should treat women with the same reverence.

I hate to be a pessimist about this, but this is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. There are some very stark differences between western civilization (based on a Judeo-Christian ethic) and Islamic society (based on Sharia Law). One of those differences has to do with the role of women and the value placed on women as people. The migrants in question are simply behaving in a way that is culturally in tune with their upbringing–since German women are not fully covered, they are subject to groping and possible rape. This is not a simple matter of bad behavior–it is a matter of ingrained, learned behavior. The migrants have no incentive to change–they don’t believe that what they are doing is wrong.

This will not end well.

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.

Losing Our First Amendment Rights

Posted on by

On December 17, 2015, Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., a Democratic Congressman from Virginia, introduced House Resolution 569 into the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is the text of the Resolution (taken from thomas.gov):

RESOLUTION

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

We need to be really careful about this resolution. Where is the rule against hate speech against Jews, Christians, Blacks. Indians, etc.? Note that this law makes hate speech a crime. I am not a fan of hate speech, but making it a crime is a dangerous infringement on the First Amendment. Hate speech is speech–not action. If actions follow, they need to be dealt with, but freedom to be an idiot is enshrined in the First Amendment. Just for the record, this law is in compliance with Sharia Law.

Let me explain the history of what is going on here. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted under the oversight of Eleanor Roosevelt. The document was an attempt to internationalize the rights that Americans have under the U.S. Constitution. In 1985, Sa’id Raja’i-Khorassani, the permanent delegate to the UN from Iran said the following:

The very concept of human rights was “a Judeo-Christian invention” and inadmissible in Islam…. According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah’s “most despicable sins” was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 1990, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) drafted the Cairo Declaration. It was introduced to the United Nations in 1993. This document controls OIC policy on human rights.

The Cairo Declaration states in Article 22 (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely to such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. Remember that according to Sharia Law slander is defined as mentioning anything concerning a person that he would dislike. Truth does not play into the equation. Saying you love Jesus could be considered slander (or hate speech) under Sharia.

The information in the previous four paragraphs is taken from Stephen Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure. It is a book all Americans need to read.

Back to the Resolution. This needs to be put to rest very quickly. It is a direct assault on the First Amendment. Please keep in mind that one of the stated goals of both the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS is to bring non-Muslims under Sharia Law. This Resolution is a perfect example of how that would work.

This Would Be So Much Easier If We Would Just Get Back To Basics

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review today about the recently announced nuclear treaty with Iran. Yes, it is a treaty.

This is the lead paragraph from the article:

It is time to end the Kabuki theater. The Corker Bill and its ballyhooed 60-day review process that undermines the Constitution is a sideshow. If you scrutinize President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, you find that the president ignores the existence of the Corker process. So should Congress.

So what does the U.S. Constitution say about treaties?

“The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

The deal with Iran is a treaty. It needs to be treated as such.

The article further reports:

Obama’s Iran deal also ignores the existence of Congress itself – at least, of the United States Congress. As I’ve previously detailed (piggy-backing on characteristically perceptive analysis by AEI’s Fred Kagan), the deal does expressly defer to the Iranian Congress, conceding that key Iranian duties are merely provisional until the jihadist regime’s parliament, the Majlis, has an opportunity to review them as required by Iran’s sharia constitution. The United States Constitution, however, is a nullity in the eyes and actions of this imperial White House.

There is no way America should ever defer to any other constitution, much less one subject to Sharia Law.

Let’s get back to the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the ‘supreme law of the land’ in America. It is time we got acquainted with what it says and got back to following it.

Please read the entire article. It contains a few very good suggestions on how Congress can limit the damage that will be caused by the current nuclear deal with Iran. The question is whether or not Congress will have the backbone to stand up for America.

The Dangers Of Political Correctness

Posted on by

The story that recently came out of Rotherham England is extremely upsetting. The U.K. Telegraph posted a story on Sunday about the sexual abuse of at least 1,400 children over 16 years. The fact that this continued over a sixteen-year period is horrendous. These children can never buy back their innocence. They will probably never fully recover from the damage that was done when the abuse continued for sixteen years without being addressed. The really scary fact here is that the authorities were hesitant to pursue reports of the abuse because they did not want to be called racists. That is truly sad. People in charge were afraid to stand up for justice because it might not be politically correct.

The article reports:

The Rotherham scandal and a series of cases in towns including Rochdale highlighted how evidence of Pakistani men targeting white girls for abuse was repeatedly played down for fear of accusations of racism.

Mr Danczuk (Simon Danczuk, who helped expose a pattern of grooming of white teenage girls by men from a Pakistani background in Rochdale, where he is the Labour MP) said the elements of Pakistani political culture itself were partly to blame for the cover-up.

“There are cultural issues around the way politics are done in the Asian community which have to change,” he said.

He said he had personally come under pressure from Asian councillors and members of the community for speaking out as well as being warned by prominent figures in his party.

He pointed to the way in which two Muslim councillors in Rochdale had provided character references for one of the perpetrators of the Rochdale abuse.

“Politics are done differently in Pakistan, it is a cultural difference we have imported some of that into some of these northern towns and cities and I think we have to face up to the fact that we can’t carry on doing politics like that.

“It is not healthy and the direct consequence is that we end up having to tackle issues like has been faced in Rotherham.”

He described it as “a looking after your own” within the Asian community which other politicians had accepted.

This is the danger in allowing an immigrant population to settle in a country and not assimilate. We have the same problem in America. I am not opposed to legal immigration, but when you bring in a population and do not teach them how America (or Britain) works, you may find that population doing things that are considered illegal here.

The role of women in Britain and America is very different from the role of women in Muslim countries. We need to make sure that young girls and women who live in America and Britain are treated with the respect the law grants them. In Muslim countries, under Sharia Law, women have no legal standing. Rape is not rape unless a woman has male witnesses to confirm that it was a rape. A women can be jailed or killed for being raped in a Muslim country. We do not need those laws or that attitude here. Immigrants should be welcomed, but they should also be required to understand that all citizens have rights in America and Britain–not just male citizens.

 

While The Press Was Covering Ferguson…

Posted on by

Yesterday, Hot Air reported on four murders that the press seems to have overlooked. Ali Muhammad Brown was suspected of killing three Seattle men. He is now accused of shooting 19-year-old Brendan Tevlin eight times at a West Orange traffic light in New Jersey in June.

The article reports:

He sought revenge against America for what he said was the wanton killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tevlin was allegedly Brown’s fourth victim.

Brown’s victims, with the exception of Tevlin, had a similar background: they were young, gay men.

…Brown may eventually face federal and/or state-level terrorism charges, but few press accounts of his attacks – most of them in local outlets — state clearly that Islamic jihadist ideology inspired him. “All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life,” court documents allege Brown said of United States actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some outlets are not mincing words about the nature of Brown’s crimes. A July report via a Seattle-based Fox affiliate described Brown as a “radical jihadist” who targeted homosexual men, but few have followed suit.

Brown was an Islamist who targeted homosexual men. Under Sharia Law, homosexuals are subject to the death penalty. He was simply acting within the bounds of his religion. Somehow the press does not seem to be concerned with this man who killed four men in America in the name of jihad. The jihadis are already among us. Unfortunately, the press is not keeping us informed.

.

 

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.

What Sharia Law Means

Posted on by

Yesterday the Boston Herald posted a story about a pregnant Pakistani woman who was stoned to death by her family because she married a person her father did not approve of.

The article reports:

The woman was killed while on her way to court to contest an abduction case her family had filed against her husband. Her father was promptly arrested on murder charges, police investigator Rana Mujahid said, adding that police were working to apprehend all those who participated in this “heinous crime.”

Arranged marriages are the norm among conservative Pakistanis, and hundreds of women are murdered every year in so-called honor killings carried out by husbands or relatives as a punishment for alleged adultery or other illicit sexual behavior.

Stonings in public settings, however, are extremely rare. Tuesday’s attack took place in front of a crowd of onlookers in broad daylight. The courthouse is located on a main downtown thoroughfare.

A police officer, Naseem Butt, identified the slain woman as Farzana Parveen, 25, and said she had married Mohammad Iqbal, 45, against her family’s wishes after being engaged to him for years.

…Nearly 20 members of Parveen’s extended family, including her father and brothers, had waited outside the building that houses the high court of Lahore. As the couple walked up to the main gate, the relatives fired shots in the air and tried to snatch her from Iqbal, her lawyer said.

When she resisted, her father, brothers and other relatives started beating her, eventually pelting her with bricks from a nearby construction site, according to Mujahid and Iqbal, the slain woman’s husband.

It will be interesting to see if any family members are brought up on charges for this killing. Evidently the father of the woman did not have a problem with the idea of stoning her to death because she had fled an arranged marriage. This is the culture that grows out of Sharia Law. This is the same Sharia Law many Muslims want to bring to America. This stoning is one of many reasons all Americans need to oppose Sharia Law coming to 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